Rule Suggestion Add rules surrounding PKing people

Rule suggestions will be reviewed by Superadmins, this may take longer than standard content suggestions.
Hakari

Hakari

Well-known Member
Mar 25, 2026
6
0
41
What does this suggestion change/add/remove: add one of the 3 ideas
1. make PKing a person SL auth
2. make Pking a person GM auth
3. any faction leadership members be able to be PKed. Faction leadership is Fcom, DELCOM+ and GOC LT+ (this should be just a add on to one of the other 2 tbh)
4. When a hostage negation isn't being taken serious. Meaning the negotiator just keeps lowballing and doing min.
Also to define it, PKing a person only means that the person's name and all the RP with that character is removed. Meaning that the character is dead and the name is gone with all the RP.



Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?: I don't think anything has been made before


Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):
encourages people to do more interesting RP rather then selling the person.
more RP can be grown from it as PKs will make people value there life more and act like a character more.
people value hostages more


Possible Negatives of the suggestion:
People may dislike losing all there RP and there name because they got kidnapped.

Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted: With how little lack of RP there is on taking hostages, there should be a some what feeling of losing something if the kidnapers decide they don't want money but to send a message. Giving people more choices instead of only picking money or chems. Also this makes negations feel like there is something of worth for paying more instead of insta lowballing every time.

(Extra: This is mainly due to stuff happening on US, idk how it goes for UK and i heard its much dif there when it comes to RP and PKs.)
 
Upvote -9 Downvote
John Inertia said:
+Support
GOC LT and DELCOM arnt even Sr 😭 . If anything it should be MAJ+/MCOM+.
Otherwise I dont see why not, UK players PK all the time meanwhile I havnt seen a US PK in god knows how long
Click to expand...
I only said DELCOM/GOC LT+ bc its what was auth during the war with GOC and foundation
 
Emilia Fοddg said:
-Support
PKs will just deter RP IMO. It's hard to come up with new characters

IMO people are too trigger happy with PKs on UK
Click to expand...
True, I believe that PK's would be redundant and I think I should have multiple lives.

But I also think that Minecraft Civil Networks would also be a great addition.

Cheers from the UK you bloody legend. 🍻
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Emilia Fοddg
Major +Support

I'm sorry if you lose your character but people like FCOM shouldn't be getting kidnapped very often. If you get kidnapped often as MCOM+ or FCOM there is IC ways to secure yourself.

(I don't think it should be LT/DELCOM I think as others have stated it should be FCOM and REGCOM for GOIs. I would also possibly include Site admin in that aswell)
 
-Jack Seal of Disapproval
Having to put your character into the hands of a negotiation I heavily disagree with since that is heavily reliant on someone else deciding you are worth 20k. It could also result in price spikes cause people will just hold this over other people's heads.
I am also hesitant with FCOM/Seniors of factions authing since nepotism could result in killing of characters to cause issues
 
  • Like
Reactions: Alan Froud
I feel like enforcing PKs on this server is a bit too serious, at least speaking for the US side. PKs imo should stay as your own choice either to throw your character into the bin after going out with a bang or something similar.
I will agree that negotiations feel like they're not taken seriously though but I don't think this should warrant the PK of someone.

TLDR: Don't enforce PKs. -Support
 
As it currently stands, PKs can only be forced through authorized treason roleplay, and even then they are not guaranteed. Players who choose to participate in this type of roleplay are informed in advance that their actions may result in a forced PK due to the nature of committing treason.

Outside of those circumstances, expanding the situations in which a PK can be forced is not something we are likely to support. Many players invest a significant amount of time into developing their characters through roleplay, lore, artwork, relationships, and progression. Because of that investment, we believe it is generally better for players to decide when their character's story comes to an end rather than having that decision made for them.

From a mechanical standpoint, truly PKing a character is also a substantial action. It requires resetting that character entirely, including their items, perks, progression, and other earned content. From both a gameplay and business perspective, making that outcome easier to impose would be detrimental.

Lowering the threshold for forced PKs would likely discourage players from engaging in the more ambitious, high-risk, and memorable roleplay that makes the server enjoyable. If players constantly fear losing everything they have invested in a character, they are far more likely to avoid taking creative risks, ultimately reducing the overall quality of roleplay.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stellaris
'Bear' said:
As it currently stands, PKs can only be forced through authorized treason roleplay, and even then they are not guaranteed. Players who choose to participate in this type of roleplay are informed in advance that their actions may result in a forced PK due to the nature of committing treason.

Outside of those circumstances, expanding the situations in which a PK can be forced is not something we are likely to support. Many players invest a significant amount of time into developing their characters through roleplay, lore, artwork, relationships, and progression. Because of that investment, we believe it is generally better for players to decide when their character's story comes to an end rather than having that decision made for them.

From a mechanical standpoint, truly PKing a character is also a substantial action. It requires resetting that character entirely, including their items, perks, progression, and other earned content. From both a gameplay and business perspective, making that outcome easier to impose would be detrimental.

Lowering the threshold for forced PKs would likely discourage players from engaging in the more ambitious, high-risk, and memorable roleplay that makes the server enjoyable. If players constantly fear losing everything they have invested in a character, they are far more likely to avoid taking creative risks, ultimately reducing the overall quality of roleplay.
Click to expand...
a lack of consequences has led to overall worsened roleplay quality, for example, recently 2x ISD cyanided during a roleplay situation to avoid investigation, respawned and carried on with their merry day, stopping further roleplay happening, while they avoided any consequences as soon as the roleplay which they started, began to lead towards that.

What can we done to stop situations like this? tickets often lead to nothing, therefore i feel more systemic changes should happen.
 
-support

I'm against enforcing PKs, if you're not so creative (like me), it's really hard to come up with new characters and would probably deter from roleplay happening. I don't think many people would like getting their hard worked on characters PK'd over a random CI raid
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back