No one

[spoiler] [spoiler] This is becoming hilarious. There is nothing to comment on this subject. Some ... noobs (I will not explain all that again) that think they know better because they have previous (out of MD) experience. They have been proven unable to understand what an alliance means but they still want them changed. The alliances are good as they are right now. If you want a different method for leadership, sure, ask for one and ask to be coded JUST FOR YOU. Sure, why not rename this game to RPDuel ? At least then I could quit .

Indeed, simple, but not as easy to explain as "7g 8s" which is self-explanatory. And ... why would you even bother imposing such a system ?

Then ... there will be a queue on the killing items. Also, if one MP5 dies 2 times ... wouldn't that make him a MP3 GOD ?

@Fang: I could agree with this Upgrade of spells if the spells would be available to ALL players. But, as only a few have access to spell and those spells regenerate with no work / extra payment from the players ... then it is not fair. Also, the spells are configured to a "proper" level. What would you say about a lock in chaos for 4-6h ? An attack lock for 4-6h ? So, no, the upgrade of spell by using them them is not a valid suggestion. See also Kyphys' answer above.

I'd vote for allowing the principles to be changeable for a reasonable high price. There are many pros and cons to be considered but a good payment should be considered & required too. Pro on principle changing (most relevant) - are/were chosen at the beginning of the game when nobody knows what they are used for - are not balanced (as in usefulness) Con on principle changing (most relevant) - most players would change their principles to use the same principles as to allow their creatures to use at max the tokens - some principles would never be used If I remember well (lol, it's been a long time since I sacrificed a creature), principles are based on the amount of experience of the creature sacrificed. If so, then growing a principle to its max value would be as easy as buying some high exp creatures. (which would also lower the personal heat/experience) Anyway, if a change is to be allowed, I propose to be payed in maxed creatures (different creatures for each principle) ... 6-12 maxed creatures.

Maybe because you wanted to fix the location of the bench. Why not "fix" the bench :D make it a chair :D Or maybe you can move it to the other side.

I meant this "again". Anyway, thank you for clarifying this. Expect to get a PM from me this week (hopefully).

Nice idea Curiose, very nice. I will think about it. But ... Kyphis, should I point out (again) that the A2xxx stuff is/are not public ? Not even as a list of features. Maybe I am wrong and for this I apologize and ask you to point me the topic(s) discussing these Axxxx stuff.

[spoiler] [/spoiler] Indeed, the "Remove all forgotten" button can be bought from shop. As for a button to remove ALL rituals ... that is one dangerous feature. I don't know for you, but I have lots of "specialized" rituals: for healing, for losing heat, for most damage, for defense. All these I will never want removed , on the contrary, I'd like those protected for removal. A good feature, from my point of view, would be to have the "protect ritual" and be able to pass this information to creatures too so that you would not sacrifice creatures in those rituals.

It would be interesting to see a player with all principles :D Don't you? (i wonder how the flash will display the MP level :D)

Ha, I could find a tree because of the forest. :P I was looking for this topic. Warning, it is long.

Just lose the "right date/time", not many ppl can play all day. Having it 2 times per day still doesn't improve it too much. See for example the item reset : 4:15 AM/PM ST , it is too early/late for ST time zone and many other. If you still want to keep it restricted ... ok, make it something like : even hours + 30 minutes which will make it every 2 hours and that would be an acceptable period for all TZ. ------- If you want to merge quests & item creation ... Chewett made a topic about combiners

Is the offer still valid or was taken ?

:D is that a social solution ? jailing ? why not ban ? it is just next on the list Hey, I have an idea, why not kill them back ? Yea, create like 5-10 more killing items ? wouldn't that be fun ? (sorry, indeed it is sarcasm in there but the question is still valid)

This was "in the making" for a very long time. Even if I don't agree with this ... the Future will judge us all. :P There is still some hope: Chewett. Along with the other responsible players will try to keep MD at bay. :D They will protect us from Mur :D just joking Mur will soon empower a few more players (I think), if so lets give them the benefit of the doubt, I know I will ... at least for a week or 2 ;) Then it is our duty to show them what they're are doing wrong. Keep in mind that we should also let them know when they are doing things right. So, lets have fun. -------------------------

While pondering Eon's comment, consider that there are more players with resurrect items, then those with kill items, that would help for far less ... if not for "free" if their criteria are met. So, all is needed is indeed some action from the dead. (and no, complaining is not that action) For example, see Eara's answer.

[spoiler] I've never seen Nim's code, but then ... it is better the the one for many other quests that are held on the forum. :P [/spoiler] So, even if she didn't spent few more weeks to create 2-3 separate endings means that there were no multi-paths? All I said was that this possibility of multi-path existed for a long time. It is not something new. If it helps you code quests faster and then save them as repeatable ... that's great. I'd like to see it at work.

I HATE YOU BURNS ... stop moving the posts :D [spoiler] [/spoiler] "However, I can't think of a single example of a society where killing (let's say murder, not execution) isn't condemned by society." Should I remind you how Mur's proposal of thievery was encountered ? So, having thieves among us would be OK ? having vengeful players with lots of spells would be OK ? To have players using LOTS of spells on you just because they don't like your name ... is OK ? Cool, I'd like to see how you solve this "social issue". If possible, please explain the solution before asking for its implementation, it would give me time to expose my reasoning too. (unless you want to go to : I will do it because I can and I want to , nananana) In the mean time ... I think I should hint you into another direction and ask you this: how long would one player be dead if all players would agree that no players should be ... "dead" ? Another hint: take into consideration the cooldown of the items. So, considering that some players are not resurrected on the spot (if they really want to ) should tell something about them. So, coming to the proposal : "punish the killers" ... why not punish those with resurrect items too ? Isn't their job to resurrect players, isn't it ?

I don't know the for sure as I was busy with my quest, but Nim's quests and even darkraptor's used quite an advanced code and if they didn't used different paths ... then certainly were close to it. (We need them to confirm that the quests were multi-path or not). And these quests were quite old and they used MDcode.

Really ? Should I look for how many of them CHOOSE to remain dead when they have a revival tool at their disposal ? What you say is indeed true but it is also highly subjective. I have a revival tool and I am still looking for ppl that didn't deserved to be dead or want to remain dead. Maybe you could help me find a candidate, it seems I lack the skills or they fall outside the above mentioned limits. (do remember the date when I got the item so that you can make a shorter list, thank you)

Yes, at one point in the past I did used them all up. Quite a few times if I may say so. OK, lets talk about this example : me and Dst's Leash, it is easier to write/read The leash, as designed, when used up, it returns to Dst but in the process, it fills back up with all the uses. This in turn allows Dst to pass the full Leash me whenever she wants. If the Leash is no longer filled ... that seems a little bug. Could it be a concurrency issue ?

I doubt it. She knows to read. Especially the little text:

[spoiler] [spoiler] 3rd point rephrased : Why not punish those that use move lock ? Why not use those that use "other army" ? or Attack lock ?

Using a leash is sending the leash to the person dragged. (and no, it didn't had just one use) Once asked back the leash, on first use it went back to the dragged person. ------- As it only started today, i guess there is something under development. ------- update: If I remember well, the Leash had an info about "number of uses". It currently doesn't have that information. ------- Item Id : 76569

[spoiler] First; Thoughts? Second; If implemented, type of sentencing would need to be determined, it's been suggested it should be more restrictive than jail. Third; Anybody who feels they would be suitable for such a role should it come to be? [/spoiler] :) this is so cute. I'd like to see this implemented with already-in-game-and-already-implemented-features. Anyway, I see already a few issues with this proposal : - there is already a "court" that can be used, meaning that you want to get in the way of justice or you think you are better then it - you want to restrict a player more then being in jail --- do you mean "ban" ? ironically or not but wasn't the "ban" banned ? - only the use of kill is supposed to be punished, meaning that other actions are not pursuit for any punishment (like attack lock, move lock, other army ...) and that's from the top of my head. ------------- I wonder why Gridy even posted this.