Suicide results in Murder Count?

[iiell]

Scenario: Player A brings horse into bank and blocks Player B. Player B, unable to move, asks Player A to move their horse. Player A refuses/ignores Player B. Player B then kills Player A's horse, resulting in a death by guards and a criminal cooldown. Player A then does suicide and Player B receives a Murder Count.


Why? Does SV really want us to petition a GM every time a player brings their horse into the bank, blocking other players, and refusing to move/ignoring everyone who asks them to move their horse?

 

[Ichorous]

Scenario: Player A brings horse into bank and blocks Player B. Player B, unable to move, asks Player A to move their horse. Player A refuses/ignores Player B. Player B then kills Player A's horse, resulting in a death by guards and a criminal cooldown. Player A then does suicide and Player B receives a Murder Count.


Why? Does SV really want us to petition a GM every time a player brings their horse into the bank, blocking other players, and refusing to move/ignoring everyone who asks them to move their horse?

Your appeal seems to suppose that SV intends for players to kill pets in town when the pets are in the way. In your scenario, Player B gets guardwhacked, waits out a criminal flag, and maybe gets a murder count. Your issue is with the murder count. However, even without the murder count, simply suiciding would have been just as effective, and faster for Player B.

As the path of least resistance, why don't you suppose that suiciding is the intended solution whenever stuck? I suspect it is because you really just want to kill pets in town, with less of a consequence.

 

[iiell]

Your appeal seems to suppose that SV intends for players to kill pets in town when the pets are in the way. In your scenario, Player B gets guardwhacked, waits out a criminal flag, and maybe gets a murder count. Your issue is with the murder count. However, even without the murder count, simply suiciding would have been just as effective, and faster for Player B.

The point isn't about what is more effective, or what is faster...the point is suicide should not equate to murder. Please enlighten me on how that makes any sense.

As the path of least resistance, why don't you suppose that suiciding is the intended solution whenever stuck? I suspect it is because you really just want to kill pets in town, with less of a consequence.

Why is suiciding yourself the answer to another player's arrogance?

 

[Ichorous]

The point isn't about what is more effective, or what is faster...the point is suicide should not equate to murder. Please enlighten me on how that makes any sense.



Why is suiciding yourself the answer to another player's arrogance?

A lot mechanics don't make sense, but if you really want I can probably make a case for why killing a pet is deserving of a murder count.

Despite the title of this game, we're actually all immortal. When murder happens to a player, it's a temporary inconvenience. The only permanent effect is that the player might lose some property and maybe a bit of body mass. In fact, property loss is about the worst thing that can happen to any player in this game. Now consider scenario 1: player is holding 100g in his inventory. You kill him and take his 100g. He loses 100g and he's able to give you a murder count. Scenario 2: player owns a horse and the horse is holding 100g in its inventory. You kill the horse and take the 100g. The player loses 100g AND a horse. But he's not able to give you a murder count?

In most scenarios involving laden horses, the loss of a horse is actually worse than being murdered, yet people think it should bear less of a consequence.

Maybe we're too caught up in the conventional understanding of murder, and not viewing it as the immortals that we are. Maybe murder isn't the right word. Maybe it should be called a robbery count instead.