That will be abused

[elvenchipmunk]

In the past few times that I've seen a new idea come up, there always seems to be the argument that it shouldn't be implemented because it will be abused. Although, in every case this is posted, I do agree that it is true. What I would like to point out though, and like to hear other's thoughts on, is that almost every command in Armageddon has the potential to be abused (Now I could be wrong, but this is how I feel, as I can think of instance for most commands to be abused). Examples: using emote (power-emote), kill (kill people without real reason ICly to do it), hide (hide while people are right in front of you. HOW CAN SOMEONE DISAPPEAR IN THE MIDDLE OF A CONVERSATION!? MAGICKERS I TELL YOU!), steal (spam-stealing, stealing items that realistically are not in a position to be stolen), etc.

Anyways those are my thoughts, there are many commands in Armageddon, and the ones I've demonstrated above might not be considered abuse, but they are in my mind. So I'd just like to hear some thoughts from other people about this. Be it why you bother saying that this new idea will be abused (maybe you're just doing it to point the fact out, and not to argue at all *shrugs*) or why you agree/disagree with me that almost every command in Arm can be abused.

[EvilRoeSlade]

Some ideas have such a high potential for abuse and such little benefit that they should never be implimented.  The ability to raise your stats by exercising, for example.

Every other command generally has a much smaller potential for abuse with benefits that make them well worth it.  Even if they are good ideas, their potential for abuse should still be mentioned.  The benefits and costs of any idea should always be weighed together.  Furthermore, if somebody outlines all the ways a command could be abused, then another person might get an idea of how to minimize the ability of twinks to abuse the command.

That's my take on it.

[sarahjc]

A lot of times you will hear the "that will be abused" comment on a proposed new idea. And there is good reason for it.  Often a really cool idea could be implemented if not for the fact that we have an imperfect player base that can and will take advantage of loopholes in the code to power game.

And yes most things can be abused, but some, though they may be excellent ideas can be abused much more easily. So often in bringing up a counterpoint to someone's thoughts.. the abuse card is often the one most played.

[Gaare]

All ideas are implemented or not by Staff..  And they are the only people who can judge a fellow player if twinking or not.. So as a player why would you bother yourself about others' ooc actions on game mechanics?

[sarahjc]

All ideas are implemented or not by Staff..  And they are the only people who can judge a fellow player if twinking or not.. So as a player why would you bother yourself about others' ooc actions on game mechanics?

Mostly because it's a discussion board and the player with the idea asks what others think. If they didn't want to hear other player opinions, they would just post in ask the staff, Yeah?

Also I am sure that the staff opinions on this sort of stuff also get swayed somewhat on what the players think. It may not have a large effect on things, but I'm sure hearing the players thoughts on a topic is helpful.

At least I like to think so, else I spend a good deal of time wasted, voicing mine.

[Gaare]

We usually do not discuss if someone is abusing code or not. At least that kind of threads in GDB, which are rare, usually burns in flames.

The reason is very simple, players rarely have chance to see the overall picture of other players' OOC behaviours so we tend to blame each other. Heh.. IMO one's speaking on a matter on which s/he does not have chance to see, means hardly anything.  (Ignoring politicians, and women shows producers.. For them, it means money)

[sarahjc]

Bah.. I am a pretty stand up Arm player.. I don't twink too much and do my best to fit in the game world.

That said, on some concepts that are posted. I can often think of ways I would "like" to abuse them. And if I can think of it, chances are, someone else will do it.

In the End you are right Garre, only the Imms can see how things can trully get abused, but if a bunch of us can think of 5 or 6 ways something can be Horribly abused with our limited knowledge of the code, I can't see the harm in voicing that.

I may not know the inner workings of say.. I dunno, NPC's. But if somone were to suggest that all NPC's should be able to follow around any clan member and take orders from them, I would say something like No.. that would seem too easily abused to me.

Doesn't really take a degree in rocket science to have a slightly educated opinion on some things.

[elvenchipmunk]

Bah.. I am a pretty stand up Arm player.. I don't twink too much and do my best to fit in the game world.

That said, on some concepts that are posted. I can often think of ways I would "like" to abuse them. And if I can think of it, chances are, someone else will do it.

In the End you are right Garre, only the Imms can see how things can trully get abused, but if a bunch of us can think of 5 or 6 ways something can be Horribly abused with our limited knowledge of the code, I can't see the harm in voicing that.

(What I'm talking about is in bold)

I think that this is true. If a player on the gdb finds something about an idea that they think will be abused, I would really like to start seeing players do this. From what I've seen lately (again, from what -I-'ve seen lately, all IMO) players simply say: This can be abused. No, I don't want it.

I think that whenever you're going to put down that this will be abused, maybe give a few examples (or as many as you can think of, anyways) of how it will be abused. And maybe this will clarify and help people like me from starting threads like this  

[sarahjc]

Absolutely. I am never a fan of the one word or one sentence shut down without explanation.

Much like those quote posts that just tack on an "I agree." Quoted twenty times. To me all that does is take up space.

But that's just personal taste, I think you should always back up an opinion with reasoning, otherwise it's just static.

[Agent_137]

it's important to be aware of how an idea can be abused, but rarely does the potential for abuse actually make the idea bad.

[Larrath]

I agree with everyone else in this thread.
Whenever a new idea is considered, its possible uses need to be taken into consideration.  Emotes and ldescs can be abused and harmful, but 'emote' is still not a command that automagickally makes you 'sid.
No mudsex jokes.  I mean it.

It's like if we let magickers have a command that would allow them to sacrifice an object, any object, in exchange for mana or additional power.  It's a pretty cool idea, but take one twinky, high-powered magickers with fifty travel cakes to sacrifice between Farts of Death and there is going to be some serious trouble.

Or if we put in code that would let people run others over with wagons or mounts.  One half-giant on an inix and suddenly every NPC templar on the streets is suddenly squashed.

Or a command that allowed any character to enter berserk rage during combat for those emotional situations, giving offense bonuses.

Or any other number of things.  This game isn't perfect and no player is perfect, either.  This ought to be taken into consideration.

[Rindan]

I actually agree with the original poster.  I think people misunderstand what can be truly abused in Armageddon.  The game already gives people exceptional powers of abuse if they truly want to cause damage.  A desert elf can kite a pile of silt horrors into Allanak.  Any idiot can emote all manner of coded actions, some of which can easily lead to the death of another person.  A single templar could literally kill every single in Allanak without breaking a sweat.  All of these instances is why everything in the game is recorded and why bans and black marks are liberally used when people really abuse the game.  Any person with even a little knowledge of the code could wreak havoc on the world.  That goes double and triple if they have any position of power.

The real danger in new commands is NOT intentional abuse.  The real danger is reading too much into the command and unintentionally misusing it.  Environmental emotes are a perfect example.  The number of people that would intentionally abuse the ability to make an emote without their name attached to it is so trivial as to not be bothered with worrying about.  The <I>real</I> danger of such a command is people unintentionally misusing it.  I might use the command to emote out some passive VNPCs in the tavern laughing loudly at their table and getting drunk.  Someone else might emote some VNPCs smoking a bowl of spice in the Gaj, which wouldn't be acceptable.  It isn't that they are 'abusing' the command, they are just unintentionally misinterpreting in what ways they are supposed to use that command.

Stuff like, "well, that idea is bad because a player might use it to kill all the NPCs in the Templar quarters" or what not is just a waste of breath in my opinion.  Give me a desert elf and I could abuse the code and probably kill everything that came across until an imm smites me.  People need to keep a perspective on what is abuse worth worrying about, what is just downright silly losing sleep over.  If a person caught 'abusing' a command or feature would result in the imms banning them with no questions asked, chances are it is a level of abuse so blatant and obvious that it is not even worth worrying about.