Alan

The economy is already a mess and has always been, but nonetheless the Item Packs won't worsen it. Items are chosen based on convenience, so it's not like we'll see a sudden spike of a certain item unless it's the sort of item that is already extremely common. As for particle trails, you can literally just do /toggletrails and you won't see any of the particle trails. We thought ahead for the people that didn't want to see them.

Should be fixed now. Thanks for the heads up ^^

I'm not coding the plugin so I can't say for certain, but based on the plans here's how it should go: The Minas, ItemPack and Scary Mount perks all fall under the same plugin known as the Gifts Plugin. The way it is intended to work is that, upon being placed in the appropriate VIP pex group, the VIP will have access to a one-time use only /claim command. They can use the command immediately or they can wait a month, but once the command is executed it will no longer work unless the VIP donates for a higher tier. This means that all of the current VIPs will be able to use this command since they've never used it before, which means they don't have to modreq GMs to get what they should already have! TL;DR - If all goes right, yes, current VIPs should get them still.

Hello again, everyone :) This thread has been made to acquire a sense of what people think of the new VIP perks outlined in the thread linked below: Updated, Expanded and Improved Donor Perks Take this time to state how much you love them or why it is that you absolutely hate them. Also, if you have any questions, concerns or requests regarding the perks, this too is the place to put them in. Thank you for your time and feedback! ^^

As far as I know, you are not able to soulbind ANY weapons or armors, including enchanted and named ones. However, if the feature doesn't exist already, I'll see if we can patch the soulbind plugin so that GMs can manually bind items for players, even if those items are blacklisted. That way, players can't keep potentially overpowered weapons after dying, but people with things like family heirlooms can ask to keep them upon death.

All perks that aren't blue or red are already on the server and ready for use (AKA yes, you can use them right now)! The ones in blue are coming in 4.0, though there's only 5 of those. The remaining ones in red are a work in progress and should be done soon . I tried giving a general explanation for each perk in the descriptions, but if there's something you need more clarification for, simply state what it is and I'll do my best to explain. :)

Hello Lord of the Craft :) Today, I am officially announcing the completion of the VIP project, which entails the updating and overhauling of all VIP perks! The project has been in the works for months, and countless hours have been put in by GMs, who organized and supplied the brainstorming for the update, as well as the Tech Team, who coded the various new plugins and customized or configured others, all to give back to our wonderful donors. While this may not be important to many of you, hopefully you will at least experience and enjoy the many new perks outlined below: PS. Click this link to see the old perks for comparison purposes. Also, open the image below in a new tab or window if the contrast hurts your eyes. *Note: Items in red are still a WIP and will be released shortly. BookDatabase is nearing completion, while Minas, Item Pack and Scary Mount collectively form a “Gifts” plugin that is also in the final stages of coding. Also, perks in blue are completed but not set for release until 4.0 due to varying circumstances and conditions surrounding them, so not everything will be immediately available at the time of the posting of this thread. All perks will be released as soon as they are completed! Here is a description of each perk: And there you have it! Where we had 16 perks before, there are now 29, so hopefully this is a nice little present to the donors of our community. Though it's obvious that not everything is ready yet, hopefully the listing of everything planned gives you all a taste of what is to come! Also, if you are not a donor, do not worry! We still have plenty of neat additions lined up for the near future that will involve and entertain everyone. :) Thank you all and enjoy your roleplaying! - The Lord of the Craft Staff

Behold the monthly modreq evaluation, which Sky counted and calculated the other day. Frottimer - 458 (19.5%) Chris - 225 (9.6%) Cruz - 217 (9.3%) Zarsies - 219 (9.3%) Sky - 215 (9.2%) Rhia - 161 (6.9%) Cappy - 147 (6.3%) 30326 - 126 (5.4%) Nppeck - 113 (4.8%) GavLan - 112 (4.8%) KoTo - 104 (4.4%) Chi - 85 (3.6%) Kai - 39 (1.7%) Geo - 38 (1.6%) TheCleaningCrew - 35 (1.5%) Gemmylou - 33 (1.4%) Gaberiel101x - 17 (0.8%) Total Modreqs - 2383 Total GM Modreqs - 2344 Missing Modreqs - 39 Note: The percentages above are based on the GM Modreqs, not the total. Additionally, the "Missing Modreqs" is the number of modreqs that were missing from the modreqs counted and the RTS total.

*tests the report button on Rhia*

Considering how worked up people are getting about this, I'm locking this thread. Before you freak out, read on. This thread was written with the intention of clearing the air on how a rule was meant to be interpreted. Whether you agree with the clarification (and debate with me all you want that it's a "rule change", but in the end you're literally debating the most trivial point that makes absolutely no difference and has no effect on the results of this post) or not, the fact remains that there WAS confusion before, and now there is none. Additionally, of the hundreds of replies to this topic so far (whether on this thread or other feedback threads), all negative responses have been from people making assumptions and predictions about what will come. Not a single person has yet shown me or the staff any tangible evidence or RP to back up their exaggerated claims, and until that happens, we will not be changing anything. HOWEVER. Like I said many times already, which all seem to be getting ignored, just because we restated the rule in more understandable terms, that does NOT mean the rule is now set in stone. This is NOT the end of the world, so stop pretending like it is. As I just mentioned, if it is shown that this rule has a negative impact on the server, then it WILL be changed. This can be done through proof and screenshots or by physically showing staff members IG situations that are taking place, but it is NOT done through bickering based on opinions, ideals and possible outcomes. If anyone actually expected change to come from complaining without any solid basis to back them up, then perhaps we the staff aren't the only ones without brains. If you truly want change, then go about it the right way; create a feedback thread with solid evidence of the negative side effects brought about by this rule, and if we the staff judge it to be necessary, we will amend it. On a final note: I don't care how passionate or angry you are about this topic. I don't care about what you believe or don't believe, or what you think will happen or won't. There is NEVER an excuse for flaming, insulting or being a general arsehole to other players or the staff. As a reminder, if anyone is ever seen contributing nothing but hate anywhere on the forums, we will not hesitate to warn or even ban them. Don't make the mistake of thinking you're safe from punishment because people agree with your opinion on a topic. Thread locked.

Truthfully? Because it's not. The rule was indeed changed a month or more ago when I posted the updated server rules and guidelines, but this thread contains a clarification of that rule. As I mentioned in my previous reply to this thread, I have nothing to gain from falsely calling it a clarification, nor does anyone for that matter, so that leaves us with two possibilities: Either this is indeed a clarification, or I'm a masochist who enjoys needlessly responding to players who blow trivialities out of proportion as if to prove a point.

The sarcasm is not needed, unless of course you'd like to gain a warn. Don't mistake me with someone that's afraid to hand out punishment in fear of community opinions or illusions regarding "jimmies being rustled". With that being said, I'm not pretending anything. What makes you believe I have anything to gain from referring to this clarification as it is, as opposed to merely calling it a rule change? If we were changing the rule, then I would merely say "Due to recent issues regarding this rule, we are changing it in hopes that it will solve some of those issues" and the effects would be the same. Various staff members have indeed misinterpreted the rule just as the players have, but just because they're staff did you expect them to be all knowing? Various other staff members knew full well the intent and meaning behind the rule, nor can you speak on behalf of every single player in regards to this matter, so your point holds no ground. However, there's a reason this was clarified, so now those GMs do know, as do the players. Also, when those 20 man RP fights that you have predicted actually do occur, please inform me immediately, as I'd like to see such an improbable event come to pass.

The clarification is just that; a clarification, not a rule change. Yes, the rule differs from the original stance we had on PvP default was first declared almost a year ago, but if anything that first declaration was a rough copy of the default that was open to amendment, and it WAS amended many times. Do you honestly not remember the various changes we've made in all that time since then, or did you just "coincidentally" forget to mention them? The most notable change that led to this one actually occurred when Freya and I entirely rewrote the rules to update and organize the Rules page of the forums, as announced in this thread: (Finally) Updated Server Rules and Guidelines MANY rules changed in this thread, and it's not like it was done so subtly. When the update above was made, the very rule we clarified today was written with the intent described in today's announcement, so it is in fact a clarification. Now, to actually respond to the beef of your post, keep in mind that the clarification was made in the first place because the server was NOT in the perfect harmony regarding combat that you seem to be implying. Had everything been all fine and dandy, there would have been absolutely no need to make the clarification, yet here we stand (or sit, rather). I will not pretend like this version of the rule that was clarified today will solve all of the issues, because it most certainly will not, but I wholeheartedly believe that a fight which the majority favors will more often than not please the most people relative to other alternatives. Assuming people will congregate into settlements and that OOC arguments will become greatly more pronounced than they already are is exactly what it is; an assumption, and a rather extreme one at that. With that being said, this was (once again) nothing but a clarification, but that doesn't mean that the stating of such sets the rule in stone. The rule is as open to change as it ever was, so if solid issues (AKA real issues rather than mere bickering about what it /might/ cause) begin to arise as a result of it then we can certainly amend it again. However, that comes with actually experiencing the negative side effects you have predicted, rather than simply assuming they will come to pass. Also, just a passing note. I don't know why people seem to be under the impression that this clarification is a step towards returning to RP default. Putting it simply, it's not, in fact it's not even close to that. The default itself is still stated as PvP, and if most people prefer PvP anyways (including many RP fighters themselves when it comes to mass fights), then it will still dominate RP fighting. I'm not sure why people are already predicting the apocalypse and blowing this out of proportion when literally all we did was prevent a minority from forcing PvP upon a majority.

I edited my statement to make more sense and appear more fair, but thank you for the contributing response nonetheless.

If 101/200 want a group RP fight, then it's an RP fight. That's the glory of compromise between RP and PvP default; it's likely that not everyone is jumping with joy, but at least both sides partly get what they want. This isn't really an issue though. Here's why: As you can see by Cyndikate's post, even avid supporters of RP fighting aren't a fan of mass fights. It's incredibly unlikely that large parties will turn out with a majority in favor of RP fighting, so this is more of a theoretical possibility than it is an actual event that will happen.

Hey everyone, I recently came across some GMs having a discussion in Skype about an issue with the PvP default rule. Apparently, the wording of the rule led to contradicting interpretations of what it actually meant, thus causing various OOC disputes and disagreements. After reading the rule again, I can understand why such confusion came about, so I'm here to clarify it with better wording. Note: This is a clarification of the rule, which means that I am merely restating what the rule already intends to state. I am NOT changing the rule to express something that differs from its original meaning. Here is how the rule is stated presently: The bolded sentence is the rule in question that led to the creation of this thread. According to this wording, players seem to be under the impression that any disagreement, regardless of majority, leads to PvP default. For instance, if 5 people are present and 4 wish for RP, all it takes is the remaining individual to say "No, I want PvP" and PvP will default. This is NOT how it is meant to be. The bolded section is thus being restated as follows: "Both sides must agree to the type of fighting you're using - PvP or RP fighting. If an agreement cannot be reached, the type that is preferred by the majority of combatants will be used. If there is no majority, PvP is default. The majority is defined as the party that outnumbers the minority, even if only by 1 individual (so if 4 people want RP and 3 want PvP, the majority is in favor of RP and thus it's an RP fight)." Essentially, this is what the original rule was intended to state. This wording means that the fight depends on the decision of the majority rather than on a unanimous decision. To prevent further confusion, here is a list of the only four scenarios which can result from this rule, as well as the fighting style that results depending on the scenario: No discussion = PvP Majority wants PvP = PvP Majority want RP = RP No majority = PvP Hopefully this cleared up any confusion. I know that it is likely that a fair number of you will disagree with this clarification, but nonetheless this is how it was always intended to be.

Pretty sure that sheep was a staff member disguised during a modreq to liven it up a bit and make it a little bit more than dull, repetitive "Hi how are you", "What do you need?", "Is there anything else I can do for you?". It wasn't RP as much as it was adding some humorous fun to an OOC request, or at least that's my impression of the event.

((Remember guys, even though this is a news announcement, it is also an RP post. Please keep replies in-character, or at least use parenthesis or brackets when making an OOC comment. Thanks!))

I like how you're not being sarcastic about the lack of sarcasm in this thread =]