Kingdoms situation
 

I thought i should post this cuz rp live got boring.
There are like no wars anymore, and every **** results in people abusing bugs to get kings away.
So thats why i think:
Kingdoms should be so coded, that a king can fight another kingdoms and destroy its castle and stuffs and he gets the king rights of the kingdom automaticilly.
This would create competition and rp wont be anymore only behaving and talking, but fighting and having fun and action.
If you dont like something feel free to post ideas.

I think you do not understand what RP means.

You can interpret it in many different ways. For some people its only going into another character. Role playing: more or less a form of theater.
With the difference that no book says what to do, only some guidelines.

Actually that gave me an idea but I dont know how to code it..

A NPC King, NOONE is king in a kingdom, just an NPC sitting in the throne.
The king would rank you on your skills when you are let in by a higher official that is a player. You ask the king what your rank should be// and it would make you a rank by your stats// etc if you had high ac and wc youd become a warrior or something, i cant explain thorougly right now.

Stefan can update the king saying to strike a kingdom or what ever for a reason like// they stole the gold garb of jesus and for that all ex. ****DUSTARIANS and FORESTS**** are always kingdom moded and can kill eachother in there kingdom island.
Every month stefan can change the reason or withdraw the reason// for how many of forests you kill or dustys you get a point for the kingdom and at the end of the month stefan will calculate it and it will be a victory to w/e kingdom and the diplomacy changes.




Heh complicated sorta. just an idea...

I dont think its a too good idea that a npc is the king.
Everything would be automatized.

It'd free coruptness.

Anyone could get in general command instead of making it so that friends of the king can get that rank.

If your stats are good enough or what ever, you'd be ranked into that position.

Of course this would require leveling, but people like building there character and getting better.
So why not? - thats the point of mmorpg's // role playing is a side thing.

The kingdoms are always all allied, and, if a war DOES break out, it lasts for 10 minutes and there are no consequences.

Yeah I know.

When the losers kingdom is defeated in the month.

All or half of the treasurey goes to that kingdom // treasurey should be like maitenence on the castle like make the gate have HP so people can raid the castle..

To have wars, we need a proper war system.

Having an NPC-King to make decisions is about the worst thing I've seen in a while, as no NPC could ever determin your roleplaying abilities. Ranks have nothing to do with being powerful, you don't become ruler if you manage to pk the current culer.
Roleplaying is something you have to do, not something a leader has to do for you.

No.
Graal Kingdoms was meant to be a Role-Playing server.
Ideally, leveling and character building should be the side thing.

Look around your screen.

The population of Graal Kingdoms rather level up // and player kill, while a small part wants to roleplay.
This has always been this way in games like these...

You don't see the point.
Graal is not every other Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game out there.
The beginning idea of Kingdoms, which it has strayed from muchly, is that it was SUPPOSED to be a place to role-play, not a place to playerkill and become the strongest. Classic is for playerkilling and sparring, Graal 2001 was the economics server (with hat trading, growings crops, jobs, etc.), and Kingdoms is the role-playing server.
Please note, that it is named Graal: Kingdoms, and not Graal: Levelupfest, or Graal: Killapalooza.

Thank you, and good day.

There are two types of kingdomish multi player games out there:



1) RGS
- people role play the roles, player to player communication is character to character. Game mechanics are geared towards best character to character playing experience.

2) Conquests
- people play a role in a kingdom, or empire, may have a character, but the main effect is moving an army, building cities, and communication is kingdom to kingdom, or player's A's NPC army against player B's NPC army.
Game mechanics are geared towards best empire building and conquoring experience.


GK is really #1, not #2. It adds elements of #2, but is less game mechanics centric - which in a way is a very good thing, because game mechanics can be maxed out by anyone who plays well enough. Doesn't make that player bad, just makes them powerful, and if you can completely erase another kingdom that does RP, because game mechanics let you, 'kingdom lvl' instead of RP, it will lead to a game mechanic generic conquest system where people have to always try to build up their kingdom OOC.


There are actually a lot of nice, powerful people now in GK - very different than when I started playing.

The war system will be improved I am sure and there is lots of room for it, but I think it will always be RP centric, meaning, you can't loose a kingdom to a pack of PKers.



-- As for NPC kings granting rights for differnt lvls - bad idea, people get ranks for being good leaders, for helping people, for good RPing. Ranks are one of the few things you can obtain in GK still for good conduct, generosity and RPing.

We should build on that more, not dimantle it.