Shattered Kingdoms

No, evena. I think the point is that is has not been tried.

You proposed the idea as it requiring someone who is good at PvP, and someone with no interest in PvP. A faction with someone who is good at PvP can likely manage this just fine. A faction that is dead and has someone trying to play "diplomat" and won't acknowledge the fact that they are not coming from a position of power..why would anyone respect that person?

I really don't think any amount of coding will "fix" this. I don't even really think there is anything to fix. There have been several players who weren't PvP Legends that lead rather well, granted with the backing of people who -were- hardened PvPers.

The the difference between a MUSH and a MUD, in my opinion is that MUD requires the ability to roleplay within the confines of mechanics, and one's ability to use those mechanics. I don't really see anything wrong with this difference as long as it's not always the PKers who are instantly promoted to leaders in lieu of the roleplayers. Naturally, those who are great at RP -and- PK will tend to rise to the top because they have mastery of both aspects of the game.

The problem is when you have the "Roleplayers" who refuse to acknowledge the PvP aspect of the game by complaining every time that arena faces them and "ruins" their preplanned RP with their preplanned select group of people. Then you have the PvP-only people who more or less drive everyone else insane because all they do is PK. They're completely boring and uninspiring while providing nothing to the game other than grief.

I'm pretty sure most vets here will follow someone who isn't great at PK so long as they aren't a complete idiot, show common sense and show they're willing to learn.

Hardcoding something this will never work because it's addressing the wrong problem. I understand why leadership gets handed out to people who probably otherwise wouldn't have it, but there should be some kind of tabs kept when the organization fills out a bit more to check for people who are better suited. Like I said above, this doesn't mean someone who is great at PvP over someone who isn't, but to people who have a sense of direction for the clan.

In regards to leaders that everyone dislikes, I really doubt it's because they are PK noobs and more the fact how/what they choose to RP and act in general.

Ilky, consider the fact that you and I could easily do this, without any code changes. You could be the country's diplomat, and I would play its brilliant general. You would do all that great RP, and would negotiate truces, trades, alliances, etc. You would expect and receive diplomatic immunity and would never participate in fights, hold onto equipment for the faction, or give away the enemy's location. Meanwhile, I would organize a strong army and establish my character as a PK-powerhouse. He would be known for having a bit of a temper. People would know that if they touched you, I would PK them and their mothers into the dirt. Plus, between the two of us, we would be able to spread propaganda about how dishonorable our enemy is, and we would attract more people to our faction, alienate our enemy from its allies, and attract more allies of our own to help stomp the mfers out. The result? A general and a diplomat with immunity, and consequences for anyone who violates that immunity. Just like you want.

Or, more difficult but also possible, you could represent a weak nation as its diplomat. You would work hard to speak to other countries' leaders, forging alliances and friendships. When your immunity is violated, you have friends in other factions who can back you up. The result? A diplomat with immunity, and consequences for anyone who violates that immunity.

Your suggestion would only allow people to get this result, without actually having a brilliant general whom people didn't want to mess with, or without having a diplomat who was a really good diplomat and forged alliances/frienships. What is the value of that?

You're missing the point.

It wouldn't give the same result without the proper players. It would penalize organizations that couldn't get players like you and I, since you brought us up, to work together to a unified end. Those factions that didn't would get stomped repeatedly even more so than they do now.

And I sense that's really the reason behind the resistance:




The RPers aren't exactly the only ones guilty of being selective with whom they'll participate.

No, I think that was Baldric's point. The system you are suggesting would give power, respect and authority to a diplomat whether or not the character or organization they represent have earned it through RP or PK.

Currently, in order to get that kind of "street cred" in the game you need to earn it through RP (forging alliances, making friends, etc.) or through PK (curb stomping your enemies). With the system you propose, every diplomat turns into Cartman cause the code punishes anyone that challenges their legitimacy.

I disagree; It gives ONE player in a faction the ability to affect diplomacy, which isn't really any different than the current system at its core except for the flag that (could easily be togglable and) would provide an instant change in status. Are you suggesting that these power-tripping ninnies aren't automatically going to change diplomacy ANYWAY? Do fountain RPers that hang out in the inn not already result in a report to the law of the home town?

If the diplomat's a complete [REDACTED] hat, the rest of the tribunal/cabal will suffer the consequence of that: Opposing armies will be empowered for successfully defeating them; they won't be able to effectively pound out a truce/alliance; et cetera.

Expanding on Rodwen's idea for outing a general, it should work the other way, as well. If your diplomat is an idiot, it should be relatively easy to get rid of him/her and replace with someone more competent.

I disagree with your disagreement. I think you should add a poll option, so Dulrik can see just how unpopular this suggestion is with the player base.

If implemented, this change would come at the expense of a play style that you don't like and/or enjoy - that seems oddly self-serving, since it would benefit your play style and the characters you tend to play. If you want to RP as a diplomat, you can already do that. If you get killed, your cabal/tribunal should exact justice and/or revenge.

Problem solved. Players should handle these situations - not the code.

Laff.

Okay, Finney. It's completely self-serving. It has nothing to do with making other RP characters somehow viable in the system.

They are viable right now.

Just going to get my chuckle on some more.

Don't mind me.