Pathetic.

[Jakahri]

>Someone looks at you.
>Someone stands.
>Someone sheaths something.
>Someone mounts something.
>Someone rides north.
>l n
>Very far to the north:
Someone is here riding something.

I see this time and again. Give me a break.  :roll:

[Marauder Moe]

I don't get it.

[mansa]

i would use the request tool for this:

www.armageddon.org/request/

[cyberpatrol_735]

Spam.

think teh n00b is a 3lf!!!omfgKthnxbye.

sheathe sword;mount kank;nnn

That's what I'm seeing.

Am I right?


I agree, if this is the case, it doesn't matter if they're surrounded by creatures from outerspace.. at least fire off a decent emote.

> emote turns about wildly, grabbing ~kank.
sheathe sword;mount kank;run

> emote takes off atop ~kank, flailing his arms wildly.
nnn

My two 'sids.

[Hymwen]

I actually think that, in some cases, this is caused by "raiders" who do the same: eee, draw sword draw dagger, kill man

But two wrongs don't make a right

[Anonymous]

>Someone looks at you.
>Someone stands.
>Someone sheaths something.
>Someone mounts something.
>Someone rides north.
>l n
>Very far to the north:
Someone is here riding something.

I see this time and again. Give me a break.  :roll:

I take it for what it is, they saw you and ran away, firing off an emote or two is nice but it doesn't take the facts they were scared of you which is an IC realistic reaction. Assuming you want more friendly RP out in the wilderness try shouting some sort of greeting before you charge in the room.

If you want to gank them like a raider...the best raiders i've seen only give warning from far away:

You hear a shout from the south 'DIE'
Raider runs in from the south
Raider attacks you
etc etc
raider attempts to flee
you have killed raider.

[Cegar]

The best raiders tend to have a friend...



... or three.

[Vesperas]

Fastest way to piss me off?


Automount when I enter a room.


Once, I walked in on a guy sleeping.  Before I could type out l-o-o-k, he woke, stood, and mounted.  In the half-second that I was stunned at the speed of this, he left.

I have never had someone enter a room, snatch a kank from me, and ride away into the sunset.  Even the NPCs don't even do that.  Granted, if they did, I would be quite pissed both IC and OOC, since that seems somewhat dishonest as far as the PLAYER goes (at the least, you ought to throw out a wait and emote fiddling with ties and making sure nobody is staring at you as you make off with someone's livelihood).

I have met, maybe, 2 people in the wilderness who stayed put long enough for me to even look at them, let alone fire off an emote.  Seriously.  Stop doing that.  It's lame-ass... reminds me of a PK Arena.

[amoeba]

I think there is a lot of hyperbola here.  I played a -lot- of outdoorsy characters and I've had -very -little problem approaching people in the sands. So some people bolt right away, shit happens, I'll interact with the next guy.

[Hot_Dancer]

It's tough when it's so easy to end an opposing character in one move in Armageddon.

This isn't the company picnic, people don't introduce themselves to eachother in the desert unless they have a motive or an advantage.

Hot Dancer

[X-D]

Having played a recent (successful) Raider, I feel your pain.

On the note of people saying its because of raiders doing the same thing.
My recent one ran into other raiders and all save one were very well played, plenty of atmosphere added with emotes and says, shouts etc.

VERY few of the victems were well played, very dissapointing, specialy when some were karma/special app.

Of the victems that were well played, every one of them lived, some are even still alive.

The ones that mounted and walked off etc, when My PC found them again, I treated them in the same manner as they treated me, no emote, walk in and slay.

Well...not exactly, I still take great pains to try and give a good death, they all got at least a good ending emote.

Also, to any newer players.

If your PC is out cold or at neg HP, you can still emote and use change ldesc.

SO many of them once dropped, just stopped right there, did not go LD thank god, but still, nothing, and often I would be there emoting for 5-10 minutes on what my PC was doing, and all the time I'm thinking, come on, just one little bit of interaction here and something may catch the attention of my char and he might move off, but no, a full 90% were zero interaction...sigh.

Many of us that play raiders try very hard on the entertainment part of the game, the realism and such, its heartbreaking when a victem does not work just as hard.

[Cale_Knight]

Of the victems that were well played, every one of them lived, some are even still alive.

The ones that mounted and walked off etc, when My PC found them again, I treated them in the same manner as they treated me, no emote, walk in and slay.

What gives you the right to decide which players deserve to be killed without the benefit of RP?

As a raider, as someone whose entire concept revolves around causing discomfort to other players, the burden is on you to be a cut above, not them.

The idea that "if they run away without emoting, I'll kill them without emoting" honestly disturbs me. It strikes me as vengeful griefing than actual RP.

The only thing you lose when someone runs away without emoting is a potential RP scene. Apparantly that gives you the right to judge their RP and execute them without emoting yourself? Nuh uh.

[moab]

I'm with X-D.

[amoeba]

Many of us that play raiders try very hard on the entertainment part of the game, the realism and such, its heartbreaking when a victem does not work just as hard.

Many people, especially new ones have a tendency to lock up when presented with a character ending situation.  You can't see how they are reacting on the other end of the keyboard.   And as was stated above, the onus is on the person wielding the power, not the other way around.  

Personally I fail to see much entertainment in a few fancy emotes.  The heartbreaking thing is losing a long lived character, the reward being how fancy your killer emotes his sword movement.   It's the way things are, that I understand and accept, but I have never found dying particularly entertaining.  It's the living and escaping the death scene that is rewarding.

[X-D]

They give me that right, even if you ignore that turn about is fair play.

They have already shown how they wish to play it. So, I will play it the way THEY want it played. This has nothing to do with being vengeful, far from it, as I said, I still work to give a good ending emote at least. Mercy is almost always on as well, allowing the time to do so.

They have already been given the chance, or do you only skim posts cale?

AND

The only thing you lose when someone runs away without emoting is a potential RP scene. Apparantly that gives you the right to judge their RP and execute them without emoting yourself? Nuh uh.

Um, excuse me, but last time I checked this was a ROLEPLAY mud.

And, who said I was not Roleplaying, you REALLY need to check the RP docs and older staff posts on the subject.

Emoting is NOT Roleplay.

I simply emote the SAME way they are, THEY are the ones forcing the issue.

On an RP side, yes, they got away, ICly my PC is pissed and will give no quarter. This again, even without a single emote is RP.

I never once said that these people were not roleplaying, they could have had a few thinks etc in that time and made the CHOICE to not emote.

Emotes are atmosphere, NOTHING else, but that is what, for many people helps make the game more fun and realistic. Maybe others don't feel that way, fine, I will play along the way they like it.

[Jherlen]

I'm definitely with Cale.


Your character is either planning to kill somebody or not planning to kill them -- either way, how much they're emoting shouldn't directly effect your PCs choices. And you should be emoting either way.

Now if you want to kill someone, maybe they'll emote, beg, etc and convince you not to. Not attempting that gives them no chance to change your mind.

On the other hand, deciding "this guy is well played, I will spare him"; "I deem this guy a twink, he will die!!!" really comes off as saying to me "I will use the power of my skills to judge your roleplay, and kill you if I don't like it."

Even if you might lose a mark because you stop to emote and they spam-fled, so what? The game is not about winning every single battle your character enters. You might get karma or positive account notes for a well-played and emoted pursuit/chase scene, even if you don't catch the victim. I'm fairly certain you would not get karma or good notes just from charging in without any emotes because it gives you the better chance to gank somebody.

[Larrath]

Even if you might lose a mark because you stop to emote and they spam-fled, so what?

So your character's exact description will be passed to everyone everywhere using the Way and you will die.

[Jherlen]

Even if you might lose a mark because you stop to emote and they spam-fled, so what?

So your character's exact description will be passed to everyone everywhere using the Way and you will die.

Okay, so the only viable way to play a raider is to kill everybody you attack as fast as possible to prevent yourself from being found out?  :roll:

[Larrath]

I don't justify twink-killing and I don't justify twink-fleeing.
However, the sad truth is that it seems the same people who'll spam walk away from a raider are the same people that will then repeat his mdesc verbatim to half of the world.

[X-D]

See it how you want, it matters not at all to me.

The IC consideration for the raider is that he is going to kill that guy and take his shit.

Now, -I- might decide that something else happens, but that totally depends on you.

As to ones talking about fancy emotes, anybody who has seen my play knows fancy emotes are not my thing. But emotes to interact are.

Players freezing up, Come on, for 10 minutes? Maybe, but if so, oh well.

Now if you want to kill someone, maybe they'll emote, beg, etc and convince you not to. Not attempting that gives them no chance to change your mind.

Exactly.

On the other hand, deciding "this guy is well played, I will spare him"; "I deem this guy a twink, he will die!!!" really comes off as saying to me "I will use the power of my skills to judge your roleplay, and kill you if I don't like it."

No, as you see, these posts are after the fact, any opinion I have to the play of said char is also after the fact and has no bearing at all on what happened at the time.

And there is no "I should be emoting" There are no rules on such, only rule is to stay IN char.

The only real OOC consideration is that the person NOT emoting is actually getting a coded advantage on the one who is emoting. Therefore, if you show that you will play it without the emotes, then I shall as well to keep it on an even footing.

[Jherlen]

As to ones talking about fancy emotes, anybody who has seen my play knows fancy emotes are not my thing. But emotes to interact are.

I don't think anyone is requiring emotes be fancy, just that they be present. Roleplaying with somebody who doesn't emote is like reading an instruction manual or a dry history book - you can tell WHAT is happening, but not WHY, and not how anyone feels about it.

It's much better to give emotes to interact with than no emotes. I truly feel that goes for all circumstances.

The only real OOC consideration is that the person NOT emoting is actually getting a coded advantage on the one who is emoting. Therefore, if you show that you will play it without the emotes, then I shall as well to keep it on an even footing.

Sure, they might be getting a coded advantage I suppose. You'll be getting a roleplaying advantage - the advantage of writing a better scene and one more entertaining for people to watch and for your own logs. I know which one I'd pick.

[jhunter]

I agree with everything X-D and Larrath have stated about it. The times I have played a raider, usually my pc's intention (initially) is to rob and let live.

When someone uses the code to escape without painting the scene at all...then the next time I see them...ICly: They didn't play by my rules and I didn't get what I wanted, it looks like I will have to take them out to get what I want. OOCly: If they chose in the first encounter not to flush out the scene as a courtesy to me then I will not extend the same courtesy if a second opportunity comes around.

It is -both- an IC and an OOC reaction to such that coincide with each other.

Most raiders, would rather have a scene played out for the entertainment of those involved and ICly lose, than get nothing from the other player from an OOC standpoint.

If you rp with me, I might decide OOCly that my pc makes an IC mistake and you get away anyway. If you don't, then "fuck you, the player" and I'm not going to give you such a courtesy.

Now, I have noticed in my last attempt at a raider...that things appear to have gotten better. In previous attempts, more often than not I got nothing from the other player and they "played to win" only seldom coming across someone who wanted to join in the fun and create an enjoyable scene for those involved. The last time, I only had -one- person refuse to play along and the rest (who did play out the scene) lived beyond the encounter and may very well still be alive.

Edit: Oh yeah, and to those of you who -did- play along: THANK YOU.  It is hard enough from an IC standpoint as a raider without having to deal with OOC bullshit on top of it.  

[Synthesis]

I'm going to toss my hat in the ring with Larrath and X-D.

If someone twinks out on me, in future interactions with that person, I will move as close to the grey edge of twinkery as I can in future interactions with them.  If someone behaves reasonably, I too will behave reasonably.

Of course, I'm of the opinion that, when playing a raider, you should be a merciless bastard, anyway.  All this "leave them alive so you can raid them again later" rationalization makes no sense to me.  Catch-and-release just lets the fish get bigger, and these are sharks, not bass:  eventually they start coming after you.

This is Zalanthas, not Sherwood Forest.  If you can't defend yourself reasonably well, and you venture out into the wastes, you're going to get wasted, plain and simple.  That's just the way it is.  If you get caught so badly that you can't escape, you're either unlucky, unprepared, or both, and you deserve to die.

[SpyGuy]

To begin:  I agree partially with X-D.  Emoting is not roleplay, personally I feel the first priority of a raider is to secure the situation to make sure his target doesn't flee.  The raider, however, also has much more oppurtunity to emote because he knows what's happening, the victim doesn't and is usually put in a bit of IC shock.

I'm all for interacting with raiders and the like but it really is a case by case basis.  Someone shouts out "Die!" in the middle of the desert while I'm mounted on my kank I'm going to turn the other way and bolt if my character is the least bit knowledgable.  That's the response I think any remotely skilled desert traveller would have.  If they aren't then clearly it might be appropriate to freeze up on the reins.

The fact of the matter is that it is impossible to judge any of this except by a case by case basis.  Where did the raid take place?  Did the person know you were coming?  What was your reaction, did you immediately give off the "OMG raider!" vibe or did you first gain some trust then turn into a raider the moment their guard was down?  To be honest I really don't feel that solo raiders are an extremely realistic concept to be successful and don't put much weight when I hear of someone running from one.  The weight is on the raider(s) to realistically and through code find a way to make sure the person doesn't flee, giving raiders a few new tools for this might not be a bad idea though hide/sneak/subdue/poison/shoot/etc. have all worked wonders in the past.

The best scenes like this I've played in usually involve a quick securing of the situation by the raider or the victim then a prolonged RP session.

Things I feel might happen that definitely shouldn't:

-People spam walking to escape a raider, if you are going to flee try to remember to hit run.
-People fleeing a few rooms then quitting out.
-People who spread a PCs mdesc verbatum and don't take into account if they were hooded and/or facewrapped.

[RunningMountain]

Since when has this ever changed? Will it ever change? Nah. You have certain groups of players, right? And that's one of them.

-D

[X-D]

I would like to say though.

Over all, the play of raiders and victims in the last two years has gotten FAR FAR FAR better then it has been in Many years before that.

So, kudos to all who do take that risk and try and flesh out the scene.

[spawnloser]

I see this from both sides.  I want to say a couple things on this.

I have to agree with the people saying that if I'm a raider, and I approach someone that instaflee's on me when I'm trying to emote...I'll type something shorter next time to prevent the coded advantage that emoting denied me.  This may result in the other character's death.  I will emote as much as I normally would after doing whatever I need to do codedly to force interaction from the other person.

In my experience, both from watching victims as a raider and watching raiders as a victim...in general, the first person to use a coded action in attempt to gain advantage (either by fleeing on the part of victim or attack of some sort by the raider) is WAY more often taken by the victim...instead of having a fun scene play out, they just want the code.

I will admit, however, that I have seen raiders (5+ karma or special app'ed characters even) open up with code as well.  I'm not saying that they don't.  As it has been said, it starts with the raider...

...but honestly, psychotic basket-cases that attack everything in sight are not raiders.  A raider is someone that does this for a living, and to do that for a living (in this game), you have to know your stuff...which usually comes from an experienced player.  Don't piss off these players, because they will stop having consideration for you and your enjoyment of the game when you stop having the same for them and their enjoyment of the game...and are often good at what they do.

[Cale_Knight]

Surely none of you folks are claiming that every single raider, or even a majority of raiders, have as much responsibility as you're all claiming to have when it comes to RP.

If I'm walking through the desert and someone enters the room, I have about one second before their movement lag wears off and they're able to attack me. If I choose to emote and they don't, I might very well be dead and no longer have my PC.

Now, from the other end. When you as a raider walk into the room, your quarry has about one second before your movement lag wears and you're able to attack them. If you choose to emote and they don't, all you have lost is a RP scene.*

Do you all see the difference here? Why should anyone bet their characters' lives on the odds that this particular raider is going to emote with them?

*The nonsense about them waying everyone and giving away your description is completely invalid, as the only way to prevent that would be to twink-kill absolutely everyone, which invalidates the argument anyway.

Bottom line: claiming that someone's lack of RP gives you the right to degrade your own RP, or gives you the right to twink out in any fashion, is completely against the spirit of this game as I see it. Arguments like "I'm only RPing on their level" are rationalizations for your own twinkishness.

Attitudes like this make me very happy that raiding clans are no longer in the game.

[FiveDisgruntledMonkeysWit]

Hey, if raiding doesn't work out, just get into a new game. I mean, come on... it's not exactly economically feasible, anyway.
http://www.giantitp.com/cgi-bin/GiantITP/ootscript?SK=158

[moab]

Now I'm thinking X-D, Synth and me ought to form a raiding group.

:-D

Edit to add Larrath to the group as well!

[LoD]

Arguments like "I'm only RPing on their level" are rationalizations for your own twinkishness.

Attitudes like this make me very happy that raiding clans are no longer in the game.

Have you even participated in a raiding clan before?  If not, then I wouldn't make too many assumptions about this material.  The quality of RP I saw within the raiding clans I've been apart of has been higher than most of the other clans with whom I've ever played.  It almost has to be this way to work, because you're dealing with the lives of people's characters.  Characters that may have taken days and days to cultivate.

The quality of RP on the part of the victims was generally very poor.  Most of it was purely code driven (no emotes, no speech).  Even when they were seized and speech began, many would simply auto-flee until they broke our subdue.  Their "RP" would be flee;flee;flee;flee;flee, e, e, etc...  As fate would have it, these type of players are also the same kind that will show back up on the road the very next day to hunt.  So you have a high chance of multiple interactions with the same PC's.

The reason why the victims who used emotes and speech were spared was not because they were "good RPers", but because they cooperated with the raider's demands.  For any threat to be taken seriously, there need to be consequences.  What other reason would there be for them to ever participate in a scene with you?

I probably conducted about 50+ personal 1v1 raids on people in the desert while I was playing my most recent raiding character.  My methods were very simple, as were my requests.  I would find someone alone in the desert, ride up on them, and strike up a casual conversation.  Once we got to the point when I asked them for my measley 50 'sid protection fee, about 80% of them would either attack me or spam flee away.

X-D is trying to create a scene using speech, emotes, and actions.  If the victim will not participate in speech or emotes, then they will get actions.  The only "downgrade" of RP happening in this scenario is in X-D's opinion of himself.  He wants there to be more options for the victim than coded actions.  If the victim never gives him a chance to pursue those other options, the only option left to him is to pursue a coded action.  This outcome is almost entirely the victim's choice.

Victims are perfectly in their right to flee without using a single emote or speaking a single word.  Raiders are likewise perfectly in the right to attack and kill anyone on sight who will not abide by their demands (for money, for submission) without using a single emote or spoken word.  Neither of these situations are inherently "twinkish" or "poor RP", but they're both missing out on the potential for some really interesting RP.

-LoD

[Kalden]

What gives you the right to decide which players deserve to be killed without the benefit of RP?

I just saw this and I was scratching my head...man, this is Armageddon.

# Three, sometimes people are nasty. There are no rules against being mean to others that you meet, be it cheating, stealing, killing, swindling, or otherwise making a fool out of them as long as the meanness is in-character (IC).
# Four, complaints of unfairness on the part of other players will not be given an audience. If you think another character was mean to you, you're most likely right.

[bloodfromstone]

He was referring to an OOC lack of consideration and an OOC judgement. I do not think the documents support any sort of OOC influence on IC actions.

I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with either side on the original topic, but "Arm is harsh" or "This is Armageddon" is not a good excuse to do anything without RP.

[Medena]

... is trying to create a scene using speech, emotes, and actions.  If the victim will not participate in speech or emotes, then they will get actions.  ...  He wants there to be more options for the victim than coded actions.  If the victim never gives him a chance to pursue those other options, the only option left to him is to pursue a coded action.  This outcome is almost entirely the victim's choice.

Victims are perfectly in their right to flee without using a single emote or speaking a single word.  Raiders are likewise perfectly in the right to attack and kill anyone on sight who will not abide by their demands (for money, for submission) without using a single emote or spoken word.  Neither of these situations are inherently "twinkish" or "poor RP", but they're both missing out on the potential for some really interesting RP.

You'd have to be a fool to disagree with any of the above. So I won't.  But I'd like to examine the situation from the other side of the coin, from the victim's perspective.  Initially, the raider, and by raider I mean the raider's player,  holds all the cards.  The raider has advance knowledge of what is going to go down. The victim does not. The raider has had the chance to think through the variety of ways the scene could play out and probably has an image in her mind of the possible actions. Heck, the raider has probably even played these out before.  The victim has not had this benefit.  The victim might even be a newbie or, at least, a newbie to raiding scenarios.  Everybody wants to stay in character and to RP out a good scene or they wouldn't even be playing a game like Arm.  Some are more adept at doing so than others.  And in this type of situation another factor does kick in, the adrenaline rush from being in danger -- the thing that makes your hands tremble and your thoughts race in a crazy jumble and maybe even makes an automatic reflexive response kick in for self-preservation.  The raider also knows she is going to play the scene out with emotes, speech and coded actions. The victim does not know this, for all he knows the raider might suddenly twink out and there goes the precious character he has been nurturing for 4 days of play time.  As someone else pointed out, all the raider has to lose is an RP'ed scene but the victim might lose his PC.

I have never, myself, been in a raiding situation. I would like to think that I would stay in character and not only do what my character would do but play it out well with emotes and speech.  And I think I would have faith enough in my fellow players to trust the raider to do the same.  I can only think this is what I would do. Because until faced with the situation, I really don't know.

[jhunter]

As someone else pointed out, all the raider has to lose is an RP'ed scene but the victim might lose his PC.

This is completely incorrect.

From the raider's side of the coin...all it takes is a single twinky victim to completely ruin things for you and get you hunted down and killed.

*you, the raider standing there completely covered from head to toe in sandcloth, leaving very little disinguishing characteristics visible* (they can maybe get your eye color and skin tone from what they can see)

*one jerkoff victim player, spamwalks away to the nearest city without giving any sort of flushing out of the scene or anything, focusing solely on the code in an effort to "win" and when they get there they report an exact description of your pc to any other pcs they come across as well as posting it on the IC rumor board*

[LoD]

As someone else pointed out, all the raider has to lose is an RP'ed scene but the victim might lose his PC.

These words actually demonstrate the real problem with these events.  Your last sentence reads, "As someone else pointed out, all the raider has to lose is an RP'ed scene, but the victim might lose his PC."

"...but the victim might lose his PC."

Do you know who the victim is in your sentence?  It's the player.  If the victim were the character, you would have said they might lose their life.  What a "player" stands to lose should not dictate the outcome of any potential situation in the game.

Much of what transpires when one PC threatens another PC in a lawless environment is based on an OOC desire to save one's character and the knowledge that fast fingers can allow you to escape from nearly any situation.  Most don't seem to actually put much thought into what the real situation would warrant.  If someone walked up to you and shoved a gun in your face saying, "Your wallet or your life.", would you REALLY break into a run?  Really?  Because I'd bet you'd just hand over the wallet because your wallet is not worth your life, your wife, your kids, your parents, or your future.

The contents of a pack are of little significance when compared to what someone could amass in a lifetime of untroubled breath.

The real problem is that there will always be newbies and players that don't make that final connection in this game.  You will never be guaranteed that a scene will be upheld by both ends.  There is no real solution other than to bring these topics up for discussion and try to get even one person to take a look at how they treat these scenes and consider if their OOC motivations for character preservation is having a profund effect upon their IC actions.

-LoD

[Marauder Moe]

*one jerkoff victim player, spamwalks away to the nearest city without giving any sort of flushing out of the scene or anything, focusing solely on the code in an effort to "win" and when they get there they report an exact description of your pc to any other pcs they come across as well as posting it on the IC rumor board*

I'm not sure I've ever actually seen this happen.  Most all of the reports of raiders (by victims) describe little more than the race of the attacker, which is completely reasonable.

[amoeba]

From the victim's side of the coin...all it takes is a single twinky raider to completely make your beloved character dead because the person before them ticked them off oocly.

I wish people would focus their energies on playing the best character they can play regardless of the situation.  It seems everyone spends a lot of time worring about other people's play here in the Generalized Dissing and Bitching forums.

[Delirium]

I wish people would focus their energies on playing the best character they can play regardless of the situation.  It seems everyone spends a lot of time worring about other people's play here in the Generalized Dissing and Bitching forums.

Quoted for emphasis and total agreement.

[jhunter]

From the victim's side of the coin...all it takes is a single twinky raider to completely make your beloved character dead because the person before them ticked them off oocly.

I wish people would focus their energies on playing the best character they can play regardless of the situation.  It seems everyone spends a lot of time worring about other people's play here in the Generalized Dissing and Bitching forums.

I have neither done nor seen anyone as a raider taking out what someone else has done on another pc from an OOC standpoint. We're talking about a second encounter with a victim who refused to interact the first time around. Most of us, that I've seen, give each individual a chance to play out the scene.

[spawnloser]

I was thinking about this since when I posted last, and someone briefly touched on something that I thought of, but I will expand...

The point of this game is not to win.  Spam-fleeing is an attempt to win instead of an attempt to roleplay while the victim.  It is really that simple.

[Aldiel]

You know what makes me mad about this kind of spam typing?  I'm such a slow typer, lol.  I cant keep up with some of these fellows.

[Majikal]

When someone attempts a shakedown, attempts to rough you up for a quick coin out in the desert as long as you act as you beleive your character would I don't see anything wrong with it. You simply can't let your idea of how precious life be forgotten, I was in a fairly recent incident where my PC saved quiet a few fellas and in response he was asking for a few things from each of the people saved.. needless to say, these characters all chose to die, rather than part with a bracer.. a sword.. and a few other goofy articles of clothing. In real life, If I was mugged in an alley and all this dude with a baseball bat wanted was my brand new Abercrombie shirt.. even if I'm sure I can beat the fuck out of the idiot, I'd part with my shirt before I risked getting hurt. I think this mindset needs to be RP'd out a bit more from you desert wanderers. If you're the super 1337 psionic/sorceror crazy-buff warrior mul.. maybe you can handle the situation differently, but the average desert runner shouldn't mind parting with his shiny earring or new shield if the situation suggests that he's gonne be left unharmed.

[Anonymous kank with wings]

I'm approaching this from the viewpoint of someone who has never had a character who had to deal with raiders. (Actually, I did, but it was a long time ago and my warrior kicked the raiders' Blackmoon asses).

Part of the problem here is that there is no horizon. Sure you can try to spam 'l n', 'l w', 'l s', etc. But it doesn't work that well. Is it really fair that a raider can just pop up under your nose, so to speak, by happening to type 'w' then 's'? Without taking any special measure to create an ambush? It's like all clear one moment, nose-to-nose the next.

There's no real chance for the victim to spot the raiders in the distance and wheel his kank around to run for it unless the raiders get unlucky and you happen to be aligned with them in a cardinal direction when you survey your surroundings. Where are the pursuit scenes, where the raiders get the victim if they have faster mounts? They don't exist. Just pounce, and if the victim runs, follow.

[InsertCleverNameHere]

I've never played a raider. Though, in the future I have every intention. And every intention of playing it out well, for both parties.
On the flip side, I've never been raided,  not like what's been outlined in the posts previous to this. There was a case where I was presented with something similar. A hunter PC with a large merchanting house, out and about in the northlands all by their lonesome. Said PC had just taken down a big ol' duskhorn, and quite proud, was preparing to start lopping off parts, when along into the scene enters a couple of big bad elves. Said elves very calmly sauntered up, took the bits they wanted from the carcass, and left me the rest, all the while smirking to each other. There was RP on both ends. Had I bolted, technically I would've been within my PC's rights, a lone, tired little hunter with a weary kank, against two big-ass elves. But if I'd ran, assuming they just wanted to kill me for my stuff, I wouldn't have been around to be the butt of their joke. I got RP, I got a nice chuckle sitting at my keyboard. My PC lived, got in a temper, and got a healthy dose of embarrasement and never admitted what happened to anyone, leaving the two sauntering elves in peace, to overtake some other hunters victories in the future. That was fun guys, thanks. :wink:

[Hymwen]

It's also ridiculously easy to get away from a would-be raider. Run away in a direction where they can't see you with a 'look e/w/s/n' and you already have enough of a head start to safely get away. That's probably why some people choose to run. If the code somehow allowed you to watch which way someone is going besides linear directions and a relatively short distance, it would be easier for a raider to actually catch people, and then the victims would probably think twice about making a run for it. If you ignore realism and know the directions by heart, you can ride from Luir's to Allanak in a minute or two, and very few people are going to catch you if you ride as fast as the code allows and you have a head start of just a room or two.

[Halaster]

Surely none of you folks are claiming that every single raider, or even a majority of raiders, have as much responsibility as you're all claiming to have when it comes to RP.

He's absolutely right.  Those of you who are saying "When I play a raider I try to create a scene" - great!  More power to you.  But as sad as it is, the "raider" is very often just as twinky as anyone else.  I'm not justifying twinky actions by "victims", just stating fact.   Why is that important?  Because as a victim, a hooded figure walking in the room can sometimes mean NPC - who doesn't bother to emote before whacking you.  It's not as easy to tell them apart as you think, in the initial moments of the confrontation.  I have found in my years that to shout something before you enter the room very often is enough to get the person to stay long enough to interact with - even if I'm playing a simple gith.  Don't dismiss this as "that doesn't happen often, Halaster".  It does, trust me.  Many, many times the "raider" PC is believed to be an NPC and the victim runs.  Again, I'm not justifying bad actions, just helping you see another side.

Another thing to consider in this discussion is what is a "fun" scene.  The "raider" players will say that they're trying to create this wonderful scene that's fun for everyone.  Well, being raided isn't necessarily everyone's idea of fun, even OOC'ly.  Someone may have been playing for a long time, "working hard" to get where they are, and then someone comes along to take it from them.  As elaborate as you can make the scene, it still might suck for them, so they're going to try to avoid it.  Amoeba is right - you can pretty up my death scene all you want, but in the end, I'm dead and that sucks.

Again, I'm not excusing crappy play from victims, but these are things to keep in mind.  These are reasons why they sometimes just run from you.

[Nusku]

If the code somehow allowed you to watch which way someone is going besides linear directions and a relatively short distance

To make your life easy, the command to allow you to watch where someone is going is called... watch! Try it out sometime, it lets you keep a really close eye on someone you've spotted.

[Hymwen]

If the code somehow allowed you to watch which way someone is going besides linear directions and a relatively short distance

To make your life easy, the command to allow you to watch where someone is going is called... watch! Try it out sometime, it lets you keep a really close eye on someone you've spotted.

I know about watch, and that's not what I meant. What I meant was that even if you do watch someone, they can go two south and then east and you're no longer watching them, even though you would realistically have a plain view of them if you're in flat terrain.

Edited to remove something that wasn't really appropriate.

[EvilRoeSlade]

I know about watch, and that's not what I meant. What I meant was that even if you do watch someone, they can go two south and then east and you're no longer watching them, even though you would realistically have a plain view of them if you're in flat terrain.

Yes, you will still be watching them.  You may not know exactly where they are anymore, but if they ever re-enter one of the nine rooms you can see, your watch command will still take effect.

I agree that wilderness combat (and almost all combat really) is slated too heavily in favor of those who use the tactic of fleeing immediately without emoting.  Still, if you want to play a raider, you should definitely try usin the new watch command to help you.

[LoD]

Again, I'm not excusing crappy play from victims, but these are things to keep in mind.  These are reasons why they sometimes just run from you.

Those folks who are discussing a raid, not a murder, seem to be in complete agreement that most people will flee when someone approaches.  The topic at hand is how their spam flee (stand:mount:run:e:e:e:e) will have an effect upon a repeat encounter with the same victim.

X-D, and others, are saying that if someone refuses to do anything but employ hard coded actions every single time you enter the room, then you have two choices:

:arrow: Take them off your list.
:arrow: Fight code with code and engage first, speak afterwards.

The problem comes when the bulk of the playerbase adopts this attitude of escaping any scene that may not be good for my character.  As a raiding group, this was the progression of how our tactics were changed by the actions of the victims:

1. Shout "Submit to the Jojo Raiders or DIE" and charge into the room.

Code Select Expand

North Road [EW]
>look east

[Near]
The lanky, wild haired man is standing here.

>shout Submit to the Jojo Raiders or DIE!
You shout, in sirihish:
   "Submit to the Jojo Raiders or DIE!"

>east

North Road [EW]

>look east

[Near]
Nothing
[Far]
Nothing
[Very far]
The lanky, wild haired man is standing here.

2. Enter the room first, THEN shout.

Code Select Expand


North Road [EW]
>east

North Road [EW]
The lanky, wild haired man is standing here.

>shout Submit to the Jojo Raiders or DIE!
You shout, in sirihish:
   "Submit to the Jojo Raiders or DIE!"

The lanky, wild haired man runs east.

3. CHARGE, then GUARD directions, THEN shout.

Code Select Expand


North Road [EW]
>east

The large, one-eyed mul has arrived from the west.

North Road [EW]
The lanky, wild haired man is standing here.

>guard east
You begin guarding east.

The large, one-eyed mul begins guarding west.

>shout Submit to the Jojo Raiders or DIE!
You shout, in sirihish:
   "Submit to the Jojo Raiders or DIE!"

You block the lanky, wild haired man from running east.
You block the lanky, wild haired man from running east.
The lanky, wild haired man runs east.

4. CHARGE, then SUBDUE, then GUARD, then SHOUT.

Code Select Expand


North Road [EW]
>east

The large, one-eyed mul has arrived from the west.

North Road [EW]
The lanky, wild haired man is standing here.

>subdue lanky
You subdue the lanky, wild haired man, despite his efforts to struggle.

The large, one-eyed mul begins guarding west.

>shout Submit to the Jojo Raiders or DIE!

You shout, in sirihish:
   "Submit to the Jojo Raiders or DIE!"

The lanky, wild haired man struggles against you in vain.

>say Stop your struggling, crazy hair!

You say, in sirihish:
  "Stop your struggling, crazy hair!"

The lanky, wild haired man struggles against you in vain.
The lanky, wild haired man struggles against you in vain.
The lanky, wild haired man struggles against you, and breaks free!

The lanky, wild haired man runs east.

5. CHARGE, then SUBDUE, then GUARD, then SHOUT, then ENFORCE.

Code Select Expand


North Road [EW]
>east

The large, one-eyed mul has arrived from the west.

North Road [EW]
The lanky, wild haired man is standing here.

>subdue lanky
You subdue the lanky, wild haired man, despite his efforts to struggle.

The large, one-eyed mul begins guarding west.

>shout Submit to the Jojo Raiders or DIE!

You shout, in sirihish:
   "Submit to the Jojo Raiders or DIE!"

The lanky, wild haired man struggles against you in vain.

>say Stop your struggling, crazy hair!

You say, in sirihish:
  "Stop your struggling, crazy hair!"

The lanky, wild haired man struggles against you in vain.

>say Do that again, and you're dead!  Now stop!

You say, in sirihish:
   "Do that again, and you're dead!  Now stop!"

The lanky, wild haired man struggles against you in vain.

The lanky, wild haired man struggles against you in vain.

<usually a few more attempts to stop them from typing flee;flee;flee>

>hit lanky
You hit the lanky, wild haired man very hard on the head.

We didn't want to kill anyone, but people got killed.  We didn't want to be murderers, but what are threats if they don't have consequences?  There were lots of folks calling us OOC a bunch of murdering twinks that do nothing but kill PC's for their stuff.  The fact of the matter (as long as I was with the group) was that victims brought this down upon themselves with a few rare occasions (like when a mul happens to capture a Borsail slaver).

We went through a progression of different tactics from loose to VERY strict in an effort to even HAVE a scene to play.  And I was always astounded by how poor RP became when someone was suddenly confronted with a situation in which they didn't have the upper hand.  Most would choose to ignore the situation completely rather than lose the contents of their pack.

Perhaps that progression will help demonstrate some of the frustrations would-be raiders, or raiding groups, face and why some of them may eventually grab first, and ask questions later.

-LoD

[jhunter]

Part of the problem here is that there is no horizon. Sure you can try to spam 'l n', 'l w', 'l s', etc. But it doesn't work that well. Is it really fair that a raider can just pop up under your nose, so to speak, by happening to type 'w' then 's'? Without taking any special measure to create an ambush? It's like all clear one moment, nose-to-nose the next.

Is it really fair that they can be busy skinning, crafting, or something else that takes their attention and still be looking around them just as alertly as if they weren't doing anything else at all?

[Ava]

Those folks who are discussing a raid, not a murder, seem to be in complete agreement that most people will flee when someone approaches.  The topic at hand is how their spam flee (stand:mount:run:e:e:e:e) will have an effect upon a repeat encounter with the same victim.

This is going to go on as long as the code makes it possible, right?

I think the issue here is that the code does not support what most of us feel is realistic: guard and subdue seem very underpowered against repeated attempts.  If I'm standing in a doorway with weapons drawn or have my kank sidled up in front of yours, and am reasonably attentive, I don't think it's as that hard to block you as the code makes it.  Same for subdue: if you don't escape in the first try or two, I'm gonna cinch you up 'till you cry.

Here's a possible solution for the coders to mull: decrease the chance of getting past a guard or out of a subdue with each attempt, with your chance recovering over time.  This seems like it would reflect the increased attentiveness of the guard or subduer.  Note: I'm not suggesting that the "first chance" of slipping past a guard or getting subdued needs any tweaking.

I was not too long ago in a situation where someone was avoiding subdues and guards with almost no interaction. It's frustrating, and it feels very unrealistic; and, per LoD's exposition, it leads folks who are (not so wrongfully) relying on the code to get massacred because there's no other coded way for the average player to stop them.

[Intrepid]

I obviously can't speak for anyone but myself, sooo...

I'll reiterate that the imms judge me for my roleplaying and the level of trust they
put in me, rather than judging me based on someone else's actions, so i fully intend
to continue playing out a situation when rping a criminal or raider or anything
else mean and nasty that folks flee from.  If people flee without rp, that's their abuse
of the code, not mine.  I won't turn it into my abuse of code simply because I
think I deserve to succeed.

[amoeba]

I was not too long ago in a situation where someone was avoiding subdues and guards with almost no interaction. It's frustrating, and it feels very unrealistic; and, per LoD's exposition, it leads folks who are (not so wrongfully) relying on the code to get massacred because there's no other coded way for the average player to stop them.

The contention I have with the approaches to raiding I see presented is that they are rather lacking in originality and finesse.  I can think of a number of different ways to approach a raid and come up with considerably different results, unfortunately I'm not saying them because I don't want to give up tactics.  

I will say this, I had a character, technically not a raider by the strictest definition. This character had no problem approaching people in the sands, had little problem with them handing over their backpacks for inspection, and often came away with something from the encounter. I won't say I got their most l337 stuff, but then again never really tried for that.

Work on being creative with the raid. There are real people behind that PC. Real people can be manipulated.  It's sure a hell of a lot more fun than the "I'm stronger than you, give me all your stuff" approach.  It's fun to be a raider, rarely have I found it fun to be the victim.  The creative approach makes it much more likely for the victim to enjoy the encounter as well, and less likely that they will report you, therefore a longer life raiding.

[rishenko]

I think, in the end, it goes back to Vesperas' quote in Larrath's sig:

...You have to ask yourself... do you love your PC more than you love its contribution to the game?

I have been afraid and feared for my character more than my desire to rp out a situation.  I still threw out at least one emote in passing, and with my typing speed, gave them plenty of time to shout, yell, or whatever.

On numerous occasions I have just went with the flow.  I had a guy sitting at the span once when this big ass, ugly half-giant comes in.  I knew there was going to be trouble but my guy was sitting a couple cords from his kank, which was resting, and he was tired as hell.  So he nodded to the half-giant who goes, "Give me all your sid and water or I'll smush you!".  Smush, damn I love that word.  So, I rped it out with the half-giant, sitting on the ground as the beast loomed over him, massive weapon at ready.  Guess what?  By the end, worked out a deal with the half-giant, giving him a pretty crystal with promises of more gems and such as they met up again.  Who knows where that could have led?

Met an invis whiran and his buddy once in the Grey, and though I could have ran, icly my guy headed the warning of one of the two who told him that running would be the end of him.  There was some intense conversation and it ended with my character getting banished.  Turns out,  the interaction with a few people that followed the banishment was one of the most fun, though brief, rp experiences I've had on Arm.

On the flip side, I've been twink attacked without a single drop of rp out of the clear blue sky in the wild, but lived to tell the tale.  I've wandered in to rp with muls (yeah, suicide I know), at times it turning out wonderfully, at others the mul tossing a single emote and attacking (hehe, mul died).

I've raided and attacked, but each time tried to provide a good rp experience beforehand.  Half for my own enjoyment, half for the enjoyment of the other character.  

However, I do agree with several people, once you've put a ton of effort into your character, you don't want them to die...you are willing to bend a few rules, maybe toss several actions into a single emote and haul ass out of danger.  But...if at all possible, consider what would actually be happening icly, whether you could realistically get to your kank, up on it and taking off that quickly, or would you have been caught somewhat unawares?

[LoD]

I'll reiterate that the imms judge me for my roleplaying and the level of trust they
put in me, rather than judging me based on someone else's actions, so i fully intend
to continue playing out a situation when rping a criminal or raider or anything
else mean and nasty that folks flee from.  If people flee without rp, that's their abuse
of the code, not mine.  I won't turn it into my abuse of code simply because I
think I deserve to succeed.

No one is asking you to abuse the code.  And it's not about whether you deserve to succeed or not.  It's about matching action with action, and there are no coded actions that instantly cease role play.

If someone types, "stand, mount, run, e;e;e;e" when a figure enters the room, that's not code abuse.  It's not even ppor play.  It's an action, just like any other, that describes what your character is doing.  You don't have to "downgrade" your level of RP to adapt to a situation.  It's entirely possible to match someone's preference for coded action and still maintain the integrity of your character, the scene, and achieve your goal.

If I encounter that same person in the wildnerness on three occasions, and each time they run from me without an emote or spoken word, there's nothing wrong with my character taking a more aggressive posture at our next meeting.  There's no code abuse, or lack of RP, or poor play involved with adapting to the situation.  It doesn't matter if the order of events goes speech, emote, action or if the present situation requires you to reverse the order to action, emote, speech.

Swift use of Armageddon code and "good RP" are not mutually exclusive.

-LoD

[Halaster]

If someone types, "stand, mount, run, e;e;e;e" when a figure enters the room, that's not code abuse.  It's not even ppor play.  It's an action, just like any other, that describes what your character is doing.  You don't have to "downgrade" your level of RP to adapt to a situation.  It's entirely possible to match someone's preference for coded action and still maintain the integrity of your character, the scene, and achieve your goal.

If I encounter that same person in the wildnerness on three occasions, and each time they run from me without an emote or spoken word, there's nothing wrong with my character taking a more aggressive posture at our next meeting.  There's no code abuse, or lack of RP, or poor play involved with adapting to the situation.  It doesn't matter if the order of events goes speech, emote, action or if the present situation requires you to reverse the order to action, emote, speech.

Swift use of Armageddon code and "good RP" are not mutually exclusive.

-LoD

I couldn't have said it better myself.  If we didn't want people to be able to flee we wouldn't have coded the skill.  If we wanted to require an emote before an attack, we would have coded it that way.  That's not an excuse to abandon roleplaying or emoting or the like, but a simple statement of fact to agree with what LoD is saying.

Having said that...

If you're the kind of person who never bothers to do these things but instantly stands, flees, runs to the city you'll get what you deserve:  little to no karma or trust with more advanced roles.  If you're the type who's going to bring the scene to life, play realistically, and so on (even if the other people don't), you'll get what you deserve:  karma and trust to play more advanced roles.

[Intrepid]

No one is asking you to abuse the code.  And it's not about whether you deserve to succeed or not.  It's about matching action with action, and there are no coded actions that instantly cease role play.

If it has nothing to do with succeeding, then there's no reason to change one's rp
style to match theirs.  You don't change your rp style in a non-threatening situation,
after all.  As I consider speeding off with all my actions jumbled into a single
entry to be utilizing the code in a manner so quick that no one has a chance to
respond, I can say with all certainty that it's something I'm never going to do in
kind just because someone else is doing it.  I consider it lowering my standard of
rp to succeed in dealing with another, because success or failure of your task is
the only thing at stake in the situation--unless, of course, your opponent turns
around and gives you the beating of your life...but that's an entirely different
quandry.

If someone types, "stand, mount, run, e;e;e;e" when a figure enters the room, that's not code abuse.  It's not even ppor play.  It's an action, just like any other, that describes what your character is doing.  You don't have to "downgrade" your level of RP to adapt to a situation.  It's entirely possible to match someone's preference for coded action and still maintain the integrity of your character, the scene, and achieve your goal.

It's not an action, it's a set of actions in such quick succession as to be a blur of
motion I would reserve for certain spells, personally.  While adaptation to a situation
is not necessarily downgrading my level of rp, I wasn't making a blanket statement
when I said that; I was referring specifically to the instance of stacking commands
in a raiding situation and possibly another character's demise.  I refuse to do the
same thing for the sake of matching them, because that's not what I consider to be
rp.  In a more extreme example than the one you provide, if there was some twink
mul running about hunting everyone in Vrun Driath like the entire desert was his
personal Ultimate Fighting Championship ring, I would rather my pc get punked
like the little bitch she is than twink out and match the mul.  It's a personal choice,
and I don't expect anyone to agree with it.

Disclaimer: Before anyone tries to blip out on me, I was not calling Lod a twink, I
was providing a more extreme example to illustrate my point on how I feel about
adaptation in regards to my own rp style and code.

If I encounter that same person in the wildnerness on three occasions, and each time they run from me without an emote or spoken word, there's nothing wrong with my character taking a more aggressive posture at our next meeting.  There's no code abuse, or lack of RP, or poor play involved with adapting to the situation.  It doesn't matter if the order of events goes speech, emote, action or if the present situation requires you to reverse the order to action, emote, speech.

I disagree.  I think you should just report them to the imms with a log and let them
handle it.  It's not our place to be judge, jury and executioner on the mud...that's
Halaster's place, after all.   :twisted:   For myself, if I see people running away from
me with impossibly fast speed, I will react to it as I always have and not suddenly
speed up to meet them.

Swift use of Armageddon code and "good RP" are not mutually exclusive.

We're of two minds on this subject, but as we are entirely seperate entities, I'm
very much ok with this.

[moab]

We're of two minds on this subject, but as we are entirely seperate entities, I'm
very much ok with this.

I'm stealing this.

[Intrepid]

We're of two minds on this subject, but as we are entirely seperate entities, I'm
very much ok with this.

I'm stealing this.

Eh, I'll just give it to you.  It's yours; have fun with it.

[Hot_Dancer]

What if you stand;mount;e;e;e;bring back vengeful reinforcements and then the raider stand;mount;flee

Rinse:Wash:Repeat

Who loses karma progression? Both?

Hot Dancer

[Intrepid]

What if you stand;mount;e;e;e;bring back vengeful reinforcements and then the raider stand;mount;flee

Rinse:Wash:Repeat

Who loses karma progression? Both?

Both:RemoveALLKarma:Buhbye

[X-D]

LoD has done a wonderful job of explaining things. I agree with every statement he has made on the subject.

Now
Ol'meba wrote

The contention I have with the approaches to raiding I see presented is that they are rather lacking in originality and finesse. I can think of a number of different ways to approach a raid and come up with considerably different results, unfortunately I'm not saying them because I don't want to give up tactics.

I will say this, I had a character, technically not a raider by the strictest definition. This character had no problem approaching people in the sands, had little problem with them handing over their backpacks for inspection, and often came away with something from the encounter. I won't say I got their most l337 stuff, but then again never really tried for that.

Now, I am not argueing this point, BUT I would like to say, there are different raiding styles, MANY kinds. But if YOUR raider is a certain kind then it would not be IC to change his style simply because of other Players style of play when confronted with this style.

You used a method that allowed you to walk up at least seeming harmless at first. But the Brute strength style of raiding may be the way others are playing, specialy if playing a raiding group.

Any group I've been in actually does not want to kill if they know they are drasticly stronger then the intended victim BTW. More likley to kill if is a Solo raider.

[Anonymous kank with wings]

Why is it that no one has replied to my point?

When a raider types 's', he is effectively going from a bow shot's distance to nose-to-nose in an eyeblink. He teleports up to your face. Where is your valid chance to run then?

The watch command and spamming look in the cardinal directions are not even close to substituting for what would come naturally to someone with eyes. You would not miss that person down the road or even off the road.

Unless they've gone to pains to conceal themselves. If you're walking along a desert trail and suddenly raiders emerge from the sand all around you, fine. But if someone more or less teleports up and suddenly has a blade to your throat, wtf?

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

Why is it that no one has replied to my point?

When a raider types 's', he is effectively going from a bow shot's distance to nose-to-nose in an eyeblink. He teleports up to your face. Where is your valid chance to run then?

Since I assume that your point is that people move to you too rapidly, I'll point out that this is an occurance that is repetitive in MUDs. Rooms, as we call blocks of area, feature movement between, but rarely through them. In order to create an 'approaching' segment of movement, an astronomical amount of coding would have to occur, along with various othe changes.

There is no simple way to solve the 'room problem', so you're stuck with the 'teleporting' effect.

[Anonymous kank with wings]

There is no simple way to solve the 'room problem', so you're stuck with the 'teleporting' effect.

In which case the raiders don't really have the right to expect a character to freeze in place when they enter a room, because this action is actually approximating an approach from a significant distance.

If said raiders take pains to surprise a character (e.g. hidden rangers emerging from hiding once the character enters the room), then okay they do have the right.

Maybe some skills could be implemented to help the raiders in this regard. Like a "hide in the sand" skill which is like outdoors hide, but takes a long time to complete. A "camouflage" skill where the raiders hide in the bushes, covering themselves in camo muds and leaves. And so forth. If they spring out when a character arrives and subdue him (or maybe use another new skill, like 'swordpoint' him), he's fair game.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

Sure, we could add new skills and all, and I suspect that one day, we'll have actual code that helps this situation. But there are a few problems with your idea. First of all, while there are hiding-in-the-desert skills in the game, only certian classes get them. Unless you're suggesting an entirely new skill along those lines, accessable to either a sub-guild or open to everyone, no dice. If you are, there are going to be a ton of naysayers.

Secondly, we'll start having arguments about where I was when X raiders sprung up in my room. A room represents about a mile on average, so there's plenty of room for those complaints.

I think it's better that we just roleplay our characters better, in our own opinions. Do whatever you feel OOCLy that you character would do. If you are feeling abused, and you can't take it, do something about it.

The ettiquete on raiding will never change if someone doesn't change it. If word gets out that a raider is giving people time to RP, people will stop and RP, especially if you just go on and let folks live. There's enough good players in the world that you'll still get some loot.

[Hymwen]

Somebody (can't remember who) once suggested a "threaten" skill, and I think it could work in this scenario. As far as I remember, it went something like this:

You 'threaten' someone, and nothing immediate happens. However, if the target moves (walks in a direction, mounts a kank, draws weapons, begins casting a spell and so on) you automatically start attacking them. This way, you could threaten somebody and if they choose to attempt to run away with no RP you can attack them, and if they do cooperate you can 'release' or whatever to let them go when you've gotten what you wanted. This way, raiders wouldn't be forced to instantly attack, and they wouldn't face the obstacle of people just spamming off into the distance as soon as they see them.

[Vesperas]

I imagine that the 'threaten' skill would be quite buggy and would be used outside of its original intentions.  A raider could also finish up a scene and this 'skill' may not have worn off (or he didn't turn it off before the victim leaves), and badness occurs.  It's just a gangly option that I don't like.

I've played Armageddon for a couple of months now, and have had numerous confrontations in the wilderness -- most of these by magickers, but still a hefty number of them were non-magickal brutes.  Since I started playing, I have hauled ass perhaps twice that I can remember, both times in the beginning of my play when I was still questioning the integrity of this playerbase (and in one of those 'spam flee' situations, I did emote reaching for my mount before mounting it, to give my 'raider' fair warning of just what I was about to do).  

None of these situations were badly played by the attackers.  If I chose to spam-flee from someone looking for interaction, or to attack full-force if they asked me for something as stupid as my kewl snakeskin belt, then I absolutely deserve to be handed an emoteless death.  

The idea is that if someone has the patience to properly play out a raider, knowing full well that their roleplay interaction is going to entirely depend on the 10% of people who don't auto-flee at the sight of them, the least -I- could do as a player is entertain them as much as they entertain me.  It's about roleplay, not your personal affection for your PC.

[jhunter]

Why is it that no one has replied to my point?

When a raider types 's', he is effectively going from a bow shot's distance to nose-to-nose in an eyeblink. He teleports up to your face. Where is your valid chance to run then?

The watch command and spamming look in the cardinal directions are not even close to substituting for what would come naturally to someone with eyes. You would not miss that person down the road or even off the road.

Unless they've gone to pains to conceal themselves. If you're walking along a desert trail and suddenly raiders emerge from the sand all around you, fine. But if someone more or less teleports up and suddenly has a blade to your throat, wtf?

Quote:
Part of the problem here is that there is no horizon. Sure you can try to spam 'l n', 'l w', 'l s', etc. But it doesn't work that well. Is it really fair that a raider can just pop up under your nose, so to speak, by happening to type 'w' then 's'? Without taking any special measure to create an ambush? It's like all clear one moment, nose-to-nose the next.



Is it really fair that they can be busy skinning, crafting, or something else that takes their attention and still be looking around them just as alertly as if they weren't doing anything else at all?

If you had read, I did respond. My point is that there are unfair and unrealistic things on both sides, not just the side of the victim. It's just the way it works and we have to deal with it.

You know what I find very annoying? The attitudes of most of the people defending twinky victims and trying to justify them playing to "win". Most raiders (most that I've played or encountered) do not play to "win". They play for the interaction and creating a scene.

Everyone agrees that it is poor for the raider to play to "win". Why can't everyone agree that it is the same for the victims as well?

[Anonymous kank with wings]

How about this as a comprise, since no one appears to be in favor of implementing skills or tools raiders can use to explicitly trap their victims.

If the raider rides in when you're dismounted, it's a pretty good sign that you've been caught out.

If two or more raiders arrive from different directions, it's a pretty good sign that you've been caught out.

If you're mounted when the raider arrives, you have the option to start a chase. You move, you wait for the raider to follow, you move again. If the raider is on a faster mount, he'll be able to emote or start a fight. Otherwise it's down to whose mount and feet wear out first.

This gives characters an honest chance to escape rather than just having to automatically surrender or fight when a raider drops in out of the sky, so to speak.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

Nobody said that they were not in favor of implementing raiding procedures. What they said was that they were wary of such features, because of potential twinkishness. Threaten was a skill spoken about at length.

I would love to see a raider sub-class with appropriate existing and new skills, a combination to give raiders a chance. But we can't let victims get completely shafted, and that's why we should offer suggestions instead of demands and critical dialouge.

Let's offer suggestions on how things should be handled, and bear in mind that it might require functionallity outside of raiding, such as use by Soldiers, etc.

Let's keep dialogue civil.

[Xygax]

There are plenty of coded tools to allow raiders to operate, please don't try to impose OOC "rules" on raiding and being raided.  If you aren't familiar with these commands or coded abilities, check them out: archery, poisoning, subdue, and guard.

There are lots of other good ones too, for those of you who are real creative.

-- X

[moab]

What Xygax said sounds like it covers it.

I would hate to see a "radier" subguild because that means someone without the subguild is pooched.  Then again, I'm anti-class (no class?) anyway.

There are things that can make raiding work well and smoothly including:
1. Teamwork
2. Previously mentioned coded skills
3. Communication
4. Spies

If you're afraid the victim is going to break and run from the one viable entrance he has (you did bottle-neck him, right?) have two people guard him.  

Strike from hidden positions with something that will slow him down.
Go for his mount / vehicle first

etc...

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

I would hate to see a "radier" subguild because that means someone without the subguild is pooched.  Then again, I'm anti-class (no class?) anyway.

...while I am all for more code and classes and selections and classless too and...

Anyway, try a few different methods. There's actually a lot of them.

None of them are as tight as the 'threaten' skill, but...

[Anonymous kank with wings]

please don't try to impose OOC "rules" on raiding and being raided

Alright. What is the consensus, though? How do I avoid being labeled a "twink" if I happen upon a raider?

It sounds like the only thing people will find satisfactory is for the character to stand still, to either fight or surrender. Escape attempts aren't acceptable. Is this true?

[moab]

No.

Emote first.
Then act.

Or intereact on some level.

- that's my preference - but several imm posts have made it clear that this is not expected of you and you are free to stand up and flee if a stranger walks into the room.

[Xygax]

I personally don't care what you do if a raider happens upon you.  Believe me, if a skill raiders wants to have your stuff, they'll have it.  If they don't get it from you the first time they find you at their mercy, they'll probably get it next time, and you'll probably be dead when they're plucking it off you.

Me feeling on the matter is this:  I'd like to see raiders and victims alike try to give each other a chance to RP on their first encounter (to some degree there is more burden here placed on the raider/mugger in my mind, because they are likely more prepared and  have "the drop" on their victim).  This means using guard and subdue if necessary (again, there are other options and tools).  I personally won't think either of you are twinks if you resort to coded actions immediately -- the code is the way it is because we are satisfied that it represents a good array of choices for both attacker and victim (though we reserve the right to continue tweaking

What I DON'T want to see is a consistent history of raiders/muggers killing everyone unfortunate enough to stumble across their path without ANY chance for RP at all.  As I said, more of the burden here falls on them, and that makes the situation harder, but it can still be very fun and exciting.

Here's the deal, though:  if you don't give that raider any chance to interact on that first meeting, then you should probably expect to be dead on the next meeting.  They can easily ICly assume that you will continue to be twitchy and slippery in future encounters and so should be dealt with more aggressively, and I fully support that.

-- X

[amoeba]

please don't try to impose OOC "rules" on raiding and being raided

Alright. What is the consensus, though? How do I avoid being labeled a "twink" if I happen upon a raider?

It sounds like the only thing people will find satisfactory is for the character to stand still, to either fight or surrender. Escape attempts aren't acceptable. Is this true?

Flesh out the scene as best as your ability and circumstances allow, but first and foremost, do what is appropriate for your character.

[edit[ Gah, Xygax beat me to it with a more eloquent answer. What he said.