Arelith

Watchful Glare wrote: Sat Jul 03, 2021 6:21 pm

LovelyLightningWitch wrote: Sat Jul 03, 2021 10:37 am

Watchful Glare wrote: Sat Jul 03, 2021 10:19 am

I think anyone who would push for such a thing or give their approval understand it works both ways; I think (and just brainstorming, something off the top of my head) something could be done. Not this though, because it's something that just ocurred to me without much in-dept thought: A script that counts how many PvP deaths have you had and where they were. Every X amount of time it resets. If you start accumulating a certain amount of deaths over time (This person died 10 times in 30 days in the same area to PvP; basically going back there once every three days) then a system message tells you you're becoming eligible for MoD, or it simply shows up as a notification for a DM to look into it, automatizing the process of being able to notice which players are in the thick of it.

I'm not entirely convinced assigning MoD is the way to go (because it feels very final, rather than a corrective), but perhaps I'd be more liberal with that feeling if there was a way to get out of the MoD and it was just a thing that applies when you've been doing way too much PvP or way too much disregarding death, and after you take it easy for a while (A month, two?) it goes away on it's own.

One issue with "same area to pvp" is it could hit players who may not want anything to do with pvp or conflict RP, but happen to exist within a township that gets attacked with frequent raids or "not-DM requiring raid, just 2-3 attackers" and ending up punished just the same as the aggressor who seeks this thing.

Say for instance, since people mentioned Bendir before - I am playing some cozy halfling priestess of Yondalla focusing on immersive/simulationist RP as the township's cook & shoulder to lean on. A group of orc players come into Bendir to kill someone else and I get hit too due to being too close and not being able to react fast enough (or perhaps trying to heal the wounded as a priestess of yondalla would do).

This repeats over and over again, and my choice is to either
A) Avoid RPing in Bendir during the playtime of the orc PCs
B) Avoid playing this character during the playtime of the orc PCs
C) Try to continue my simulationist approach to RP and end up with a MoD due to being at the wrong place at the wrong time (which may happen to be my only PC and only area to RP in).


Not sure how viable the above scenario is, but it has a non-zero chance of happening. And I admit, mainly due to my bad experiences over my history of roleplaying, I very much try to stay out of conflict RP beyond preaching for a random good aligned deity and low-scale conflict over inner-church beliefs or something similarly pvp-lacking. But with the above, I could see it potentially being done intentionally (to get rid of my character through an alt of someone maybe) or unintentionally (collateral).

Let me preface this to say that I don't think that is a realistic scenario, but I will address it still. If you simply happened to be at the same place, at the same time, and got attacked every day by raiders a DM attacking a settlement or coming in and killing people inside, a DM would deal with that because as Grumpy Cat has said that is a rules breach.

The rule targeting those who die is the one that makes sense given that death is supposed to be impactful. If you had a MoD and you knew that say, Bendir is under constant attack every day due to an on-going war and you have died three times in three days (Regardless of DM involvement punishing the offensive player, and regardless of how far fetched that something like that would happen, or let alone be allowed to happen for as long) your character, in-character, should think "Bendir is in the middle of a war and is really dangerous. Perhaps I should avoid that city until things calm down." Rather than dying, respawning, and returning to the same area.

There are situations where this might not be as feasible (UD Races, if a war in Andunor happens. Where else are they going to go?) but as I say the situation in itself is not something that would realistically happen. Usually bystanders are not killed in such liberal terms. I've had people attack each other in my proximity, I've even walked along following their lengthy battle just out of curiosity and have not been attacked as a consequence.

The GrumpyCat wrote: Sat Jul 03, 2021 1:42 pm This has been in discussion on and off in DM circles- but... so the narrative dissencentive should be on the victim (dying) - and that makes sense.

On the other hand - 'dying' doesn't count for much. You can 'die' as the victim of an assassin attempt, or the assassin. Penalizing that isn't really what we want I don't think.

What we want - in this hypothetical sitation - is people not to return to pvp (won or lost!) with the same people over and over again in a short space of time.

Honestly - I'd rather like it if people were a llittle less PvP happy (especialy kill happy) in general. Just slow it down a little bit - allow narrative and interest to develop. This does happen mark you - I see it fairly regularly, but I also see the other way.

Reguardless - I think it's very difficult to create an intuative system that cannot be gamed - because players will game something- that accounts of PvP - a thing that is heavily competative. It's generally best (and you've no idea how much I hate saying this) when overlooked with a DM.

That said though! I'm absolutly up to be proved wrong! And always up for reading ideas that might work to prevent the same groups constantly hitting themselves in pvp - honstly reguardless of where they are.

I don't think penalizing is right either. I think as it stands (the options being doing nothing or applying an MoD) may be a bit like going from 0 to 100 real quick. As I mentioned, beause MoD seems to be permanent.

If say there was another kind of it (You have 10 lives for PvP, but they refresh at the start of every month (?)) that would be more like it.

"But wouldn't there exist the possibility of me being griefed and have the character perma-killed?" Considering you'd have 10 lives, that count only for PvP deaths, you would be able to manage that. Getting purposely killed more than six times by the same individual in a short amount of time is already worth reviewing one way or another. It would give a player plenty of time to think "Hey, wait a minute, this isn't right.".

Either you would be getting griefed (And with that evidence, ridding the server of a griefer sounds alright) or you are really putting yourself in danger and ought to reconsider (Which you would naturally, since your character needs to lay low for a while). And RPing your character laying low for a while or seeking other means of conflict resolution other than repeated death sounds ideal if we are looking to avoid an overusage of death.

I agree with what you are saying however; this is just me trying to come up with something that perhaps could help.

Personally I'd much rather have to deal with an orc randomly suiciding himself daily into Myon or Bendir with no change,
than any automated system that can cause a character to permadie. Or even a saturday morning cartoon villain who repeatedly animates undead right by the Radiant Heart entrance - even that is astronomically far more favourable to any system that can allow a player to permakill another's characters one way or another. Sure, you say a DM may review it - but reviews are unreliable, while automated systems are very, very reliable and easy to be gamed. I'd rather reviews be focused on punishing dumb stuff, rather than groveling to avoid getting punished for something you don't even particularly care for.


And I'm not sure how Arelith works, but griefers in my experience across my various roleplaying games are impossible to ban. Buy new CD key, use a VPN, or a laptop and connect from wifi. If someone has a grudge against someone, perhaps does not like a character concept - they've a myriad ways to avoid punishment and destroy their ability to play their character.

And that person may have absolutely no interest in conflict RP (something which I find frustratingly difficult at times with people running off to pvp and whatnot), yet if there's a system designed to punish rampant pvp - chances are, the rampant pvper won't mind losing their character. The person who did not care for it - will.

As for "Don't go to Bendir", usually my characters tend to be fairly insular in their faith. (This is primarily due to my interpretation of forgotten realms and what I feel is the logical conclusion of a high int character studying theology but that's another topic...) "Don't go to area where your faith can mingle" is about the same as "don't log in if you don't want to get potentially permad."

LovelyLightningWitch wrote: Sat Jul 03, 2021 9:02 pm Personally I'd much rather have to deal with an orc randomly suiciding himself daily into Myon or Bendir with no change,
than any automated system that can cause a character to permadie. Or even a saturday morning cartoon villain who repeatedly animates undead right by the Radiant Heart entrance - even that is astronomically far more favourable to any system that can allow a player to permakill another's characters one way or another. Sure, you say a DM may review it - but reviews are unreliable, while automated systems are very, very reliable and easy to be gamed. I'd rather reviews be focused on punishing dumb stuff, rather than groveling to avoid getting punished for something you don't even particularly care for.


And I'm not sure how Arelith works, but griefers in my experience across my various roleplaying games are impossible to ban. Buy new CD key, use a VPN, or a laptop and connect from wifi. If someone has a grudge against someone, perhaps does not like a character concept - they've a myriad ways to avoid punishment and destroy their ability to play their character.

And that person may have absolutely no interest in conflict RP (something which I find frustratingly difficult at times with people running off to pvp and whatnot), yet if there's a system designed to punish rampant pvp - chances are, the rampant pvper won't mind losing their character. The person who did not care for it - will.

As for "Don't go to Bendir", usually my characters tend to be fairly insular in their faith. (This is primarily due to my interpretation of forgotten realms and what I feel is the logical conclusion of a high int character studying theology but that's another topic...) "Don't go to area where your faith can mingle" is about the same as "don't log in if you don't want to get potentially permad."

All of the above is if we go by the assumption that we would be using the Mark of Death as it is, and not in the proposed idea where you just 'recover' as time goes by.

I believe ten deaths, to PvP, in a month, as a way of telling someone to take it easy, is a feasible attempt at it however. You are in full control of where your character goes and the 24hs rule would prevent you from being griefed unendingly to the point where you can't react to it, physically, enough to log out and think or make a report if you have been griefed five days in a row.

We can agree to disagree. I won't attempt to discuss this idea further or in any more detail as I prefaced it by saying it's simply an idea or a suggestion off the top of my head, not something I am interested in discussing with milimetrical precision since I am in no position to either implement this or aid in it's development in any way (nor does my opinion hold any weight in any way whatsoever related to the development of the server).

Any suggestion anyone can possibly make will, always, with no exception, be met with "This can be used to grief" or "It would be possible to game it by doing x" and the argument would be absolutely correct each and every time.

It's possible to game anything, if you're willing to put enough effort into it. It is also, usually, against the spirit of the game to do that in any capacity.

I think to complain about something without proposing on how to fix it, or being willing to be affected by the proposed change as well, is ultimately counter productive, and can even be vexing sometimes. Therefore, if there is a problem, I will always be open to the idea of implementing different solutions, or brainstorming to see if a good solution comes up or anyone can use it as grounds to build up something else, and eventually see if it works.

Cheers!

LovelyLightningWitch wrote: Sat Jul 03, 2021 9:02 pm As for "Don't go to Bendir", usually my characters tend to be fairly insular in their faith. (This is primarily due to my interpretation of forgotten realms and what I feel is the logical conclusion of a high int character studying theology but that's another topic...) "Don't go to area where your faith can mingle" is about the same as "don't log in if you don't want to get potentially permad."

But why approach this as an OOC issue? Why is the reaction to the idea that if a certain part of the server is somehow temporarily in conflict you cannot play? Roleplay is not solely tied to a singular area unless you enforce that yourself as a player and put that limitation onto yourself.

People get displaced, like with characters. Faith gets displaced. What's stopping anyone from making a temporary Church to whichever god in a safe haven, RPing being a displaced refugee, finding others who hold the same view to rally around IC? etc etc. Pushing towards backing to stabilize the area where said faith is being made difficult? Every choice in that list has knock on effects not just for a singular character, but multiple and breeds RP for everyone. Which location do they pick? Who do they trust? How do the inhabitants of the city/town they have relocated to deal with them? Do they accept them? Or do they turn them away? Etc etc.

With every path of role-play that people seem to bring up as a reason for things not to happen, there's always a ton of natural role-play pathways that can spawn from it and make interesting stories. This goes back to the heart of this issue on conflict. What comes from bringing in arbitrary rules that shut down conflict? Nothing. No RP, no RP pathways. We simply get things people can no longer do in the world, or build towards at the expense of perhaps avoiding a few griefers every now and again (which is an incredibly rare event and a sensationalization ultimately). People can raid the Underdark, or the surface currently. We don't have 20 man groups of surfacers/underdarkers doing it day in day out. If it's happened to someone and it's left a bad taste in the mouth, I sympathize, but big raiding groups attacking towns, or cities is actually a very rare occurrence simply for the fact it requires enough players to be on the same page and organized enough to actually do it & do it for long enough for it to actually impact the community. The last big raid I remember happening where 10+ pcs walked into an actual settlement was the West-cliff one. That happened 3-4 months ago now. I really don't think it's as big of an issue as it's being made out to be for general day to day life inside of Arelith and if it were to become such? That's when the DMs could step in to bring out NPC Seal Team six, or whoever to knock the balance back the other way a little.

Just because a Church/area becomes restricted, or plunged into conflict for a time, does not equate to (I cannot role-play my character). if anything it gives you a ton of new and different role-play and challenges and problems to solve IG. It's effectively handing you Role-play on a plate and things to do and react to in character. Will it be as 'official' as it happening in the actual brandished location/church/area that was designed for it? Likely not, but that doesn't make it any less of a RP arc.

There's actually very few situations involving conflict that ends with people being unable to log in. A monster being hunted in the Underdark and banned from the city is perhaps one of the only times where a character will find it reasonably difficult to just move somewhere else and find a new support base, but even then there's options. They are difficult, but not impossible. The only crux is that it requires players being willing to adapt and react away from the things they currently see as the meta, or what they are used to and take risks and try things that may or may not work out, but for me that's what it means to be roleplaying a character. You cannot control the world, you cannot control other characters. All you can do is control how you character interprets and creates role-play from the events that happen around you and you also have to take responsibility for the choices you make both in the type of persona you choose to create and what you make that character do. I understand this can sometimes be a little inconvenient, especially if you've been looking forward to logging in and doing something specific, or what you're used to, but that's part of the dynamic nature of what we've all signed up to play.

If we are not agreeing to do this as players & instead fall back on OOC organization/push-back to keep things in stasis, then ultimately, we're not really playing a role in real-time, we're pre-planning stories and pathways, ratifying them OOC with others and then acting them out to a semblance of a script. For me that's not really role-play, that's almost like putting on a play, with the world acting as the stage. Some people find this unknown aspect scary, which is why there is often push back against big sweeping changes, or conflict OOC, but ultimately these are the events that make memorable stories and truly challenge our characters.

I don't remember the times I stood around the hub and did nothing on characters, except ask how the cycle was going for example. I remember when characters had fueds, were surprised, were betrayed, were lead into ambushes, or had great victories, or losses. All of which were dynamic and reactionary.

Arigard wrote: Sun Jun 27, 2021 7:12 am Most of this thread is about very extreme situations that almost never occur. When was the last time a group of players raided Cordor and marched into the streets? This stuff is hyper-sensationalized. For all intents and purposes these areas and hubs of the server are safe for players 95% of the time anyway. It does no good to up that to 100%, except remove consequence from the game entirely.

There are a lot of great thoughts and ideas in this thread, and I wanted to highlight this question to introduce a non-hypothetical reference point for consideration.

By my best estimation, the last time this happened was about a month or maybe two (it's been years) before Wharftown went kaflooey, as a result of said invasions. I haven't been playing for a bit over a year, so I'm admittedly under-informed, but I feel like I peek at the forums often enough to have noticed the inevitable poo-storm that would've shown up here over said raid.

So you're right. It doesn't happen frequently- but it does seem to have pretty cataclysmic effects that don't always go according to the desire of the server vision from time to time, and I would argue that's just as credible a threat as frequency.

I will never agree with the A raid is dm approval but five people storming into town to a free a pal or to kill say the CHancellor is ok. How is that not a raid? The NPC guards would just stand by and watch the jail get bashed in to free someone or just watch these
bandits run into town and strike some people down? How is that not ignoring NPC's? I understand they wouldn't get involved in every little fight that may occur. The Hub was a good example of a group of people coming in to kill some people and it quickly turning into feeling ok to strike everyone down in the area. To me a group of people storming in to free a pal is a raid since NPC guards should be expected to stop you. So why bother to capture anyone if you know his pals are just going to run up to free them? Easier to just kill and bash them and not have to deal with the other nonsense.

JubJub wrote: Tue Jul 06, 2021 7:42 pm but five people storming into town to a free a pal or to kill say the CHancellor is ok. How is that not a raid? The NPC guards would just stand by and watch the jail get bashed in to free someone or just watch these
bandits run into town and strike some people down? How is that not ignoring NPC's?

This is an example for a raid. Storming into a settlement as 4-5 PCs, or more, and attacking multiple other PCs in order to get to their target, visibly before NPCs... This kind of stuff does require DM approval. But if you take it down to 3 PCs going into a settlement, and instead of fighting their way to the chancellor, sneaking in and assassinate them when their guard is low, thus fighting only few PCs in a less public area, with less collateral damage IC and less NPCs involved, suddenly it's an entirely different scenario, in a much smaller scale, that doesnt require DM supervision anymore. Kudos to the little differences in approach.

There need to be some guidelines preventing git gud munchkins from having things go their way each time every single time. That'd be boring.

Apparently the parameters of what does constitute a town raid and what doesn't seem a bit ambiguous here and might require further clarification.

-XXX- wrote: Wed Jul 07, 2021 6:47 am Apparently the parameters of what does constitute a town raid and what doesn't seem a bit ambiguous here and might require further clarification.

While I understand your feeling, I really hope we do NOT get any more simplifications/clarifications because simplifications and clarifications are.... limitations.

AstralUniverse wrote: Wed Jul 07, 2021 8:57 am While I understand your feeling, I really hope we do NOT get any more simplifications/clarifications because simplifications and clarifications are.... limitations.

The limitation is already present - it's just unclear.
As I see it, its ambiguity and openness to interpretation only causes a lot of salt, uncertainty, notions of double standard and undermines any acomplishments of people who are being viewed as getting away with somehing they arguably shouldn't.

Let's be honest here - 9/10 times people balancing on the edge of the rules get away with stuff IC not because of their skill or cleverness but because their opposition simply dismissed a possibility when they assumed OOC that it wasn't allowed.

I'm not trying to defend the "when X did so and so the DMs intervened but when Y does it they do nothing, so it shouldn't count" mentality here. Quite the opposite, it saddens me to see someone pull off something amazing only to have people cry foul.

As much as it pains me to say it, because I have both a healthy ego and a good amount of time invested into posts in this thread, this....

-XXX- wrote: Wed Jul 07, 2021 9:15 am

The limitation is already present - it's just unclear.
As I see it, its ambiguity and openness to interpretation only causes a lot of salt, uncertainty, notions of double standard and undermines any acomplishments of people who are being viewed as getting away with somehing they arguably shouldn't.

Let's be honest here - 9/10 times people balancing on the edge of the rules get away with stuff IC not because of their skill or cleverness but because their opposition simply dismissed a possibility when they assumed OOC that it wasn't allowed.

... is probably the premium point of this thread. I also think its a bigger problem with some of the pvp rules in general for a few different reasons, not just the little portion I wanted to bring up in the OP, but I am going to be disciplined and not mention them lest we head way off the rails.

AstralUniverse wrote: Wed Jul 07, 2021 12:34 am

JubJub wrote: Tue Jul 06, 2021 7:42 pm but five people storming into town to a free a pal or to kill say the CHancellor is ok. How is that not a raid? The NPC guards would just stand by and watch the jail get bashed in to free someone or just watch these
bandits run into town and strike some people down? How is that not ignoring NPC's?

This is an example for a raid. Storming into a settlement as 4-5 PCs, or more, and attacking multiple other PCs in order to get to their target, visibly before NPCs... This kind of stuff does require DM approval. But if you take it down to 3 PCs going into a settlement, and instead of fighting their way to the chancellor, sneaking in and assassinate them when their guard is low, thus fighting only few PCs in a less public area, with less collateral damage IC and less NPCs involved, suddenly it's an entirely different scenario, in a much smaller scale, that doesnt require DM supervision anymore. Kudos to the little differences in approach.

But storming into town to free a pc and killing all players in your way to rescue them is currently not considered a raid. This seems to be the official definition.
"Groups of players, hostile, are allowed to go into settlements and attack PCs without getting raid approval. But so long as the groups aren't unreasonably large and aren't staying there unreasonably long. The group is expected to try and get our attention by pinging the dm channel once or twice, but we're not required to be there (and, also aren't killing NPCs).
This allowed PCs to go on rescue missions, etc. Hope that clarifies it for anyone curious about the specifics."

Which I think is why there are so many questions. I mean if you try to stealth in and maybe have to kill one or two people and break someone out, But just storming in using brute force in order to free someone to me is raiding the city.

A full on, official 'RAID' - is when you not only attack players, but you enter a settlement with the intention of attacking NPCs/doing damage to the settlment. For this you NEED to contact the DM team with a one or two week notice period before hand.

That's the BLACK and WHITE definition.


If you're attacking PCs? No matter where. No matter the numbers you don't NEED! a DM to supervise.

WITH THAT BEING SAID!

IF you are entering a pvp situaiton in a settlment, and there's going to be a large goup attacking a large group? If it's something which basicaly - might be considerd a 'soft' raid - (And if you're a group of underdarkers attacking a surface settlment, I'll add) - then we highly, highly RECOMMEND you trying to get a DM to oversee.


And a group of people are continually doing something like this (going in large groups, causing pvp in a settlment especially, causing collateral damage) regularly*, and not even attempting to get DM oversite - report it so us.

I don't like seeing very strong rules around this because it interferres with narratives, often ends up getting weaponized, (see above examples) and frankly causes a LOT of work for us.

The GrumpyCat wrote: Fri Jul 09, 2021 11:40 pm
I don't like seeing very strong rules around this because it interferres with narratives, often ends up getting weaponized, (see above examples) and frankly causes a LOT of work for us.

If I had to summarize why I thought things are the way they are before making the OP, I think it would look a lot like what you wrote here. And yet I still wrote the OP, because I personally believe there are a lot of contradictions in this line of thought.

1) Interfering with a Narrative:

I just don't see how this can be a thing without opening up pandora's box. What narrative is being interfered with here? The ability to go get that guy in his home base without a dm? Doesn't interfere with the narrative of the setting? And if we are so concerned with player narratives that they trump everything, what about the effect of people in said home base that were not involved? Clearly murderous dwarves marching into Cordor should be a concern for everyone involved in Cordor, not just the people they are in an endless war, but maybe I don't want to be endlessly fighting dwarves. Does that mean I have to ignore my narrative so others can have theirs, even if by all accounts it really amounts to one group just liking pvp a bit too much?

Honestly, I could write examples for hours and even deleted about six because it got crazy. But here's the thing. Things interfering with your Narrative is part of the game. I think in any other context everyone disagreeing with me here would say the same thing. But somehow the speed bump of having to wait until someone leaves an area that it makes sense they would have some modicum of safety or get a dm to go in there and get them is being turned into a mountain of player agency blockage.

2) It often ends up getting weaponized (see examples above).

I still have a hard time seeing this as a real issue. Am I saying that their won't be annoying people who play poke the bear and run back to the somewhat safety of their home base? It will probably happen from time to time, probably because its some kid who wants to fit in but isn't quite sure how to yet. Just like you get people who log in with barbarians and try to kill any lowbie they see from time to time. You don't turn off the pvp settings in response to that though, so why are we dumping the setting for an equally rare issue?

3) It will create a lot of work for us.

I'm super sympathetic to this. I dmed for another server, and the biggest joy sucker of all was having to sort through pvp when players were clearly angry on one side and within the rules on the other even if they were jackasses, because you know no matter what way you go you are going to end up pissing someone off. But I also think that the way the rules are lead to more of this, not less. The rules defy common sense as they stand now, since common sense on a rp server is that this person is not going to kill me because I made a joke at their expense with the city guard standing behind me. Wait around the corner and kill me when it makes more sense, I say go for it if your character is overly sensitive to a joke, but not right then and there. And since getting into Arelith is a daunting task on its own with all of the mechanical changes (on top of a clunky but complicated mechanical game to begin with) I suspect that rather then hunting down and trying to interpret vague pvp rules most players don't interact with them at all until they get into their first pvp, and instead rely on common sense. Hell, I have been in pvp a few times and have done my best to ask questions to get through the parts that seem vague to me, and I still had no idea that elves could march into sencliff like they owned the joint and kill at will until a day before I made the OP. And I have been here for closing on 5 years now. That's a huge advantage to people who focus on pvp all the time and as a result interact with and know how to work the nuances of the rules. Is that issue ever going to be truly solved? Probably not, but it certainly can be made better.

And last, even if it wasn't specifically mentioned in the quote above...

4) Consequences: I fully support pvp, and while I do wish we told a story with it more then just killed as soon as it makes the slightest sense, I am a competitive person and if you come pick a fight with my character don't be surprised if you are dead in less then two rounds. I think the server needs consequences for your actions. But that goes beyond "I am strong, don't piss me off or I will kill you", or should at least. It should also include consequences that mean you can't go into cordor and kill someone, and then go back for some shopping the next day. Or the day after, and so on. And that's really what I was trying to get at in my OP, especially the part where I offered a less then perfect suggestion on how to change the rules. And while it would be amazing to have what Zav suggested we do, full on guard factions that are on 24 hours a day in some number so players could handle all of this, its not reasonable with the number of players we have and the number of settlements we have. Add in the reality that we probably have 60% of those players who don't like pvp at all, another 30% who would be fine with pvp but wish it wasn't the main focus of conflict, and then 10% who just love it**... yeah, no way every city is manned to a reasonable level with pc guards to make that work.

Anyhow, this thread has probably run its course. Both sides of the debate seem set in their position, and to quote Gar from earlier "we are just going to have to agree to disagree". It's disappointing, because I think there were really strong points made that were contrary to the status quo by several people, but I did get something out of it; A better understanding of the rules and why they are the way they are so I too can use them to my advantage.









**Yeah, those numbers are out of my rear but I bet they are close. It would make for an interesting poll at the very least.