AMIA ARCHIVE • View topic

Been meaning to make this post for awhile and the thread over here just reminded me I still need to do it because it's pretty darned important: viewtopic.php?p=1267627#p1267627

And this is a discussion forum. So...

Look. Everybody gets the point mostly, giving items directly from Alt_A (you play) to Alt_B (you play) is bad... sort of (in most cases), but the rules are ridiculously contrived and convoluted and needlessly hamstringing as they are written. Not to mention they often lead to nonsensical interactions that are so contrived it's painful to even bother doing business IC.

Twinking: I loathe this rule more than others. It's the most nonsensical rule to ever be misplaced into a roleplaying server.

Quote:

Twinking constitutes as follows: giving another player items or gold that they did not deserve. Gifts are allowable so long as the person will be able to use them within 2 levels. For example, giving a level 10 a sword or armor he will need to be level 12 to use is acceptable (or a roughly equivalent value in gold). Giving said level 10 an epic drop off Windreaper, or from the epic store for free or a miniscule price, or something he'd need to be 21 to use, is not. It is also best to limit the number of such gifts to maybe one per RL month. Upon reaching level 25, the caps go away. Remember though, if you are at all concerned about weather some gift or aid rendered to a friend might get you in trouble, ASK A DM. If you're selling a high level item, and happen to run across a rich lowbie who wants to buy it, screenshot the transaction in order to protect yourself.

A player did not deserve the items, if say, a drow female commands a male to get them gear, and tells the male to pay for it. That's still twinking, and said female should not be doing such. "Deserve" means that the items or gold is earned with one's own hard work.

There are so many things wrong with this rule it isn't funny:
1. It's based utterly on subjective decision-making. I, a player, can judge someone as "earning" something in my own mind, but a DM can disagree. Oops, there goes all your items! Not to mention "generosity" is actually an IC trait. Example, I play a Zakharan who is honorable. Honor in Zakhara has many facets implicitly defined in the published material, one of which is generosity. People who interact with that character get pretty good deals, pay, etc. That's utterly IC.

2. My character also runs a casino with his gambling job, open to anyone at all. One of the draws is if you win X times in a row with a minimum bet of Y, you win a grand prize! That being literally anything on a list, including (often) boss drops. If some level 10 ponies up their minimum bet and gets lucky enough to win it, he's "earned" it just as much as any level 30 winning the prize did. All that is utterly IC, but if it happens, it's also against the rules. It makes no sense to have my character discriminate against that winner and add unfair imaginary blockades on what they can pick.

3. Guess what happens if you're higher level than an item in your inventory? You can't see the level of the item at all. Oh, okay, let me just ask the recipient of the their level/if their level is under the item's level? What's that? People wanting things can lie to me and I have no way of knowing?

4. It strikes anyone as reasonable to screenshot everything they ever do just to protect themselves? This is kidding right? Keep accounting of giving gifts to everyone? C'mon. Not to mention again, the other guy can just lie to you anyways and you'll have no way of knowing.

5. Ok, so you've needlessly screenshotted your character's entire life every time the barter window opens, but now a DM is in your chat window about finding some lowbie who lied to you 3 weeks ago to get their hands on a Sword of Doom +5 twenty levels before they could wield it. What's that? Your hard drive died two weeks ago and you had to reinstall everything? There goes all your screenshots, guess you're hosed! Hand over your items.

6. Most importantly... Who cares? I'm not trying to be antagonistic with that, but honestly, what is the point of this rule when we have ILR anways? That level 10 with the Sword of Doom +5 can't use it til he's level 23 anyways, so the entire point is moot since he's not whacking kobolds with it.

Quote:

Muling constitutes as follows: passing items and/or gold from a character to another, when both characters are in the possession of the same player. The characters being on different GameSpy ID's or CD keys does not negate the act being muling. The methods for this are varying, but any method where the items end up from one of your PCs to another, is muling.

1. Most of the points above. I mean, I agree that simply handing your friend the Sword of Doom +5, then that friend handing your new character that same sword should be against the rules obviously, but what if you gave your friend some boring deity ring, which he promptly forgets about and 6 weeks later you make a character of that deity and he innocently sells it to that character utterly forgetting where he got it from?

2. I play a merchant. I buy things from all manner of player and other shops (which players often have sold to) so much, so often I'd need my own server to screenshot everything ever that passes through his hands. This is beyond silly and it's perfectly likely I've bought something off Hil'rash, added it to my inventory, then sold it to some other PC's character that originally had it. Statistically I'd say it's most certain, probably in the tens of times, if not more.

Quote:

Clarification:
Shopping Through PCs: If you wish to acquire an item from an unreachable location, such as the Gauntlet or the Abyss, you MAY pay another character to retrieve the item for you. On two very specific conditions.
First off, you must pay an amount equal to or higher than the amount the item costs. You're paying for the item as well as the service, not the person you pay.
Secondly, you must take a screenshot of all three parts of the transaction in case either party is called upon for twinking. Assume that Character A is the one who wants stuff, and B is the one doing the run and getting the item. A must be the same character. You need a screenshot of
- A giving B the money, as well as instructions.
- B purchasing the item, showing the gold amount used.
- B giving the item to A.

I do this all the time for others. I don't think it's reasonable to fill my hard drive with screenshots every time (which can easily be lost in crashes). My merchant often quotes lower prices than the base because he's got max appraise as well. That's the draw of doing business with me.

The biggest issue and most pointed issue with all these overly convoluted, unRPish rules is the most obvious to me, most of them are utterly needless because of item level restrictions. There is no reason to add all these hoops that hinder natural roleplay and force people to send tells about character level and other bothers when any item gained cannot be made use of in an unbalancing manner to begin with.

Don't get me wrong. I don't want to see Joe have CharacterA hide the Sword of Doom +5, then pick it up with CharacterB (who's level 3). But other than that sort of instance, everything about muling and twinking can (and should) be tossed out the window or simplified to make IC sense so that nobody has to worry about screenshotting anything and some newbie doesn't get stripped down the road because his second character bought a Nasher's Ring of Strength off me that his first character sold to Hil'rash.

Rules should always be KISS (keep it simple, stupid).

For me it's simple. The next time a DM is online I will have all my items "scanned", just to be sure.

Eddie I have for a few years now. Obsidian as well - and especially Eddie used to sell all kinds of crap to epic stuff quite activelly. So better be safe than later sorry.

And just for the record, I really don't plan to do screenshots. First of all, I hate anything including screenshots, be it lame forum RP or "evidences" of not mulling. All I will say is that when I began on Amia, I did "mule" (is that even right?) a few potions of ghostly visage from my main to my alt (SHOCKING, KILL HIM WITH FIRE!) and a DM caught me. So I've learned my lesson.

Suffice to say, he did not strip me, but slapped my butt with a big warning "No no no!" and then told me to welcome to Amia. And if I remember correctly, it was Yossarin :mrgreen:

Looks solid to me.

Our rules are hopelessly outdated but every time it is brought up; The team waves it away and nothing is done.

Good of you to bring this up thought MightNMagic

The Merchant-angle is a big one, especially in epic gear due to rarity. If you sell a lot of items into the 'epic market' of players who trade them, and then later on another toon buy something from the 'epic market' how are you to know if it was one of the many items you sold into circulation without a DM checking all your purchases? (Unless you kept a list of every type of item you sold and never bought that type of item[which is basically what I've been doing, only selling and not buying item-types of stuff I sold] but that shouldn't be an obstacle in the first place imo. If stuff got sold into the market then bought -that seems all legit IC to me, money or items were transacted in trade among buyers and sellers of wares in these markets. (Ex: even if one of the items in an auction might have been something you sold into the market on another toon [sometimes even years ago])

I think the archaic rules are worth re-looking at.

I'm with The Merchant on this.

Even in spite it being clearly illegal, people are trying to cheat and get their characters to be more powerful than they normally would. I'm for sticking with the rules. If anything, I'm for making the sanctions even more strict.

That's not the discussion Dead. You just stated something obvious which we all know

The discussion is about the rules being hopelessly outdated and filled with nonsense;
They should be clear, simple and concise and leave no room for personal interpretation and/or loopholes. (Which they currently do)

Quote:

There are so many things wrong with this rule it isn't funny:

Tell me one issue of DM's coming down for twinking/ muling where it wasn't justified. Then you have a right to complain or be worried.

Quote:

1. It's based utterly on subjective decision-making. I, a player, can judge someone as "earning" something in my own mind, but a DM can disagree. Oops, there goes all your items! Not to mention "generosity" is actually an IC trait. Example, I play a Zakharan who is honorable. Honor in Zakhara has many facets implicitly defined in the published material, one of which is generosity. People who interact with that character get pretty good deals, pay, etc. That's utterly IC.

There is -plenty- of room for that in the rule. And no, a single DM doesn't just strip someone because he woke up with a headache. In all cases this is discussed on the DM forum first but thank you for that token of trust M&M.

Quote:

2. My character also runs a casino with his gambling job, open to anyone at all. One of the draws is if you win X times in a row with a minimum bet of Y, you win a grand prize! That being literally anything on a list, including (often) boss drops. If some level 10 ponies up their minimum bet and gets lucky enough to win it, he's "earned" it just as much as any level 30 winning the prize did. All that is utterly IC, but if it happens, it's also against the rules. It makes no sense to have my character discriminate against that winner and add unfair imaginary blockades on what they can pick.

Wrong. We don't have to bend the rules to accomodate your ic ideas. Next someone makes a casino where someone has to win three times and then someone makes a casino where someone has to win once.
If a lowby wins you'll have to improvise, either offer a lesser price or give a voucher he/she can redeem once he hits epic.

Quote:

3. Guess what happens if you're higher level than an item in your inventory? You can't see the level of the item at all. Oh, okay, let me just ask the recipient of the their level/if their level is under the item's level? What's that? People wanting things can lie to me and I have no way of knowing?

The receiver still can see it but you cant see the receivers level to make it even harder. And yet despite all that you havent been stripped. Maybe... maybe the DM's realise that too and take it in account. We really don't care about some +3 gear on a low level toon but we'd rather not see an elemental defense targe and a wonderforged scimitar in a bag of holding on the same low level.

Quote:

4. It strikes anyone as reasonable to screenshot everything they ever do just to protect themselves? This is kidding right? Keep accounting of giving gifts to everyone? C'mon. Not to mention again, the other guy can just lie to you anyways and you'll have no way of knowing.

Giving gifts is fine. I think you can determine someone's level fairly accurately and match the gift accordingly. You can always invite someone and then you have a rough estimate of someone's level. I can't recall if anyone was ever slapped for twinking or ever read about anyone ever was stripped for twinking so I have no idea why you get your pants in a knot over a rule that has been here longer then you have been.

Quote:

5. Ok, so you've needlessly screenshotted your character's entire life every time the barter window opens, but now a DM is in your chat window about finding some lowbie who lied to you 3 weeks ago to get their hands on a Sword of Doom +5 twenty levels before they could wield it. What's that? Your hard drive died two weeks ago and you had to reinstall everything? There goes all your screenshots, guess you're hosed! Hand over your items.

If you can find anyone to whom that happened we'll talk about that hmmm?

Quote:

6. Most importantly... Who cares? I'm not trying to be antagonistic with that, but honestly, what is the point of this rule when we have ILR anways? That level 10 with the Sword of Doom +5 can't use it til he's level 23 anyways, so the entire point is moot since he's not whacking kobolds with it.

We do.

Quote:

The biggest issue and most pointed issue with all these overly convoluted, unRPish rules is the most obvious to me, most of them are utterly needless because of item level restrictions. There is no reason to add all these hoops that hinder natural roleplay and force people to send tells about character level and other bothers when any item gained cannot be made use of in an unbalancing manner to begin with.

This only covers twinking and not muling. The sticky was about muling which item level restrictions don't do anything against, if your level 30 alt can use that ring of improved evasion because of his level that's no justification for you to hand it to him, moreso because your alts didn't meet and never will meet. If your 'natural roleplay' includes Muling then I think you should take a good look at yourself.

Posts like these just make me regret trying to help players by raising awarenss about a rule that excisted for years now. Do you lot really think we don't know who the merchant pc's are? Has any merchant pc ever been stripped?

And feel free to write up a new proposal for a ruleset for Amia Svenks with those additions. It'll be a lot harder then taking potshots from the peanut gallery I can assure you.

Very_Svensk wrote:

That's not the discussion Dead. You just stated something obvious which we all know

The discussion is about the rules being hopelessly outdated and filled with nonsense;
They should be clear, simple and concise and leave no room for personal interpretation and/or loopholes. (Which they currently do)

I stated my opinion. I find the rules appropriate and I am against any changes.

Guardian wrote:

Suffice to say, he did not strip me, but slapped my butt with a big warning "No no no!" and then told me to welcome to Amia. And if I remember correctly, it was Yossarin :mrgreen:

Ha ha, it might have been! I do remember catching somebody dropping potions somewhere one day, logging out, logging back in as another character, and then picking them up again. I saw that it was a new player who probably got away with doing stuff like that on servers that were not monitored or DM'd or whatever, so I wasn't going to ruin a new player's day with a full strip and all that stuff.

I don't have much to say on this subject because I've been a DM and I know a little more about the backend aspects of the issue. But I can point out that the two rulesets which give me mental indigestion on Amia are the Muling/Twinking rules and the PvP rules.

By the way, I think Dead's opinion is correct. Muling / Twinking is wrong and should be punished harshly. And yeah, as I said, I did break the rule myself and would hardly give some evil eye to Yoss if he stripped me naked back then. Although i was glad he did not (I've used to have hairy nipples, oh HUMANITY!)

Seriously, though, stop panicking! Do you really think DMs will now camp on DM client and scan people's inventory and stripping people naked? Give them some credit, you ungrateful lot!

They don't strip you entirely naked, anything of no mercantile value you can keep, such as plain clothing or items that possess no mechanical benefit, so you're not left to fend for yourself.

Very_Svensk wrote:

Our rules are hopelessly outdated but every time it is brought up; The team waves it away and nothing is done.

Just because you're pissed at the team right now doesn't give you leave to slander us. I can personally vouch for the fact that all of the rules portrayed IG in the entryway and in the IG journal are on the cusp of being updated, and other rules are getting attention as well.

It takes time.

Quote:

Tell me one issue of DM's coming down for twinking/ muling where it wasn't justified. Then you have a right to complain or be worried.

These things have happened unfortunately, but not recently.

It was a different team though, and not really worth bringing up, since it will accomplish nothing. Just noting that it's possible, since it's happened.

Can you pm me those exemples Mimiron?

I am especially interested in wrongfull punishments as a result of twinking/ suspected twinking.

Mostly because all suspected cases are discussed by the current team and I dare to say we rather tolerant as gifts go.

I agree the twinking rule pisses me off to no end because of how bad its written with it being so open and every DM has a different scale...

I'm in a position of leadership/power on a island that is attempting to expand and grow... that means we need IC labor and job system resources, I wanted to pay someone to get granite... so that means sitting around for 30mins clicking a rock every 2mins per node and we have 3 on the island so 1 and a half hours... he was around 1-15 or so (because that's the level range of Caraigh) and I asked over DM chat what I could offer him and the DM said around 1k per level each day.... I explained it to the person OOC what I was limited too and he ended up turning down the job.... now if he was 25-30 to be exempt to said twinking rule they could make so much gold I could not reasonably pay them.

Maybe I can expand some on the twinking rule by posting a list of the item values per level so you have a better idea.

So a lv2 would be item level 4 according to the rules which is a certain gold value (which I dont know but I am sure we can look that up)

You'd get a simple table then.

Lv - Item lv - Gold value

2 - 4 - xxxxx
3 - 5 - xxxxx
4 - 6 - xxxxx etc etc

Would you consider that helpfull as a general guide line?

Gold values fluctuated wildly based on item traits, not item level, sadly. Such a table would be... rather extensive.

oh.. poo

Maybe we can decide on a general value then but thats better discussed elsewhere.

Last edited by Silvarus on Sun, Apr 20 2014, 15:55 PM, edited 1 time in total.

I remember someone mentioning 20k/level sometime LONG LONG LONG time ago.

EDIT: So long that the inflation wasn't even nearly as bad back then.

I really should be staying far far away from this one...

M&M, I've been braining (it's a verb, I swear) about this one for a rather long time now. I won't lie- I feel the rules as they stand could use a more refined method of detection to cut down on what I call 'collateral damage' (mostly players who get the traded item taken away even when it's legitimately gone through the 'stream of commerce').

That said, the DMs are neither stupid nor amoral. Human judgment is a fairly good stopgap for the time being. Hudson's also very right about the reverse muling- and muling in general; scripts alone are likely insufficient to meet all the goals the DM team has for that rule.

Hudson, and DMs in general, if you're to take anything from this it should be that there is at least some concern among players that this rule can and has been applied in a manner that produces an unfair effect on players who were genuinely trying to follow the rules. The people who've been posting in this thread expressing concerns do seem by and large to be very positive people who actively try and help the community; it would bother me quite a lot if I was in your position and saw these fears festering amongst good players. Thank you for taking the time to address those concerns- though I would ask that you consider a dialogue on the topic in the Improving Amia forum.

Lastly, though you may regret 'trying to help players by raising awareness', I am glad you did. As you can see, there is at least some player sentiment about this rule that you've uncovered. I also think you're a little surprised people are discussing the topic and actually disagreeing with you, but I would ask you to please foster the discussion and guide it in a way that will produce positive results and help allay those selfsame fears expressed here and in the sticky.

Okay, getting the hell away from this topic now.

Frankly, twinking is really obvious when it happens maliciously. And before we really jump on anyone who we think has been twinking, we'll ask questions. If roleplay was involved-- even with the Casino deal Might-N-Magic has going, I would say that's alright. A lowbie character literally rolled the dice, probably spending a large portion of his earnings that could have been entirely lost, and was rewarded.

In almost every case, as long as you can justify the generosity with IC roleplay that isn't just a "My character wanted her character to be stronger in a fight," you'll be okay. For instance, Mengala and Rashad are both two generous characters that I've bumped into. I know that they love to give, and that's a character initiative that should be supported.

So here's a few tips as to how to give without starting alarms:
- When you gift someone an item that is powerful, make sure the roleplay is more than happenstance. Make it meaningful.[/color]
- When you gift someone an item, try to gift them an item that is stuff full of flavor. A red ioun stone to a Sunite friend as a wedding gift, for example.
- Avoid giving full sets of equipment to anyone of a lower level. The less amount of items, even if they are more powerful, is far, far easier to justify as meaningful and important to RP than a whole set of awesome gear.
- If you are ever questioning the validity of a gift, please try to alert a DM before or during the act. If you involve us, we can help with guidance, and it also shows us that you're not trying to break rules, but trying to foster RP with generosity. It shows us that you're being honest. If no DM is online at the moment, send a PM on the forums if you're so concerned. If it -was- too much, rather than look at a ban, we're just going to switch the items around and help come up with a better alternative. If you involve us (We are here to help!) we're going to be looking at the situation entirely differently than it we caught it on our own. Even if it was entirely innocent and we catch a super sketchy situation, we're approaching it from an angle of skepticism rather than cooperation.

Hudson wrote:

oh.. poo

Maybe we can decide on a general value then but thats better discussed elsewhere.

Yeah if we had a more solid rule so we don't have to ask a DM as I already pointed out is just based off their view of the case at the time(because as a DM they can agree to let you bypass the twinking rule in some cases), or we have to low ball it so much so we don't risk crossing the line and more or less scare them off because they could kill monsters and make just as much in a 1/10th of the time.

The purpose of the rule is to prevent unfair gameplay advantages that are primarily or strongly ooc influenced. That means that your actions should not have the purpose to support your own set of characters, nor support characters that are simply your pals as a player. As soon as the actions are fully based on ic, interfering with that is no longer in the spirit of the rule. It is just taking a sensible rule too far. So far even, that it actually becomes disruptive to roleplay and penalizes completly ic actions with incredibly harsh ooc penalties.

If a faction generally ensures that it's members are well equipped and well trained, then it makes no sense that their newest members are not granted any. If my character has an apprentice or squire, then I should be at liberty to support his training by providing him the funds and best equipment available. If an epic item circulates from player A's old character back to player A's new character over ten different players in a span of four months with absolute not ooc influence, that should be completly fine. If my character fancies a low level character, I should be absolutely safe to give her some grand ol' item to win that character's favor.

I doubt any of that is in dispute. The problem basically is the enforcement. With the clear cut "it is never alright, regardless of any circumstance" DMs have an easy time enforcing it, as they do not have to examine the valditity of the situation. It is the most clear cut rule enforcement you can have, even though I feel it is taking it way too far. As soon as you begin to say "this is alright, and that is not alright" it will get incredibly complicated. Especially as the exceptions can easily be manipulated by those who are not doing it because of roleplay, but out of ooc reasons first and foremost.

[quote="Eurgiga"]
Hudson, and DMs in general, if you're to take anything from this it should be that there is at least some concern among players that this rule can and has been applied in a manner that produces an unfair effect on players who were genuinely trying to follow the rules. The people who've been posting in this thread expressing concerns do seem by and large to be very positive people who actively try and help the community; it would bother me quite a lot if I was in your position and saw these fears festering amongst good players. Thank you for taking the time to address those concerns- though I would ask that you consider a dialogue on the topic in the Improving Amia forum.
quote]

If we didn't care for any unrest we wouldn't have posted in the topic and the sticky trying to assuage it. I don't mind people voicing concerns but I can take umbrage with a tone set in the post or people assuming we are out to get them when they really should know better.

I don't think there is so much to improve. The best I can see we can do is perhaps setting gold values per level in regards to avoiding twinking but for muling it's clear cut.
I don't think any rule will prevent accidental muling unless we put tools for that in the mod. And we can tell if it is accidental or not.

Its kind of a follow by common sense rule. Its not really hard, its about not being cheap really. I don't think anyone intended for it to be utterly tracked, if you are actually trying to follow the rules, or not actually trying to mule items you should be fine, dont stress it. If accidents happen it happens, trust in the team to treat you appropriately and fair. I choose not to believe that anyone would have their items stripped on an accident, alas that some faign accidents. Best to just walk on in good faith, and hope for the best!

Well there go any plans for a low level merchant character who views power only through wealth.

There are zero reasons to lighten up on this ruleset, because it will only encourage people to try to get away with more than they already think they can try to do.

Tormak...

Yes. >.>

A harsh reality.

Well, it's true, and always held true in my time as a DM. People who want to break the rules or don't care about them, will try to get away with anything they can, and "the rules didn't say I couldn't" was one of the first things they'd say. I have a few regrets from DMing but enforcing the twinking and muling rules was never one of them.

I was one of the biggest proponents for helping PC merchants viably do their work without smashing into this rule, though, so don't think I was only about waving the stick. We went a lot out of our way to make sure that .... ah hell, what was his nameme, the kobold merchant that was big for awhile. Anyways, we did a lot of stuff to make sure he could do this thing without worry. The team's always been good about that sort of thing... as long as your operation wasn't about making sure your best friends OOC were kitted out and twinked immediately dozens of levels ahead of time on every alt across any alt and vice versa for you.

Ed: OTHOKENTIR

That really should be the long and short of this whole debate. It's not about us bringing the pain, and smiting the players needlessly because we 'have the power'. It's a matter of making a rule that has little to no room for interpretation, and thus, abuse.

I don't understand why this is a thing.

There's a very fine line between accidentally buying one of your previously owned items from another character or unknowingly being twinked and actually muling or twinking on purpose. It's so incredibly obvious that as long as you KNOW you're not muling or that someone's giving you an item deemed epic then no one should have anything to worry about if you're doing it.

The rules should stay the same, if you want to make a lowbie merchant PC, well you need to get your capital from somewhere. Be smart and screenshot major transactions so DMs know what's going on. It's the same as rolling a special race without asking a DM, it's a no no if you do it without informing them. There is the whole argument of "Well it doesn't ruin the game for everyone" but it does when one person works hard for their items while two characters who have never ICly met gives away 10 million gold for no concrete reason.

So long as DM's are not treating people as their enemy, and are considerate about it being a genuine honest mistake, I see no problem with the current rules. DM's who abuse this power shouldn't be DM's. There are no such people on the current DM team, to my knowledge. All this thread shows is a certain lack of trust between both players and DM's.

jimbono1 wrote:

So long as DM's are not treating people as their enemy, and are considerate about it being a genuine honest mistake, I see no problem with the current rules. DM's who abuse this power shouldn't be DM's. There are no such people on the current DM team, to my knowledge. All this thread shows is a certain lack of trust between both players and DM's.

What he said.

Really, if you are not sure, ask DM to check your things. For your own conscience. I did that and the DM approach was perfect, painless and I can breath much easily now.

Everything that is said in this thread is "in theory" , "what if" and "it could happen". It's just so unfair to the staff. And the fact that this all mess began with a friendly warning makes it even worse.

Guardian wrote:

Everything that is said in this thread is "in theory" , "what if" and "it could happen". It's just so unfair to the staff.

Some of us just like rules that are clear as coastal sky.

What exactly is not clear about "Don't do twinking/muling"?

I admit Guardian, that's what i'd like to know too.

The Twinking I can see being a bit more confusing especially for folks like Merchants, but it shouldn't wholly interfere.

Guardian wrote:

What exactly is not clear about "Don't do twinking/muling"?

The line of when something is twinking and when it is not. There are obvious examples of when it is not and when it is, but the line in between is very fuzzy in my eyes.

Last edited by Casvenx on Mon, Apr 21 2014, 11:08 AM, edited 1 time in total.

I think the essence of the twinking rule is pretty clear, but the wording ('earned', 'deserved', and such) does leave a bit to be interpreted, and the fact that it focuses on 'gifts' so much seems slightly off. Perhaps a condensed version of the rule could be made, followed by examples of what would be considered twinking. As it stands, the twinking rules basically only consists of examples, with the actual rule inferred. I do think the 2-level bit is slightly over controlling though. Perhaps 5 instead, which would also remove the need for the level 25 'cap' too (are there even items ranked above 25 in Amia?). Just to take a stab at cleaning it up some, without changing anything (forgive grammar, I haven't had my coffee yet):

Casvenx wrote:

Twinking: The act of using/abusing OOC knowledge or influence (including friendship) to gain IG benefit far and obviously out of alignment of IC means. This applies to both the beneficiary and the enabler.

Examples: Giving a level 10 character a level 20 item, either for free, or at outrageously reduced price ('price' meaning open PC market value). The acceptable level range is within 2 levels.

Giving your OOC friend's new lowbie character items, or sums of gold, far beyond their ability to get themself would be considered twinking. Characters should advance through their own efforts, and, being a roleplay server, IC reasoning is expected in all things.

Abusing IC influence can also be considered twinking. A drow female commanding a drow male to get them gear, and pay for it too, would be twinking. Obviously this applies beyond just the drow, any abuse of power structure would be similar, but it makes a clear example.

Obviously there will be questionable situations with any rule. If you are unsure of an interaction, grab a DM to double check, and/or take screenshots for reference later. This is a shared game, and it should remain fun, and level-appropriately challenging/rewarding for all.

M&M, you have my support in using trade as fruitful RP and not as a twinking and muling business. I find your concern and agitation very genuine and within reason, but, I don't think you're truly at risk. Are you still concerned about the severity/wording after these reassurances from DMs regarding legitimate merchant RP?

Estara wrote:

M&M, you have my support in using trade as fruitful RP and not as a twinking and muling business. I find your concern and agitation very genuine and within reason, but, I don't think you're truly at risk. Are you still concerned about the severity/wording after these reassurances from DMs regarding legitimate merchant RP?

I would rather have more solid guide lines because some of our views are skewed, I know mine is.... gold has next to no value to me because I know if I need gold I can go out and mass murder 10000 monsters earning hundreds of thousands of gold. What I cant do is go collect all the different kind of job system resources and then turn them into things.

I would have no problem offering 1000 or so per unit... where the NPC offers 100, is me paying 10x the NPC market value(so the DM/staffs viewed value of said object) going to be viewed as giving low levels gold they did not earn?

If you can think of a loophole then the rule isn't clear and should be reviewed.

Quote:

And feel free to write up a new proposal for a ruleset for Amia Svenks with those additions

Hudson wrote:

Quote:

Feel free to write up a proposal for a new ruleset for Amia, Svenks, with those additions.

Fixed your sentence...

Stop singling him out and acting like everyone is a bug beneath you.

We're discussing "should something be done" as much as "what should be done"; someone saying "we should probably revisit the rule" is perfectly fine. You're a DM. It's not your job to antagonize players if they're not submitting proposals to your standard.

As well, your initial post to this entire thread was in many areas inappropriate, and ridiculous.

First:

"Tell me one issue.... Then you have a right to complain or be worried."
Wrong, anyone can be worried about anything, suggest improvements, and point out a flawed system and try to fix it. We are not required to wait for you to abuse the current state of the rules, before we try to fix it. Fixing something before it causes a huge problem is a GOOD idea. Are you honestly saying otherwise with a straight face?

Second:

"If you can find anyone to whom that happened, we'll talk about that, hmmm?"

Very antagonistic, and dodging the point, typical of someone who doesn't know or care about what the issue they're dodging. The truth is you don't know what to do if something like what MnM mentioned were to happen, because it's not accounted for in the current rule set, besides the fact that the "take screenshots" isn't even in the original rule, and thus the rules should already be edited, since searching the forums for a ruling a DM made, if you're aware of the fact one was made to begin with, is often a tedious or even difficult task.

Third:

"We do."

Dodged the issue again. The reality is, there IS no point in a rule stating "you cannot give a random newbie items they can't use!" because they already can't use them. If you're worried about them selling it, and using the money to fund their levelups, that's called business, and it's an IC thing to do oftentimes. Amia isn't a grind server anyway, it's a role playing server. A newbie having lots of gold is the least of our problems.

Lastly, your closing sentences:

"Posts like these just make me regret trying to help players by raising awareness about a rule that excisted for years now. Do you lot really think we don't know who the merchant pc's are? Has any merchant pc ever been stripped?

And feel free to write up a new proposal for a ruleset for Amia Svenks with those additions. It'll be a lot harder then taking potshots from the peanut gallery I can assure you."

So the players being brought awareness of a broken or unfair rule, or so they feel, and then commenting about it and discussing it, makes you regret being a DM, which is a responsibility you've been given, not a privilege? That's adorable. Keep it to yourself. We're not interested in your feelings on the playerbase, since it's obvious you're angry at us right now.

Again, we don't need to wait for a merchant PC to be stripped (although claiming that nobody, in the 10+ years Amia has been up, has never been wrongly punished for these, is utter ignorance and arrogance, both), trying to fix a rule before someone gets utterly shafted from it is called good sense, and caution. You should wish people did this more in real life, with the laws that are enforced with force, so that you didn't have to be punished or shot wrongly before they cared. You're astounding.

Lastly, saying that it'll be more work to fix the rule than use a bypass, especially when you're wrong, when you consider the fact that many people will be forced to take screenshots, but only one or two people need to rewrite the rules, is like saying "it's too much work to put in cameras on busy intersections. We'll just rely on witnesses and our own infallible brainpower, and if you somehow get misrepresented, you better have a camera on your dashboard!"

Stop antagonizing or berating players who think differently than you. Even if you disagree, or if they're being jackasses, I would hope a DM would at least try to remain calm and peaceful.

You know someone is mad when they start to dig about spelling and grammar.

But seriously, maybe Hudson doesn't think he's the right DM to draft a copy of the rule. Maybe he wants to shift that to the players to see what they think the rule should include instead. You want more freedom in the server, he's giving you the chance to voice your own opinions. DMs have the ultimate say, but that doesn't mean we don't have anything to say back.

MisterLich wrote:

Stop antagonizing or berating players who think differently than you. Even if you disagree, or if they're being jackasses, I would hope a DM would at least try to remain calm and peaceful.

You just did all of the above. :/

MisterLich wrote:

Words.

Dude. You make some good points (and to be fair some bad ones) but don't go blasting people like that. Everything in there could've been said with a lot more tact and a lot less snark. Take it from someone who winds up on the annoyed side of the DMs on a regular basis, that's not going to do much aside from start a fight.

Play nice or we'll get this locked in a heartbeat.

corypx wrote:

I would rather have more solid guide lines because some of our views are skewed, I know mine is.... gold has next to no value to me because I know if I need gold I can go out and mass murder 10000 monsters earning hundreds of thousands of gold. What I cant do is go collect all the different kind of job system resources and then turn them into things.

I would have no problem offering 1000 or so per unit... where the NPC offers 100, is me paying 10x the NPC market value(so the DM/staffs viewed value of said object) going to be viewed as giving low levels gold they did not earn?

^ That.

This is really why clarification/revision is needed. Value is different for different people. One-time gold purchase is not as valuable to some characters as a lifetime agreement to giving them every blank scroll you ever come across, but since blank scrolls have no set gold value, that deal constitutes as twinking. Pausing to screenshot every such trade arrangement and waiting for DM approval of it isn't really feasible, either.

I would kindly ask that the discussion on wording the rules for twinking/muling be tabled for the moment, pending an upcoming update. Then we can work together from that point forward.

Muling, Twinking, ILR, and the Like

Who is online