Crim Code Revision

[wizturbo]

Derail to the old threaten code page after this post if you have a comment on this:

The threaten system is fun and all, but it's a waste of time. I don't see anything wrong with player to player agreement, instead of actual code that alows one person to take advantage of the other.

That doesn't work with NPCs, which is why the crime code has problems.

My major concern, is that pretty much everyone will say that they don't agree with the threaten, and will say no. Once they say no, the npc turns agro and all that submission stuff doesn't turn out fun. They always choose the hard way. On the side of PCs, they'll just say no, and the RP is over because you can't do something if you don't have coded advantage/player concent.
--

uh, I've read your post a few times now, and I still don't have a clue what your trying to say.  Think you could restate it?

[Trenidor]

Unless I'm mistaken, threaten idea was that when someone does:

threaten joe

Joe gets a message: "Jack is threatening you, will you submit?"

And Joe has option of submit and not submit.

No criminal, someone who does something wrong, is going to submit to the guards if they threaten you. They always choose the hard way, and will say nosubmit, then they'd run off. The reason I didn't like it back then, was because almost everyone will choose not to submit because they value not being molested too much.

I think threaten was the one where someone said something like: Raiders can threaten people and if they say yes, the raider gets full power over the person. Which No one is going to do. Not even if it's a NPC. Most will think "I can run off easily and escape".

Maybe I'm mistake about which one was threaten though.

[lazycritic]

Eh...I doubt intelligent criminals will refuse. The NPC soldiers are gonna rip you apart. And I reckon once you've refused one threaten, you've had your chance.

Besides, this won't fix the bug of NPC soldiers looking all the time. Chances are, you'll run off and they'll just run back in. Or you'll run into another one.

But it'd be a nice fix. I'd rather be threatened then killed, and I -really- don't like leaving nosave on all the time.

[Gorobei]

Threaten was the command that was suggested to make raiding scenes easier to play to the full extent.  Basically, you would 'threaten' someone, meaning that you had your weapons ready and you were close enough to bean them if they tried any monkey business.  Once you threatened someone, speaking and emoting could be done without concequence, but if the victim tried to walk away, draw a weapon, grab something, etc, combat would commence automatically.

[wizturbo]

Threaten was the command that was suggested to make raiding scenes easier to play to the full extent.  Basically, you would 'threaten' someone, meaning that you had your weapons ready and you were close enough to bean them if they tried any monkey business.  Once you threatened someone, speaking and emoting could be done without concequence, but if the victim tried to walk away, draw a weapon, grab something, etc, combat would commence automatically.

Yup, thats what I viewed as how "threaten" should be.

[Trenidor]

If that's the case you've run yourself into a snake hole between a snake and wolf at the entrance.

It's entirely possible to threaten someone, then that person runs off, without you having the chance to attack. Just watch cops  :wink: People are threatend, and warned at point of a gun that if they move they'd be shot. People do however, run off. Cops don't always have the chance of shooting them either. Where's the RP in that? That's why I always hated the thought. For it to work it would require very strict guidelines that would end up eliminating a lot of the victim's chances of survival, and increasing the threatener's chance of things working out. I detested to that idea long ago, and I'm sticking with it.

It's entirely possible for a 'runner' to be in the same room as a 'chaser' and the runner still being able to run away. That means your guards (chasers) would still follow along the: I enter a room, spam look, spam scan, spam hunt, and move on. Only it would add on to the end: I spam threaten. Which really have you guys used the no save? It ensures that you don't get attacked unless you have weapons out. Basically that's what your idea of threaten would do as well, only there would be an unnessicary comfirming moment. Get the drift?

The problem that is upon is:

NPC guards spam move, scan, hunt, and fight. They also can be everywhere at all times with watching eyes.

Read my suggestive post. That would take care slightly of the all watching gods that npcs are.

[Trenidor]

Here's an oversimplified version of what I'm thinking in a code form. Good luck if you understand it...

Code Select Expand



if (PC violates a law)
{
Violator = pc violating a law
Crimescene = Room of Violator
Pick Random number 1-100

if ( number <= 10 ) { Do nothing}
if ( number >= 11) {
set SearchTimer = 20 min
While (searchtimer >= 1 sec) {

Order: 3 nearest NPC guards : move towards crime scene
wait for movement
Order: nearest NPC guard : hunt
results = hunt results
If ( hunt shows abnormal behavior as defined in %Abnormalities)

{
-Order: 3 nearest NPC guards : move one room over in direction of most recent abnormal behavior.
wait for movement
-If (violator is in the room) {
order: 3 nearest NPC guards : subdue violator
}
-else { order: nearest NPC guard : scan }
--If (scan shows hidden character) {
--subduefest:
--wait 3 sec.
--order: 3 nearest NPC guards : subdue suspicous character
--if (subdue failes) { loop to subduefest:)
--else { check subdued for violator}
-if {subdued == violator) {bring violator to jail}

}
Else {order: nearest NPC : scan}
-If (scan shows hidden character) {
-subduefest:
-wait 3 sec.
-order: 3 nearest NPC guards : subdue suspicous character
-if (subdue failes) { loop to subduefest:)
-else { check subdued for violator}
-if {subdued == violator) {bring violator to jail}
-else {order: release}
}
-else {order: nearest NPC guard : check all avalible directions for violator}
--if (violator is seeable at a distance) {
--Order: 3 nearest NPC guards : Move to room of violator
--wait for order
--order: nearest NPC guard : Subdue violator
--subduefest:
--wait 3 sec.
--order: 3 nearest NPC guards : subdue suspicous character
--if (subdue failes) { loop to subduefest:)
--else { check subdued for violator}
--if {subdued == violator) {bring violator to jail}
--else {order: release}

}
}
if (violator flees from a subdue)
{ order: 3 nearest guards : move in direction of escape
#### Pretty much same as above code only this time instead of subdue, they kill ####
---
%abnormalities

if (results == running description) { return true }
if (results == sneaking description) { return true }
---

It would need to include a little bit more coding than that, for some minor things. Basically that's most of the jist applying right there. Things might need to be changed to apply to the current way things run as well, and if a soldier gets attacked they attack back. (that's already in the code I believe.

[deinol]

It's entirely possible to threaten someone, then that person runs off, without you having the chance to attack. Just watch cops  :wink: People are threatend, and warned at point of a gun that if they move they'd be shot. People do however, run off. Cops don't always have the chance of shooting them either.

I don't think anyone intends that threaten should mean an automatic hit against the target.

The way I picture threaten is this:

Joe threatens Bob.

If Bob tries to flee, attack, or grab a weapon, Joe attacks. Joe's chances of hitting are exactly the same as if Joe had typed 'kill bob' in that moment, instead of just threaten Bob. Bob's chances of fleeing are exactly the same as if Joe had already started combat, but without having to have the painful loss of hp until the point he decides to break for it.

If Bob emotes, talks, pleads, begs, or reaches for a non-weapon (got to let them get their money or valuables out to bribe the threatener), then no combat occurs. Joe can release Bob, and they go on their way.

So no, if done properly, threaten gives no more of a coded advantage than the aggressor simply typing kill Bob. In fact, it gives the defender a slight advantage, in that if they decide to flee, the attacker gets one hit chance before the flee is decided, instead of maybe several that could have occured in the time between Joe typing kill, and Bob realizing what is going on and typing flee.

So how can anyone argue that threaten gives people too much of a coded advantage, or doesn't allow for more rp between thugs and victims? Threaten is not subdue, it does not make the target helpless, or his chances of survival any less (if not slightly more) than an immediate attack.

No, it doesn't solve the instant move npc problem, but it certainly makes it no worse. And it does make a minor criminal less likely to be murdered horribly for something simple like stealing from some commoner.

[Agent_137]

And it does make a minor criminal less likely to be murdered horribly for something simple like stealing from some commoner.

Yeap. If that's the RP you want, move to red storm.

[Trenidor]

CAUTION THIS POST CONTAINS MUCH DERAILING!

When the threaten code came up a while back, it was to change two things in particular: 1. When someone does: Emote quickly brings his knife behind %joe neck. And Say Gimme all your money fool, it was to allow them to do something like that, without the person just walking off, or getting a 'player forces RP on player'. 2. to give raiders a fair chance out in the wilds to at least emote once or twice. Back then, my response was something like: Why not just use guard dicrection, trap them there, and force them to do things. That, I am still sticking with, but now it seams a little too foolish anyways on he 2nd choice...raiders out in the middle of no where take advantage of you because they have the upper hand. A gun pointed at you would be one thing, another would be a group of people with bats....How many cases do you know of that aren't that way or similar to it? In the middle of no where, one person isn't going to effect you, you can just run (and if you run, they have to be able to catch you if they want to rob you) Otherwise it's guns, and groups.

The 1st reason for wanting threaten however, is okay, but it's not very bennificial. There are other ways of mugging people, of which they are already in the game. Guarding an alleyway, sapping someone, subduing someone, all of which are reasonable IN A DARK ALLEYWAY, because the act would go un noticed.

On to the case of using it for guards...I don't see how it would fit in.

An NPC guard threatens joe.

Now what? What's that going to do for us? If joe accepts, nothing happens...or does it? The only thing you could do here is subdue joe if they accept. And if joe doesn't accept, they attack joe.

Here's what it says about nosave:

You can also use nosave to willingly surrender your character if he/she has committed a crime, and wishes to give him/herself up to the law. (This can be a good idea, since resisting arrest is not looked upon highly.)

Alright so...threatens would be something like:

When you commit a crime, and a guard comes up to you, they will threaten you. Doing nothing gives your acceptance to the threaten, and you will willingly surrender to the guard.  (This can be a good idea, since resisting arrest is not looked upon highly.) If you choose to draw a weapon, leave, or otherwise do anything that would be determined by that guard as trying to evade the law, you will be attacked and often killed.

Alright...sounds exactly like no save, only they call it threaten.

And hence the reason I made the following quote:

If that's the case you've run yourself into a snake hole between a snake and wolf at the entrance.

Meaning: I know two things that you could say...both of which I know what will counter them.

So really, threaten would be the same as no-save.
Threaten could be replaced by REAL Rp. (not that stuff: I'm a buff warrior, kneel down. Really people...it's not something ethical as far as RP goes. Think about it please!)
Going along with that, if you had a group of people, you could guard all the exits in a room and surround the person, then beat them up if they didn't do it. Be creative and think things through.
And! Having guards threaten would add very little to the RP already avalible, it's just as easy to turn no save on right before commiting a crime, and when they subdue you, emote like you submitted, than when you get attacked, to 'submit' and emote like you submitted.

DERAIL FROM A DERAIL.

I'm sorry to get so agitated, but I've stated before that it it wouldn't help, and we've derailed this thread down to weather or not I'm right in saying it won't help.
PLEASE, can we get back to strategic posting, which involves providing an idea, stating why it would work; or agreeing with an idea, with an addition to the idea as well as why it would work. Or be polite in saying reasons why a posted idea would not work. This does not involve posting and reposting to state why it would work, over someone's already posting of it won't work. PLEASE, if you want to do that, include an addition that solves the problem of why it wouldn't work.

Thankyou.

RETURN TO RAIL PLEASE, RETURN TO RAIL PLEASE!

[Larrath]

Here's a situation that the code currently can't support:
An elf goes to the bazaar and tries to steal an iron paperweight from a wandering Nenyuki, and fails.  The elf, who is a complete wimp and is too smart to resist arrest, runs to a nearby stone wall and tries to climb it to get away.
This elf will have to choose between being able to climb the wall (nosave off) or not resisting arrest (nosave off).  Threaten will completely resolve this problem.

With mugging, it is entirely twinkish to just subdue someone that's passing through without any emote.  We should not make ourselves used to play according to how twinks can abuse our vulnerabilities, and we -should- have code that can resolve these problems and make this twinking end.
It's fine to follow someone around and sap them with no emote, but most muggings that I know of have been using the brute force approach.  Getting a gang of muggers is not always feasable, especially when out in the open desert.
In open areas, of course, there is also this issue:
"The big buff warrior begins guarding the east exit."
"The merchant walks north.  To the north: the merchant walks east."

Threaten is a helpful command that will help make various mugging and kidnapping situations feel more fair and flow better without "you can't sneak up on a 4.226 day assassin!" and all that.

[Trenidor]

I could swear I already responded to this, but, I'll go ahead and repost my points as they appear in Larrath's post.

1. Yes, it may be easier to just be able to climb, rather than turn off nosave and climb up. Threaten is a good idea, only if it's limited to only guard use and not player.

2. I don't believe anyone said anything about subduing without an emote, however, I'm going to clear out my statement now if it has that effect: When you are going to commit a mugging in an area where the RP would be acceptable, you supply a simple: emote charges at ~victim and grabs at %victim arm. then use the subdue code, which will decide weather or not your emote and rp situation was acceptable.

3. There will always be twinking, but it's use can be limited by proper education. It would be nice if the staff added this rule as rule 8, or tack it onto rule #1 "As a player of armageddon, you have the right to intervene with: ludicrous Roleplay and situations lacking roleplay, and warn the violator of such poor roleplay" The only way we can get minmize the usage of twinkish behavior is to educate twinks, not by allowing code the limits the power a player has.

4. Brute force currently is the only thought of answer to create mugging situations; this should not realistically be the case. There are many more realistic solutions to create a mugging situation, of which I will not tell anyone about on this board (In other words: It is more important that you learn other ways, and roleplay out devising those ways, than me telling you specifically)

5. "What? You expect a world devoid of traditional fantasy to have fantasy acts in them?" Guns are not avalible on Zalanthas, as such, a single person is not going to risk their life (zalanthans value their life over anything else) just to take part in an evenly matched battle. "The closer the battle, the more that's damaged" A One on One fight to the death should be thought of to be against RP laws/ethics, One person must die (zalanthans value life over anything else) , and even the greatest fighter isn't going purposefully get into one (they don't know the consiquence, they don't know if someone will come in and team up on the fight, they don't know many factors involved, even if they are good at fighting, there is always someone better[think halaster/god like person]) The point is, it's impossible to be a lone raider. Lone mugger is possible, (muggers are inside the walls, raiders are outside in this case.) but lone raider would get killed...hell, look at the dead raiders there already are!

6. If the big buff warrior was: several big buff warriors, the merchant could get trapped on all sides by: one warrior guards the east exit, one warrior guards the north exit, one warrior guards the south exit, one warrior guards the west exit, the merchant tries to get away, but all exits are blocked. The warriors say" give all your money, your goods, and everything but your pants over to us." the merchant does so and the warriors beat him nearly to death and walk off with his things.

Now if I Could remember the other 4 I'd be in good shape, but I guess I'll have to hold back.

[fearwig]

I think threaten was the one where someone said something like: Raiders can threaten people and if they say yes, the raider gets full power over the person. Which No one is going to do. Not even if it's a NPC. Most will think "I can run off easily and escape".

That's stupid, really. If you have the choice between being subdued and having them get a nice healthy stab to you, possibly a fatal one, you have a damn good incentive to submit. NPC soldiers are feckin' scary, man. The times I've died to one, I didn't even get to see the attack. Which, of course, is somewhat unrealistic, considering they are just human, albeit relatively well trained.

The "threaten" command as we now call it has been thoroughly, thoroughly explained in that thread where it was (ridiculously, maybe) called "sneakstab". It's been through some adaptations for general use, but it's essentially got the same good ideas behind it.

If you threaten someone, you undergo a check to see whether you successfully put them in that position, I say. Like subdue. It's a skill, or else it's a command based on subdue, or something similar. A soldier or other sort of guard would be rather good at this.

They get a choice--get subdued (give themselves willingly), or try to escape. If they have put you in the position where you are appropriately threatened, they get a shot at a nice, healthy hit to you, a lot like backstab. You might evade that hit, and really escape.

Threaten wouldn't just be some automatic command that you use to see if someone is going to come with you. As I understand it, or would like to see it, it's a skill. The name is misleading, in that case, but I haven't seen anyone come up with a better one yet.

[Zacharai]

I haven't read past the first page of this thread, so I can't comment on much of what people have suggested.

I believe I just crashed the game, by attempting to work a boundry case for new, complex code that they instituted recently, that very few people would be able to do.  Quite simply, if I did crash the game (it's extremely suggestive in my eyes that I did), then some of the multitude of possibilities weren't considered by the coders when they instituted the complex code.

Problem is, there is no easy solution when dealing with things like this.  Only yesterday I found a big problem with the 'rent' code, which again I imagine only a few characters would use it in this way, but it was an issue.  Again, complex code, and the imms, no matter how diligent they are, can't conceive of every possibility.

Bestatte made a great point in the opening page, which at least one person has derided for no reason.  Keep It Simple, Stupid, is one of the hallmarks of good code.  If you add in complexity, boundary cases multiply exponentially, and people will find ways to be twinkish around the crim code, or possibly crash the game.

I've played for years, and never had a problem with the crim code.  It's simple.... if you RP accordingly, you'll only get arrested when you SHOULD be arrested.  I believe this applies to both major cities.

I apologize if others have posted the same points previous.  I promise to be nice.  But for the record, I hate you.

[fearwig]

I don't think that's even remotely fair.

The crim code doesn't exist so you can avoid it all the time or fall victim to it all the time, as a player. It's a part of the game that fits into the game world. There are times when you should have a -chance- of being arrested. And there are times when you will be killed on sight if you're wanted, because of the unintuitive (and as Larrath points out generally poor) way it's set up.

And I don't see even remotely what that has to do with the bugs you've found. Games have bugs. You work on them. You don't -not- implement something because you're terribly afraid there may one day be a bug discovered with it. That's defeatist.

I additionally think that some form of the threaten skill as described in various contradictory ways by numerous people (derailment is inevitable, I guess) would be a great addition to the game, for PCs and NPCs. Subdue is limited, and has its own place. Threaten would allow for great muggings, great roleplay surrounding these muggings, and a coded outcome to complement that roleplay, and would add similar benefits to shoplifting and criminal situations. That's what MUDs do--it's why Arm isn't a muck, mush, moo, or playground for furries (sorry, that last one was a non-seq, I guess). Arm is great because it's a game and a roleplay environment, and the better we make allowances for good roleplay and simple chance (based on skill and other factors) in conflicts, the better the game becomes.

So don't say that if you do something illegal, you'll get caught unless you spam past the guards or simply don't run into any, and that if you don't turn nosave off and submit you're absolutely deserving of insta-death when you do. Silly, really, just silly.

[Trenidor]

Before anything can be put to good use, it has to have the flaws removed from it.

All this time I've been trying to tell you guys to answer a question, yet for some reason I haven't got the answer I was looking for: "What makes it so special that it drasically will help the current situation of things?"

Fully though, there's two sides of threaten that have been brought up and we need to seperate them in our discussion:

Dealing with NPC to PC

&

Dealing with PC to PC

As far as I can see it, NPCs using Threaten might have a merit, but even with the helpfulness of it, there are alternatives out there that should be considered before standing bias on the side of it.

Dealing with PC to PC I see no purpose to add a conflicting feature. Conflicting in the way it demeans the other code snippets, threaten would mean people stop subduing just because threaten works better, they stop guarding because threaten will work much better, and they stop stealing in areas that threaten works, simply because threaten allows them to stop a person on the street and demand money; accepting threaten into our code database only lowers the RP value of things (people who use threaten will think themselves gods, because they are RPing, but because of this, people neglect to see that they make the world generic and dull) When I think of this part of threaten, I shudder to think of the forthcomming effects it can bring. Untill someone can devise a way to elimiate these effects, I will continue to stand against the code.

[deinol]

The problem with discussing a proposed idea, instead of an actual thing in game, is different people have different ideas about how it would be implemented.

I like the idea of threaten. I think it adds more options for character interaction. Trenidor is correct, in that if it overshadows other options, it reduces character interaction options, not increase them.

However, my idea of threaten is that it is not a skill, or a delayed backstab, or I have my knife at your throat you move and die. What I see threaten being is, I am in a position to be ready to attack you. If the person being threatened does specific actions (tries to leave, initiate an attack, or draw a weapon), I get to make an attack against the person I am threatening before their action is resolved. If they tried to move, they then get to have a flee chance. The attack I make is no different than the attack I could have made if I had typed kill x. Not an added bonus, not a sneak attack, just a regular, normal attack. And then their regular, normal flee chance. Or if they drew to face you down, their normal attack back chance.

With this, threaten is a way to do just that, threaten violence against a person. If you wanted to assassinate them, backstab is still the better skill, they have no warning, you have a chance to deal hideous damage.

If you want them to be helpless, subdue is still the better skill. Threaten does not make them helpless. If anything, it improves the defenders chance of surviving the encounter, as they have time to react and perform a defensive action, because they know they are being threatened.

If you want to steal from someone, picking their pocket is still better, as if I stop a merchant in the street, and threaten them, and they flee, I attack them first, becoming wanted, and the merchant may take a blow, but is likely to get to some guards if he isn't deep in a back alley.

If you are guarding someone, while threaten would allow you to single out and watch one guy, and attack him the moment he tries to draw a weapon, it doesn't let you get in the way of anyone else attacking your charge. In fact, you don't even get to stop the threatened person from making an attack against your charge, you just get be in combat with that person if he makes a move. He still engages his target as normal, you just also engage him. In fact, you shouldn't be able to threaten and guard at the same time.

Yes, getting a bunch of people and guarding all exits is still going to be the best way to mug someone. But being able to threaten bodily harm without them being able to just walk away without consequence can add a lot of flavor to interaction, without unbalancing the game.

I certainly think it should be looked at before implementation. Not that it is likely to occur anyway, but I think if done right, threaten could add more beneficial interaction within the game.

[Cuusardo]

I can't believe people are still yacking on this thread.

[fearwig]

Trenidor, I will simply say that if you think guard and steal in any way would be replaced by threaten, you have breezed over absolutely everything relevant to this conversation. Threaten would still require a check on your attack skills, and a pickpocket wouldn't have a way to take advantage of that, obviously. A guard would threaten a person, because that's what a guard would do. If they wanted to take the person alive by force ("grab" them, that is), they'd subdue the person--but if they wanted to attempt to force that person at swordpoint to do as they say, they'd use threaten.

Threaten is the *threat* of force. In order to use it, you run through a check that determines whether you can put them in a vulnerable position, based on skills and other factors, as I've said. If they, knowing the obvious peril, attempt to run off, they're subject to a violent field day, the extent of which or the chance for which would be determined by balanced code implementation, as with anything new.

This is simple stuff. It makes good sense. I have heard people say this would be overpowered and would replace sevety known skills, other people say this would be underpowered and never used. Hopeless, like I said. Really, give it a thought before you make up your mind. There's a good reason for something like this, and it has little to do with subdue, and NOTHING to do with guard, steal, or other skills.

Some people have the most pitiful aversion to anything and every idea that's new, regardless of its merits. Not that I'm eh, talking about anyone in particular.

[fearwig]

What I see threaten being is, I am in a position to be ready to attack you. If the person being threatened does specific actions (tries to leave, initiate an attack, or draw a weapon), I get to make an attack against the person I am threatening before their action is resolved. If they tried to move, they then get to have a flee chance. The attack I make is no different than the attack I could have made if I had typed kill x. Not an added bonus, not a sneak attack, just a regular, normal attack. And then their regular, normal flee chance. Or if they drew to face you down, their normal attack back chance.

I'd be happy to see it implemented without the bonuses I've described as well. In some ways, the first attack is enough of a bonus to allow for the IC benefit you would have in that attack. This also keeps someone from simply walking away while the roleplay surrounding the attack is taken on.

So scratch what I've said, then, if it pleases anyone. No bonus. Just a command that initiates an attack if they try to leave, or perhaps allows you a chance at the first strike if they try to attack you in response. I do think the idea would be -better- if threaten were a skill that required a check to actually occur, and if it would produce a bonus to the threatener over the threatened in the case a fight breaks out, because I feel that would be realistic. Whether that would encroach on subdue is irrelevant, though. They're both skills, and they're both good options. They're both IC feasible. There's no reason for someone to stand there trying to defend an existing skill because a new skill will replace some specific uses of it.

[Trenidor]

I can't believe people are still yacking on this thread.

I can't understand it either...I'm about to give up myself knowing that people don't bother thinking anyways...


Fearwig, you haven't seen the basis of my argument: If you have a skill that stops someone from moving into another room away from you (like guard and subdue already do in -different- ways) why would you want to use those skills already in place (guard and subdue). Threaten only combines two skills, making them more powerful as this one skill.  Threaten is the most ignorant code I've seen in my entire career of playing armageddon, moreso than the idea to completely get rid of one of the cities.

First off, since no one seams to be able to agree entirely on the code, I'm going to have to state the obvious best stance on it:

Someone uses threaten on someone else in a room that would be acceptable, the skill is tested, When someone threatens sucessfully, certain commands are qued up until after the threaten code has been taken care of. The person the code is used on cannot do any of the following without combat innitiating: draw a weapon, hold a item, move in any direction, or any imposing commands (magick, steal, peek, palm, etc.). The user of the code can then do any command they want, including imposing commands like steal and and use magick as well as unthreaten the person. If the threaten fails, the players recieve a message that says they tried to threaten, but it failed.

Oh wait...let's look at subdue:

If successful, the target will be held tight by your character, and will be unable to move or get away. Failure typically invokes a good deal of anger. Use the release command to release someone your character has subdued.
Also note, that in a room that subdue works, you can steal, peek, and do whatever you want to a character you have subdued, you can also emote force RP on players.

The rooms would be the exact same ones that subdue works in as the ones threaten would work in.

Now lets look at guard:
If your character is guarding an exit, then a successful guard action
will mean that he/she blocks someone from going through that exit. This
will not automatically initiate combat.

Hmm...seams like both guard and subdue stops a player from moving. The only difference is that they don't innitiate combat once the tries to move. The reason for this, is to allow them the chance to emote all they want, draw weapons when they want, do any imposing code they want, and still RP out the situation. Instead of one person being better off than the other (which is ludicrist, a person with high threaten could threaten a magicker, succeed, and then the magicker would be unable to cast a spell because a guy has his knife a foot away from you. Or, you could be out in the wilds on a kank, and someone walks in and threatens you with his sword, You're on a kank for hell's sake, you can run away, tromple the guy, and basically do whatever you want.) I doubt that someone's going to sneak up on you in the desert and get close enough to hold their knife up to your neck and demand money.


PLEASE, ANY FURTHER COMMENTS ON THREATEN SHOULD GO TO THEIR OWN THREAD.  THIS THREAD IS DEDICATED TO CRIME CODE REVISION AND THE PAST POSTS HAVEN'T EVEN SAID ANYTHING ABOUT THEM.

[fearwig]

That's a lovely way to get the last word in, I'll say. Why did you bother to post all that if you're so concerned about derailment? But it's not a total derailment, when we're considering the necessity of a threaten command, which has been discussed in other threads to little avail.

I don't think there's any real harm in letting a discussion go as it pleases, honestly. Talk is good.

I see what you're saying about guard, now that you enunciated it, but there's the rather important fact that you need four people to guard four directions. An arbitrary limitation. I think there's either use in implementing something like threaten as it's been discussed, both for use by soldier/guard NPCs and by players (who logically may serve the exact same role as those NPCs)--or maybe there's use in altering the specifics of subdue, or merging it into a new skill. It seems to me that something is lacking, here, whether you'll agree to that or not. If you don't, well, I suppose you just don't. All the relevant points have been made.

Fearwig, you haven't seen the basis of my argument: If you have a skill that stops someone from moving into another room away from you (like guard and subdue already do in -different- ways) why would you want to use those skills already in place (guard and subdue). Threaten only combines two skills, making them more powerful as this one skill. Threaten is the most ignorant code I've seen in my entire career of playing armageddon, moreso than the idea to completely get rid of one of the cities.

The code is meant to represent real circumstances, Trenidor. There's nothing 'ignorant' or even unnecessary about replacing -some- uses of other skills. Guard and subdue serve a lot of functions, and not one of them, not -one- of them should be to threaten someone with a weapon. This is an entirely different skill, and while I am glad to see you empathizing to such a great degree with an inanimate object (in this case a pair of skills), I'm a little baffled at the emotional bent you lend to your argument. These skills have their place. You shouldn't be guarding east, north, west, south with four PCs in order to keep someone from leaving. That's not what guard is about, it's just an extension of its function used to cover what is a glaring hole in the code, in my opinion. Subdue, as I have said, is about holding someone against their will, by force, not by threat. It's similar, but not the same, by any means, and I think we've made it clear how it would be different. I have made these points, though, and I hope you've read them and considered them by now.


Keep it at least a little courteous, though, if you don't mind--I assure you people are "thinking" about this. I'm not always the most courteous, myself, but I try to focus on the fact that someone may have skipped over what I said while still responding to it. If someone didn't follow you properly (such as myself), that's another matter entirely from being an idiot or not "thinking". There's a lot of material to read in a thread like this, and a lot of people have things to say, after all. And an idea isn't 'ignorant' because you disagree with it. Stupid ideas? Sure, there's lots of those. But it's subjective, so keep that in mind.

All that aside, I say talk away. Keep it relevant, but there's no need to police a conversation. That's what these threads are--conversation. Not reference material that has to be catalogued.