Suggested SAO-RPG PK Rules

[Mack 0]

Alright, as promised I'm going to get these up for discussion tonight. It should be noted now that that these may wind up being TEMPORARY PK Rules and that further edits/changes to PK may come along as part of the comprehensive Site Guide Edit/Re-Write.

DO NOT VOTE MULTIPLE TIMES ACROSS ALTERNATE ACCOUNTS!

Player Killing (PK) Rules

Within the world, and canon, of Sword Art Online it is possible for one player to kill another. With the universe being set-up in the manner in which Reki Kawahara envisioned it, the act of Player Killing (or PK for short) results in the permanent death of a player's character. There is no re-spawning, there is no avoiding it, there's no coming back as a ghost like Patrick Swayze. Because the death of a player's character within the in-game environment of Sword Art Online is such a significant event the act of PKing is strictly governed by the board's rules for the action. Furthermore, because PK is a significant part of the SAO canon, it is not being outlawed.

Failure to adhere to the Board Rules for PK will result in severe repercussions including (but not limited) to: the invalidation of the PK's, strikes being awarded to the offending player(s) that broke the rules, and other potential negative actions up to and including being banned from the board for a period of time or permanently.

These are the rules for PK on SAO-RPG:

1. PK must occur in a PK-sanctioned thread. In addition to the type of party (SP, PP, OP) and the Floor the title of open threads (OP) should include either the letters KE (Killing Enabled) or NK (No Kill). An open KE thread is a thread in which PK is permitted. An open NK thread is a thread in which no PK will be permitted. The decision on whether or not an OP is KE or NK is solely at the discretion of the player that starts the thread and a thread can NOT be changed from KE to NK (or vice versa) after the beginning of the thread.

2. Failure to state whether or not an OP is KE or NK in the thread title will result in the thread defaulting to NK.

3. Whether or not a PP is KE or NK is solely up to the players involved, in the event that the players cannot reach a unanimous decision the final decision rests with the thread creator.

4. Taking part in a KE thread means that the player(s) involved understand, and accept, the risk of another player PKing their character.

5. All Shop Threads are considered now, and always, to be safe zones where NO PK IS PERMITTED. This is true regardless of the location of the shop.

6. Unless otherwise stated by the Staff running the event all Boss Fight and Event Threads are always NK threads. There will be no more Event and Boss Fight ambushes. Similarly, any thread involving a duel between two players shall always KE threads.

7. Players intending to PK in a KE thread must always post their intention to attack another player(s). This must be done prior to launching any attack. The targets of the attack must be clearly stated with their names IN BOLD.

8. Once that post has been made the attacking player must wait at least 36 hours (1.5 Days) prior to launching an attack. During that time period the targeted player has two options: they may either make a post LEAVING the thread and escape or they may make a post declaring that they intend to FIGHT by posting the name of the person they are fighting in their post BOLDED.

9. Failure on the part of the targeted players to post within the 36 hour time limit, or their abandonment of the thread without officially exiting it, shall ALWAYS mean that they consent to being attacked for the purposes of a potential PK, provided that they are in a KE thread.

10. In the event that there are only TWO players in a PP or OP thread where the player being attacked fails to post within the 36 Hour time limit or abandons the thread without officially exiting from it then, and only then, will the rule prohibiting double-posting will be waived and the attacking player will be permitted to double-post.

11. The 36 Hour waiting period and declaring a target will be waived ONLY in the event of a player or players coming to help another player who has been attacked. The players that may assist the player being attacked are limited to those who are in the thread at the time the attack occurs.

12. Paratroopering, or entering a thread for the purpose of stopping a PK after an attack has occurred, is not permitted.

13. Once two, or more, players have declared their intent to fight one another they will engage in combat. The player that declared their intent to fight FIRST will ALWAYS be permitted to have the initiative to make the first attack, if they are hidden (follow the stealth rules and the player(s) being attacked may attempt to stealth check to see if they spot the attacking player(s)).

14. If you are PK'd in a thread you cannot go back to an earlier still active thread and retroactively PK the person that PK'd you, nor may you have someone else in a thread that occurs prior to PK do the same. In the event that this rule is broken the timeline breaking PK will be rendered void, the applicable posts deleted, and the offending player(s) that attempted to break the timeline will receive warnings, temp bans, or perma bans depending on past behavior.

[Mack 0]

I'm also looking for input on any potential loopholes you all may find.

[Kalesh 0]

Dunno if it counts as a loophole but looking at rule 10 it mentions a player defending another player. I assume this refers specifically to players already present in the thread and not, for example, a previously not present player joining the PP or OP and stopping the fight? Example: Frank wants to kill Bob, but Bob doesn't respond withing 34 hours and Frank is gearing up for some tasty murder. But then Steve, a self-named hero of justice with unreasonably high level enters and through sheer intimidation stops any PKing from occurring.

Oh, and for 3, is this by democratic process, or is the final word up to the 'host' of the thread? I only ask because a plural is being used instead of a singular. So could three people overrule the host's desire for it to be KE or vice versa? That potentially overrules rule 4, and rule 1 only refers to OPs.

And wouldn't 9 contradict the rule of double posting in a PP thread if it's only two people being present? In these situations is it permitted to double post or even triple post after a set amount of time?

That's all I got after my second read, best of luck!

[Mack 0]

@Kalesh, good input. It has result in the following changes:

1. Paratroopering, or a player entering a thread after an attack has occurred for the express purpose of attacking another player, is PROHIBITED. The people that may assist a player that is attacked in a thread are limited to the players that are in the thread at the time of the attack.

2. In a PP if the decision is not unanimous to make a thread KE then the final decision rests with the Thread's creator, same as in an OP.

3. In the event you described above, double-posting will be permitted. It is, at the moment, the only time the No Double-Posting Rule will be waived (outside of SP's, obviously).

[Ratatosk 0]

That 36 hour limit thing punishes players who don't have the time to RP, you never really know the circumstances for them. Maybe they just CAN'T be ONLINE, or THEY'RE BUSY with their LIVES.

[Avilon 0]

Avilon here and I'm planning on stating as much information on each rule as I can, although I don't have issues with the concepts here as a whole to solve it the Player Killer problem that has arose. The only issue I do have with it is that the idea of how these rules will effect it are not going to keep the same sense of what is needed for keeping fairness in an assassination attempt.

 

1. PK must occur in a PK-sanctioned thread. In addition to the type of party (SP, PP, OP) and the Floor the title of open threads (OP) should include either the letters KE (Killing Enabled) or NK (No Kill). An open KE thread is a thread in which PK is permitted. An open NK thread is a thread in which no PK will be permitted. The decision on whether or not an OP is KE or NK is solely at the discretion of the player that starts the thread and a thread can NOT be changed from KE to NK (or vice versa) after the beginning of the thread.

So, this in itself is basically going to prevent most people from joining another person's thread as if they offer to make the thread and then label it this way it can be inherently expected as a hit. These labels will prevent the hub bub that is caused by normal issues that have already occurred but it also ruins the realism which I believe we all have noted and sorta regret, if it is for the sake of role playing I see no issues in real groups of Laughing Coffin to pop out and randomly kill players. The issue is that people have been randomly stating, I am part of the PK group after the murder when in reality most members would want their victims to know it and then proceed to succeed in their actions. Also, people need to recognize that if they are part of the group they need to recognize they are liable to be murdered as they will be known from the entire site.

This fixes the issue, but the majority of people will then just start doing PP and open it up to only people who talk to them in advance and make it into a NK area which still is ruining the point of Player killers being a threat to SAO. Frankly this issue of pking I feel can be solved with a simple post intent to kill, give IC reason stated clearly and purposely. Then allow the thread to proceed with a locked post order just like a boss fight. As that is the major issue with pking as people can just have a friend post quickly back to back and kill them. As for the issue with having a time limit, some people have a bad day and can't react to a post or need a break from the site thus making this time limit moot as people then can just wait till they have seen people have been inactive in a thread of their to kill them if KE was activated.

2. Failure to state whether or not an OP is KE or NK in the thread title will result in the thread defaulting to NK.

This makes perfect sense for this type of rule but as is those who know they can kill their opponent will only make it when they know they know they won't  get ganged up on. Which frankly is something that would happen in a game. 

3. Whether or not a PP is KE or NK is solely up to the players involved, in the event that the players cannot reach a unanimous decision the final decision rests with the thread creator.

No issue with this rule with this concept of dealing with Player Killing. 

4. Taking part in a KE thread means that the player(s) involved understand, and accept, the risk of another player PKing their character.

No issue with this rule with this concept of dealing with Player Killing.  

5. All Shop Threads are considered now, and always, to be safe zones where NO PK IS PERMITTED. This is true regardless of the location of the shop.

No issue with this rule, although it seems rather weird that if a person makes the shop purposely out of the safe zone so PKer's can shop there that it would suddenly be a safe zone. Flaw in reasoning here that while I don't object to it I see it as partially shady hand waving to keep people's personal decisions of shop placement safe. 

6. Unless otherwise stated by the Staff running the event all Boss Fight and Event Threads are always NK threads. There will be no more Event and Boss Fight ambushes. Similarly, any thread involving a duel between two players shall always KE threads.

Agreed Boss threads should never allow for Player Killing as they should be ran by guilds that are not PKer guilds and probably should exclude known pker's. Now, if the character states OOC that they will not kill then I would say they should be granted safety along with all other players in that thread. If they want to take the risk and not agree then they are allowed to kill other players but then everyone in the thread should be focusing them as they know they are not safe.

7. Players intending to PK in a KE thread must always post their intention to attack another player(s). This must be done prior to launching any attack. The targets of the attack must be clearly stated with their names IN BOLD.

As long as they post intention no matter what type of thread then I'm fine with pking as it will keep close to cannon and give opportunities. The issue I see with this is that if someone is trying to assassinate a higher player does that mean that they can quickly react and kill the person who intended to kill them? And fixing this by forcing the other player to not attack till afterwards won't solve it as they will flee if they know they can be one shotted and can't attack first. Or they will attack first and kill them (dice roll  depending).

8. Once that post has been made the attacking player must wait at least 36 hours (1.5 Days) prior to launching an attack. During that time period the targeted player has two options: they may either make a post LEAVING the thread and escape or they may make a post declaring that they intend to FIGHT by posting the name of the person they are fighting in their post BOLDED.

9. Failure on the part of the targeted players to post within the 36 hour time limit, or their abandonment of the thread without officially exiting it, shall ALWAYSmean that they consent to being attacked for the purposes of a potential PK, provided that they are in a KE thread.

People get busy with lives, heck staff already gets busy so why should we force ultimatums upon people when this site was meant for role play. If they intend to kill someone that person should get a say whether it is today or a week from now. Don't further punish people for dealing with Real Life problems by forcing them to check back to see if they are getting pked or are already dead without a reaction as that wouldn't happen in game if they were faced with someone intending to kill them. Sneak attacks could but then this is ruined by the stat intentions already as people will merely state that their character just needed to leave to escape death. This in itself would be metagaming and the fix does not lie in pking rules but in fixing something else which I believe staff is already apparent of.

10. In the event that there are only TWO players in a PP or OP thread where the player being attacked fails to post within the 36 Hour time limit or abandons the thread without officially exiting from it then, and only then, will the rule prohibiting double-posting will be waived and the attacking player will be permitted to double-post.

Double posting should never be waved unless this person truly just is afk, which we normally know who is not coming back from looking around. I believe a proper response time is a week as some people have jobs and are just exhausted to try and rp after that long weak of working and instead attempt to reply on weekends.

11. The 36 Hour waiting period and declaring a target will be waived ONLY in the event of a player or players coming to help another player who has been attacked. The players that may assist the player being attacked are limited to those who are in the thread at the time the attack occurs.

Significant others I think should be allowed to jump in if they have a teleport crystal or get one as they should be allowed to save or die with their significant other in my opinion. I know it isn't cannon but it is sweet and good for rp. Maybe make a new merchant item that allows people to teleport to one person of their choice if they call for them in post.

12. Paratroopering, or entering a thread for the purpose of stopping a PK after an attack has occurred, is not permitted.

Only issue with this is there are people who would be playing around a section unless it was like deep in a cave or in other secluded area's so perhaps two people can only join and can't attack an individual only bolster their defenses to help save them and run away with them. Not necessary but still an idea as in Cannon people would have probably been around to see that someone was suddenly preparing an attack if they spotted them.

13. Once two, or more, players have declared their intent to fight one another they will engage in combat. The player that declared their intent to fight FIRSTwill ALWAYS be permitted to have the initiative to make the first attack, if they are hidden (follow the stealth rules and the player(s) being attacked may attempt to stealth check to see if they spot the attacking player(s)).

No issue.

14. If you are PK'd in a thread you cannot go back to an earlier still active thread and retroactively PK the person that PK'd you, nor may you have someone else in a thread that occurs prior to PK do the same. In the event that this rule is broken the timeline breaking PK will be rendered void, the applicable posts deleted, and the offending player(s) that attempted to break the timeline will receive warnings, temp bans, or perma bans depending on past behavior.

No issue with this.

 

My only issue with pking as it stands right now as it is to easy to wipe out an entire group with both AOE sword arts and frankly over powered sword arts and build development as we can all see quite clearly that most people are doing. In the anime I do believe most fights, one you could block when someone attacked and two didn't get ended quite so easily particularly when the level differences weren't that huge as Health Bars were bigger  offered time for others to retaliate or run away. Kirito and other players weren't even tanks and could take beatings from boss fights even which they are powerful more so then the players themselves and yet we have issues where players are chunking bosses and players one shotting one another. 

This is my final comment on this matter in public as I'm sure people are tired of hearing that the mechanics need changing when they probably are on the work bench. Anyway that is my feedback hope it helps make the necessary changes that make Role Playing what it should be fun. 

P.S. I personally hate player killing with a passion, but do to my love of sword art online I see that it is something that shouldn't be rendered irrelevant as putting tags would do. or even stating intent. I believe the best way to keep it true to the anime/manga and fan fictions that we ultimately are creating here we should just tone back the dps of all players or boost the health bars of all players. This will of course force changes in monsters as well which they frankly need to be frightening once more as well as the players in SAO in the anime were genuinely tired after most battles particularly leading up to battles.

[XWuZHeAR 0]

3 hours ago, Mack said:

I'm also looking for input on any potential loopholes you all may find.

Boom! in this thread a real long time ago I killed someone just because I could get away with it and I did after stirring up a huge storm among the GM's which I am sorry for but still this had to happen so that changes could be made.

Edit: I got away with it by it being like as if it never happened so I get no orange cursor but the player I "killed" decided to forever leave the site because after he read the rules and saw how long it took to dispute the matter he left and the matter was dropped completely.

Edited June 6, 2016 by XWuZHeAR

[Seul 1]

@XWuZHeAR You robbed and killed someone... For 200 Col... xD

-       -      -

It all looks pretty good (Except for duels. Goodbye any future tournaments that aren't in first strike mode.)

My only question is what happens if it's not another player that retroactively kills the PKer? The timeline could still mess up if a monster kills them in a thread that's considered in the past-

Not directly PK related but it would effect it still. Maybe. Idunno.

I also agree with Avilon on the matter of either boosting health or toning down damage. I'm pretty much certain the only person on the site that can't be killed in one hit at the moment is Calrex... And that's just until someone else claims Dual Blades again- Hell even Heathcliff could be killed by someone with dual blades and the same amount of buffs Zel used and he's level 100.

 Part of the reason why PKing is so dangerous is because we're really squishy but hit hard.

[Azrael 0]

7 hours ago, Ratatosk said:

That 36 hour limit thing punishes players who don't have the time to RP, you never really know the circumstances for them. Maybe they just CAN'T be ONLINE, or THEY'RE BUSY with their LIVES.

 

If you've not the time to rp, then you should not put yourself in a position where your character could die through your absence.

It's a similar concept to the boss fight, there an unskilled, unleveled player can potentially die and they only have 24 hours to post. 36 hours is more than generous. 

[Rain 0]

I really have no qualms with the PK rules. Now, the only thing I'm wondering now would be.. Will there be some for of some reimbursement if for some reason a character does die. They of course won't be as strong as thier last character but yeah. They time in effort lost is still a big waste. This is help keep players in the community to stay if they do somehow get PKed.

[Oikawa 1]

I draw one concern myself, forcing a player to open declare who they are attacking negates any way for a player to do so stealthily. To top this off, the fact that once a targeted player has become aware they are targeted, they can literally just post and say nope I'm leaving even though IC the person targeting them may be stealthed or otherwise in position where the target should be unaware of their presence.

[XWuZHeAR 0]

9 hours ago, Seul said:

@XWuZHeAR You robbed and killed someone... For 200 Col... XD

 

@Seul Ha yeah I should play GGO right? but that was just to prove I could do it and just because its messed up how it works

[Hunie 0]

Its true that with these rules killing won't be as easy to perform, but given the fact that one-shotting a player means that he practically has no say in the matter once targeted won't be fair. Even if health is boosted/damage is reduced, high level players will still be able to one shot lower level players... and this might create unrest. There might be times when a higher level player just doesn't like the attitude of someone who is new and is perhaps a slightly salty/radical character and true, they will have IC reasons to kill this new guy, but that would deter new people from joining or sticking around on the site. Plus, why should we encourage people killing other people? Yes it is part of cannon, but we are an OOC community too and I thought such rules were being implemented primarily because we want to preserve the OOC community more than cater to the IC need of killing other players... 

Apologies, because I'm not exactly responding just to the validity of the rules, the pros and cons of those have already been pointed out in fair detail by the people who've posted before me. I'm offering some more alternatives. Given the need to follow cannon and yet maintaining a healthy OOC community I'd like to throw in a few more suggestions into the hat: 

1. I've already suggested this before - A salvage system, so people don't lose that much upon dying/being killed. But that will probably require a whole different section to sort out... (I'm with Rain on this.) 

So my sleep-deprived brain concots another solution for RP purposes: 
2. Maybe include section in which people can ask for a volunteer to RP an NPC with them. (Because I sincerely believe being limited to killing just an NPC may not be as fulfilling for the character's story arc, but I don't think it'd be right to destroy another player's hard work for that satisfaction either.) 
The second suggestion can go two ways... 
2a. Have a player RP as an NPC. For example I want someone to play Hunie's stalker (whom I intend to have capture me, then I escape by killing him or something) I ask a person to RP with an OOC note that they are playing the NPC character for me to kill. 
2b. Request for someone to create a temporary character (this maybe a little hard to regulate). They have a character page for plot purposes and can have temporary stats etc and can only participate in threads with the person/people who intend on killing him. This temporary 'to be killed' character can have a plot and whatever stats, but may not earn any rewards, participate in event, crafting etc... (It's solely for people who'd like to write a story like that... or something). 

This way the person who is killed hasn't put in any grinding work in order to level up etc... It's just for RP purposes. Am I making sense? 

Edited June 6, 2016 by Hunie

[Erroneous 0]

This may be the ramblings from an otherwise ignorant site contributor as myself; but what if ALL player killings, attempted player killings, otherwise official and canon player killings on this site be handled this way.

1. All PK'ings in all it's splendors must be pre-posted in the Evaluations section.
2. You must include who you intended to PK and in which topic said PK'ing will take place.
3. Only a member of staff and/or a member of the player community rep's must evaluate and approve/deny said PK, after talking with the targeted PK victim.
4. If and only if 2/3 or 3/5 of the above approve said PK'ing, then the players may apply the sanctioned PK'ing in their next post.

All four steps must be followed before a PK'ing takes place, and the rammifcations for not following any said 4 steps will result in the disciplinary action below.

1. Any unsanctioned PK'ing by anyone will result in automatic banning from the site, duration at staff's discretion.

[Baldur 0]

@Erron's question, since it's the first up. A PK permit may be the most effective way to handle the situation, but I'm not entirely certain it's the right way? We shouldn't be the arbiters of why people's characters act a certain way. That being said, if it was less of an approval, and more of a rules acknowledgement, I could maybe see it?

PKer sends a group PM to a PST & a GM, or to all 3 Player Reps saying "Hey, I'm gonna attack this player in this thread. Here's what I'm doing, can you please confirm this isn't a random gank" (Which I think is what most people are against). For example, in Oikawa's thread, where X is taunting a player that by rights could easily end him and has just cause... I don't think anyone would argue with that. So it would merely be a "I see no reason in the rules why you can't proceed" rather than a "please provide us 10 threads that show why your character is a killer, and justify why they want him dead."

@Mack's rules

A) If shop threads are Safezones, then orange players can't shop in them. Is this intended, or do you just want to make it so that all shop threads are NK?
B) Rather than the 36 hours and what not, so that as soon as PvP is initiated (attacking player draws his weapon and attacks) combat time begins. This requires a round of everyone reacting and posting their stats to the list of combat. This determines who is in combat range, and who isn't. Attacker and target must be in the list. If the person begin attacked wishes to, they can make an escape roll just the same as when in combat with an NPC. Players have 36 hours to post the turn order, With the Initiating player always being first, and the target always going second. No one may roll dice, or take combat actions (Such as drinking potions, using abilities, etc in the case of surprise) until the initiating players takes the first action of combat.
B^2) This locks players into combat/the thread, but preserves the element of surprise. Once Combat time is begun, no one can do anything other than react and post their stats (so your target of surprise can't suddenly drink a safeguard potion). I kept the timeline up so that you don't have people that drag out the thread, but made it so that no one could take actions that alter the course of combat.
B^3) Combat time will continue until everyone has had a chance to post, and all combat is actions are resolved. As stated above, if anyone wants to leave during combat, they would need to make the appropriate roll. This prevents someone from just killing someone and then waiting for one person to post before evacuating a thread and preventing any retribution.
C) I feel like the list of your rules as written will make PvP be so cumbersome that no one would take advantage of them anymore. That shouldn't be our goal. Our goal should be to enable fair PvP, not remove it entirely.

@BOLD EMPHASIS HERE!

The reason we're so pissed off about these PvPs is that people don't have a chance to defend themselves. This is because current player HP and damage do not line up well. Damage quickly out-paces HP, and low energy means fights have to be short. The EASIEST way to fix this is to arrange it so that two similarly leveled and geared players can't 1 shot each other. Only a high level player could one-shot a low level one.

NAPKIN MATH TIME!

1 Base + Rank 5 Weapon Skill + 3 DMG = base of 9 for tier 1
1 base + Rank 5 Weapon Skill + 6 DMG = base of 12 for tier 2

x16 is the highest multiplier generally available.

9 x 16 = 144

12 x 16 = 192

At level 25, you (currently) have 100 HP

I would propose that players have 200 HP by the time they hit level 25. Without looking into it more than this, this would (largely) limit the ability of people to 1 shot one another. It's still possible in certain cases and certain ranges, but I think if we looked at the largest section of players, this change would mean that most people wouldn't get one shot.

What about Charge and Consumables you ask? Well, that's where evasion and mitigation and other skills come in.

This should also help make fights more interesting because they become longer. So we would need to address energy usage. The easiest method would just be to double it for now and see how it feels. Also, energy regen needs to be looked at, because it's useless as it stands now

[Mack 0]

@Erroneous

I like your idea on paper, but the reason I wouldn't go with it is that it puts too much power over the characters of the players in the hands of the Mods and Player Reps. I don't think we should be the ones deciding who lives and who dies, outside of disputes within the rules systems. I don't want to have to deal with players coming to us and saying, if you'll pardon the shameless line stealing: "May I ask why you felt little Tiffany deserved to die?" Frankly, I think it would only increase the hard feelings that some of the players feel towards the staff right now.

@Ratatosk

Azrael already answered your question. There were some that pushed for a longer waiting period and some that pushed for a shorter one. 36 Hours was the compromise that we reached. Now, if you have extenuating RL circumstances then let a member of the Mod Team know in advance that you may be unable to answer in the event of an attempted PK and we can probably be flexible.

@Avilon

There is no perfect solution, so a balance must be reached.

As for Shop Threads they are always PK-Free Zones even if they are outside of a Safe Zone. This is so people can't ambush someone in their shop if it's outside a safe zone. The thing is that shop threads can be meta gamed because you can ALWAYS find your target in their shop thread. This decision, on shop threads, was reached after I specifically asked if I could jump into @Opal's shop thread and ambush her there following her announcement that she was Laughing Coffin (yes, Opal, it was SUPER TEMPTING for purely IC reasons).

As stated elsewhere in the rules, the ATTACKING player always gets to make the first attack. So, if I announced that Mack was going to try and kill CALREX then Mack would have the initiative to make the first attack, provided that Calrex either responded and accepted the attempted PK or failed to make any response within 36 Hours. In that Scenario, Calrex would NOT be able to attack Mack first.

See Azrael's answer on the 36 Hour Time Limit, as well as what I said to Ratatosk about it in this post.

You raise a good point on Significant Others, in this case it would be married partners only, being able to come riding to the rescue provided they used a teleport crystal or something similar. Personally, I'd be in favor of allowing that kind of paratroopering. But, as you point out it would require the creation of a new Merchant or Artisan item. I have some ideas for such an item... I'll run them by the staff (which now includes you, Congrats!) and we'll see what happens.

@Seul

Are you familiar with the maxim, "A well-armed society is a polite society?"

@Oikawa

As I said elsewhere, there doesn't seem to be a perfect solution. Compromise must be made.

@Baldur

On the shop threads, see what I said to Avilon on the issue.

You idea, elaborated in your B points is clever and has merit. We'll talk about it in the staff section. There is one thing to consider though, let's say @XWuZHeAR gets mouthy with @Opal. We both know if Opal attacks the X is, quite simply, dead. He can't survive a hit from Opal. If she attacks and hits, does he still get his chance at an escape roll to try and get away and, thus, return from the dead?

Finally, PM me your re-balancing ideas and we can discuss it privately in a place where I can't lose details on it. Several people have suggested a re-balance, you're the first one (that I know of) to offer an actual suggestion for what a re-balanced system would look like and I'm willing to hear you out.

[Baldur 0]

@Mack Obviously details would have to be ironed out. Things become difficult with stealth, but in table-top, when a character attacks from a position of surprise, then the surprisee gets a chance to roll for detections to determine if they're surprised (this would also increase the value of S&D). If they are surprised, then Opal's attack would go through and he'd die (She's a frontliner T2 attacking a low end T1, that's a valid one-shot scenario in my mind). If X was not surprised, then he would get a chance to run-away, which could also be failed.

In a non-stealth situation, Opal would post something like "Opal decides it's time for X to get a shave and draws her dagger and lunges at him." The thread would go into combat time. X could make his roll to run away  (if he wanted). If he failed, then Opal would roll her attack after that. If he succeeded, then it would be something like "X see's Opal attack him, and books it." It would end there, unless we wanted to implement a chase mechanic :P

[XWuZHeAR 0]

@Baldur so is the roll to escape affected by the battle die or the loot die and if so should The roll be alered by ACC Search and detect or EVA? Just for future reference because of the way my character is set up

[Baldur 0]

it would follow the current rules for escape, so Acc and Eva wouldn't impact it. I'm not sure anything effects escape, but search and detect would keep you from being ambushed if you rolled well.

[Hunie 0]

This is a tough balance to strike right. If one has IC reasons to kill another character (for example Mack with Opal given that she had hoodwinked KoB, then planned and killed two people) all these rules would make it near impossible to kill. Erron, I liked the idea of having PSTs evaluate kill threads, but it's true what Mack said, it'll put a lot of pressure on the PSTs. Not to mention an IC reason for killing that are valid maybe different for each person. Also depending on how a character is written, different characters may be provoked to kill more easily than others... etc. If we're sticking with players being allowed to kill, then this system is probably never going to allow for PKing especially with one-shot opportunity, which won't even allow for a fair fight of defense so anyone who doesn't want to die will just leave the thread... 

I think there are another 2-3 things we can address. 
We can have a list of things someone does that make them eligible for being killed and that they can't just leave a thread and have to accept the challenge. These will have to be grave things, not just being salty. Its a little bit of a gray line... But I think it makes sense.
For example: 
1. A openly threatens B that they want to kill B, B can respond by 'attacking in defense' and player A shouldn't just be able to leave the thread, given that he made a threat. (By openly threatening I mean IC saying that then want to kill B, not thinking it.) 
2. A player publically kills an NPC (or another player) and announces that they are part of a PKing guild, if they are found they should not have a chance to escape from a thread when an attack is launched. 
3. If a player steals from another player in a thread, then perhaps... 

These are just examples, but we can sort of outline 'things worth killing other players over' 
For everything else, like your character being an overly angry, or psychopathic person or something, we can just kill NPCs to take our story forward. Also, I think in some circumstances paratrooping should be allowed to save a loved one... And maybe not just limited to marriage... Also, what about the other way around people ganging up to attack one person? Should that be allowed? I can't see why it's not cannon, (remembers that part with quite a few people attacking Kirito together). In the examples mentioned above, say a player of a much higher level, openly threatens a person of a lower level, the lower level can seek help from others in the thread (if there are any) to launch an attack on the higher level person...

For everything else, if you have a character that is easily angered, there should be a mechanic where you can do something. I was joking around in chat when I thought of that... Because otherwise, knowing you're not going to die, people may behave in almost atrocious manner IC and there is nothing real anyone can do about it. Should there be some sort of penalty? Also what are the new penalties for being an orange player? (Given that quest choices can make you orange too now.) 

Edited June 7, 2016 by Hunie