Wizards' Duel

[Super Mega Defiler]

So you're a magicker with over one thousand days of playtime, with maybe twenty different spells that could completely destroy or disable a PC.  Standing against you is another insanely powerful magicker who quite obviously possesses the same quality of spells.

Say you meet in the desert, with neither one prepared for spellcasting in any other way, and the two of you are hostile.  Your character starts pissing lightning as you do your first pre-casting emote, and the other magicker...burps out a small boulder or something.
Now what do you do?

It's no secret that casting lag is affected by skill percentage, so a stronger magicker would, on average, cast a little faster.  However this pause won't matter if you're already casting the spell while the other magicker has a half-typed emote.  Your character doesn't want to die, but you don't want to win for OOC reasons (because the other magicker emoted more).

So, how do you resolve this situation?

[Tamarin]

cast 'mon demonfire' rock guy

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

[corona]

Run away. :shock: hehe

[amoeba]

Your character doesn't want to die, but you don't want to win for OOC reasons (because the other magicker emoted more).

Umm.. huh?

[Delirium]

He means he doesn't want to win just because the other person took longer to emote out the scene - i.e. for an OOC reason, instead of simply being more powerful and being able to cast nastier spells quicker.

[amoeba]

He means he doesn't want to win just because the other person took longer to emote out the scene - i.e. for an OOC reason, instead of simply being more powerful and being able to cast nastier spells quicker.

I understand the language, it's the intent rather I'm a bit perplexed with. I was probably being too obtuse.

My take, mega defiler or not, it's no different than anyone else.  Emotes add flavor and direction to our roleplay.  -Backed- by code.  Superior emoter or not, the winner is the winner.  OOC rational shouldn't apply.  I've yet to see a raptor back off because I out emoted them.

[JohnGalt]

You want my personal opinion?  In matters of life and death, act first, worry about emoting later.

That goes for anything.  Drawing your weapon and attacking, casting that fireball of doom, or fleeing for your life.

[Ghost]

Emoting to point out the power he carries, to me, is like duelists in the anime movies making funny poses before they start fighting.  I always wondered why they do not just attack each other, or, wait until the other one starts to make a funny pose and then jump at him.

Maybe this is related to the original post?

[Forest Junkie]

Anyone who casts without an emote is, to me, a twink who is only worried about the ooc factors of the duel.

The -only- time I would condone simply casting without an emote first is when someone attacks you with no warning or emote at all. Other than that, I feel it is your duty as a player to show respect to the other person behind the keyboard by fleshing out the scene and emoting out your actions after a tense situation has begun.

When I know that I am about to enter a situation where I am going to need to cast in a hurry, I usually set up a macro with an emote or two that allows me to first interact with my opponent, then cast afterwards.

I just feel that I as the player should respect the other guy/gal I'm facing and make the situation a bit more entertaining for them.

No one wants to die to a spam-casted array of spells. That's just pointless, and a stupid way to lose a character, and, IMHO, defeats the purpose of this game as an RPI MUD.

[JohnGalt]

Anyone who casts without an emote is, to me, a twink who is only worried about the ooc factors of the duel.

The -only- time I would condone simply casting without an emote first is when someone attacks you with no warning or emote at all. Other than that, I feel it is your duty as a player to show respect to the other person behind the keyboard by fleshing out the scene and emoting out your actions after a tense situation has begun.

I don't know how much experience you have with mage vs. mage encounters, or magick wielding classes at all, but following that philosophy is about the easiest way to insure that your character LOSES the duel and will not be alive long enough to emote a single thing.

A single spell can, and almost always does, determine who will be the victor of the encounter.

Emoting is meant to clarify and enhance the world, not describe in aesthetic detail how the fireball is about to incinerate someone, the pre-written spell messages do that just fine.

I've lost very good characters because I chose not to cast immediately.  I don't believe the players on the other end that were more quick to pull the trigger were roleplaying poorly, they just learned this lesson before I did.

Anyone who casts without an emote is, to me, a twink who is only worried about the ooc factors of the duel.

As for this comment, I must disagree.  Combat in Armageddon is fast-paced and exceptionally deadly, which adds excitement and realism to the game.  Having a powerful mage die to some random common ranger because they're more concerned with emoting the swirling blast of doom then actually casting it, is not roleplaying their character realistically.  Realistically that ranger should be destroyed with a word, and if that means excluding an emote so you can accurately reflect that in the code, so be it.

Remember, roleplay is *not* about emoting every 4 seconds.  It's about accurately portraying the actions, thoughts, emotions, and personality of the character you're playing.

[Super Mega Defiler]

Tamarin: and kill the other guy while he's typing an emote?

corona: either magicker in question, in this example, won't think to run.  Besides, running just makes you more tired after they catch up to you.

amoeba: any sane character would do just about anything in order to stay alive, including playing dirty when push comes to shove.  On an OOC level, I don't want to play dirty at all.
Also, a raptor animated by a staff member might escape because you emoted at them, as could a PC raptor.  Emotes help and back the code, but does it mean whoever enters the room should immediately cast without any emote at all?

Ghost: emoting how a magicker's casting works and what it looks like isn't a funny pose.  It's explaining what happens when you type 'cast 'mon un fekk off die''.

FJ: macros sound good.

[jhunter]

I've lost very good characters because I chose not to cast immediately. I don't believe the players on the other end that were more quick to pull the trigger were roleplaying poorly, they just learned this lesson before I did.

Just because someone did it to you and you decided from then on to do the same thing doesn't make it right. I agree with FJ. There's time enough to throw out an emote with each spell. And both sides should have the consideration to do it. Like he said, you can macro the emotes for the spells and stuff.

Emote it even if the other guy doesn't. If he wins because you emoted and he didn't...well, he's a dick and you went out with class and style.

[JohnGalt]

Just because someone did it to you and you decided from then on to do the same thing doesn't make it right.

If at all possible, I enjoy emoting spells and actions.  But if you're out in the desert and a known enemy is descending upon you with a weapon drawn, I don't believe you need to paint the picture of what is occuring with an emote.  I think its time for action at that point.  

If the combat is paced in a way that allows for emoting, by all means I emote it.  But when it comes to magickal combat one second often determines the outcome.  Whether things should be that way or not is for another discussion.

As for macros, I really do like that concept, but unfortunately there are only so many alias slots available and the client I use and enjoy doesn't offer them.

[Maybe42or54]

From what I've seen, isn't there a space between "Waves of water encircle the shadow..." And "You continue to breath, but find there to be too much water and that is enough to kill you!"?

Looks like a good place to emote.

[waroth]

I am a fan of emotes.  That being said, if it came to life or death, I wouldn't hold it against someone if they didn't emote if the intent was clear before hand.  In RL, you don't have to wait to type out your actions, you just do them.  If your opponent doesn't emote, use your imagination to determine what 'he was doing/looked like' when he was casting that fireball at you.  Shell it out and see who walks away the victor.

[jhunter]

From what I've seen, isn't there a space between "Waves of water encircle the shadow..." And "You continue to breath, but find there to be too much water and that is enough to kill you!"?

Looks like a good place to emote.

Exactly, there is plenty of time to throw in an emote for each spell. Especially since emoting is not affected by other command lag.

[Agent_137 (2L2L)]

goddamnit, this is the third time i'm trying to post the same post, i keep losing it. I'm pissed. It was going to be nice, in depth, and have a solid logical base. But not anymore.

basically,

If you have the iniative, emote. if they don't emote back, stop emoting.

If THEY have the iniative, do whatever they do.

seems fair to me. kthx.

[amoeba]

amoeba: any sane character would do just about anything in order to stay alive, including playing dirty when push comes to shove.  On an OOC level, I don't want to play dirty at all.
Also, a raptor animated by a staff member might escape because you emoted at them, as could a PC raptor.  Emotes help and back the code, but does it mean whoever enters the room should immediately cast without any emote at all?

This is where being prepared helps.   Take some time to use your client to prep up some nice emotes you hold back for such purposes.  Then chain them together. Voila, fancy assed emote with a killer spell attached.   If you die to a quick spell or kill with a quick spell, when you have done all you can to play by the rules then so be it.   If the other person didn't plan for this possiblity, well then it sucks to be them.

In so far as the "playing dirty", I have no clue as to what you are talking about.  This is the problem in trying to talk about something that you can't talk about so you cloak it in obscure wordings.   You get odd interpretations.

As far as the raptor quote, you missed the point.  An IMM could make it do a quick soft shoe, kiss you on the forehead, and skip off into the moonlight if an IMM was animating it. I wasn't talking about IMMs.  The point I was trying to get across is code trumps emotes -at times-

[Marauder Moe]

Cast first, then emote if you have time.

It's not bad roleplay to skip emotes to take care of coded actions first.

Endangering your character's life so you can type out a fancy emote doesn't make you a better roleplayer.

[Forest Junkie]

Cast first, then emote if you have time.

I can't believe you just said that. Emoting may not be the end all in roleplay, but it is essentially the backbone.

It's not bad roleplay to skip emotes to take care of coded actions first.

I think it's just pathetic that you can't have the courtesy to flesh out the world around you and your opponent before entering into combat. People seem to be too bent out of shape in saving their badass character's life when they should really be focusing on enriching this beautifully written world for others, as well as themselves, to enjoy. The notion that you are taking into account the time it takes for you to type out an emote before the other guy blasts you is, to me, incredibly OOC.

Endangering your character's life so you can type out a fancy emote doesn't make you a better roleplayer.

No, it doesn't. It just makes it seem as if you care whether the other person is having fun or not.

1) I've died to and been accosted by magickers who do nothing but use the code without a single emote. I have no respect for them.

2) I've died to magickers who actually took the time and effort to flesh out their actions before melting me into a pile of goo. The emotes weren't "flashy" and "OMG He looks like Goku off of DragonBallZ as he emotes 400 times and cries out "AHHHHHHHH" 6 times to complete his powering up before imploding me". They were snappy, and to the point, but at least the emotes proved to me that the player was thinking not just about pulling off the IC actions (coded commands), but also making sure I enjoyed the scene as it was played out.

Macros are your friend people.

[Marauder Moe]

Perhaps we'll agree to disagree on some things.

For the record, though, if I'm the one doing the suprise stab/spell I do make an effort to emote.  If my character is being stabbed repeatedly, though, I will always draw my swords or cast the fart of death spell first and emote later without shame, even if my opponent emoted before attacking.

[Forest Junkie]

Perhaps we'll agree to disagree on some things.

*nod*

If my character is being stabbed repeatedly, though, I will always draw my swords or cast the fart of death spell first and emote later without shame, even if my opponent emoted before attacking.

I understand your reasoning here.

[SewerRat_inTheOpen]

goddamnit, this is the third time i'm trying to post the same post, i keep losing it. I'm pissed. It was going to be nice, in depth, and have a solid logical base. But not anymore.

basically,

If you have the iniative, emote. if they don't emote back, stop emoting.

If THEY have the iniative, do whatever they do.

seems fair to me. kthx.

-nods- The initiator should always emote, even in the event of ambushes. It allows the opposite party to react -onus will have to be on the opposite party to allow you to strike first codedly-. While emote is not roleplay, yet, roleplay cannot do without emote.

It's just watching television, things acted out plays out better.

[Cenghiz]

I have a simple rule.. If I'm a badass xxx, who will possibly win, I emote not caring about what the other character does. If I'm a weakling that can die in an instant and I'm against a non-emoter or NPC, I simply type "flee".
...
If someone emotes his actions well and he's about to kill me, I quickly type a flee emote praying not to die.

Only exception is something like:

>e (empty hands raised, stopping in a distance)
>tell figure (hands still raised) I mean no harm. I ju...
The tall figure in a hooded cloak walks west.

Which drives me nuts. Although I hate PK, I usually note down main descs and sdescs if possible and simply kill them next time. If someone's to ignore your trial to RP in a scene although you showed you won't instaattack, why's he playing in here?

[HardCarbon]

I am a fan of emotes.  That being said, if it came to life or death, I wouldn't hold it against someone if they didn't emote if the intent was clear before hand.  In RL, you don't have to wait to type out your actions, you just do them.  If your opponent doesn't emote, use your imagination to determine what 'he was doing/looked like' when he was casting that fireball at you.  Shell it out and see who walks away the victor.

Cast then emote during the delay.  like with kick you don't know what your going to get so emote after you know.

[moab]

Emote when you can.  Don't emote when you can't.  I type really fast and can usally throw out emotes without interrupting the rest of my work (spells and special attacks being aliased to easy-to-type commands).

However, if I'm feeling things are pretty heavy, spammy or whatever, you can bet your butt that I'll defend / attack first and emote looting the corpse later.

It's not the best solution - but until there is a better combat system (whatever that might be) it's the best we've got.

[Tamarin]

Tamarin: and kill the other guy while he's typing an emote?

No.

And kill him FOURTEEN TIMES while he's typing an emote.

[naatok]

My take on this is to go with what your character would realistically do.  If you're playing a 'shoot first and ask questions later' sort of person, I feel it is more than appropriate for your pc to cut loose with the worst of his or her offensive spells to either destroy or incapacitate the opponent.  Immediately or near immediately.

If your character is more egalitarian (extremely rare in Zalanthas...especially in a magicker....not to mention a sorcerer), perhaps a more non-hostile approach is more appropriate....such as casting defensive magicks and waiting to see what the other does first.

If your pc is more the curious sort, perhaps motivated by some desire to have discourse with others who wield 'the Power'....perhaps some combination of the two paragraphs above is appropriate.  Or perhaps getting away to strike up a dialogue through the Way would be suitable.

Powerful magickers did not become that way by being less than extremely cautious....and most often...are paranoid beyond mundane imagining.

Just some things to keep in mind when playing a self-centered, evil, megalomaniacal mage or wizard.   :twisted:

[Malifaxis]

WTF... why is this a problem...

Looking across the barren sands, eyes narrowing, you say,
"It seems your magick (kung fu) is strong.  We would destroy each other, which would benefit neither.  Let us seek who is strongest."

The boulder laying obscenely before him, still glistening with regurgitated bile, the opponent says,
"I know the ancient technique of flesh of the mountain!  You have no hope of defeating me!"

Drawing back rapidly, energy crackling about him, you say,
"Your flesh will curl and char under the truth of Krath!  You do your master injustice with this posturing, let us see who is best!"

With a crazy awesome magickal build up emote, the opponent says,
"It is what I am preparring to do."

OOC'ly, you say,
"No, dude, lets go over and test out our pow3rz on that tribal."

OOC'ly, your opponent says,
"Die."

Zzzzaaaappp.  Crackle.  Pop.

Wiping his hands off as energy sparkles around them, the winner says,
"Sheesh.  Magickers these days."

--------------------

Seriously though, if you see this as a major problem, do what they did in the old days.  Actually challenge and lay a duel time.

High sun.  How does the code back it up?

"The searing ass of Krath reaches the pinnacle of its arc, shitting light down upon the lands, baking them like a kankpattie."

Boom, you both start casting.  You get TONS of time to lead up and RP until one of you dies... especially if you both show up at like dawn.

[Agent_137]

great idea for some scenarios. bravo.

i think we all actually agree on the basic need for RP, it's just some people have different ideas of how that RP is best put across.

Via emotes or via coded actions.

Like i said, though, if you have the upper hand and the iniative, EMOTE, jerkface. that's called being a polite RL human being.

[naatok]

I didn't say anything about -not- emoting.
What bothers me is that some people have gotten the idea that emoting in every single situation is good roleplay...and that not emoting in every single situation...is poor roleplay...or not roleplay.

That is ridiculous.  Hollywood/TV evil super villans may give the 'hero' a chance, but this is NOT realistic.  Not even close.  And I find that my enjoyment of the 'unreal' world of Zalanthas is heightened by characters that behave in a realistic fashion.

Realistic super villans/antagonists ALWAYS use the element of surprise, ALWAYS fight dirty, and NEVER...EVER give any advantage to their enemy.  At least not on purpose.

Here's an example:

Biff the Buff Super-warrior stumbles upon ancient ruins in the desert, reputedly haunted...reputedly the lair of the Vile sorcerer, Darth Spader...who happens to also be the murderer of Biff's beloved father.

Being the heroic, super-buff, super brave champion of Truth, Justice and the Tuluki Way he is, Biff kicks in the door to one of the chambers and rushes in to face the hooded and cloaked figure, emaciated to skeletal thinness.

Charging at the hooded and cloaked, skeletal figure with an angry, bellowing war-cry, Biff the Buff Super-warrior exclaims, in Sirihish:
"You vile fiend!  It is time for you to face justice...and then burn in the hell-pits forever!"

Now then...our vile supervillan has a few choices:

1.  emote erupts with harsh, bellowing laughter as he faces ~biff, his hands lifting out to point at !biff.

2.  say (erupting with harsh, bellowing laughter as he faces ~biff, hands lifting out toward !biff) Oh no, my brave, foolish friend!  It is -you- who are about to burn!

3. flee self (pick a viable direction)

4. emote utters an angry hiss as he bolts toward the nearest doorway with surprising speed.; flee self (pick viable direction)

5. emote Whirling to face ~biff, eyes blazing with hateful malice, @ lifts his hands out and begins chanting strange, arcane words; demonfire mon un biff

6. emote Whirling to face ~biff, eyes blazing with hateful malice, @ lifts his hands out and begins chanting strange, arcane words; (insert favorite incapacitating spell here) mon un biff

7. (insert some vile destructive or incapacitating spell here) mon un biff

Well, I'm sure we can all think of many more creative acts.

In my tenure playing vile magickers, my tendency would be to issue a brief, appropriate emote rather than talk, and follow up immediately with an incapacitating spell.  It is possible that I would cast the spell without such an emote.  It depends on the character I'm playing and the circumstances of the encounter.

If then our brave hero is rendered helpless, I would have our vile villan taunt and torment Biff for a time (if the situation supports taking the time for it).  The villan may...-may- even allow Biff to live after this encounter, but chances are...not.  After all...the fool has somehow found my evil wizard's lair.  Evil wizards simply don't let people walk away from such discoveries...if they can help it.

If death is ICly warranted, I would plan the most interesting death I can...such as a twisted, insane sacrifice of our hero to some vile entity.

Or perhaps feeding the hero to a slobbering, gibbering fiend of a pet creature.

The point I'm trying to make is.....just because your action in a particularly dire situation may be code based instead of an emote...doesn't mean it is poor roleplay.

Actions that a particular character takes should be based solely upon the personality and capabilities of that character.  Not on any OOC considerations, INCLUDING but not limited to 'I don't like losing my pcs, so I'm gonna cut this guy a break.'
Believe me, I HAVE fallen into such thoughts, but I am trying to break myself utterly of it.

THAT is ROLEPLAY.  That is GOOD roleplay.  When the actions you take as a player....are completely based upon the attributes of the character you are playing, and upon common sense and realism.

[Cenghiz]

I was killed by a defiler only once. He did not emote before the last spell which was my doom. And I should whine? Oh never. Before that, he showed me that his character was a well-played one, I should say he even put me to shame.
Should he have emoted? Nah. An army was behind him, I was also awake and able to kill him with a single chanting. I also wouldn't wait and cast 'mon un ....' but because of a bug my hp was -13 and I was still alive, which he probably didn't know. So I waited, energy swirled around him and I died.
The magicker I was the most proud of lived long. He gained power, maybe more than any other I had. Two times, three warriors decided to jump into my resting place and attack. They did not emote and it was OK, that was an ambush. I did not emote, it was OK, because my character would easily survive if I didn't slow him down with emotes. So he survived, as he should.
Just my two 'sids, one of which has a smoky aura around it.

[Maybe42or54]

Naatok, you forgot my favorite.

The figured person turns around and lowers its hood, revealing the decayed, but living remains of biff's father!

The figured person says, in sirihish, "Biff! I am your father! Save yourself!"

A shadow moves in the already shadowy room and a huge ass fucking mekillot sized fireball erupts from the doorway, consuming Biff's every  living cell.

[Sokotra]

I've had this problem come up when playing a raider more than once.  Majick or no majick, if you -know- that you will have a chance to emote when you enter the room or make yourself known, then do so.  But there are also many times where you -know- that you won't have a chance to emote... for whatever reason... (the target will immediately run, attack, or whatever).  Yeah, it'd be nice if there was some sorta -pause- button to give everyone a chance to emote before they spam 'run, e, e, e, e' or 'dismount, draw, draw, kill' or whatever - but there isn't, and nobody is perfect so this will happen often when the adreniline is pumping and you know what your character has to accomplish in a very small amount of time.  Therefore, often times I would find myself attacking first and quickly typing an emote where there are naturally coded pauses in the game... like after that first 'cast' or 'kill' command.  Is this wrong or right?  I don't know... why should I always have to emote creeping across the sands toward somebody if, by entering the room, I feel that my character has already done so - if that is the intent in the first place.  Yeah, your first concern should be to do that emote and try to RP out the situation.. but it isn't always possible.

[Fnord]

I didn't say anything about -not- emoting.
What bothers me is that some people have gotten the idea that emoting in every single situation is good roleplay...and that not emoting in every single situation...is poor roleplay...or not roleplay.

I learned this over time, after being upset a few times with no emote death scenarios involving magickers. Roleplay has many levels including consistancy, thinks, emotes, and more. We just tend to emphasize the importance of emotes because they are the most tangible for single encounters. I love creative emoting like anyone else, but have learned (painfully) to weigh it amongst other aspects of RP.

[Twilight]

Some people seem to have this idea in their head of a "scenario" that needs to get played out.  If you have this idea in your mind, and decent RP for you is fleshing out this "scenario", then of course you are going to want to see emotes.

I don't view my RP that way at all.  My RP is a stream of what my character would do.  This depends on the situation, and the personality of my character.  I'm not going to sacrifice that to have some type of "scene", sorry.

There aren't any rules about this.  For a reason.  I, as one player, can't even say how I would react.  It would vary from character to character.  Sometimes I might emote, sometimes not.  And the "scene" if you will, will play out differently, as it should.

I've had a character in a magick duel.  Neither of us emoted, and there was some damn good reasons behind that.  We didn't talk, we didn't emote, hell we'd never even seen each other before but we just flat out tried to hunt down the other and kill them.  And we had damn good reasons for what we did.

I've also managed to make friends with a sorcerer as an elementalist.

Emoting, in either case, would not have changed the basic underlying RP that was really driving things.  It merely would have added color.  And I use the term merely with intent.

[Delirium]

As a small side-note I think a magick duel would be a pretty fantastical thing to see/be involved in even without a single emote.  Maybe that's just me..

[wizturbo]

As a small side-note I think a magick duel would be a pretty fantastical thing to see/be involved in even without a single emote.  Maybe that's just me..

It is :-)

[Forest Junkie]

As a small side-note I think a magick duel would be a pretty fantastical thing to see/be involved in even without a single emote.  Maybe that's just me..

I'd be willing to bet that you never have seen a magick duel which lacked any emotes whatsoever. (I have, and it blew.)

Dueling another player and never casting reminds me of combat when more than 5 pc's are involved at once. It's pointless and reminiscent of my old H'n'S days. Oh, and it's not fun.

[Twilight]

I'd be willing to bet that you never have seen a magick duel which lacked any emotes whatsoever. (I have, and it blew.)

Like I mentioned, I've been in one, and it rocked.  Part of that was despite both of us having uber spells of doom, we both cast multiple spells before it was all resolved.  So it was much more back and forth than one person casts and the other dies (though it could have gone that way).  A couple of minutes of heart stopping action.

Dying to Naatok's evil genius was fun too.

[Ritley]

Alias the emote. "FE" fireball emote, "CWE" Create water emote, E.T.C that way to emote you would only have to tap in FE, and about four lines of emote comes up, then you can quickly tap in the spell. Sorted.
Edited to add: I personally have little experiance with magick, so, I'm no expert, but I think this might work to: Alias part's of the spell, for instance, C for cast, M for Mon, and, well you get the idea. Or maybe that's basic knowledge, I don't know.

[Xygax]

Alias the emote. "FE" fireball emote, "CWE" Create water emote, E.T.C that way to emote you would only have to tap in FE, and about four lines of emote comes up, then you can quickly tap in the spell. Sorted.

I'd rather see people not emote at -all- than spam the same canned emote with every spell no matter what.

Using an aliased emote is -not- RP.

-- X

ps - Simply emoting at all is -not- RP.  RP is portraying and behaving like an authentic individual, and emotes have nothing to do with that.  Make choices that suit your role and you're roleplaying, whether you emote or not.

[Ritley]

Yeah, s'pose so.  I have next to no experiance with magickers, just ignore me  :wink: But, I will remember that for future, incase I do have one, one day.

[Xygax]

Totally agree with you, but in life threatening situation's like that, it's better to have an aliased emote, than not one at all.

No.  You missed what I said, perhaps.  It is better in my opinion to use NO EMOTE AT ALL and get the spell cast, than to use a canned emote.

The idea alone of people canning emotes gives me the shivers, because it tends to indicate that you -think- emoting is RP.  You think that somehow vomiting forth an emote that you've now used for the 800th time while practicing your spells and killing ragged children in the 'rinth (not -you- specifically, Ritley, the -general- you, with you included) somehow helps you meet an imaginary emote-quota, by which we gauge who gets karma.

Don't think that.  Canned emotes are not sufficient (and in my opinion generally -detract- from the game).

-- X

[Ritley]

Totally agree with you, but in life threatening situation's like that, it's better to have an aliased emote, than not one at all.

No.  You missed what I said, perhaps.  It is better in my opinion to use NO EMOTE AT ALL and get the spell cast, than to use a canned emote.

The idea alone of people canning emotes gives me the shivers, because it tends to indicate that you -think- emoting is RP.  You think that somehow vomiting forth an emote that you've now used for the 800th time while practicing your spells and killing ragged children in the 'rinth (not -you- specifically, Ritley, the -general- you, with you included) somehow helps you meet an imaginary emote-quota, by which we gauge who gets karma.

Don't think that.  Canned emotes are not sufficient (and in my opinion generally -detract- from the game).

-- X

I read that bit, and quickly edited my post. Yeah, I understand what you mean, that's part of why I like armageddon so much, and I left shadows of isildur, because they believe RP was all about emoting, and the like. They even had "rules of engagement" which ment you couldn't be a assasin, or a brutal warrior, Shadows of Isildur is past, Armageddon is the Present, and the future.

[Xygax]

Yeah, s'pose so.  I have next to no experiance with magickers, just ignore me  :wink: But, I will remember that for future, incase I do have one, one day.

The philosophy here doesn't apply only to magickers.  Roleplay is roleplay regardless of emotes and regardless of your role.  You have to think about what's real for your character, whether he's a magicker or a burglar, or a psionicist, or a warrior.  Emotes can bring the world alive, and emotes can augment your RP, and creative, dynamic emoting can be an amazing thing to watch.  But it isn't the end of the story in discussing RP (for magickers or anyone else).

This thread bothers me a little bit, in general, because it seems to have fallen into a chasm of debate about whether a given event or encounter with another player exhibited enough --emotes--.  Here's the problem:  you'll never really -see- the real RP that goes into killing you.  The -real- RP, if it's good, goes on behind the scenes, as people try to sort out whether to kill you at all, and then plan their attack, and then prepare their weapons.  Even if you die in a heartbeat ("Holy crap, where am I?!"  *beep*), don't assume that your death was poorly RPed by your assassin.  If they have the luxury of giving you a drawn-out death (without fear of you ratting them out over the way, for example), then they may do so.  If not, they may not.

-- X

[Ritley]

And, my aim isn't to get Karma. Yes, I would like to play a Water Elementalist, but that's not why I play Armageddon about five hours a day. Also, I don't go around killing people for the sake of it, in fact I don't think I have ever killed with out a reason.

[Ritley]

Also, you must have seen my Rp logs, so you must know what I'm saying is the truth.

[Ritley]

Xygax you're very unpredictable, one minute you love me the next minute you hate me. I'm kinda like Marmite. Besides, I agree with you, but I was responding to his question, not to what I believe.

[Dalmeth]

This thread brings to mind a question that I've been thinking about lately.  Has anyone noticed how many people use emotes to cover up coded actions?   I mean, they do an emote that states the coded action and then do the coded action.

What do the rest of you think of this?

I find it to be highly redundant myself.  I also tend to have a sort of disdain for it, as it seems some people don't register coded actions as really happening if they're not emoted.

[Tamarin]

One time I emoted so hard that my target killed himself.

[joyofdiscord]

I often see people make emotes that are virtually identical (or, in some cases, -actually-, -literally- identical! which is confusing) to the code echo, this happens especially often with "give" and "sit" commands.  Yeah, I do find it rather annoying.

[joyofdiscord]

Xygax you're very unpredictable, one minute you love me the next minute you hate me. I'm kinda like Marmite. Besides, I agree with you, but I was responding to his question, not to what I believe.

Also, I don't mean to speak for Xygax here, but it seemed his responses to you were very neutral, without the slightest bit of emotional charge.  You don't need to take everything that happens on a message board, every slight disagreement with you, so dang personally.  It's just words on the internet.  Me, you, all of us.  We're words on the internet.  I highly doubt that very many people on these boards actually "love" or "hate" anyone else on the board (barring those that actually know each other in real life) in any meaningful sense of the words.  You'll understand when you're older.

[Ritley]

Xygax you're very unpredictable, one minute you love me the next minute you hate me. I'm kinda like Marmite. Besides, I agree with you, but I was responding to his question, not to what I believe.

Also, I don't mean to speak for Xygax here, but it seemed his responses to you were very neutral, without the slightest bit of emotional charge.  You don't need to take everything that happens on a message board, every slight disagreement with you, so dang personally.  It's just words on the internet.  Me, you, all of us.  We're words on the internet.  I highly doubt that very many people on these boards actually "love" or "hate" anyone else on the board (barring those that actually know each other in real life) in any meaningful sense of the words.  You'll understand when you're older.

Alright, well I hate you. There you go. And, yes I'm insulted easy, always have been, always will be. Would you stop trying to create a argument? please? you done this on the general discussion as well, what is it with you?

[joyofdiscord]

Saying "No one actually hates you, Ritley" is not the same as "trying to start an argument."  I'm trying to give you some perspective so maybe you can be a little more comfortable on the boards, be a little less self-conscious and maybe relax the persecution complex a bit.  My efforts have clearly been wasted.  

I'm done responding here, as "Why do you hate me?" is not the topic of this thread.  Just remember, words on the internet.  That's all it is.  Words on the internet.

[Xygax]

Xygax you're very unpredictable, one minute you love me the next minute you hate me. I'm kinda like Marmite. Besides, I agree with you, but I was responding to his question, not to what I believe.

I was confused, so I looked up marmite and I still don't understand this remark.

Anyway, with respect to whether I hate or love you....  Think of this as tough love for an Armageddon addict.

-- Xygax, the Dessert Wanderer

[joyofdiscord]

Marmite is a product in the UK, similar in many respects to Australia's famous Vegemite.  A salty, yeasty, strong-tasting spread scraped from the muck in the bottom of beer brewer's vats.  It's probably something of an acquired taste, something you crave like mad sometimes but other times makes you sick at the thought of it.

[Ritley]

Xygax you're very unpredictable, one minute you love me the next minute you hate me. I'm kinda like Marmite. Besides, I agree with you, but I was responding to his question, not to what I believe.

I was confused, so I looked up marmite and I still don't understand this remark.

Anyway, with respect to whether I hate or love you....  Think of this as tough love for an Armageddon addict.

-- Xygax, the Dessert Wanderer

Maybe marmite is only made in england then *shrug*  

[Super Mega Defiler]

Just to try and rerail this thread:
The question here is not whether one must always emote before backstabbing or casting a lethal spell.  It's certainly not about asking whether two emotes are fine before I cast Fart of Death or whether only five or so will do.

Roleplaying means staying in character, and emoting helps display this and flesh out the environment, though it does not, by itself, make good roleplay.
This is not the question here either.

The question is this: two characters are standing in a given room.  Both characters are capable of an attack that, for this example, will mean absolute and immediate death for the second character.  As far as "roleplay" goes, both characters are mentally and physically ready and plan on using their killing attacks.  The question is then; how, without breaking character or relying on OOC methods (like casting at the exact second the High Sun room message echos), can it be arranged for this encounter to be fair?
In Character, nobody is going to give anybody an edge.  Emoting that thick mist is pouring from my Vivaduan's nose as he lifts his hands isn't, ICly, stalling the casting - it's slowing down time on an OOC level.

How, without breaking character, can a situation of two magickers standing in front of each other be OOCly fair so one doesn't cast while the other is in the midst of typing an emote and cannot respond in time?  Because ICly, they're both going to start casting as soon as they can, but it also just sucks to go "east;cast 'mon un fart of death' otherguy".

[Marauder Moe]

Does it need to be fair?  Though we try to minimize it in most situations, an OOC hesitation -does- translate into an IC hesitation.  I think the idea that when you hesitate you put your life in danger is a very Zalanthan idea too.  Only fools look for fair fights.  :wink:

I do agree that it would be nice if combat/encounters could be slowed down for interaction, though, but I'm not sure it'd be possible.  Increasing the delay on outdoor travel, casting, and fighting probably would bring up other problems.

As I think I've said in this thread before, the best solution might be to emote describing your spell/actions *after* you've sent the cast command.

[Agent_137]

What, you want a little "typing" icon to pop above their heads when their typing out an emote?

The answer is:
It can't be made fair without use of OOC methods and breaking character.

[Jherlen]

PvP fights are rarely ever "fair". In cases where the two combatants are equal, the advantage usually goes to the guy who strikes first. This is true regardless of the game you're playing or the ability sets of the people involved.

If you want to win, and the guy who hits first wins... well, you can decide to either win or lose. It's your opponent's responsibility to do the same thing.

The only other solution if you wanted a "fair" duel would be to arrange terms with your opponent beforehand. Contact him over the Way and say "We both know that we possess the abilities of Fart of Doom, but to truly determine who has greater powers, I challenge you to a duel using the spell Sneeze of Lesser Dismemberment!" Of course, that's assuming you trust them to play by the rules.

[Xygax]

First, thanks for re-railing, and I apologize for allowing myself to be drawn into the derail.

Second, there's really no such thing as an "instantly kill my enemy in one shot" spell.  If you're enemy is prepared and you are not, they're probably going to win, no matter how mon your fart of fury is (assuming the two of you are relatively equally matched otherwise).

Third, I don't think it is reasonable to expect a fair fight in our game, (either ICly fair or OOCly fair).  OOCly, someone in the match types faster, or thinks faster, or has more experience with PVP (which is an -entirely- different thing than PVE in our game), and so will have inherent advantages as a result of those things.  ICly, luck can also be a big factor in a stand-off between two otherwise equally-matched opponents.  Even your very deadliest spell might fizzle at the wrong time or do below-average damage on your first shot, or whatever.  If you're looking for a "twitch" mechanic along the lines of a quick-draw where no one starts before the other one is ready, our game simply isn't capable of managing this.  EVEN if you both type your command at -exactly- the same moment, the packets sent across the network from your machines may arrive during different game loops.  And EVEN if they arrive on the same game loop, one of your descriptors will occur earlier in the list than the other.  One of your actions will codedly occur -before- the other person's action has even begun.  And there's no way in our code-base for it to work any differently.

Slowing down combat, magick, etc., even if it didn't have other consequences in terms of the game mechanics would also be a bad thing in terms of design, in my opinion.  I like that you can die quickly on Arm, as I think that parallels real life more accurately.  Already, in that sense, our combat code takes too long.  Two capable warriors can go for literally IC hours without even scratching each other.

So, maybe what we're looking for is a different thing.  Maybe there need to be more ways to incapacitate/capture people that don't permit them to use the Way to rat you out.  I've been intrigued also by the many discussions about ropes/shackles for controlling prisoners (though players imprisoning players leads to other OOC issues that are difficult to manage).

Maybe what's needed are more ideas about how non-lethal conflict can proceed in a way that doesn't feel OOCly manipulated.  I'm always mildly bothered by the fact that, on Zalanthas, one of the best ways to solve your problems with a particular individual really is to kill them dead.  Because this is the case, many situations that could be resolved more mildly (with a beating or mangling or dismemberment, instead of a killing  :twisted:) and/or with greater potential for future RP, end in quick deaths.

I don't necessarily have those ideas, but they might be more fruitful discussions than trying to make "badass sorcerer v. badass sorcerer" battles fair.

-- X

[JohnGalt]

So, maybe what we're looking for is a different thing.  Maybe there need to be more ways to incapacitate/capture people that don't permit them to use the Way to rat you out.  I've been intrigued also by the many discussions about ropes/shackles for controlling prisoners (though players imprisoning players leads to other OOC issues that are difficult to manage).

Adding methods of restricting the use of the Way through non-magickal means would definitely increase the number of interrogations that occur, opposed to swift executions.

As for non-lethal combat...  I think good roleplaying of the 'victims' could do this.  If they get beaten nearly to death, and actually roleplay being too terrified to speak about a subject, then its all good.  But what is sooooo common these days is after someone is 'taught a lesson' they immediately turn around  and tattle tale.

[Maybe42or54]

What pisses me off though, and this has happened 4 or 5 times to me.

Usually this happens in less than 3 minutes.

You head north.
The Road [NESW]
The long and identical desc of the room before. Yes, it is still very cool.

The evil, unknown magicker is doing anything but raiding.

You ride past ~magicker, nodding recognition before moving on.

The evil, unknown magicker begins casting.
The evil, unknown magicker fails at casting.

The evil, unknown magicker begins casting.
The evil, unknown magicker fails at casting.

(right about here, I was dumbfounded. "What the fuck is this fucker doing? I havn't even looked at them.)

you think Fuck it.

Look evil

You see the desc, sdesc, and scant gear list of the evil magicker.

The evil, unknown magicker begins casting.
The evil, unknown magicker fails at casting.

emote rides into the area, no weapons drawn, then sess ~magicker and continues riding.

The evil, unknown magicker begins casting.
The evil, unknown magicker fails at casting.

You wait for an emote.

The evil, unknown magicker begins casting.
The evil, unknown magicker fails at casting.

The evil, unknown magicker begins casting.
The evil, unknown magicker fails at casting.

The evil, unknown magicker begins casting.
The evil, unknown magicker paralyzes you.

The evil, unknown magicker runs south along the road.

[jhunter]

:shock:  You approached an obvious magicker out in the wilds by yourself? On purpose even?

[amoeba]

:shock:  You approached an obvious magicker out in the wilds by yourself? On purpose even?

My thought exactilly.

The evil, unknown magicker begins casting.
think Oh shit!
pemote eyes pop open wide.
run
s (screaming like a little girl with his hands over his head)

[Maybe42or54]

I didn't know it was a magicker. I was hoping for an emote or some shit along those lines. I gave them the benefit of the doubt, which I don't do anymore.

The whole thing took place on the road.

[Halaster]

I didn't know it was a magicker. I was hoping for an emote or some shit along those lines. I gave them the benefit of the doubt, which I don't do anymore.

The whole thing took place on the road.

How could you not know they were a mage if they were casting spells and failing against your?  Or better yet, if you didn't know they were a magicker, how could you post that they were a magicker?  

I'm lost.

[Halaster]

I think I agree almost 100% with the thoughts both Naatok and Xygax have posted.  My opinion is that roleplaying is playing a role, and a whole situation, not just a scene.  The situation may culminate in your death, but even if I didn't satisfy your emoting needs, that doesn't mean I wasn't roleplaying well.  The number/frequency of emotes or thinks or whatever do not constitute good OR bad roleplay.  The playing realistically  of a role does.  Now, if I see a mage just casting all day long with no thinks, emotes, etc., then I'm going to question him.  I won't instantly think he's a twink, but I'll encourage him to make it more obvious that he IS roleplaying.

At any rate, I agree with the thought process that if you are a mage, and you have the opportunity and ability to make the situation more fun and more enjoyable for the victim than just a quick spell and a death, then by all means, you should do that.  But if you've been chasing a person a while, and they've shown you over and over that they tend to just run as soon as they know you're there, then go Texan on 'em and just whack 'em.  Then emote kicking their corpse, or whatever.

What I'm saying is that I don't think it's a requirement by any means whatsoever that you must emote before casting a spell of doom on someone.  Although, if you know you can do it and still acheive your goal, you really should.  A mage who just whacks someone with little scene-enhancement affects (i.e. emotes, monologues, etc) isn't a very fun mage to watch, and doesn't really impress me.  But I don't think they suck, necessarily either.  The mages who -do- do those things, though, I admit, are more entertaining.

But as Naatok said, I really wish people would stop assuming you must emote or monologue or think or whatever to be a good roleplayer.  While those absolutely help, they're not the definition.

[Maybe42or54]

Shell shock. Yea. That is what I had.

Squinting, you think, "What the fuck is the distant figure doing?"
Magick is scarier with no emotes, because then all you see is the code and the mantis.

[joyofdiscord]

How could you not know they were a mage if they were casting spells and failing against your?  Or better yet, if you didn't know they were a magicker, how could you post that they were a magicker?  

I'm lost.

I interpreted it sort of like this: without an emote, it's very difficult to see through your character's eyes, decide what he's seeing, and how he would respond.

Is my character just seeing some wierd guy standing out in the desert mumbling (and you wouldn't even notice the mumbling since he's far away and maybe hooded) ?  Or are there obvious swirls of magickal juju flying off him that anyone would notice from leagues away?  The code echo might give you some clue, but still might be pretty ambiguous.

-That- is my problem with no-emoting magickers.  They just don't fill in the blanks.  And the code echoes leave a LOT of blanks.

[naatok]

I'd like to comment on the 'canned emotes' sub-thread in this...already bulging ball of thread...

For the most part, I totally agree with Xygax's statement about canned emotes.  There's only one exception I can think of, and that is when a particular activity -always- has the same witnessable effect.

For instance, Pbbfft, the krathi elementalist has a problem.  He loves spicy scrab-cakes and ale.  Unfortunately, they don't love him back and he is beset  by the worst cases of intestinal gas this side of the Gladiator & Gaj tavern.

This situation creates another problem for Pbbfft the Krathi.  When he uses his magick, he tends to shoot small, alarming, but otherwise totally harmless fireballs out of his ass.

Since this affliction is ongoing, every time our hapless gas-bag of a hero uses his powers, he farts another harmless fireball.

Pbbfft is extremely embarrassed about the whole affair (especially since he can't even use the effect to light a candle...the combustion simply doesn't last long enough to burn anything but his own ass-wind), but...what can he do?  Give up spicy scrab cakes and frothy ale?  Not bloody likely!!!

I know the example concept is silly (actually I love it! :twisted: ), but it exemplefies a particular situation that is persistent enough to warrant, in my not-so humble fart-lighting opinion...a simple canned emote for a particular action.