Suggestions for desert quit ability.

[hcwalker]

I am not playing a ranger with my current character, but I have played a several in the past, and I have recently been thinking about some things that from my view would add to the realism of the game regarding a ranger's ability to quit in the desert and in some ways enhance this great ability.

I think that the great skills of the ranger are too dichotomous, in other words, too much of an "all or none" phenomenon.  I have posted on this before in another thread regarding the desert navigation ability ...

http://www.zalanthas.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=20601&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15

Regardless, my idea is that quitting in the desert should be something that requires both time and effort.  Similar to crafting a difficult to make object, if a ranger decides to quit in the desert, it should not occur instantaneously and effortlessly.

He or she should have to scurry around the terrain in that sector and find an appropriate place to rest, costing some stamina and time.  A two day ranger should be able to do this almost flawlessly with little cost of stamina.  A newbie ranger should be able to do it, but with a little more difficulty.  

This opens the possibility that certain subguilds like hunter or scavenger might have the ability as well, but in an extremely limited fashion such that it would take a long time, cost a LOT of stamina, and not work very reliably.  In other words subguilds with the skill could quit sometimes in the desert, but not without very significant risk of both stamina loss and failure, and they would never even remotely approach a ranger's level of talent.

From a ranger's perspective, desert quit could then be enhanced in one very useful way.  In the spirit of being a true desert guide, if a ranger deemed it necessary he could try to find shelter for people who know nothing about the desert.  He or she could use a specific command (maybe a branched skill?) off desert quit whereby he could make a whole room "quit safe" for everyone for the next few real life minutes, so that nonrangers could take shelter in the middle of the desert if necessary.  In other words, make camp for a party in the wilds.  This branched skill would cost more stamina and time and be more difficult than just "quitting out" in the regular fashion by the ranger alone.  

What do people think of these suggestions?

[Vessol]

I personaly like them, I always feel sort of cheap when I log off instantly while roaming the harsh dunes because OOCly I need to get a glass or water or answer the phone. Also the group quit is kind of iffy, but I do think it could be useful in some aspects, though it would make rangers a little less common, as you could get a group of warriors with one ranger, /shrug.

[creeper386]

I'll still hold true to the idea that quiting out is a completely OOC concept. It doesn't involve any PC skill nor knowledge or anything of the like, and it should be changed to reflect it.

So, that's a big NO on your ideas, from me.

[jstorrie]

I'm with creeper. There should be no IC restrictions on the use of an OOC command.

[jmordetsky]

I'm all for desert quit as a skill. But...we need to not tilt rangers off end.

I'd like to desert quit as a skill to ALL PCs available skill called "skill_camp".

Rangers start at a high level and have no penalty.

Everyone else suffers varying degrees of HP, STAM, Hunger and Thrist based on their skill level.  The lowest of whom end up with a HP drain until they need to sleep to get regen, making desert quit very dangerous for them.

Eg:

Code Select Expand



50/50 50/50 50/50> Camp.

You begin to make camp.

Time passes as you prepare a camp.

50/50 50/50 50/50>  

You make a camp.  Goodbye.

50/50 50/50 50/50>




When you log back in, depending on your skill:

Code Select Expand



Welcome to Armageddon.

50/50 50/50 50/50>  Your time in the wastes has caused you to suffer.

25/50 25/50 25/50> think Man, It's hot.  

In addition it would be cool if where you quit was marked. So evil raiders could spot your camp and wait around for you. Maybe it could show up as tracks?

Code Select Expand



50/50 50/50 50/50>  Hunt

A camp was recently made here.

50/50 50/50 50/50>  Think How nice.



[Majikal]

Jmordetsky, interesting idea, I especially like the possibilty of raiders camping your spot or whatnot. Slightly off the unrealistic end, but fun none the less and making camping outside more scary. But overeall my opinion is: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[Cyrian20]

Jmordetsky, interesting idea, I especially like the possibilty of raiders camping your spot or whatnot. Slightly off the unrealistic end, but fun none the less and making camping outside more scary. But overeall my opinion is: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Camping to raid would be pure twink. You take away my ability to watch for you coming, perhaps my ranger often circles back to watch for people chasing him, or perhaps my sorc often does some scary magickal stuff to protect the area him and keep an eye on it. You suddenly get to get past my defenses because I logged out.

I still bring up an important point I have brought up in past ranger quit posts, rangers make good scouts. They are the ones that should be scouting the area to find good "camping" (great with the ability to see quit rooms in the exits now) spots. If people used this and played it out more there would be very little care for the ranger's camp ability.

[Uberskaapie]

I'm with Cyrian 100%. There are places for everyone to quit in the wilderness. If you're not adept at staying in the wastes (aka non-ranger) You should find them, or pay someone to find them.

[LauraMars]

Let's ask ourselves the question: What will making wilderness quit a fallible, time-based, and penalized skill add to the GAME?  How will it enrich roleplay?   Remember: when you're quitting, you want to stop playing.  Why make that any harder than it has to be?

The idea of group quit is actually nice, cosmetic idea on the surface, but in reality, life just gets more and more difficult depending on the size of the group.  The ranger is effectively tethered to that spot until the rest of the party can log in and she can continue to lead them.  This will cause certain ooc coordination and create a large potential for frustration.

The idea of adding wilderness quit to subguilds is, again, a nice cosmetic idea on the surface, but making it a fallible skill I fear will merely frustrate those who want something to depend on.  Example, thirty day warrior.  You're in the middle of nowhere for some reason.  Aren't you glad you picked that subguild?  Let's quit out.  Too bad, you suck and you fail.  Now you have to rest to regenerate stamina before you can try again, or, alternatively, run around looking for a cave.  Another half hour in front of the computer.

Please, let's not make leaving this GAME any harder than it already is.  Much as I hate to utilize such an overused phrase, I am a firm advocate of treating quitting as an out of character command.  I'm all about freedom for the people from the keyboard!  Whenever they want!

[path]

I agree with everything jmordetsky has said here.

I also agree with LauraMars that quitting out should be an OOC player-controled thing and respecting that is of the utmost importance.

But I think all of jmordetsky's ideas totally support that, without detracting even the slightest bit from the skill rangers already have and while also adding to the playerbase as a whole something that I think of as being totally realistic and fun. Also, it would be of some benifit to newbs.

[flurry]

I don't believe people really want no IC restrictions on quitting.   I wouldn't want people to be able to quit during or immediately after combat, for example.

As for the special ability given to rangers, I could go either way on that, but I think I understand the reason for it.  It really does extend their range, so that rangers, more than other classes, have the ability to explore unfamiliar areas far away from cities.  I can see the logic to that, even if can lead to some frustration if you have to do an unexpected quit.   I don't think I've ever had to just drop link instead of quitting, but I have had to hurry to the nearest quit room.

It's easier to identify quit rooms now, which helps.

I don't like the idea of turning outdoor quit into a skill.  It's bad enough when the weather slows you down from quitting out.  I wouldn't want to see this hit-or-miss element built into the command itself.

[mansa]

Let's ask ourselves the question: What will making wilderness quit a fallible, time-based, and penalized skill add to the GAME?  How will it enrich roleplay?   Remember: when you're quitting, you want to stop playing.  Why make that any harder than it has to be?

The idea of group quit is actually nice, cosmetic idea on the surface, but in reality, life just gets more and more difficult depending on the size of the group.  The ranger is effectively tethered to that spot until the rest of the party can log in and she can continue to lead them.  This will cause certain ooc coordination and create a large potential for frustration.

The idea of adding wilderness quit to subguilds is, again, a nice cosmetic idea on the surface, but making it a fallible skill I fear will merely frustrate those who want something to depend on.  Example, thirty day warrior.  You're in the middle of nowhere for some reason.  Aren't you glad you picked that subguild?  Let's quit out.  Too bad, you suck and you fail.  Now you have to rest to regenerate stamina before you can try again, or, alternatively, run around looking for a cave.  Another half hour in front of the computer.

Please, let's not make leaving this GAME any harder than it already is.  Much as I hate to utilize such an overused phrase, I am a firm advocate of treating quitting as an out of character command.  I'm all about freedom for the people from the keyboard!  Whenever they want!

I think that most players would max out quit by the time they are 10 days played.  At least, that's what I would do with the first couple days of my character.

[Pantoufle]

I think that most players would max out quit by the time they are 10 days played. At least, that's what I would do with the first couple days of my character.

I think the example she was using was that, as a subguild, the skill cap would be rather low and, therefore, unreliable, even when "maxed".  Possessing the pre-Mesopotamian underwater basket weaving skill at an unrealiable level is an IC construct.  Possessing the leaving-the-game-because-I-have-real-life-responsibilities skill at an unreliable level is an OOC construct.

[manonfire]

Or, we could all just assume use of the quit command for Rangers is akin, ICly, to them wandering the wastes for a few minutes and finding somewhere to bed down.

[hcwalker]

Regarding desert quit being a skill, it doesn't have to be all that hard to do for rangers even from the outset.  Maybe it works 70% of the time with a modest stamina penalty, both of which improve over time with practice.  It should however be very difficult for nonrangers with an appropriate subguild.

I think this is a bit of coded realism that would add a lot to the game.  Would it add to roleplay?  I'd say yes, it would.  The act of making a camp could be roleplayed.  The game world would have an opportunity to respond to that.  Despite this, although roleplay is what distinguishes Arm from other games, there is more to the game than roleplay alone.  Hard-coded realism is a big, big selling point of this mud.  And its great that we (especially lately) have had some terrific updates to the code.

With this skill there would be consequences for actions.  It would make it harder for people to run into a room with a dangerous mob and just dart out and quit, which is poor form, but I'm certain people do it from time to time.  And as was pointed out correctly, it would make it at least possible for some subguilds to quit in the desert, though at significant penalty, which if anything might help newbies.  Certainly this would discourage quitting repetitively in the desert, which is inappropriate.

[creeper386]

How does putting more IC restrictions on an OOC command add RP what so ever?

No, I completely understand having rangers wilderness quit, to a degree. It helps keep the non rangers in the city where they belong, but I still feel quit is completely OOC and should have nothing to do with what sort of skills your character has or anything like that.

I also understand restricting logging out due to various recent activities to help prevent some poor playing.

But, you want to make it a coded skill with chances of failure? So ... 70% huh? So I have a greater then 1/4 chance that when I'm trying to quit out, it's not going to work? Because of some poor character skill ... No. Once again. NO!

It makes no sense, because again, logging out, as in quitting the game is OOC, character skills is IC, they should remain seperate. Logging out isn't just setting up camp and sitting there for some prolonged period of time. It's not falling asleep and remaining that way for weeks at a time. It's going virtual, because they player has a life. There is nothing IC about that, whatsoever.

[spawnloser]

If it was a skill that at always resulted in a 'success, you can log out!' sort of thing...okay.  Have the actual coded success be a no stamina penalty, yay for you.  Coded failure would be cutting your current stamina in half.  This sort of arrangement, I would be happy with.  Cutting HP and stun?  Woah, that's...a bit too vicious, I think.

I have nothng better to add than that simple opinion right now.

[EvilRoeSlade]

I think things are fine the way they are and require no adjustments.  You say (OP) that it would add realism to the game, but how exactly are you supposed to make the quit command in any way realistic?  It's an OOC command for an OOC need.  It doesn't need realism attached to it, and thus the entire premise behind this idea is ridiculous.

[path]

EvilRoseSlade:

I think realism is added in that the character is in fact spending a period of time there in the wilds while they're quit out, making a camp and the skill of finding or building a camp necessary. For rangers, this would come naturally and failure wouldn't really be an issue. With people unused to the wilds, still I think there would be some logic involved, therefor a chance of failure or success. The chance of success would be capped assuming you weren't a ranger and the cap would vary based in some part by guild and another by subguld, resulting in a combined addaptability percentage. Increase in this skill to reach the cap would be, IMHO, notably low.

Really, I think most people dropped in the wilds for some period of time, meaning a regular 21st centuary joe like you or I, would have a fair to good chance of survival - making quitting out there both possible and realistic, as well as adding drastically to playability (Esp. for newbs). It would also be dangerous, and I think a strong penalty for doing so would make sense, thereby discouraging city-goers from venturing out at all, much less trying to survive for any length of time out there -unless under extreme duress.

While I think it could be argued that Zalanthas is a much more dangerous environment, it's also been stated that people are heartier there and, indeed, stronger and more accustomed - bred if you will - to strife.

In the end, it's not so much that I think this would benefit me or those who have been playing for a long period of time, because certainly there are safe places in the wilds to quit if you know where to find them. It would however be a wonderful help to newer players who've had less time to explore the world, and I think it would add to realism and RP overall in making escaping when your straights become really drastic a frightening yet still possible alternative - even if you weren't passably familiar with the game world or that part of the world.

[Uberskaapie]

non-rangers CAN quit in the wilderness. Just not in every wilderness room. Just like in the cities. If you want to make a non-ranger pc who spends significant amounts of time in the wilderness, FIND THESE ROOMS.

Also, this whole argument is starting to sound kinda silly. It sounds like people's argument is along the lines of: "Rangers can quit whenever they want, why can't we?" when in actuality, I imagine the skill to be more along the lines of

1-an added perk to playing a class that falls short in other areas

2-a way of reflecting the level of comfort that rangers feel in the desert that others simply dont. Using somebody's point "When you log out you dont just camp, you go virtual" or something to that affect. Your city-based assassin is going te get killed going virtual in the middle of nowhere for extended periods of time.

3-increasing a ranger's range.

but anyway. I maintain that if you want to play in the desert. Learn where the quit rooms are or play a ranger. It seems to me like you all must want to have super buff warriors (or whatever) that you can pretend has sweet ranger-like abilities.

[Beux]

I'll still hold true to the idea that quiting out is a completely OOC concept. It doesn't involve any PC skill nor knowledge or anything of the like, and it should be changed to reflect it.

So, that's a big NO on your ideas, from me.

I third, fourth, (whatever number we're up to with this) - quitting out is totally OOC. One of the reasons I don't understand why it's limited by guild. Rangers should totally be made to let other guilds who are travelling with them...quit out with them (think of it - long haul, travelling caravans. Whoo)

[Cyrian20]

I'll still hold true to the idea that quiting out is a completely OOC concept. It doesn't involve any PC skill nor knowledge or anything of the like, and it should be changed to reflect it.

So, that's a big NO on your ideas, from me.

I third, fourth, (whatever number we're up to with this) - quitting out is totally OOC. One of the reasons I don't understand why it's limited by guild. Rangers should totally be made to let other guilds who are travelling with them...quit out with them (think of it - long haul, travelling caravans. Whoo)

What would be the use of rangers, everyone thinks they are buff guild. Trust me I would rather have a warrior, rangers have weaker combat (which is a huge thing in the wastes) and their skills are penalized when they enter a city.

The advantage to their weakness is they are well rounded and can -scout- without going too ic we had camp in the grasslands once with a certain tribe and me and another ranger spent two RL days scouting the grasslands so we knew what areas were passed frequently and what area made good camp sites (quit rooms) This was great rp and part of the ranger's use. Giving outside quit to every class or making it a skill makes rangers useless. We might as well divide their skills over some other classes and erase them.

[jhunter]

I think it's fine as is and don't believe there is a need for it to be changed.

[Morgenes]

From a staff perspective, quitting out is NOT an OOC thing.  There is a reason why we have quit-safe rooms in the game.  There's a reason why we show you what rooms are quit safe and which aren't.

Quitting out in Armageddon means that your character would be safe from any harms if they just hung out there for an indefinate period of time.  This is an completely IC notion.

That said, feel free to go ahead and continue discussing, what if anything should be done to change wilderness quit.

[jmordetsky]

Too bad, you suck and you fail.  Now you have to rest to regenerate stamina before you can try again, or, alternatively, run around looking for a cave.  Another half hour in front of the computer.

Woa, woa. No way. I think you should absolutely be able to quit on your first try.

But when you log back in, you get fucked up.

I HATE not being able to quit out in an emergency. You find no larger critic of life as a warrior in a sandstorm then I.

Just to reiterate: In my opinion, you should never, ever regardless of race, class, subclass, creed or sexual orientation be restricted from leaving the game(save for right after a fight, we need this). Everyone should get the skill, and everyone should be privledged to leave the game at their leisure with no more then a few minutes of delay.  However, when you log back in, there should be penalities placed you based on where you quit out.

And...These penalties should hurt. Alot. Because if you're not a ranger, you shouldn't be trying to survive out in the desert.

Until of course you get good at it, and theoretically are a ranger.


On quit rooms: Quit rooms in the desert are an OOC thing. They give advantages to players who know where they are. You OOCly know where the quit rooms are, so your warrior linguist is a better survivor in the desert then my warrior caravan guide. It doesn't make any IC sense.

[Agent_137]

quit rooms in the desert aren't OOC. They seem to make sense. A cave. A place with some shade. An old broken caravan.

Just because you have to find them first doesn't make them OOC. It makes it sensible. What, do you want little shanties off the north road?

[jmordetsky]

quit rooms in the desert aren't OOC. They seem to make sense. A cave. A place with some shade. An old broken caravan.

Just because you have to find them first doesn't make them OOC. It makes it sensible. What, do you want little shanties off the north road?

Of course. That's not what I mean though.

What I mean, is that the fact that you as a player know where they are possibly from knowledge gained via a previous character, is OOC knowledge.

So unless you're planning to justify *why* you know where that cave in the desert is in every background of any char you intend to utilitize it with and select a subclass to support it, you as a player, have an OOC advantage over another player who has never found said cave with his previous characters.

Though, that player, may have a background and a subclass that would indicate he/she was more adept at surviving in the wastes then you.

Much in the same way that my salarri merchant may oocly know the rinth better then your rinther. In times of near death my salarri isn't going to pretend to be lost, odds are I'll probably just high tail it to a quit room and be like "Woa, lucky me."

The fact is, is that your rinther should be just as apt, if not more apt at quiting out in his given "environment" as my salarri merchant. My OOC knowledge shouldn't give me an advantage over your IC background.

Make sense?

The addition of desert quit as a skill creates a sensible balance between OC experience and IC classes.

I'm not against quit rooms, quit rooms should still exist and allow players with low desert quit skill levels to leave the game without penalty.

[hcwalker]

I'm certainly not against quit rooms in the desert.  I didn't bring this topic up for discussion because I don't know where the quit rooms are in the desert.

I don't think anyone should lose hit points or stun if they fail quitting.  Just stamina.  And if they are a non-ranger trying to quit, they should lose a LOT of stamina, whether they succeed or fail.

I don't think it should be so difficult that you can't quickly and reliably quit in the desert, particularly if you're a ranger.  I have a busy career and a busy life outside of work, so I often have to quit suddenly for OOC reasons.

Now for a non-ranger, if there is a 40% chance of success and you lose significant stamina upon failure or success -- I would think that would be reasonable since you are not a completely desert-adept.  And quitting in the desert would not be something to do lightly.

I don't think this would lessen the power of rangers at all.  Rangers will remain very, very useful for a variety of reasons.  And they still would be able to quit in the desert basically as they do now.  And if the group quit skill were implemented, it might make rangers even more useful.

Regarding group quit, I agree that it has cosmetic appeal to some degree, but implementation would be more tricky.  How many people could quit if a camp were made?  How do you handle it when they log back in?  I guess the camp would no longer be there maybe a RL day later and people would reenter the game independently (or decide on a RL time to reconvene in the area where they made camp previously).

Thanks to everyone for their feedback.

[jmordetsky]

I don't think anyone should lose hit points or stun if they fail quitting.  Just stamina.  And if they are a non-ranger trying to quit, they should lose a LOT of stamina, whether they succeed or fail.

The reason I have such a hard on for HP loss is this: Previously the staff has made mention that the lack of desert quit in the general population was a great deterent to individuals spending large amount of time outdoors and as a result helped to concentrate the playerbase in cities and therefore served to facilitate more RP.

To some extent, I believe this is important and so as a result while I am strongly for desert quit, I feel it should have some harsh repercusions so that it's only used in emergency situations. I think what we don't want is the desert filled with 100 wandering warrior nomads who spend every waking hour in the wastes and build their skill over a few days so that they are essentially warrior/rangers.

So, for me, a stamina drain is *not* enough of a deterent. A large HP drain while harsh as hell, accomplishes 1 thing.

It forces you to need to sleep prior to getting regen.

Which is quite easily the MOST dangerous thing you can do in the desert. If that was the penalty, you can be damn sure that non-rangers would only use desert quit in the event of an "Oh shit, I gotta go" moment.

We need desert quit really bad. BUT we need players to *not* take desert quit lightly at all. If they do, the game will suck. Be sure of it.


Case in point: SOI.

Go to a city in SOI. It's filled with a whole lot of no one. Because everyone is wandering around making camps.

[Agent_137]

What I mean, is that the fact that you as a player know where they are possibly from knowledge gained via a previous character, is OOC knowledge.

It makes total sense and you're absolutely correct. But that's the same with every single damn piece of information in this game.

Have a character that learned a lot about poison, and dies?

Well, what if you make another character later. All of a sudden you have an OOC knowledge advantage! Do you use it?

And the answer is the same across the board: Not unless it's reasonably included in your background, and isn't "super sekret" information.

So, for a warrior thug to include poisoning information in his background is a bit off. But a warrior physician? That makes sense.

The issue of how to use or not use OOC knowledge is an issue we deal with every day. No need to legislate it with code.

[jmordetsky]

What I mean, is that the fact that you as a player know where they are possibly from knowledge gained via a previous character, is OOC knowledge.

It makes total sense and you're absolutely correct. But that's the same with every single damn piece of information in this game.

Have a character that learned a lot about poison, and dies?

Well, what if you make another character later. All of a sudden you have an OOC knowledge advantage! Do you use it?

And the answer is the same across the board: Not unless it's reasonably included in your background, and isn't "super sekret" information.

So, for a warrior thug to include poisoning information in his background is a bit off. But a warrior physician? That makes sense.

The issue of how to use or not use OOC knowledge is an issue we deal with every day. No need to legislate it with code.

I agree with you on most things save for quitting.  I feel quitting is a special case.

Essentially that OOC knowledge allows you the OOC freedom of being able to leave the game at your own will, where as someone else can not.  This skill would make the game better, more realistic and most importantly more playable.

[Agent_137]

Well, see, i don't go do dangerous things away from quit zones unless I have time to return to a quit zone -and- have the expected lack of serious interruptions.

So the "playability" issue here is only such that I can do more risky activities more often. And honestly, that's not -that- important to me, and probably not that important to many others. So when you're proposing sweeping  changes to how things are, it's not necessarily worth it, even if it's a good idea.

[jmordetsky]

Well, see, i don't go do dangerous things away from quit zones unless I have time to return to a quit zone -and- have the expected lack of serious interruptions.

So the "playability" issue here is only such that I can do more risky activities more often. And honestly, that's not -that- important to me, and probably not that important to many others. So when you're proposing sweeping  changes to how things are, it's not necessarily worth it, even if it's a good idea.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

[Agent_137]

Well, yea, it's not even a matter of opinion, it's a matter of how much we place importance on what aspects of the game.

It's taste.

But personally, as long as you fuck everyone who's not a ranger sufficiently hard enough for quitting out in the desert without a normal quit point, i'd not mind a bit if the changes went in.

[jmordetsky]

But personally, as long as you fuck everyone who's not a ranger sufficiently hard enough for quitting out in the desert without a normal quit point, i'd not mind a bit if the changes went in.

I'm totally down with fucking them.


As long as they are pretty. And smell nice.

But in all seriousness, yea.