Why do only rangers get to quit in wilderness?

[bloodfromstone]

I think it'd be nice to have in a few subguilds. Sure, a lot of people would take them all of a sudden, but there's a reason for that. A lot of people want to play outside the walls, and they don't want to be forced into playing the same guild every time. They don't have to have desert nav and wilderness quit. Nor do they have to be as good at either (I.E., timed tick down for quitting, like several people mentioned) as rangers. It'd be nice for people who don't want to play rangers every time, and for the people who are tired of seeing a million rangers.

[Moofassa]

I suppose you could try letting characters quit out in the wilderness if they're with a ranger. Kinda like how groups led by rangers don't get lost in sandstorms.

Not a horrid idea at all.

[jhunter]

Sure, a lot of people would take them all of a sudden, but there's a reason for that. A lot of people want to play outside the walls, and they don't want to be forced into playing the same guild every time. They don't have to have desert nav and wilderness quit.

You don't -have- to have either of these to do it. You just have to be creative and understand that it's going to limit you a bit if you want your main area of expertise to be something other than desert survival.

And that's -exactly- how it should be.

[jhunter]

I suppose you could try letting characters quit out in the wilderness if they're with a ranger. Kinda like how groups led by rangers don't get lost in sandstorms.

I don't see anything wrong with this. It makes sense and still keeps a limitation on non-rangers in the wilds.

[Mudder]

All I have to say is your complaining about taking something away from the rangers that they only have. Rangers are known survivors of the lands, not warriors or anything else. And it would suck ass to have every class in the game be able to quit out in the wilds. That would take something away from rangers. Being able to quit in the wilds is something unique that rangers has and wouldn't make since to give it to warriors or anyone else. Is is really that hard to go find a quit-safe place or wander into a city to quit out?

[forest imp]

Having read all this chatter, I have one question to ask.  Something I feel is absolutely vital to the argument.

-Allowing everyone to quit outside of a city does what to the opportunities for RP?

Armageddon is an RP mud.  For that, you need at least some interaction with other PCs.  As of now, a vast majority of PCs are located within the confines of the cities/outposts/camps.  Out of necessity, for they cannot reliably quit out in the wilds should the need arise.  Give them the chance to quit out in the desert, and quite a few of those characters may very well disappear for long periods of time, spent wandering the wastes doing whatever.  What good is a soloing character to an RP environment?  For the most part, very little.  I say, keep it the way it is.  It is a player's responsibilty to manage what online time they have.

Discuss if you want, this is just my two cents on the subject.

[EvilRoeSlade]

Am I the only one who thinks of these types of characters?

I would have created a merchant.  It isn't as hard as you say it is.

[Agent_137]

How it is now:
Rangers survive in the desert.
Warriors kill shit.
Merchants make money.
Pickpockets steal coins.
Assassains surprise people.
Buglars steal couches.

How it would be:
Rangers survive in the desert.
Warriors kill shit and survive in the desert.
Merchants make money and survive in the desert.
Pickpockets steal coins and survive in the desert.
Assassains surprise people and survive in the desert.
Buglars steal couches and survive in the desert.


How about not?
If you want to travel from city to city selling shit as a merchant, HIRE A RANGER. Any guide worth his salt will know quit-safe areas for non rangers that he can lead you to in an emergency. And even then, there will be less "omg sandstorm" emergencies because he can lead you -through- them.

I hope this thread gets lost in a sandstorm, unable to quit out, and gets eaten by a pack of raptors like it should because its guild's main focus isn't desert survival.

[X-D]

Snicker.

wipes eyes

Oh, What Agent_137 said.

[Kalden]

I thought about this and changed my position. Keep it how it is.

I just felt spurred to post because I think Agent_137 misrepresents what giving this ability to everyone would do to rangers.

Rangers do a lot more than just 'survive in the wastes'. They own the wastes. Heh. Giving the ability to quit out in the wastes would not make rangers much less powerful or unique. I'm sorry, that's just the truth.

[Marauder Moe]

It's not -that- big of a deal to allow people to survive a little in the wastes.

This thread has gone 8 pages.

[Angela Christine]

Idea:  More quit safe rooms.

Implementation:  Use the idea command.


If you (ranger or not) are out and about and you come across a room that you think would be a good quit safe room but when you try "quit test" you find out it isn't one try:

Code Select Expand

>idea This would be a great quit room!

Maybe an imm will agree with you.

What makes a good candidate for a quit room?  My guess is any room that is sheltered in some way, like a cave, a dead end that is sheltered from the wind on two or three sides, a room that shows evidence of being used as a campground, a room under an overhang, a (preferably empty) animal den or nest, an abandoned building, etc.  

It can't hurt to try.


Angela Christine

[LoD]

As mentioned by the Imm Staff, the ranger guild should be chosen if your character has the background necessary for surviving and living in the wilderness for extended periods of time.  Period.

If your character does not have this background, then don't expect the ability to survive a natural storm in a harsh environment like Zalanthas.  People die in sand storms.  Heck, people die in heavy storms today and they have technology, houses, electricity, emergency reponse vehicles and neighbors.  If they wanted to be realistic, most characters who went into a sand storm without a good deal of perparation and knowledge would probably die, while you merely lose your way and are forced to spend some "time" navigating or waiting it out.

If you start a character as a warrior and feel that they've practiced and learned enough of the desert world to adopt the ranger skillset, I'm sure you could special app for your character guild to be changed from warrior to ranger and pow - you can quit.  You may whine that you cannot keep some of your warrior skills, but that's how the game works.  We don't have backstabbing warriors no matter how much they practice the skill.  We don't have fireballing merchants regardless of what they put in their backgrounds.  And we don't have wilderness quitting characters who aren't rangers because it is your responsibility to ensure that your character's skillset and guild choice mirriors both your background and your expectations.

The Imm Staff have already made it clear that emergencies can often be dealt with via the 'wish' command, and I don't think they've removed the comnand "quit regardless" if you really need to go.  But time management is also your responsibility, not the Imm Staff, the other players or the gameworld's.  To claim that there is something wrong with the game because it doesn't suit the time you have to play is pretty selfish.  The integrity of the gameworld is one of Armageddon's finest points, and I'll happily die in the desert storm to maintain that.

All that said, I wouldn't be adverse to certain expensive objects (i.e. tents) creating quit-safe rooms that disappeared after use.  For example, if you made a tent and then quit out - the tent object would be removed when you logged back into the game.  At about 1500 'sid a pop and their designed weight, this would likely keep such an activity to a minimum and truely reserved for those moments of emergency.

-LoD

[EvilRoeSlade]

All that said, I wouldn't be adverse to certain expensive objects (i.e. tents) creating quit-safe rooms that disappeared after use.  For example, if you made a tent and then quit out - the tent object would be removed when you logged back into the game.  At about 1500 'sid a pop and their designed weight, this would likely keep such an activity to a minimum and truely reserved for those moments of emergency.

Explain how that would make any sense.

[ale six]

They're magick tents?

[LoD]

All that said, I wouldn't be adverse to certain expensive objects (i.e. tents) creating quit-safe rooms that disappeared after use.  For example, if you made a tent and then quit out - the tent object would be removed when you logged back into the game.  At about 1500 'sid a pop and their designed weight, this would likely keep such an activity to a minimum and truely reserved for those moments of emergency.

Explain how that would make any sense.

For the purpose of playability, if "something" was going to be implemented to allow anyone (non-rangers) an IC way to quit-out without wishing up or using the "quit regardless" command, I'd want there to be some weighty disadvantages.  If someone setup a tent in sandstorm conditions and chose to use the room as a quit-safe room, they'd understand that the tent would be rendered useless and consumed by a potential myriad of desert related problems (i.e. weather, critters, debris).  

Perhaps the stakes for the tent were buried too far beneath the dunes, one of the tent poles snapped and the cloth tore, and while it allowed you to survive, it's no longer useable.  Pick a scenario in your mind that might occur in a scenario where someone is unable to return to a quit-safe location due to weather, critters, humanoids, distance and apply it to what might happen to that virtual tent while they are safely logged out.

I think it actually makes pretty good sense in the low fantasy environment.  My idea hinges on the premise that a canvas tent might develop a tear or break in a fierce storm or when approached by a desert animal as a "disadvantage" to using an expensive tent object in an emergency situation.  I already accept things in this game such as the existence of beings that have a connection to the elemental plane of fire and are able to channel energies through it via a mystical force we all have called "mana".

Is this really so far a stretch of the imagination?

-LoD

[Morgenes]

quit regardless was removed a long time ago.  Now there is only quit, quit test and quit die.

[LoD]

quit regardless was removed a long time ago.  Now there is only quit, quit test and quit die.

Well, that shows how often I've needed to use any command other than quit in the last several years because I don't go wandering the wastes before class.  :wink:

-LoD

[jmordetsky]

Am I the only one who thinks of these types of characters?

I would have created a merchant.  It isn't as hard as you say it is.

I didn't say it was hard. I said I wanted a more a challenge then a ranger and not to have to play the sit to quit game.

[Packersfan]

Don't you people get it? Rangers are very capable melee fighters, so don't give me the old "warriors fight stuff and rangers quit in the wilderness garbage." Furthermore, Rangers get many many many outdoor survival skills, they can tame mounts, they get trample, they get incredible archery, and they get listen. Now, if one person can give me one reason why an individual can not learn how to make shelter outside of the city in places such as right off a main road, or in the shade of a cliff, or in a cave I want to hear it. This afformentioned person would of course have to have appropriate gear and training. Now classes such as assasin and pickpocket are incredibly city oriented and I can understand why they would not receive the skill. However, a merchant and a warrior is not a pure city guild so they should be able to quit in about 1/5 of the places a ranger can.

[Cenghiz]

Only one reason? If it's not sheltered from storms, he simply cannot.. One must live for a real long time to handle storms. If it's sheltered from storms, then bug it, because it should have already been a quitsafe room.

[Xygax]

Not ALL sheltered rooms are meant to be quit-safe.  Often, though the area is empty when you're there (or appears so), something lives there which returns from time to time to eat hapless PCs living in its lair.  Please don't be upset if a room you've typod (use typo, not bug -- a room being not quit-safe isn't a bug...  a bug is when you take off your carru-leather jacket and it turns into a silt-horror that suddenly backstabs you.  Mis-spellings, missing room-flags, etc., are typos) doesn't immediately become quit-safe.  Also, please submit typos like this only once.  We don't count typos like votes and then use the most-voted-on-typos as a technique for prioritizing tasks.

-- X

[Tlaloc]

Now, if one person can give me one reason why an individual can not learn how to make shelter outside of the city in places such as right off a main road, or in the shade of a cliff, or in a cave I want to hear it. This afformentioned person would of course have to have appropriate gear and training.

You're absolutely right. Individuals can learn how to make shelters outside of the city, avoid dangers of the desert, and survive all with the appropriate training and gear.

These individuals are called "Rangers".

Your guild defines what your character can do, and has been trained in doing (or depending on how your'e playing, will one day define what they're going to be trained in), and spends the majority of their time training in (or at least the potential of it). You may not believe it when people say: "Warriors fight, so they don't know anything about the desert", but its true: Warriors spend most of their time thinking about how best to gouge out someone's eyes with their thumbs, and less time thinking about which mushrooms are safe to eat.

This is why your warrior cannot quit out in the desert, and will likely never learn how. On the other side of the coin: a ranger will never even begin have the mastery of combat that even a midranged warrior will have.

As for the indie Merchant question: I've played an indie merchant (as well as desert-elf warriors) and never had problems with the 'sit to quit' game. I think you just have to be aware of the weather, and the time you have on hand to make your trips...or hire yourself a newbie ranger, if you don't feel like hiring the Byn. I firmly believe there are enough quit-safe locations in the desert, that this isn't really as much of a problem as people are making this out to be.

[Packersfan]

Then the Ranger guild needs immediate reduction on their combat prowess, because they are far too good at melee to be just an outdoorsmen. It can not just be a one way street.

Edited to add: What I mean is that just because way down the road a warrior will be better than a Ranger at melee is simply not enough of a distinction between somebody who is a fighter and somebody who is not.

[jhunter]

Then the Ranger guild needs immediate reduction on their combat prowess, because they are far too good at melee to be just an outdoorsmen. It can not just be a one way street.

Edited to add: What I mean is that just because way down the road a warrior will be better than a Ranger at melee is simply not enough of a distinction between somebody who is a fighter and somebody who is not.

Doesn't even have to be way down the road. Every warrior pc I've had was able to beat rangers of twice as many days of playing time. They aren't that good at melee. They don't even come -close- to the melee combat power of a warrior. Not close at all.