Author Topic: -The- Raiding Post, how about this?  (Read 5072 times)

theebie

  • Posts: 357
-The- Raiding Post, how about this?
« on: January 24, 2005, 08:01:07 AM »
How about a new command:
sneak-stab or back-sneak, or i dont know how to call it, but what it'd do:

big fat humans comes in, dismounts, gets for the dead animal
hidden elf watches
[elf] sneakstab big fat human

success: you sneakstab the big fat human, and are in position now, holding your knife at his throat

[elf] stands here, holding a knife at [big fat humans] throat.

elf says: surrender, i got you here

human flees -> sneakstab sets off, and does what a backstab would have done in the first place
human emotes -> [elf] can do the raiding

---

fail on sneakstab: you sneakstab the big fat human, but he hears you and turns around -> like failed backstab


i hope the idea's clear ?

---theebie---

wizturbo

  • Posts: 2489
-The- Raiding Post, how about this?
« Reply #1 on: January 24, 2005, 08:25:17 AM »
This has been suggested many times in the form of the "threaten" command.

Remember, you can guard exits however.  If you can get a buddy or two, there's a good chance you can guard all obvious exits and force the person to either try and flee past the guard, fight, or submit.

Akaramu

  • Posts: 6807
-The- Raiding Post, how about this?
« Reply #2 on: January 24, 2005, 09:14:14 AM »
I like this idea, not only for raiders. It would be cool for assassins who work alone, as well. And allow for a more enjoyable death scene for the victim, as you could hold them in position and whisper a few sentences to them before slitting their throat.

Fnord

  • Posts: 2626
    • An introduction to qabalah
-The- Raiding Post, how about this?
« Reply #3 on: January 24, 2005, 11:08:54 AM »
Thumbs up. I'd call it "mug" (though threaten works too). I'd also give the victim a chance to attack or flee without the critical hit automatically landing, if the victim's defense was vastly higher than the raider's mug skill.

Without getting IC, there's certain actions you can take in the game where a prompt comes up saying that what you are about to do is a bad thing, if you try again you're accepting the consequences. Something similar for the victim would be nice. If they try to draw a weapon or move, it would say, like, you realize this crazy motherfucker has a knife to your throat, right? ;)

Some issues this raises: What is the victim's coded relationship to other players while being in the "mugged" state? Like, if a 3rd person comes along and attacks the mugged person, does that set off the critical hit attempt? Also, what happens to the mugger if someone attacks them while they have someone at knife-point? Does that end the mugging attempt? Does the critical hit go off against the victim?
Amor Fati

Cuusardo

  • Posts: 3724
-The- Raiding Post, how about this?
« Reply #4 on: January 24, 2005, 12:01:10 PM »
You can always get a big beefy buddy to subdue the person you want to threaten, and then YOU hold the knife to the victim's throat.
Quote from: Anael
You know what I love about the word panic?  In Czech, it's the word for "male virgin".

Agent_137

  • Posts: 5532
    • a crapy clawn
-The- Raiding Post, how about this?
« Reply #5 on: January 24, 2005, 04:45:06 PM »
Quote from: "Cuusardo"
You can always get a big beefy buddy to subdue the person you want to threaten, and then YOU hold the knife to the victim's throat.


True, but your big beefy buddy would have to be sneaky to solve the above scenario.

Hrm.

I think that while there are current workarounds in game to this mugging issue, a command like this would enhance mugging/raiding/etc. Perhaps even a threaten command would do. But something.

Cuusardo

  • Posts: 3724
-The- Raiding Post, how about this?
« Reply #6 on: January 24, 2005, 05:42:39 PM »
Sometimes, you just have to be blunt and brutish.
Quote from: Anael
You know what I love about the word panic?  In Czech, it's the word for "male virgin".

Rhyden

  • Posts: 4945
-The- Raiding Post, how about this?
« Reply #7 on: January 24, 2005, 08:14:55 PM »
I could see this as a possibility, but it would probably be somewhat hard to practice...unless it was incorperated with weapon skill and sneak/hide.
Quote from: Malifaxis
One thing I'd like to see in arm is more people focusing on how to make the game intriguing, by filling
it with murder, betrayal, and corruption, instead of arguing about how combat isn't powerful enough.

theebie

  • Posts: 357
-The- Raiding Post, how about this?
« Reply #8 on: January 25, 2005, 04:06:57 AM »
the big advantage for the 'mug' command would be, that you could do it alone.

as for practice: the skill could be raised by (a) sneak (b) hide and (c) backstab ... like your mug skill is 20%sneak +20%hide +60% backstab

---theebie---

Ktavialt

  • Posts: 716
-The- Raiding Post, how about this?
« Reply #9 on: January 25, 2005, 04:24:51 AM »
That's an awesome idea Theebie :) I like it

Of course, for non-backstabber types, sneakstab
could just be a regular attack.

Edited to add a little

Larrath

  • Posts: 2987
-The- Raiding Post, how about this?
« Reply #10 on: January 25, 2005, 04:37:18 AM »
I don't really see what we need a Mug command for.

Threaten?  Sure, at least as long as the victim had a fair shot at avoiding it somehow.  I really don't see how backstab comes to play here, though.


Just do what you can to play out your raidering...and if you wanna be a raider, you might want to consider living away from where you hunt.  Then all those x-ray twinks just won't be as meaningful.  There are always things you can do; throw a knife on them.  Throw a knife on their kank, kill it and get away with their pack.  Get someone to cover the rear.  Get a magicker to cast Spell X on them and spoil their hopes of getting away.

Hide somewhere where you have a greater chance at sneaking up on someone - sitting in the canopy in a baobab grove or hiding behind some bushes, or even just lying on a piece of sandstone and covering yourself in dust, will free you from some issues of teleport-approaching people.

If you want to set up a serious ambush, just start.


Agafari Grove [NESW]
This place has, like, trees and stuff.  And they're all gnarly and ugly and grey.  Oh, and there's some loreshi bushes, too.  And a dead tregil.  Tregils suck.
Many head-sized pieces of grey stone have been left here, impeding journey to the west.
Several lengths of braided rope have been tied between the trees here, blocking the way east.
The man in the bright pink raider's cloak stands in the middle of the grove here.
Quote from: Vesperas
...You have to ask yourself... do you love your PC more than you love its contribution to the game?

theebie

  • Posts: 357
-The- Raiding Post, how about this?
« Reply #11 on: January 25, 2005, 04:57:28 AM »
why we need a mug command ?

to give players a way to raid people codewise, so twinks cant get away.

[...]

The pink raider says: Surrender, I've covered both exits !
The big human guy says: Ha, you forgot that spot over there, where I can pass your ropes !
The big human guy rides east on his kank.

... on second thought:
The pink raider says: Surrender, I've covered both exits !
The big human guy rides east on his kank.


---theebie---

Cuusardo

  • Posts: 3724
-The- Raiding Post, how about this?
« Reply #12 on: January 25, 2005, 11:57:12 AM »
There is a coded way to stop people from just walking off.  If you want to keep them from going through the two exits in that room, block them both off by 'guarding' them.
Quote from: Anael
You know what I love about the word panic?  In Czech, it's the word for "male virgin".

fearwig

  • Posts: 292
-The- Raiding Post, how about this?
« Reply #13 on: January 25, 2005, 04:37:47 PM »
It seems to me that while the "workaround" suggestions are well-intended, the original suggestion surpasses them to a pretty extreme degree. Anything that introduces a gap for roleplay while simultaneously filling a logical gap in the battle code is a fantastic idea, whatever convoluted alternatives you might try to suggest for it.

I don't necessarily see this as something particular to raiders, however. As someone suggested, replace "sneakstab" with something a bit more generic and pleasant to the ear. Consider it a speciated variety of subdue, in its own way, with different checks and a different part to play.

Nice idea, all around, once it gets a light polish.

Moofassa

  • Posts: 2209
-The- Raiding Post, how about this?
« Reply #14 on: January 28, 2005, 10:26:57 AM »
This post brings a tear to my eye. yes i have one eye. But yeah, this is really sad people. What happened to the days when he trusted our fellow roleplayer. Implemented skills like these is just, making the mud more and more of an H&S. I know it's VERY far away from that. BUT if we keep dwelling on the few people who arent willing to RP a raid out, raidee, or raided, we'll no longer have the makings of the beautiful RP mud this is, but we'll start to implement skills like "threaten" and in the end, there will be no room for good old fashioned roleplaying. And to me, this is really sad. Being able to live in an environment where i can walk around and feel as though my character is alive and real, is fucking amazing. I dont think we need a skill like that guys. fuck the twinks. Pro roleplaying, in the end i think it would be worth just to play it out. Once ANYONE takes advantage of those coded skills, it dulls your RP by a bit, making your experience, and other good solid people willing to RP a tad bit duller in Turn.

Feel the love people. We dont need this type of coded skill.

Armageddon is beautiful, keep it that way.
your mother is an elf.

fearwig

  • Posts: 292
-The- Raiding Post, how about this?
« Reply #15 on: January 28, 2005, 09:03:54 PM »
I don't think there's anything distrusting of RP in a suggestion to hard-code something like this in, any more than there is something distrustful about coding in a command like subdue. There is a great thing in having a mud that -both- trusts roleplay and hardcoded methods. That's what distinguishes Arm from a MUSH, in my opinion.

I realize I'm not the most experienced player, but I rather like the idea of not placing the burden of balance on either party. By your line of reasoning, coded combat should be replaced with pure emote battles--I realize you're not suggesting this in fact, but it is a reasonable statement to make, based upon your suggestions.

I like that Arm is both a roleplaying environment *and* a game, and I think that while pure roleplay should "fill the gaps" of the code, its primary purpose should be to bring to life and color what's already represented by the code. There's nothing at all wrong with extending the reach of that code, especially when, such as in this case, it would simply allow the roleplay to have its focus on matters -other- than simply the result of the encounter. When you spend yourself on emote-deciding the results of the encounter (such as which party succeeds), you lose the chance to emote the finer aspects, and you take away from the "game" aspect of the encounter, as well.

I realize I'm not the most seasoned player here (far from it), but I'd like to say I don't share your distaste for this approach.


One individual can stop one other individual from leaving or doing other things, given the right circumstances, by holding them at knifepoint. I don't think that, when this situation arises, the two people should have to be thinking about how they imagine this encounter would work out. Instead, they should be thinking about what their character would -do-, not how successful their character would be in doing it, especially without knowing anything whatsoever of the other character involved. See what I mean?

Xamminy

  • Posts: 564
-The- Raiding Post, how about this?
« Reply #16 on: January 29, 2005, 02:11:27 AM »
I think the point being made by some is that the skill necessary to sneak up on someone is already represented.  We don't need another, or another command.

If someone sneaks up on you, they have you dead bang.  It is that simple.  We should act accordingly instead of simply freaking out and running off.  This is where trust in another player comes in.
-X-_

> sing (dancing around with a wand in one hand) Put that together and what do you got?  Ximminy Xamminy, Ximminy Xamminy, Ximminy Xamminy Xoo!

fearwig

  • Posts: 292
-The- Raiding Post, how about this?
« Reply #17 on: January 29, 2005, 01:03:36 PM »
So explain how you see this going over, because this is how I see it:

You're saying that we -have- a skill that represents someone sneaking up on you--backstab. And that because of this, we should trust in the recipient of the backstab not to run away when he's being threatened...with... the backstab?

Look, if a backstab lands, you're in combat. If it doesn't land, it's a failed attempt, and you can run.

The person who suggested this command is NOT talking about backstab, he's talking about a variation on subdue that would result in a backstab if the person resisted. The person has the choice of resisting or not, essentially--that, in itself, is a roleplay opportunity. There's nothing about this idea that is redundant in any way, or that promises to restrict roleplay.

I'm seeing a lot of conflict over this, and very little specific input, or evidence that the ones shooting it down actually understand the idea being proposed.

It's not about faith in other players, it's about proposed changes to the way the "game" aspect actually operates. And it's a good idea, whether you want to think it's necessary or not. Maybe it's just me, but people approach the whole "trust in the RP of other players" subject with a kind of fervor, and almost a sort of egotism. Maybe I'm just a disrespectful moron, but I'd rather focus on the interim roleplay while the game makes the decisions as to who is the victor and loser. That's what a MUD is to me. A MUD means not having to use emotes to DECIDE the fight, even if you do use emotes to color and entertain during the fight. A MUD is about code meeting roleplay, D&D style, rather than with open-ended RP willy-nilly.

I *like* hearing about and thinking about additions to the code, even if some people would rather think of all the ways they could emote those code changes out instead of actually being able to play them. Maybe that makes me a twink, or a metagamer, so be it.

(For the record, I imagine the poster of this thread would probably have recieved better welcome with his idea in the "Code Discussion" forum.)

Kennath

  • Posts: 321
-The- Raiding Post, how about this?
« Reply #18 on: January 29, 2005, 01:35:49 PM »
As my  secound post on thesee forums, I must say this idea is a good one. We play for roleplay oppurtunities but sometimes us trusting eachother isn't enough. We must threaten someone that we will send them back to character application if they don't wanna cooporate. I say this is great. I say if we implment this it will be used ALOT, but not to an abuse point hopefully. It's alot like backstab, except with a chance of peace life and all that other fluffy bunny stuff, a chance for the target to live and lose his stuff, or die and lose his stuff, either way they had a chance.

fearwig

  • Posts: 292
-The- Raiding Post, how about this?
« Reply #19 on: January 29, 2005, 01:48:21 PM »
I don't think there really -is- an abuse point.

This will have the same reprocussions as subdue or kill commands in law-abiding parts of the city. It will, on the other hand, bring a stronger touch of roleplay to raids and muggings by actually implementing an "interim", where verbal exchange can happen. The actual description of the idea is kind of shitty, if you don't mind my saying, but the idea itself is a good one. With a better name (threaten, or somesuch), and a clearer idea of what it can do, this would be a fantastic idea.

I'll take a stab at describing it better, possibly, and put my money where my mouth is:

Command: waylay (just an idea, try not to think of other games or MUDs with such a command)
Syntax: waylay <victim>
Requirements: wielded piercing or slashing weapon
Checks: weapon skill, subdue skill, sneak and backstab (assassins get a bonus, as such). An appropriate balance would have to be found.

Effect: On success, victim is subdued, but has the option to break for it by moving in a direction or taking a violent action. Emotes and says are fully active, but being able to take things from or put things in a container should probably be blocked (maybe some exception for slip and palm commands). If victim attempts to break by moving in any direction or by attacking the initiator of the skill, an attack (if non-stabbing weapon or non-assassin) or backstab (if conditions are met) with an increased chance of landing (due to proximity) will occur on the victim, with the echo that said Player's throat is slit, or back stabbed, or shoulder hacked, or what have you, along with the impact ("stops breathing," if it kills, much like backstab).

On failure, skill will work just like a failed backstab, and a regular wimpy attack will take place, or a total miss. Combat ensues.


Thoughts?

jhunter

  • Posts: 6103
-The- Raiding Post, how about this?
« Reply #20 on: January 29, 2005, 01:55:43 PM »
Well, it should be a combat skill vs skill check. It'd piss me off to have a lesser skilled opponent suddenly blast the shit out of my veteran warrior just because he showed up and used "threaten" or whatever first.

I don't really care though, I'm fine without it...and would be happier if people would actually put forth some sort of effort to rp out those situations.

If it was added in, that would be fine too...it just needs to be done correctly.

Xamminy

  • Posts: 564
-The- Raiding Post, how about this?
« Reply #21 on: January 29, 2005, 02:23:23 PM »
Backstab?  No.  Hide and sneak.
-X-_

> sing (dancing around with a wand in one hand) Put that together and what do you got?  Ximminy Xamminy, Ximminy Xamminy, Ximminy Xamminy Xoo!

EvilRoeSlade

  • Posts: 2657
-The- Raiding Post, how about this?
« Reply #22 on: January 29, 2005, 05:55:30 PM »
Quote from: "Xamminy"
Backstab?  No.  Hide and sneak.


What if you try to sneak up upon a fifty day warrior?

He doesn't have a chance in hell of noticing you, but if you try to grab him and put a knife to his throat, I'd say there's a pretty good chance things aren't going to go exactly the way you plan them.

And furthermore, what if your victim wants to fight back?  Code-wise they have the advantage, but RP-wise you should.  That doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to fight back if they want, it just means that if they do then they should die.

You shouldn't have to decide whether or not you're skilled enough to do this, because you have no way of knowing if you actually are.  Neither does your victim.

Therefor a command that allows you to grab someone and put a knife to their throat can only be a good thing.
Back from a long retirement

fearwig

  • Posts: 292
-The- Raiding Post, how about this?
« Reply #23 on: January 29, 2005, 07:49:40 PM »
Quote from: "jhunter"
Well, it should be a combat skill vs skill check. It'd piss me off to have a lesser skilled opponent suddenly blast the shit out of my veteran warrior just because he showed up and used "threaten" or whatever first.

I don't really care though, I'm fine without it...and would be happier if people would actually put forth some sort of effort to rp out those situations.

If it was added in, that would be fine too...it just needs to be done correctly.



I think it should be somewhat of a given that the victim's skills will be involved in the check, considering that this is an offensive attack. Perhaps I was less than clear in describing the sort of check involved, but--as I said, it should be something of a given.

"Roleplaying out this situation" would require a quantitative knowledge of the skill of each player in the combat situation involved, as EvilRoeSlade pointed out. While I won't slight the... imagination a player might put into that sort of thing, I don't think that the whim of each player should decide the outcome of a life-or-death situation. As I said, that's the point of a MUD. While the victim might be "noble" in the roleplay sense, and might allow a loss to occur, that's fair neither to the recipient nor the attacker. It's not a matter of good or bad RP, it's a game skill. And, as I also said, this thread should have been posted in code discussion, not roleplaying discussion. That would probably have cleared this up for some people and resulted in more cooperative responses.

halfhuman

  • Posts: 152
-The- Raiding Post, how about this?
« Reply #24 on: January 30, 2005, 11:50:26 AM »
If you're looking to hold someone in place until you can slit their throat, use subdue.

Sneak in, subdue the feck, then use the stab or backstab command on them while their subdued.  If you successfully subdued them, they've basically got nosave on.  I subdued a guy and beat him to death with my bare hands within 10 seconds once.  I wasn't even a good fighter.  First fight with that character.  The only problem is if they use flee too much.  Then they'll break lock before you can emote WHY you subdued them.

subdue bob
You manage to subdue Bob despite his attempts to struggle away.

You manage to keep Bob subdued despite his attempts to struggle away.
You manage to keep Bob subdued despite his attempts to struggle away.
You manage to keep Bob subdued despite his attempts to struggle away.
You manage to keep Bob subdued despite his attempts to struggle away.

Bob struggles away.
Bob spamwalks north

tell bob (grabbing ~bob from behind and raising a knife to his throat) "You're gonna bleed tonite homes!"

say *shoot!*

I don't know if there's a timer on the flee command, like you can only attempt to flee when subdued every 15 seconds or something, but if there isn't, it'd make a good new topic.
i] Sarge's Lifting Advice:[/i] Don't lift with your legs. Your back's the strongest muscle in your body! And look man, your knees aren't even locked. How do you expect to stand up straight? Put your groin into it!

jhunter

  • Posts: 6103
-The- Raiding Post, how about this?
« Reply #25 on: January 30, 2005, 02:21:03 PM »
I agree, there should be a timed limit between attempts at fleeing while subdued.

Kennath

  • Posts: 321
-The- Raiding Post, how about this?
« Reply #26 on: January 30, 2005, 06:22:57 PM »
an idea for the idea command?

fearwig

  • Posts: 292
-The- Raiding Post, how about this?
« Reply #27 on: January 30, 2005, 08:03:13 PM »
A time limit on flees in general is probably in order. I'm pretty positive that's not instituted.

My last MUD simply gave a decent chance of failure, but a time limit (or a post-command lag, or something) would probably be the best way to go.

Edit: Actually, a time interval instead of a command lag would allow people to emote in between attempts to flee. How nice would that be? I'm always one for reconciling code with RP, rather than trying to make them compete, and I think that exploring that would be a good way to do it.

Kankman

  • Posts: 844
-The- Raiding Post, how about this?
« Reply #28 on: January 30, 2005, 10:32:21 PM »
I could be wrong, but I believe every time you try to flee from a subdue it lags for a longer period. If that's the case, which I think it is, no change is required for tasty subdue rp.

subdue elf
emote makes sweet love to ~elf
release elf

jhunter

  • Posts: 6103
-The- Raiding Post, how about this?
« Reply #29 on: January 30, 2005, 10:36:28 PM »
Nope I don't think so. I've seen it spammed too many times for there to be any delay.

fearwig

  • Posts: 292
-The- Raiding Post, how about this?
« Reply #30 on: January 31, 2005, 12:11:56 PM »
Quote from: "Kankman"
I could be wrong, but I believe every time you try to flee from a subdue it lags for a longer period. If that's the case, which I think it is, no change is required for tasty subdue rp.

subdue elf
emote makes sweet love to ~elf
release elf



See, I think the lag should somehow be coded to allow for emotes from the subduee, as well. See what I mean?

I know enough of ROM code to know that's not the easiest thing in the world, but I imagine there'd be a way to do it. The easiest way would be just to block further attempts with a failure message until a reasonable period of time has passed, at which point you get a message like "You feel %Attacker grip loosen slightly" meaning you can try to flee again, et cetera. I think a reasonable lag would be 15 seconds or so, first attempt, maybe 30 the second attempt and thereafter. That gives the attacker a lot more realistic an extent of control, once they have you nabbed.

This is, of course, suggestion on existing subdue code, not related to the thread really.

Agent_137

  • Posts: 5532
    • a crapy clawn
-The- Raiding Post, how about this?
« Reply #31 on: January 31, 2005, 01:48:21 PM »
I think this falls into one of those RP things.

My rule is:

Only type flee after I've emoted an attempt at breaking free.

to balance this, I only type subdue after I've emoted an attempt to subdue.

And I only grab a disarmed weapon after I've emoted going for it.

Of course, the Byn Halls aren't exactly a life and death place. But that's where the good habits start. If you grow up emoting every kick, you'll more than likely do it in a real combat scenario.