Cjmate 1270 Share Posted December 30, 2013 I believe that the former rules of arson, although not ideal, are much better than what is currently going on. Previously, you had to ask for permission before committing arson. Now, you do not have to have permission. This is causing ooc feuds to seep into the roleplay, and people are attacking buildings when no one is around to defend them. This is poor roleplay, and I find it strange that gms would condone this kind of underhand attack. Players who want to commit arson should contact the person they are going to attack first so proper roleplay can be made. All this is doing is fueling ooc rampages. You should not be allowed to commit arson when no one, or not many people are online from the opposing faction. 5 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BegginLena 135 Share Posted December 30, 2013 Its the fact that when I log off I constantly fear my building's, and even when something happens when I'm offline I never know who did it because the way arson is now is to deliberately spite players OOC. I think atleast the owner of the building should be atleast online before an arson attack can take place. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galendar 631 Share Posted December 30, 2013 It kills meta. I hate that we lose buildings but we gotta just get over it.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cjmate 1270 Author Share Posted December 30, 2013 I will take meta over poor roleplay anyday. This whole camping thing where people roll in and ooc spam is just insanity. It is happening from all sides, and no one person can take all fault. It is just spiraling out of control. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knox213 10 Share Posted December 30, 2013 i cry real tears when sha has stuff burnt down :((( Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lathros 377 Share Posted December 30, 2013 Build out of stone. Kidding aside, I do like the idea. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WuHanXianShi14 0 Share Posted December 30, 2013 My house was burned down while I was at work. I asked why they didn't wait for me to log in before doing in and they just said they simply didn't want to wait. So I support this rule. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cjmate 1270 Author Share Posted December 30, 2013 I would like to point out that I am alright with stuff being burnt down. I have allowed people to burn down my things in the past. My problem is the lack of roleplay in the past couple of days when arson is involved. This is something I am very passionate about, because I feel that all people have a right to try and protect what is theirs. It is so annoying when you are raided without warning, especially when the raids occur when your friends/neighbors/allies/ are offline. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jistuma 1996 Share Posted December 30, 2013 How will you know who the house belongs to?Why would his OOC statement matter in RP?Why should you stop roleplay for MONTHS because you decided to be nice and await for the owner to get at the same time at you, but then neither him nor you stay long enough or find rp time to do it?The problems you talk about are not of burning stuff when people are not around, it's players just burning because they don't like the other person (IC or OOC). Heck, if you were online, you would probably just be left inside the house tied up to burn with it. If you ask someone why he burnt your house and he answers with "It was a random house" or "My character just doesn't like yours" then it's poor rp and should be stopped. But saying it needs OOC permissions is the worse thing that can be done. It delays roleplay, it for some reason can be denied, and it breaks imertion.GM's should just not burn down things if proper roleplay isn't done. No more "Hits the flint and steel and lights the house on fire" like I have seen happen. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neri 3590 Share Posted December 30, 2013 Why is arson so common anyways? I see burnt buildings literally every day. It gets a bit boring after a while. Sure, I don't mind a pyromaniac and their ilk doing it, but everyone and their grandma uses it to solve problems nowadays and its been cheapened down to the same level as murder now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tethras 278 Share Posted December 30, 2013 Why is arson so common anyways? I see burnt buildings literally every day. It gets a bit boring after a while. Sure, I don't mind a pyromaniac and their ilk doing it, but everyone and their grandma uses it to solve problems nowadays and its been cheapened down to the same level as murder now. Because it's an effective way to send a message. In most scenario's it's one of the most effective ways to have an impact. Via burning that building you're forcing someone to react. To do some damage, I mean if you're attacking someone. You can kill them sure, but death doesn't matter. It's cheap, due to the monks reviving people 24/7. So arson comes into play, it's an effective way to attack your enemy (say an enemy nation) and to have an impact in roleplay. Or quite simply, they find it fun. Obviously it doesn't always work out like that. But for the most part, you can't deny the arsonist is having a large impact on somebody via his actions. Now I don't do arson personally, since I don't have a Va. This is merely conjecture on my part. But in regards to changing the arson rule, I wouldn't say revert to the old system. From my point of view, the staff could: a) Bump up the difficulty of arson VA's. (Possibly even wipe the current ones if they're such an issue. I mean villains are meant to generate "fun" rp for other people according to the VAT ). b) Remove Va's - in the hopes that by cheapening it further so people no longer do it as much. Or due to this scenario showing the failure of the VAT for some. I mean with arson such a common and cheap thing... c) Add further restriction on what you can and can not burn. For example you may not commit arson in a Capital City without the consent of one of the region owners. Those are some of my suggestions, I haven't been overly effected by this so I'm not sure that's enough/too harsh. At any rate, I do see the problem. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BegginLena 135 Share Posted December 30, 2013 Introduce a certain limit of use? Now there is no permission needed everyone is burning everything, its really silly. And before you say anything I have committed arson since the new rule and as a villain doing it without consent makes me feel like a shitty Rp'er. Even when the owner and other people are online to create Rp with, I still feel harsh for burning someone else's build, of course what I am like OOC is completely different to IC but I still think some kind if notification is necessary even if it is not an exact date, like a time frame. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BegginLena 135 Share Posted December 30, 2013 c) Add further restriction on what you can and can not burn. For example you may not commit arson in a Capital City without the consent of one of the region owners. I like the idea of this, capital city buildings would be monitored a lot more ICl'y and would be harder to burn down, and because its a capital why not make an event out of it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cjmate 1270 Author Share Posted December 30, 2013 How will you know who the house belongs to? Why would his OOC statement matter in RP? Why should you stop roleplay for MONTHS because you decided to be nice and await for the owner to get at the same time at you, but then neither him nor you stay long enough or find rp time to do it? The problems you talk about are not of burning stuff when people are not around, it's players just burning because they don't like the other person (IC or OOC). Heck, if you were online, you would probably just be left inside the house tied up to burn with it. If you ask someone why he burnt your house and he answers with "It was a random house" or "My character just doesn't like yours" then it's poor rp and should be stopped. But saying it needs OOC permissions is the worse thing that can be done. It delays roleplay, it for some reason can be denied, and it breaks imertion. GM's should just not burn down things if proper roleplay isn't done. No more "Hits the flint and steel and lights the house on fire" like I have seen happen. I do not see why you would burn down anyone's house just because you feel like it. The purpose of a va, and I believe it is stated quite clearly, is to promote better roleplay by giving va's to those that are responsible enough to have one. If no one is around to enjoy the arson roleplay, what is the point in it? Edit: I am not very clear here, but I basically say that you should know the person whose house you are burning if there is any point in burning it in the first place. The ooc statement does not matter, and I do not want to see things go back to the old way. I think that the current rule needs to be fixed because it is doing serious harm to the community. If it is clear that the person has been inactive for several months, I do not care if their things get burned down, but I do care about the guy who gets on daily but missed his house getting burned because he was in bed. I cannot think of any reason why you would want to burn down a house without the opposing players presence, except maybe for ooc giggles. Your points are spot on, "It was a random house" or "My character just doesn't like yours". I would like to add, "I just felt like it". You wrote, "GM's should just not burn down things if proper roleplay isn't done. No more "Hits the flint and steel and lights the house on fire" like I have seen happen." I agree completely, and a lot of my grief is with this; however, you say that it breaks immersion when you have to wait for someone. It may break immersion for the va holder, but it totally screws over the guy that actually used the building and wakes up to find it gone. That is immense immersion breaking, and it outweighs the guy with a va in my opinion. You post this example, "Heck, if you were online, you would probably just be left inside the house tied up to burn with it." I would much rather have this happen than wake up and have no idea what happened. At least I got to participate in this. Knowing what kind of roleplay that you do, I find it difficult to believe that you actually condone that statement. I expect you of all people to know the importance of losing in roleplay. Edit: I do not think a specific time or anything should be enforced, but va holders should not be allowed to burn stuff down when no or few people are online to benefit from it. I focus a lot on the ooc feuds, but that is mainly because it has become such a big issue today. Knox, you know what I mean. You need to leave well enough alone before you get provoked into a ban report. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WuHanXianShi14 0 Share Posted December 30, 2013 I like the idea of this, capital city buildings would be monitored a lot more ICl'y and would be harder to burn down, and because its a capital why not make an event out of it? I support this idea as well, my friends. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.gif.5ceba2d01f50d0d25c87532ab910c11a.gif)
.thumb.png.4e5370fc69f142d96a905e477cd5dd97.png)
Recommended Posts