Server Rules Rewrite

[Gizzol 252]

"Only during a heist, unlocked chests may be looted and locked chests may be lock-picked"

 

I'm sorry staff clarify this, I can't take from an unlocked random chest with out making a heist??????

[Suxals 529]

4 hours ago, James2k said:

you try having an 8 man rp battle

0

 

What's the difference between 7 and 8? at least with 8 is always fair. with the old raid system, you were able to defend with 4 people against 3 attackers. Now you can only defend with 3 people if the attackers are 4. A few weeks ago we were 5 in a tavern and three raiders came, we 5 wanted to rp but the other two wanted pvp, in total we were 8 so pvp was called. I think i don't need to explain why that is silly.

[Bangi 104]

A lot of things on this server continue to disappoint me, oh well.

[Priceflash 832]

This is possibly the worst update yet.

 

Not only did the formatting get worse (making it harder for new players to understand the rules), the rules were made less concise and clear. When these rules were written originally, thought went into each rule and each rule was made for a specific reason. Now, rules like the Defender Default rule are not even listed under a clear Defender Default section, and instead of Guards only being able to call defender status for certain laws, Guards can call defender default for ANY law. This is abusable as **** and no thought went into making this new ruleset. The previous rules were better and although I disagree with many of them this change is absolutely retarded.

 

Seriously LoTC, get it together. What the **** are you actually doing, and WHY did we need new rules? Why?  Why are we back to having 6 threads for the rules? Like honestly what the ****

[Ixli 1472]

4 minutes ago, p̸͈̖̥͐̿͌̑̀̓̚ŕ̸̀̑̽́͒͋̈́͝͝͝͝ said:

This is possibly the worst update yet.

 

Not only did the formatting get worse (making it harder for new players to understand the rules), the rules were made less concise and clear. When these rules were written originally, thought went into each rule and each rule was made for a specific reason. Now, rules like the Defender Default rule are not even listed under a clear Defender Default section, and instead of Guards only being able to call defender status for certain laws, Guards can call defender default for ANY law. This is abusable as **** and no thought went into making this new ruleset. The previous rules were better and although I disagree with many of them this change is absolutely retarded.

 

Seriously LoTC, get it together. What the **** are you actually doing, and WHY did we need new rules? Why?  Why are we back to having 6 threads for the rules? Like honestly what the ****

1

 

abc

Preach it. When you GMs and Admins can be doing something productive, you decide to rewrite raid rules that didn't even need an urgent rewrite. Chill the hell out. You wonder why people quit / purposely get banned. 

[Thornz 549]

30 more minutes for a raid, and one more person for a raid. I don't see why you can't make lawless raids the same as war raids to simplify all these uneccesary rules, or at the very least revert to the first draft of the raid rules. Why not a poll or some ****.

 

Guards can now call defender default on someone no matter the law broken? Hilarious, really.

 

You can only take from an unlocked chest during a heist? Was this **** made a rule because of all the retards too idiotic to /lock a chest? Pathetic.

 

Also, are you all oblivious to the fact that banditry is being hindered due to carts going directly to settlements? So basically you go from a magic safe zone where nobody can touch you (ft hub/cart) to a settlement? Seeing as you put a rule saying you can't bandit near Fts, how are you going to address this situation? As of right now, I did not see anything to help within the new rules.

 

Seems like rules only worsened in my personal opinion

[overlord2305 202]

On 7/13/2017 at 8:44 AM, Jaeden said:

 

Still counts under the beastiality rule. That's also admin-confirmed.

0

 

Why does any of this count as beastiality to begin with, all the species are clearly on the same level of sentience as one another and they're all humanoid shaped, and as far as we're aware they also have similar genitals (I dare you to prove me wrong LT), so how comes that's still beastiality despite there seemingly being no valid reason for it?

 

P.S. @Lark calm your s***, I was just asking what the logic behind it is out of sheer curiosity

[Lark 2227]

2 hours ago, overlord2305 said:

Why does any of this count as beastiality to begin with, all the species are clearly on the same level of sentience as one another and they're all humanoid shaped, and as far as we're aware they also have similar genitals (I dare you to prove me wrong LT), so how comes that's still beastiality despite there seemingly being no valid reason for it?

0

 

 

dude its an rp server, do your **** on skype if you're gonna fight it that much. 

[Chorale__ 2147]

Moved to The Great Library. It shall be sorted into the appropriate category shortly.

 

If you feel this is a mistake, please contact myself or any FM and we'll restore it. 

[Chorale__ 2147]

Moved to The Great Library. It shall be sorted into the appropriate category shortly.

 

If you feel this is a mistake, please contact myself or any FM and we'll restore it.