Stat loss - Extending decay rate

What confuses me is you guys call trammy for adding risk to being a pk, im not opposed to pks being pks I just feel they have very little risk for being red and personally I think stat loss should be at death when red. that would add true risk and reward to being a pk

Hey, don't take my posts personally or anything like that. I just don't support evolution as such. And I sure as hell don't endorse Internet democracy, lol. To each, his own...

I think the strong can and will survive. So get strong, whether you're red or not.

I've had stat losses on several red characters, and it was nothing a little macroing couldn't take care of, and rather quickly at that. I murder more as a hobby, not a profession, so I won't speak for the hardcore reds. But stat loss just doesn't impress me, and it surely doesn't keep me from killing.

I don't think any one here is calling for pking to stop, just to add actual risk to being a pk and the best mechanic for that is a minor stat loss. Right now there is almost no risk or negative aspect to being red, and it Seems people are using it as a pvp only thing. Personally I'd like to see this much effort put into revitalizing some thing like factions instead of trying to make being red the primary pvp vehicle.

Yall don't understand the struggle. you aint bout this life...Tucked away in your own private trammel at night.
Is it a keep or a fortress that you are hiding in? Oh please oh please will Telamon put the f**cking moats in!!

The fastest mothers alive to hit their trammy stone(that's the rune marked home). As soon as they've had enough.
Not gangsters not true OG's not one in the lot of them. I use the front door, and I am seldom bothered.(anymore)
You act like you care about the poor and the downtrodden, but your keeps and castles are littered with their runebooks,
and heads.

Did you ever stop to talk besides offering a res? Did you ever take the guy up and turn em into the best? I know some
of you have but you seem to have forgotten. Elitism at it's best is perfection in action, at it's worst it is crony capitalism mixed with ethnic purging.

Red's not a color, or a tag for me. It is a way of life. I don't even understand how you people stand in town, the guards lurking over your shoulders.
Ready to strike you down at any moment. No thanks.

#leaveredsalone

If there weren't 3x accounts for every single player, literally unlike OSI ever was, this wouldn't even be a point of conversation.

The fact that "besting" a murderer will not result in any tangible loss for them after the rewards they have reaped from lawless behavior (if you don't loot, that's your problem), is why some players feel increased detriment would be a healthy option. Knowing that whichever red you just killed will likely be back immediately on their other red, is discouraging to people who might spend their time hunting reds.

Perhaps with increased short term timers, players who lust for actual combat so much, will orange up and stop skirting the towns claiming they want to fight.

Blaise said it, only one account per person is the best solution.

AND 14.4k dial up modems!!

.

With 3 accounts 8 hours is nothing, at worst its a minor annoyance.

It is obvious we cant go back to only 1 account, so all we can do is trying to balance things and make it somewhat fair to both PK's and victims.

I've read through this thread and there are some interesting points here, once you filter through all of the e-peen measuring and obloquy. I thought I would offer my opinion as a non-pk and newer(ish) player on this shard.

My main is a tamer (*gasp*) - I know, I know. I enjoy it, I've always enjoyed being a tamer. We aren't here to invalidate what others enjoy doing on UOR. I very rarely bother fighting back against pks. It just isn't worth it. What would the point be? Even if I am carrying around a paltry 2k and some reagents, my death would stil be a greater loss to me than any gain I would receive from winning a skirmish. There are a few key points that has led me to the decision of trying to escape when I can:

• Where there is one, there is more. This isn't always the case, but it is most of the time. You can argue against this until you are blue in the face. This is an anecdotal point and it is what I, personally, experience.
• If I fight back and die, I lose my belongings and my pets suffer a stat loss.
• If I fight back and win, and this is the 1/10,000 chance that I can loot the PKs corpse - there is nothing of a value that would have been greater than the cost of my death to me. The only true benefit is potentially keeping that char from PKing for 8 hours or so. Which just means they will hop on another red or go do something on a blue. The last time I really fought back was against Texas Red, Taylor Swift and 2 others. Red and Swift died and were back in there fighting not 2 minutes later. What's the fun in that? Yes, my group was comprised of tamers. In fact, we were fighting content that isn't worth doing on anything but tamers.

The continuous comparisons to what killed Origin/EA UO are just speculations. First of all correlation does not imply causation. Second of all there are significant differences between UOR and what-once-was. The 3 account 15 char standard here is just one thing among many. You could argue that bugs and exploit abuse were the single biggest contribution to the downfall of Origin/EA UO. Lets not forget:

• duping was rampant
• inflation was unmitigated
• afk resource gathering was a way of life
• the playing field was unfair (not everyone employed UOA, etc.)
• actual content released were significant changes to the game mechanics instead of enhancing the features people loved (there were exceptions of course), etc.

Anyways, back to my..... 'Trammy' gameplay while I work.

.

Agreed, PKing isn't PVP. If you want to PVP, you should go orange. PKing should be as it was meant to be. Free to kill with dire concequences.

We shouldn't have reds sitting in ice for 2 hours trying to kill everyone who comes near, dieing and coming back to an endless fight. PKs couldn't do that if they fixed this because blues would start picking them off and they wouldn't be able to come right back.

Oh.. Hello...

Theres just too much tuna right now...

And BTW, this is coming from someone who only PKs. There is nothing more trammel than endless fights with no concequences. If you want that play CTF. Blues can lose their loot, reds should lose more than regs. Reds against this idea are just as, if not more trammel than the blues who want support "no looting" because you both support a system where you lose nothing for going down.

You want to play reds that can kill and take from blues at the risk of losing nothing but regs... Might as well buy a one way ticket to Trammel City.

This is a good example of the "everything I dislike is Trammel" philosophy that some people seem to adhere to.
No, reds engaging in combat as far as the eye can see is not trammel. Free and unrestricted pvp is not trammel.

The fundamental essence of trammel is restraint. Putting mechanics in to restrain, discourage, or flat out disable player behavior is the type of thing that you could call moving toward trammel. Removing restrictions from people is the opposite of trammel.
You can't just call everything trammel.

Stat loss is there to discourage behavior - the behavior of reds killing everyone as far as the eye can see. You can certainly argue that these restrictions are necessary, yes. I'm not sure that I would disagree with you.
But to say that a world where there are rules to discourage reds for killing people is less trammel than one with no restrictions? No, that's stupid. You should feel bad.

Trammel is removal, or mitigation, of risk. There is negligent risk involved in murdering people. This is significantly exacerbated by multi-account. This is not stupid, this is plain as day math and common sense. Criminal actions are supposed to have detrimental consequences, specifically based on the nature of the Virtues and the entire history of Ultima. There isn't a karma system because it looks cool to have a red name. It's there to make criminal actions appropriately detrimental without having actual law enforcement and criminal imprisonment.

A world in which reds are free to kill anyone, any time without consequence (other than the risk of being the one that dies) is more risky than a world where a red has to quit if he dies with more than 5 counts.
This is common sense.

I'm not even saying that stat loss is a bad thing here. I'm just saying that you're using trammel wrong if you're arguing that stat loss is "trammel", it is literally a mechanic designed to make the game a safer place for blues.

Why even bother having the red mechanic in this situation then?

I didn't play UO until second age, so I don't know if reds were originally a thing in UO. I don't think statloss was. Maybe red status was just to let everyone know that someone was a bad dude and an outcast from society.
Keep in mind that UO was as much as social experiment as anything else. Lord British made a game under the premise that you could do anything, and was horrified when so many players just used their freedom to kill everybody.
From there, the devs worked hard to correct the behavior and the ultimate result was trammel.

I move that no one is allowed to propose changes to the PK/Stat system that are not on the top 10 murderers board