AMIA ARCHIVE • View topic

It's not just muling - It's about writing rules that minimize misinterpretations. As it is now, you sometimes need to commit a rulebreaking to find out that there's a rule against X.

Quote:

DM: "If you do X, I will punish you."
Player: "Alright, but how can I know whether I'm doing X?"
DM: "I can't exactly tell you, but you'll know when I punish you."

Edit: And if you want to see if there's a rule against Y you need to undergo such a MASSIVE forum searching it's not even funny.

Well, now you guys know why I was not proceeding with finishing the entryway rules. I knew there would have to be modifications to this rule set and wanted it right by everyone first. :wink:

The current muling rule is simple and needs no clarification.

I just don't think it's warranted - should we really care if items travel between PCs of the same player? I mean, really really care, to the point of applying the unwieldy gears of bureaucracy and the violence of rules enforcement? It's the same player investing time and effort into Amia, so moving assets between characters does not seem unfair OOC - x amount of bosses killed is x amount of bosses killed, whatever PC you used to do it. Most online games allow this to an extent, and we already do it with DCs and Job system items. And if the rule requires IC justification (defined as loosely as the current twinking rule), the IC issue of same player's characters being separate is solved, too. What is the harm, the concrete and blatant harm, that it actually causes to Amia's player count and daily entertainment?

It's just an antiquated rule that is too concerned with other people's business. It may not be ideal to arrange a semi-OOC trade between two of your characters and a third party (see my earlier Crown, Boots, Vorpal Blade example), but it's not big enough a deal to warrant such a draconian rule.

And the thing is, even if you can see something looks like an accident, you can't really not strip the accidental offender if you want to be fair and consistent towards everyone else. If you take into account mitigating factors, you get tangled in bickering over who, exactly, should have known.

It also leads to quite absurd consequences, as you know: you can't even approve, upon request, the transferral of an inheritance of cosmetic memorabilia after years of sitting in some other character's inventory. If the current rule even binds your hands, as DMs, from making the sensible call, it's clearly too heavy. There seems to be a lot of unnecessary collateral damage for a very dubious benefit.

IronAngel wrote:

Most online games allow this to an extent.

Name one game at least similiar to Neverwinter that allows this.

And by the way, before you answer, there is no game similiar to Neverwinter Nights, at least from RP and IC perspective.

All games that work online now are hardly anything more than hack'n'slash brainwashers, where people don't give a sh!t about role playing. So naturally, they don't give a damn about muling or twinking either - well, correction, they do, often you can PAY (like, cash) for having an item transferred from one character to another. What a blast, right!

Neverwinter is the last, dying breed and exactly ideas like yours are pushing it more and more towards an early grave.

What a sad reading. I'd expect more from an ex-DM

You're free to your oppinion but Amia isn't a pay to play or pay to win service like most online games these days that indeed often do allow mulling so comparing it to those feels wrong to me. I know of no other NWN rp server that allows mulling.

If you want to get rid of items or think they would be of more use elsewhere you're quite welcome to give them to ic friends. Which makes a lot more sense then to give them to someone your character doesn't even know.

If there is any doubt then the team will discuss it and make a rulling. If we feel it is an accident or the players involved couldn't have known them we can certainly decide not to strip them. The rule is against knowingly mulling after all.

Thinking about it though. Getting epic loot or lots of gold is dependent on two things: grind, and 5% off a d100 roll. So what's the difference between a PC getting a few lucky rolls, and OOC-trading an epic item? They would have had to legitimately acquire it on their PC in the first place (or talked a buddy into allowing it). And the time spent on that PC could easily be spent on another PC, so no one is really getting boss loot any faster - although I suppose hardcore bossrunners would be bypassing the 1 of each boss per reset limit. Does it really make that much of a difference, though? Is muling that much more OOC than the 5% loot roll? It's a deliberate attempt to power up one's PC, but little more than bossrunning already is. We don't ban that.

I'm not against the rule but it seems like panties are becoming bunched over something that's ultimately rather small, or I'm missing something.

There are people who spent all their time on one character, bulding it's reputation and name and actually !!RPING!! on a RP server.

And there are people who have sometimes even ten or more lvl 30 boss grinders on which they spent just about half an hour to do their routine boss hunting round.

It's just one example. Do you see what you are missing now?

To my mind, the rule against muling has less to do with loot distribution or fairness and more with RP. Transactions between two should be established by RP, and you can't RP with your other character. All muling is inherently OOC.

Nope. I considered the alts argument. If you're muling, you're really just gathering gear off alts onto a more favoured PC. And again the problem is bossgrinding rather than muling. People can bossgrind quite extensively without alting at all. It's still a perfectly legitimate time investment, no matter how one feels about it.

Liz wrote:

To my mind, the rule against muling has less to do with loot distribution or fairness and more with RP. Transactions between two should be established by RP, and you can't RP with your other character. All muling is inherently OOC.

Absolutely, but what's the RP behind the main source of epic loot anyway - a 5% roll after defeating certain difficult enemies (who respawn after a period of time without any explanation)? It seems weird to demonize muling but do nothing of a decidedly MMO-like fixture, necessary evil as it may be (if it can even be called necessary).

The_Last_Helmite wrote:

There are people who spent all their time on one character, bulding it's reputation and name and actually !!RPING!! on a RP server.

And there are people who have sometimes even ten or more lvl 30 boss grinders on which they spent just about half an hour to do their routine boss hunting round.

It's just one example. Do you see what you are missing now?

This ...and his other comment too.

I understand rules/laws need to be clear and concise, but the shortened version for us to read, is quite clear enough. If you want to follow server rules, you will ask a DM if unsure. If you want to find loopholes and/or break server rules, you will try to get away with it. If/when you are caught, the DM Staff will deal with you. These things shouldn't be an issue to those of us who respect the server, and want to remain and have fun role-playing.

It's a two-faceted rule, and not one I am looking to remove, sorry.

Part of it is precisely that: RP between two character of the same account is expressly prohibited. And the theme of our rules on these matters is that you need Rp to make a trade legit.

The other part is an administrative mechanical. For the same reason we have put up a rule against retired/retiring characters supplying loot (And yes, before the retort, I reference above where I explicitly stated that we understand the complications of enforcement), we have a similar rule disallowing shifting of items between your characters.

It often times adds loot or gold into the rotation in an unnatural way and not conducive to Rp. It sets players who are already ahead in terms of total epic loot count consistently better off than new players. The gap in equipment becomes way, way too much if all of your old seasoned players have 100% epic gear on all of their new PC's, just by wiggling gear from one to the other-- meanwhile, a newer player has to struggle and actually do what we expect people to do to get epic loot. He ends up being incredibly unmatched in mechanical strength, and feels like he'll never catch up. This is why we can say that muling is giving yourself an unfair advantage. Unfair to who? Unfair to the new guy.

And muling is very easily enforced. And it's very clear. We understand that these rules are meant to clarify it to the players. It's why we even pushed to amend the Twinking rule in the first place, guys. We understand the issues you're saying, Svensk and Iron. We've thought them through, and we've stuck with our decision. We've considered even more minimalist routes than we have, but our system is functional. As long as there's clarity in the ruling now, the staff and a majority of players sympathize with our desire to see these rules remain. Even if there is question why they exist in the first place, this question has already been answered to the content of the staff and Amian playerbase.

Iron, I'm one of the few that, in my belief, understands what you're trying to do. I like to think that you're trying to criticize and ask questions about our administrative techniques and policies to get us to solidify them in our minds, and to improve them on the off chance that they can and should be improved.

But this current feedback is in fact counter-productive. It's not solidifying our views, as much as it's creating tension and encouraging (See how others have now posted similar tangents) sentiments against our established regulations and staff.

All Glim did was state our most recent change. You touched on a detail that needed revising, and for that, I personally thank you. Then, in my amendment, all I had asked for was whether or not there was any confusion on the wording of the rule. I did not ask for administrative theory responses. We're content and the players are content. The most recent posts have detracted from what we're trying to accomplish in this thread.

Mr. Hackums wrote:

It's a two-faceted rule, and not one I am looking to remove, sorry.

Part of it is precisely that: RP between two character of the same account is expressly prohibited. And the theme of our rules on these matters is that you need Rp to make a trade legit.

The other part is an administrative mechanical. For the same reason we have put up a rule against retired/retiring characters supplying loot (And yes, before the retort, I reference above where I explicitly stated that we understand the complications of enforcement), we have a similar rule disallowing shifting of items between your characters.

It often times adds loot or gold into the rotation in an unnatural way and not conducive to Rp. It sets players who are already ahead in terms of total epic loot count consistently better off than new players. The gap in equipment becomes way, way too much if all of your old seasoned players have 100% epic gear on all of their new PC's, just by wiggling gear from one to the other-- meanwhile, a newer player has to struggle and actually do what we expect people to do to get epic loot. He ends up being incredibly unmatched in mechanical strength, and feels like he'll never catch up. This is why we can say that muling is giving yourself an unfair advantage. Unfair to who? Unfair to the new guy.

Kind of incorrect in some cases, I play Cory I have only played him and have not played alts.... Lets say I IC have a kid and I kill off Cory all my stuff like in real life goes to my son, why should that be prohibited if we are on the same account? it would not effect the balance at all as nothing new came into existence that was not there before.

Also you should rephrase it from account to player, of else by that logic I could make 30 accounts and become a god when I multi box them all and take over the world MUAHAHAHA!

Also as for the how hard it is to get loot for newer players, that's fully up to the DMs you could make the drop rates 10%,100% or 9001% or fully rework the system like its been suggested or me going all broken record and saying Yellow loot system since you guys added it, expand the yellow system to add so much more (make it the new loot system) increase the drop rates to like 10% or higher and have everything be random would increase player trading to more then custom DC item spawner stuff and epic loot.

In the current system the epic boss is not the icing on the cake of the dungeon its the Cake, icing, candles.. it's the whole damn thing, fix that maybe so all the monsters in the zone have a chance to drop the stuff, epic boss just has a higher %. Mythal system rolls different then normal loot and has its own table as well as being based off the level on monster so you guys know how to do it.

We're not removing the muling rule.

Last edited by Kudark on Thu, Jul 31 2014, 17:25 PM, edited 1 time in total.

*edit out*

You would need to make some compelling request for it. And here's why:

The action you've described is in fact introducing 'unnatural' items and gold into the rotation. The rotation includes only current, active characters. Characters die off or get left behind, and they take their loot with them. That's the standard rotation. This, as we define it, includes the passing of characters.

You say that nothing new was added that wasn't there before-- an entire character was. And this entirely new concept suddenly now has all the items you have acquired on your older character. Think about it like this-- would you say there is a difference between Cory dying today, and you playing his son and getting all of his items 2 years from now, or only 2 days? The 2 years situation is totally adding items back into the rotation that were previously unused and 'retired'. But now I say that the 2 days situation is in the same nature as the 2 years. If we wanted to make a ruling on this (Which we don't, guys. We're not changing the rule), we have a few parts of this situation which we could make a ruling on:

1.) The very idea of giving your items from one PC to another.
2.) A timeline in which this is acceptable and not.
3.) How close this new PC is to your old one.

The second part would be an absolute ridiculous thing to actually base a rule off of, as would the 3rd-- because the ruling either becomes ridiculously subjective, or stupidly arbitrary. That's why we have based our muling rule off of the first part, instead. Which, regretfully, has and will continue to call situations like the one you listed, Cory, as reintroducing items back into the current character rotation in an unnatural way, and against the rules.

This isn't a discussion, this is an explanation.

My point with comparison to other games was simply this:

1) If muling was opposed due to OOC arguments, it seems relevant that most games have realized time (or in some cases money) is what players invest, and it's fair OOC to use those rewards as you see fit between you characters (to an extent!)

2) If muling was opposed due to IC arguments - that's impossible. "Muling" is an OOC term, there's no IC reality to two characters sharing the same player. So from this perspective, muling is no different from twinking: there needs to be reasonable IC justification for doing it, not simply an OOC deal between players.

You can't mix the OOC and IC. If you want to argue on the basis of RP, then muling does not exist. If you argue on the basis of OOC fairness/fun/simplicity (really, I just want as few rules as possible), then the fact we're an RP server does not factor into it.

Mind you, I do not advocate OOC muling. But if both your characters legitimately know a third party and both of them have a legitimate deal to strike with that party, and it just so happens that one of your characters trades with them for something that first belonged to your other character, there does not seem to be any problem there. It's legitimate IC, and does not really have any dire OOC consequences (at least none have been suggested).

It ould still be nice to get some kind of an explanation as to what your motivation withthe retirement clause is. The circulation argument seems quite contrived. It was not a problem for 10 years - why did it become one now?

I don't understand what you're objecting to, Iron. You say that it's not valid to mix the IC with the OOC, but then don't seem to accept that muling is exactly that: mixing the IC (possession of in-game items) with the OOC (two characters being played by the same player). You cite the circumstance of the muling being mitigated by the unwitting intervention of another PC, but it's already been made clear multiple times that what's illegal is *deliberate* muling. If the DMs note a muled item and investigate it to have changed hands innocently, then the rule does not require them to impose the punishment. The rule (don't intentionally mule) and its purpose (don't mix IC and OOC) are both perfectly clear and sensible.

I suggested that the rule be updated to be consistent with the twinking rule: IC reason is required. That's it.

Muling directly is bad, because there's no IC interaction there. Most of us agree.

Muling through a mediary with perfectly valid IC reasons and means should be acceptable, because it's IC and we are an RP server.

Unwitting muling is one thing (and you'll still have the item in question stripped, even if perhaps not your entire inventory). Knowing full well that what you're about to buy from a merchant PC has previously belonged to one of your other characters, however, is still illegal. I am arguing that is shouldn't be. In a market where epic items are posted publically for sale, it should be possible IC to arrange for a trade between three people so that everyone gets what they want, whether two of the participants belong to the same player or not.

For non-epic items, the easiest legitimate way to do this would be to sell and buy from an NPC merchant. And, take note: it is already legal for job system items. (Which should probably be mentioned in the muling rule, btw.) And Disco appealed to the exact same argument as me when he made that call: the player has spent the time and the buying PC is spending resources anyway, so there's no reason not to allow it.

What is the concrete problem that would cause? And, in general, what are the problems we are trying to fight with these rules?

This topic is a discussion of our inadequate muling and twinking rules. I don't see any reason to stop simply because we've amended half the problem. I'm not saying my minimaist approach is the best solution, but I do not think people have given serious consideration to the implications.

I agree with Iron. The muling rule causes undue headache when people panic over if the mythal player A is buying for their character X from character Y is the same one that character Y got from player A's character Z during a hunting trip and so on and on and on.

Silvarus wrote:

I agree with Iron. The muling rule causes undue headache when people panic over if the mythal player A is buying for their character X from character Y is the same one that character Y got from player A's character Z during a hunting trip and so on and on and on.

Does that actually happen?

I'm genuinely asking, here, because I'm skeptical. It just seems really unlikely to me that there's some sort of epidemic of people unknowingly breaking the muling rules. If one of your characters sells a huge mythal or uber armor or whatever to Bob the PC Merchant, and next week your other character happens upon Bob the PC Merchant's shop and it has a huge mythal or uber armor or whatever for sale, you know where it came from. Nobody is that stupid. I think the "oops, I slipped and fell into muling" objection doesn't hold much water. It probably happens once in a great while, sure, but not nearly often enough to fret about, and not nearly often enough to design our ruleset around it.

I don't think they're talking about huge mythals. AFAIK there's a huge amount of trading of Greater and smaller mythals, quite a large quantity changing hands for coin and vice versa (until Beldor eats them all).

Liz wrote:

Silvarus wrote:

I agree with Iron. The muling rule causes undue headache when people panic over if the mythal player A is buying for their character X from character Y is the same one that character Y got from player A's character Z during a hunting trip and so on and on and on.

Does that actually happen?

I'm genuinely asking, here, because I'm skeptical. It just seems really unlikely to me that there's some sort of epidemic of people unknowingly breaking the muling rules. If one of your characters sells a huge mythal or uber armor or whatever to Bob the PC Merchant, and next week your other character happens upon Bob the PC Merchant's shop and it has a huge mythal or uber armor or whatever for sale, you know where it came from. Nobody is that stupid. I think the "oops, I slipped and fell into muling" objection doesn't hold much water. It probably happens once in a great while, sure, but not nearly often enough to fret about, and not nearly often enough to design our ruleset around it.

Yes. That situation with X, Y and Z was actually a spesific example. Player A was Very_Svensk and he really did freak out, since there was no way to know which mythal was which. We had been out hunting earlier the same night with him on Hashim Hoios, who tossed my character a spare greater mythal for some project I ended up abandoning. Later on he needed a Greater Mythal for one of his other characters and the same character of mine who had gotten a mythal from Hashim had plenty to spare. I can't remember who characters X and Y were.

Serbiris got it.

Any time that we've encountered accidental muling, we've always been reasonable about it.

Quote:

..but I do not think people have given serious consideration to the implications.

Simply put, we have. We've amended the rule, and it's clear. The problems you're highlighting as issues simply aren't. It's not a half-fix, it's a full fix. You're not believing it's a full fix, because you're coming up with problems, questions, and theories that are off-base and counter-productive.

The bottom line, Iron, is that it's not changing. Please stop?

You could have asked a DM in that case and then we could have easily determined if it was his or not. I also am pretty sure no DM would have swatted you for that if you had a whole bunch of them like you said.

We're not out to get you guys.

I'm gonna put it bluntly, Iron. You're wasting our time.

IronAngel wrote:

You can kindly step out of the topic, then

No. What I'm telling you, is that you're disrupting the forums, causing unruly sentiment, upsetting a number of players and staff (Yes, I have received complaint about your conduct). Your argument style has become, by your own previous admission, vitriolic in order to get attention to the issues that need fixing.

As DM's, and especially a PR Dm, I -have- to bring my focus to these metatopics, because these kind of brushfire ramblings end up rousing the playerbase and causing problems. That's why I'm here. That's why I'm also telling you to stop.

Hudson wrote:

You could have asked a DM in that case and then we could have easily determined if it was his or not. I also am pretty sure no DM would have swatted you for that if you had a whole bunch of them like you said.

We're not out to get you guys.

DM:s are seldom online at those hours. I am aware that you are not out to get us and that any problem that might have risen was likely to be solved afterwards just fine, but it is also reality that a lot of players get stressed over these things regardless, and that figuring out a solution takes enough effort that everyone I have seen encountering the problem has opted to not to do the trade at all just in case, just to save all participants the stress, no matter how unnecessary it might be.

I'm sorry, I removed my post while you were responding.

Anyway: I don't understand where this is coming from. You have taken my sincerity as some kind of license to pick on me. Is there a single inappropriate post in this topic, or even one of hostile tone? I'm just having polite, intellectually respectful conversation about something that really is up to all of us to discuss and guide your decisions.

Silvarus wrote:

Hudson wrote:

You could have asked a DM in that case and then we could have easily determined if it was his or not. I also am pretty sure no DM would have swatted you for that if you had a whole bunch of them like you said.

We're not out to get you guys.

DM:s are seldom online at those hours. I am aware that you are not out to get us and that any problem that might have risen was likely to be solved afterwards just fine, but it is also reality that a lot of players get stressed over these things regardless, and that figuring out a solution takes enough effort that everyone I have seen encountering the problem has opted to not to do the trade at all just in case, just to save all participants the stress, no matter how unnecessary it might be.

Aye. I remember it now and it was a headache because I wanted my character to upgrade his portal-wand, too, so I could get a few extra bindings.
But that wasn't possible. I didn't want to risk it.

What it's being received as, instead, is a burden. You want to help guide our decisions, but the way in which you're presenting your points coupled with the way in which I have already cleared stated that it has been a well-discussed, thought out solution by the team in which we have already approached the issues you're presenting, and in which we were not seeking further theoretical guidance-- makes for building resistance to your posts from the staff.

This isn't just a discussion for the players. You're trying, by your own words, to influence and persuade the staff decision on these rules. And I have said clearly that the staff decision is set. It's been the object of discussion for some time now, and it remains set.

So when you continue to belabor the point, draw out large responses and explanations to what is really elementary administrative business (I really shouldn't have to explain why muling is bad), you're inviting DM retort. And the DM's are exhausted by your posts, Iron. I was maybe one of the last you had pulling for you, and I'm simply not anymore. You don't know when to stop.

Mr. Hackums wrote:

You would need to make some compelling request for it. And here's why:

The action you've described is in fact introducing 'unnatural' items and gold into the rotation. The rotation includes only current, active characters. Characters die off or get left behind, and they take their loot with them. That's the standard rotation. This, as we define it, includes the passing of characters.

You already changed the twink rule I could give all my items to player B in my faction (who is not me) and it would be fully IC and fine and then I die off, so they are not "taking their loot with them" into the abyss, as for getting "left behind" that does not exist you can quit and come back 3 years later and go right back to playing, you can play as much or as little as you want on alts as well and we have had old people come back before, some who were here before most of the current DM team DMing (or even on Amia) back in Amias wacky days where deity's would chill out in cordor and hand out who knows what items like that wand of orcus that had DM slay on target...ect

But their is no such thing as "unnatural items" its all just items and gold unless you change it to start deleting things not played in a set amount of time you cant make any claims about items really being out of the rotation from people being left behind or such as I myself quit for a short amount of time a few years ago, other quit for more like a year or two and came back to active playing.

Mr. Hackums wrote:

This isn't a discussion, this is an explanation.

Nice to know.... not that it matters as we all know the mule rule has no effect on myself because again I have only one person so I don't even care about the rule so much. Its more of the fact terms are being used that just don't make sense to me as I pointed out above.

No, that would be a breach, because in this case, you are trying to give all your items away when you are retiring your character. If you give all your items away and kill or retire your character, that's a breach in the twinking rule.

You have to request DM supervision for the transaction.

Best is to wait with the trade then yes, in euro and US hours there ussually is atleast one DM around (Atleast in euro evening hours but I assume it's the same for US) and then we can look into it and since it's really quick to do so it shouldn't be any problem.

Mr. Hackums wrote:

Any time that we've encountered accidental muling, we've always been reasonable about it.

Just one last thing, because I find it absolutely pointless to argue about legitimity of muling/twinking.

On my other account I had a few items that were "muled". A DM checked me, stopped me and said he knew it was not intentional and he did not strip me, instead he watched me bin the items and guess what - he actually thanked me for cooperation.

You really need to stop panicking and cut DMs a slack - I have not ever encountered a situation where they would willingly ruin my gaming experience. Can't say the same about players, but that's dangerous waters and different topic

.

Mr. Hackums wrote:

No, that would be a breach, because in this case, you are trying to give all your items away when you are retiring your character. If you give all your items away and kill or retire your character, that's a breach in the twinking rule.

You have to request DM supervision for the transaction.

Ok maybe we should make it more clear on what counts as retired/retiring is because I know tons of people have alts and they log on at random some not touched for weeks or months.
My mind set is very different then the DM team on this matter I am sure.... I look at it as if you don't play touch it in a 2 months it would count as retired...and that's me being nice, logging on a guy for 10mins every week but playing something else for a ton more time I would count them as retired...

We have made it clear, haven't we?

I posted this, as the definition for it. Which, given the example you gave me, fits into this:

Quote:

Retired or Retiring characters are characters who you have or are shelving with the intent never to play that character again, or who have been permanently imprisoned or killed by NPC's.

It puts a lot of responsibility in the hands of the player to determine whether or not he's retiring a PC. In the case you gave me, by 'killing off your character' that's a very classic example of retirement. And, if you just gave away all your items because you're done playing the PC, is exactly the mind of malicious twinking we're looking to stop.

I know this is a hypothetical situation, so don't take it as me attacking you, of course. I'm simply trying to explain a DM response to the situation you've crafted for us.

I can only foresee further attempts to define the ruling leading to an even greater bureaucracy, so you pick the evil you can stomach. Bureaucracy would be like if DMs could still vault PCs and make it so that players cannot access them again without a request, that defines a retires PC as a vaulted PC and automatically has them monitored for abuse if they are ever requested for unvaulting, and also makes the player jump through hoops just to play an old character they liked but maybe retired too soon. Not that is possible, we would have to undo a lot we already did. But it is an example of what I mean by choosing your liberty or your sanity.

Mr. Hackums wrote:

We have made it clear, haven't we?

I posted this, as the definition for it. Which, given the example you gave me, fits into this:

Quote:

Retired or Retiring characters are characters who you have or are shelving with the intent never to play that character again, or who have been permanently imprisoned or killed by NPC's.

It puts a lot of responsibility in the hands of the player to determine whether or not he's retiring a PC. In the case you gave me, by 'killing off your character' that's a very classic example of retirement. And, if you just gave away all your items because you're done playing the PC, is exactly the mind of malicious twinking we're looking to stop.

I know this is a hypothetical situation, so don't take it as me attacking you, of course. I'm simply trying to explain a DM response to the situation you've crafted for us.

See I could have worded it better, when I said died off, I meant more at the hands of the DMs.
Like Cory is attempting something risky like solo zerg rushing blackmoor keep to kill everything and end the taint... given a DM would likely say that could end very badly OOC warring of perma death basically (big risk for big rewards) him tossing all his unneeded stuff like gold extra items....ect to his faction/town as fail safe should he die

And when you said " get left behind" I took that as a inactive Alt who the DM team would then view as retired, not retired/retiring as being fully in the hands of the PC in question, but it being fully up to them they could just claim they are never retired by passing everything but DM forced perma death

Ahh, so just a miscommunication!

That's a good point, too. If you think you're going to perma-die in a DM event but it isn't certain, it probably isn't the time to give away all your items unless you've got DM supervision.

Or make a will.

If your items are recoverable is something else but atleast you tried. Could be another adventure too to get to the remains.

I have to say, I think "twinking" needs no rules in this game.

If someone happens to get epic loot when they're 15, oh well. Maybe they really deserved it through some roleplay?

In my opinion it's actually OOC to turn people away, and OOCly annoying to ask what level they are before giving/selling them items.

With 0 loot, a mage can hit level 30 in about 24 hours if they wanted to.

Just some food for thought, as this rule is in my opinion, unneeded..

(not to mention self-rebuilds are super twinks with 90 summon IX scrolls and nobody gives a crap about that.)

Did you read the changes to twinking, Mimiron? I ask because that exact issue is covered and all twinking is now is giving another PC items for OOC reasons. If you have IC ones, you are golden and that has been covered several times now.

My apologies, I didn't. They seem slightly more reasonable now.

and my own apologies if I came across snippy in my response, too! Having read back, it looks much more curt than I intended.

Given the nature of this server, I really don't see the issue in doing this, some would give the excuse of "it's only a video game" or that it's a mmo or something. Personally, I don't see the harm in it, but that's just my humble opinion and it's likely to be an unpopular one. Just seems like too much fuss for little gain of resources and time spent that could be allocated elsewhere.

IronAngel wrote:

The current muling rule is simple and needs no clarification.

I just don't think it's warranted - should we really care if items travel between PCs of the same player? I mean, really really care, to the point of applying the unwieldy gears of bureaucracy and the violence of rules enforcement? It's the same player investing time and effort into Amia, so moving assets between characters does not seem unfair OOC - x amount of bosses killed is x amount of bosses killed, whatever PC you used to do it. Most online games allow this to an extent, and we already do it with DCs and Job system items. And if the rule requires IC justification (defined as loosely as the current twinking rule), the IC issue of same player's characters being separate is solved, too. What is the harm, the concrete and blatant harm, that it actually causes to Amia's player count and daily entertainment?

It's just an antiquated rule that is too concerned with other people's business. It may not be ideal to arrange a semi-OOC trade between two of your characters and a third party (see my earlier Crown, Boots, Vorpal Blade example), but it's not big enough a deal to warrant such a draconian rule.

And the thing is, even if you can see something looks like an accident, you can't really not strip the accidental offender if you want to be fair and consistent towards everyone else. If you take into account mitigating factors, you get tangled in bickering over who, exactly, should have known.

It also leads to quite absurd consequences, as you know: you can't even approve, upon request, the transferral of an inheritance of cosmetic memorabilia after years of sitting in some other character's inventory. If the current rule even binds your hands, as DMs, from making the sensible call, it's clearly too heavy. There seems to be a lot of unnecessary collateral damage for a very dubious benefit.

I agree with this, 100% on the topic of twinking. How does it harm anyone else if some unclear rule with no victims involved is broken? It doesn't. It's like punishing people for victim-less crimes. It pretty-much essentially has to be roleplayed out in the first place, whether or not it has ridiculously strenuous reasons as the rules apparently want people to have.

It's a waste of DM time, as well as the time of all parties involved. It's insipid. I can't believe anyone really supports the whiping of people's inventories because some characters are generous. It's absurd. Punishing people for twinking is the worst idea I've heard at any time, ever.

Muling is sort of a different story, because it obstructs roleplay when done deliberately. But still, it harms no-one. These elitists who want to crack down on everyone who does anything of the sort, are only making the problem worse. "I spent time on my character, punish these people who didn't do the EXACT SAME THING I did!" isn't variety good in roleplay anyway? These people are probably too full of themselves, and it really isn't contributing to this, since they want to stop people from roleplaying generous characters. It's absurd, and unnecessary. It also obstructs roleplay. Nonetheless, since there is no real victim, I really see no real reason to punish people for twinking and muling, particularly twinking since it involves roleplay in the first place.

Edit: I recant on it being victimless. The people who are punished for this nonsense are the victims.

waswar wrote:

I recant on it being victimless. The people who are punished for this nonsense are the victims.

I... can see your perspective on a purely philosophical level, however... have you actually talked to someone that has been punished unfairly for muling? If so, you really need to shoot a DM a message. I have never even HEARD of someone being punished unfairly for muling... let alone talked to someone that it has happened to.

joe15552 wrote:

waswar wrote:

I recant on it being victimless. The people who are punished for this nonsense are the victims.

I... can see your perspective on a purely philosophical level, however... have you actually talked to someone that has been punished unfairly for muling? If so, you really need to shoot a DM a message. I have never even HEARD of someone being punished unfairly for muling... let alone talked to someone that it has happened to.

He seemed to be referring to twinking, not muling. (Or maybe both? I'm not sure.) The twinking rule has now (rightly, IMHO) been nerfed so severely that it's barely a rule any more: if you have adequate RP reasons to give your uber loot to your lowbie friends, then "twink" all you like. The only twinking provision left that has much teeth to it is:

Glim wrote:

Richard_Edmund wrote:

So our characters aren't allowed to give away their equipment to friends/associates when they die?

You are, but you have to get DM oversight for that. Retired/retiring/dieing/dead characters can will things to other characters etc. but because that's generally dealing with a large amount of items, that one does require DM oversight or a request and approval on the forums.

Sheer hyperbole. I'm sure it isn't the worst idea ever. :wink:

Muling, Twinking, ILR, and the Like

Who is online