Combat Affected Movement

[LoD]

You know, I could see that, and have far less of a problem with it if some work was done to make it balanced...course, I would still have a problem, just less of one.

Most excitment sweating palms thudding heart shaking fingers fun I've had in the game to date.

Which would not have happened if any of these ideas were put in at the time.

I see NO way that these would really enrich the game for anybody, specialy not new players, instead it would make an already steep learning curve even steeper.

My suggestion wouldn't have stopped you from doing any of this.  It would have simply slowly brought you back to 1hp after you'd rested if you didn't wait for about 4-6 game hours before you tried to go fight again.   But the entire scene you just described would've been just fine with that implemented.

-LoD

[jhunter]

As for jhunter...playing 10 years and only escaping death a handful of times. Again, your experience is not the measure of the game. I, quite contrary to you, have been severely wounded in the several dozens of times and managed to live through it. Hell, back in my twinking days, I used to "spar" bahamets, knowing quite well that I could just take a grievous wound (and hopefully the corresponding skill boosts) and be on my merry way to sleep it off at a secure, undisclosed location. This, quite obviously, was ridiculous, and I'd like to see to it that such ridiculous behavior is not only a violation of the game's rules but also technically impossible, by code restriction.

I, unlike you never put myself in stupid situations like that but because some people do, I should pay for it by making death more likely when those situations come up? Those situations for me usually were the "freak" accidents that would've led to an unrealistic death but I managed to survive them and have a good story to tell about it.

Just because -some- people twink and do stupid things is no reason to tighten up the screws even more and decrease the amount of "grey area" for people to roleplay in.
The more "grey area" taken away, the less room there is for RP and the more it shifts the focus to the code.
I've said this before and I'm going to say it again: People focus too damned much on other people instead of focusing on "cleaning out their own backyard".

Some people say: "We should make this codedly impossible because -someone- might twink out with it." Yeah, and that -someone- will probably learn from their mistakes (like -yourself- for example) or if they don't they will: lose options/never get karma/get banned or quit.
I'd say it's much easier to gauge who can be trusted when there's more freedom than just forcing everyone into the groove, whether they understand why it's that way or not.
I'd personally rather have someone playing the game that has learned from their mistakes and learned to play by the rules (by their own choice),than someone who is only doing it simply because the code made them.

[Synthesis]

Jhunter:

You seem to be taking it for granted that the way things are at present is good enough, and I'll address that by saying that I agree that it wouldn't be disastrous not to include this code.  Things as they are right now are not out of control.  Twinks are not running amok around Tuluk sparring bahamets and tembo.

The fact is, though, people are taking advantage of the lack of a wound system in order to do things that are unrealistic, whether it's a direct flaunting of reality (I took this grievous wound, but I'll just sleep it off and go out hunting again tomorrow), or an indirect assumption (even if something bad happens, it won't be -too- bad).

The point is -not- to penalize everyone for the actions of the twinks and the unenlightened.  The point is to bring the code more in line with what is realistic.  Again, let me state that this is not the perfect solution.  It is an interim fix until a more consistent wound system can be worked out.

To address some of your specific concerns:

1."The more 'grey area' taken away, the less room there is for RP..."

You're using "grey area" here as a euphemism for "things that aren't realistic, but are technically not illegal."  Now, this in itself is not a bad thing, but there are some grey areas that are worse than others.  For example, the grey area of travel time between places is probably okay (for now), since there are OOC considerations in play (e.g. people don't have 5 hours to waste getting from point A to point B, and there aren't any quit points along the way).  However, some grey areas are not so innocuous, and personally, I think the disregard for wounds is one of them.  (You can infer the reasons from my first post.)

2. "Some people say: "We should make this codedly impossible..."

I'm saying we should make the code reflect the danger inherent in traveling in the territory of gigantic lizards and other monsters that can rip you to bloody tatters within moments.  To phrase it in your terms, I think we should make this codedly -difficult- because people are -already- twinking out with it.  Beyond the odd newbie, there is very little true -fear- of the desert.  Even indie merchants with no skills relating to desert survival at all will wander along the roads, making vast sums of money in complete disregard of the insane risks he is realistically taking when following that course of action.

3. "...it's much easier to gauge who can be trusted when there's more freedom..."

There's a legal term called "entrapment."  In law enforcement, it's illegal, because it is totally unfair and unjust.  What you are advocating here is entrapment of players by Imms, plain and simple.  I don't think anyone here wants that sort of situation to exist, because it completely evaporates whatever trust there may be between Imms and players in the first place.

4. "People focus too damn much on other people..."

This is because everything on the face of Zalanthas is a competition.  A struggle for resources.  A struggle for power and influence, a struggle for position, whatever.  If one person routinely plays on the barely legal edge of every "grey area" in the game, he makes it difficult to impossible for those who wish to play realistically to even survive.  What happens when one PC merchant floods every NPC shop in the city with his own goods after every reboot?  What happens when a burglar runs around picking every door in the city and looting every apartment he get gain access to?  What happens when one hunter kills every tandu in sight after every reboot?  These are -all- grey areas that exist, and the game would be much better if they did not, because -then- people could focus on maintaining a realistic character, without worrying about falling behind and being weeded out by those with no compunctions about breaking realism.

[X-D]

Fallacy

A false notion.
A statement or an argument based on a false or invalid inference.
Incorrectness of reasoning or belief; erroneousness.
The quality of being deceptive.

Since, my statement is based on an opinion, based on how I feel on a subject, it cannot fall under a false notion, in no way am I trying to be deceptive and calling somebodies opinion of something invalid is equal in my opinion to calling it silly, something I've been yelled at by staff on before for being near flaming. This is how it can be considered near flaming, by actually understanding the definition of the word used.

The only statement of fact I made is what happened.

If you wish to speak on the arguement structure for some reason fine.
But the arguement is -not- that cheating death is exciting but that cheating death in such a manner can be.

Your second assessment of the arguement now becomes true.

As well as your third.

Now, the fallacy is one of hasty generalization, i.e. if the code would be bad for my experience, it must be bad for all experiences.

No, the fallacy at this point is yourself making a false assumption, the above statement was never made nor infured by me.

-My- statement was that it would cause one type of experiance to cease to be, Which, in my experience and opinion is true.

I merely pointed out that this is not the case, quite reasonably. Since when did pointing out mistakes in someone's reasoning become flaming?

See above. Specialy when the only mistakes in reasoning were yours, again, see above.

Also, you all need to keep in mind that the "maimed" code would only go into effect on an individual who has been struck, in a single blow, for more than X% of its hit points. In all reality, there just aren't that many things out there that can do that much damage in a single blow...certainly not anything that an unexperienced ranger should be running up against, and certainly not anything that even experienced rangers should be taking down on their own

And what is this x amount? I once had a d-elf get struck in the head for wound by a gimpka rat, to have a maimed flag in such cases would be rather silly IMO.

As to final points 1 and 2, See Jhunters post, I think it covers.

3. Risk-taking. As I noted above, risk-taking is usually the root cause of death. Now, this runs counter to your (somewhat parenthetical) argument that the code would increase the number of new applications that the Imms would have to sort through. That is, once people become familiar with the code, they will take fewer risks, and will thus live longer, ultimately reducing the number of applications the staff has to deal with. Further, I'd like to note that very few things capable of inflicting this kind of damage actually roam within "3 rooms of the gates" of any city, and that if you're unskilled enough to be struck so severely by something that really isn't all that dangerous, perhaps you shouldn't be meandering about the desert.

Now, most of this is fallacious in one point...very VERY much so. I note that in FACT there are at least 7 different things in the north that are OFTEN found within 3-4 rooms of the gates that can cause these types of wounds, and even to experianced pc's. In the south that number is smaller, I'd say only two are often winthin that range but they can be quite deadly even to the experianced.

And why exactly would you want to decrease risk taking? It is a game in the end, something played for enjoyment and the range of enjoyable things to do. Some of us don't want to tavern sit 90% of our time away till we find a large enough group to be able to move around outside. And you have not touched on the fact that such codes, except maybe LoD's would severly retard the odds of indy PC's being able to survive. You state that people will get used to the new code, this may be true, IF they stay around long enough to do so. Some would not. And you also, without a doubt drasticly increase the learning curve again. And we simply do not get enough new players as it is.

And here is another -probable- side effect to such things. Spam hunting, at least in most players perspectives would actually appear to increase. Since, if people need to take less risks, that means going out in larger groups, and believe me, a couple large groups can simply lay waste to whole zones in a matter of an hour or two.

The fact is, though, people are taking advantage of the lack of a wound system in order to do things that are unrealistic, whether it's a direct flaunting of reality (I took this grievous wound, but I'll just sleep it off and go out hunting again tomorrow), or an indirect assumption (even if something bad happens, it won't be -too- bad).

The fact is, Sometimes reality NEEDS to suffer for playability. I think that this is one of the instances.

Sorry LoD, I did not take a close look at your suggestion, I'll do so now
(EDIT)
Alright, I don't think that one would be all that harmful, simply annoying. Though, I'd allow them to go lower before getting any sort of flag.

And it DEFINITLY should not be a flat across the board timer for all races and endurance.

[jhunter (gotta log in)]

In my opinion, you seem to be taking it for granted that some of these problems are much bigger than they really are.

1. No. The "grey area" I'm referring to is the the area that the code does  not define 100% for you that you are allowed the freedom to make some decisions, for better or worse. You may choose that it has a more negative impact on your pc at a particular point and time for the purposes of roleplay and making a more interesting story. You may choose that it has a slightly less negative impact on your pc at a particular time for that same reason. The "grey area" by my own definition isn't "things aren't realistic, but are technically not illegal". It is the area not determined by the code that we may color with our own roleplaying ability.

2. It -is- already codedly difficult. If it wasn't we would have alot more long-lived outdoor/combat type pcs than we currently do. There isn't anything that's going to create -true- fear of the desert for the experienced players. No matter what changes are made, at some point you've seen it all/or at least believe that you have and any -real- fear becomes non-existant. Those indie merchants you mentioned, "wandering along the roads, making vast sums of money" don't usually live very long. I believe you are blowing this up into a much larger problem than it truly is.

3. It's not entrapment when the person has made the decision "on their own" to break the rules. Noone is pushing them to break the rules. That's like saying that because the opportunity is there for me to shoot someone and I did, it's entrapment. "There shouldn't have been the opportunity, it was a setup!" No offense, but that's just ridiculous.

4. When someone else is making it harder on you because they are playing unrealistically, if you catch them you turn it in. ICly you treat it as if it was something IC and you deal with it IC. I've yet to have my play or enjoyment of the game majorly affected by someone else's unrealistic play. Also, everyone has a different opinion one what is -realistic- about certain things. For some people, certain things are plausible and acceptable. For others, they simply disagree on what is plausible and acceptable.
You can't please everyone.
It's got to be somewhere in the middle and I personally believe that the balance between what's coded and what's left as "grey area" to color in through RP is pretty close to the middle ground as it stands. Too much code-determined realism decreases playability and enjoyment for many. You apparently prefer for the code to make more decisions for you. I personally think it's balanced just the way I like it.

[X-D]

It's got to be somewhere in the middle and I personally believe that the balance between what's coded and what's left as "grey area" to color in through RP is pretty close to the middle ground as it stands. Too much code-determined realism decreases playability and enjoyment for many. You apparently prefer for the code to make more decisions for you. I personally think it's balanced just the way I like it.

I feel the same.

[FightClub]

Alright good propositions, how about this (not sure if anyone has mentioned it)

Your at 75% health you can only jog or less, despite what movement speed you hit above jog, you will still be jogging.
50% walk
25% trudge or prace or something slow.
less than that and you're practically crawling using your bones as crutches!

Thoughts?

(after reading x-d's post)

Same for npc's...face it they're not going to be he-man sprinting after you with a missing leg, four arms, and half a neck.