The "proper" responses to raiders.

[KIA]

I remember playing a Nakki bard a long time ago who not only paid a raider's (I believe it was LoD's) ransom but had that same raider escort him through the tablelands. Good times. If people are spamming out of those situations they're missing great opportunities for RP and sometimes wicked adventures that can come out of that.

That was back in 2001 I believe.

[Heade]

It isn't a code issue.

Mugging as a career choice is only for the truly desperate.  It isn't a profitable venture, and leads to nasty, brutish, short lives.  No amount of code change is going to make mugging suddenly safe, anonymous and awesome... and zalanthas wouldn't be a very harsh place if it was, now would it?

I'm pretty sure this thread already had extensive conversations on how raiding could work, but those of you trying to play "successful" muggers are always going to be in for frustration.  For your own sakes, I'd strongly recommend reconsidering the role you're trying to play and how it fits into the world.

Ok, after reading through this entire thread from the beginning, Staggerlee, I have to say that I disagree with your entire concept of criminal profitability. In the united states today, highway robbery is the #2 cause of the greatest loss of gross national product. It is probably the largest, most profitable portion of the modern mafia's income sources.

Crime is not necessarily for the desperate alone. Desperate criminals get caught. Intelligent people who make a conscious decision to lead a life of crime due to profitability, and a fairly high payoff with very little effort are also reaslistic. Because the "desperate" people are more likely to get caught, it may seem as if it's only desperate people doing the jobs. But IRL, thats not the way it works. Over 50% of all crimes go unsolved. So that means half of all criminals in the united states don't get caught. By the way, all this info was available on the FBI's website, last I checked. Which was a number of years ago, so #'s might be slightly off.

Having said that, I think a "threaten" command would be an excellent addition to facilitate RP in raiding scenario's, and others as well. I think the code of it should be handled a bit differently, however. I envision a "threaten" command being something like, your character walks up to mine with sword drawn and holds his sword out in a position that would be easy to strike me quickly and lethaly.

If I were determining how the code for it works, I'd make it a pre-emptive command that basically "warned" people not to move, draw a weapon, or make any offensive moves. In the event the "warned" character tried to run, draw/wield/hold a weapon, or make any offensive move, the "threaten" command would activate, basically auto-initiating combat with a significant bonus to hit and damage on the first strike.

This allows potential raiders/soldiers/templars or whoever to maintain the coded(and realistic) advantage that they would have had should they have forgone the RP and went straight to combat, without skipping the RP.

I don't think the command should to any more or less than what I outlined above. I try to run while threatened, combat is immediately and pre-emptively initiated. My "go north" action doesn't work because I was at the point of a blade when I tried it. I can still flee and successfully get away after combat is initiated, assuming I don't get clobbered by the 3 guys currently threatening me and asking for my travel pack.

This system would allow most people to escape from a single, lone raider, while being surrounded by 2-3 raiders with the initial "threaten" bonus activated would be a daunting situation indeed.

[Synthesis]

A 'threaten' command wouldn't solve the problem of people simply fleeing from raiders.

All it would do is allow time for a few silly emotes/says/etc. before the person attempted to flee.

What is the difference between:

>Raider 1 enters from the north
>Raider 2 enters from the north
>Raider 3 enters from the north
>Raiders 1, 2, and 3 attack you!
>You flee!

and

>Raider 1, 2, and 3 enter from the north.
>Raider 1, 2, and 3 threaten you.
>You emote backing away.
>Raider 1 says, "Hey, gimme ur stuffz."
>Raider 2 menaces you menacingly.
>Raider 3 has three stacked offensive commands in his input buffer, so he can't emote right now.
>You say, "Please, don't hurt me!"
>You attempt to flee.
>Raiders 1, 2, and 3 attack you!
>You flee anyway!

...you see my point?  If the person being raided is inclined to flee unrealistically, the threaten code doesn't change the equation at all.

Furthermore, the "threatening" from across the desert wastes is just as unrealistic as instantly attacking from across the desert wastes.  The only thing that can possibly solve this is some sort of "approach" code.

[brytta.leofa]

I think we're using a vastly overpowered flee to balance other stuff.

Hence locked rooms' reputation as an assassination necessity.

[Heade]

A 'threaten' command wouldn't solve the problem of people simply fleeing from raiders.

All it would do is allow time for a few silly emotes/says/etc. before the person attempted to flee.

What is the difference between:

>Raider 1 enters from the north
>Raider 2 enters from the north
>Raider 3 enters from the north
>Raiders 1, 2, and 3 attack you!
>You flee!

and

>Raider 1, 2, and 3 enter from the north.
>Raider 1, 2, and 3 threaten you.
>You emote backing away.
>Raider 1 says, "Hey, gimme ur stuffz."
>Raider 2 menaces you menacingly.
>Raider 3 has three stacked offensive commands in his input buffer, so he can't emote right now.
>You say, "Please, don't hurt me!"
>You attempt to flee.
>Raiders 1, 2, and 3 attack you!
>You flee anyway!

...you see my point?  If the person being raided is inclined to flee unrealistically, the threaten code doesn't change the equation at all.

Furthermore, the "threatening" from across the desert wastes is just as unrealistic as instantly attacking from across the desert wastes.  The only thing that can possibly solve this is some sort of "approach" code.

The difference is that if you act unrealistically by trying to flee, they get 3 free rounds of attacks on you with bonuses to hit and damage while you're unarmed before you can do so. If those 3 raiders are each dual wielding, thats 6 attacks with hefty bonuses. If you manage to get through that, you -should- be able to flee. If you don't, maybe you shouldn't have tried. Either way, it makes the idea of running away much more dangerous.

A "chase" toggle could be implemented as well, that would allow you to chase any fleeing enemy if they successfully flee. It would take them out of combat, and you'd have to "attack" them again, but it would make pursuit viable. It would also probably make it to where those who have no other means to run/hide other than flee/spamrun would not often escape people bent on killing them, if their attackers have the skill to do so. Perhaps this is the way it should be. IRL, if a badass mercenary wants to kill you, and gets close enough to do so, thats pretty much it for you, barring some incredible luck.

[Tisiphone]

Or just make it so that flee doesn't automatically break follow.

[Synthesis]

If flee didn't break follow, you could conceivably get situations where the supposed "raider" gets spamwalked into say...the Sanctuary, right into the hands of your friendly local templar.

[Synthesis]

Besides which...the point isn't to make it -easier- for raiders to kill people.

If you know what you're doing, it's stupidly easy to rack up raiding pkills.  I had a 5-day ranger who had already nailed 8 unlucky/stupid saps out in the desert.  You don't need anything to do it except a little common sense, and a skill that you can get from a subclass.

If you simply give combat bonuses to the raider, or make it harder for the victim to flee, it doesn't encourage the victim to roleplay any better...it just makes everyone more paranoid than they already are.  If anything, it encourages more people to become artless thugs, because it now takes even less finesse or forethought to get the job done.

I sympathize with the general observation that raiding roleplay is typically lame, but I haven't seen any proposed code fix that would remedy the situation, because the problem is largely a result of people roleplaying poorly, on both sides of the equation.

[Heade]

Besides which...the point isn't to make it -easier- for raiders to kill people.

If you know what you're doing, it's stupidly easy to rack up raiding pkills.  I had a 5-day ranger who had already nailed 8 unlucky/stupid saps out in the desert.  You don't need anything to do it except a little common sense, and a skill that you can get from a subclass.

If you simply give combat bonuses to the raider, or make it harder for the victim to flee, it doesn't encourage the victim to roleplay any better...it just makes everyone more paranoid than they already are.  If anything, it encourages more people to become artless thugs, because it now takes even less finesse or forethought to get the job done.

I sympathize with the general observation that raiding roleplay is typically lame, but I haven't seen any proposed code fix that would remedy the situation, because the problem is largely a result of people roleplaying poorly, on both sides of the equation.

With my proposed system, it would encourage raiders to RP just as much as it would encourage those being raided. Since the raider gets a bonus for "threat" where he doesn't get the bonus if he simply attacks someone. It's one of those stalemate situations, where neither party is encouraged to make the first violent move.

[Synthesis]

Besides which...the point isn't to make it -easier- for raiders to kill people.

If you know what you're doing, it's stupidly easy to rack up raiding pkills.  I had a 5-day ranger who had already nailed 8 unlucky/stupid saps out in the desert.  You don't need anything to do it except a little common sense, and a skill that you can get from a subclass.

If you simply give combat bonuses to the raider, or make it harder for the victim to flee, it doesn't encourage the victim to roleplay any better...it just makes everyone more paranoid than they already are.  If anything, it encourages more people to become artless thugs, because it now takes even less finesse or forethought to get the job done.

I sympathize with the general observation that raiding roleplay is typically lame, but I haven't seen any proposed code fix that would remedy the situation, because the problem is largely a result of people roleplaying poorly, on both sides of the equation.

With my proposed system, it would encourage raiders to RP just as much as it would encourage those being raided. Since the raider gets a bonus for "threat" where he doesn't get the bonus if he simply attacks someone. It's one of those stalemate situations, where neither party is encouraged to make the first violent move.

Consider this situation.


>The tall, lanky raider enters the room.
>The tall, lanky raider begins threatening you!
>Holding your hands up, you say, in sirihish, "I don't want no trouble, man."
>The tall, lanky raider says, in sirihish, "Then drop your pack, holmes."
>Resting your hands on your hips, you say, in sirihish, "Now why exactly would I do that?"
>The tall, lanky raider says, in sirihish, "Because if you don't, I'll cut you.  And if you try to flee, I'll get -three- freebie cuts on you that will totally fuck you up."
>Holding a finger up, you say, in sirihish, "Aha, but I have no intention of fleeing! If you initiate combat with me, you'll lose your threat bonus, imbecile!  It's a catch-22! You haven't solved a damn thing by holding out that longsword at me, because I can stalemate you here indefinitely until you tire of it and forfeit your threat posture!"
>Facepalming himself, the tall, lanky raider says, in sirihish, "Egads, you're right. Well, I suppose I'll have to cut you, because if I tarry here too long, you're liable to contact some friends or authority figures to come and bail you out.  En garde!"

How do you propose to solve this little dilemma?

[fourTwenty]

Besides which...the point isn't to make it -easier- for raiders to kill people.

If you know what you're doing, it's stupidly easy to rack up raiding pkills.  I had a 5-day ranger who had already nailed 8 unlucky/stupid saps out in the desert.  You don't need anything to do it except a little common sense, and a skill that you can get from a subclass.

If you simply give combat bonuses to the raider, or make it harder for the victim to flee, it doesn't encourage the victim to roleplay any better...it just makes everyone more paranoid than they already are.  If anything, it encourages more people to become artless thugs, because it now takes even less finesse or forethought to get the job done.

I sympathize with the general observation that raiding roleplay is typically lame, but I haven't seen any proposed code fix that would remedy the situation, because the problem is largely a result of people roleplaying poorly, on both sides of the equation.

With my proposed system, it would encourage raiders to RP just as much as it would encourage those being raided. Since the raider gets a bonus for "threat" where he doesn't get the bonus if he simply attacks someone. It's one of those stalemate situations, where neither party is encouraged to make the first violent move.

Consider this situation.


>The tall, lanky raider enters the room.
>The tall, lanky raider begins threatening you!
>Holding your hands up, you say, in sirihish, "I don't want no trouble, man."
>The tall, lanky raider says, in sirihish, "Then drop your pack, holmes."
>Resting your hands on your hips, you say, in sirihish, "Now why exactly would I do that?"
>The tall, lanky raider says, in sirihish, "Because if you don't, I'll cut you.  And if you try to flee, I'll get -three- freebie cuts on you that will totally fuck you up."
>Holding a finger up, you say, in sirihish, "Aha, but I have no intention of fleeing! If you initiate combat with me, you'll lose your threat bonus, imbecile!  It's a catch-22! You haven't solved a damn thing by holding out that longsword at me, because I can stalemate you here indefinitely until you tire of it and forfeit your threat posture!"
>Facepalming himself, the tall, lanky raider says, in sirihish, "Egads, you're right. Well, I suppose I'll have to cut you, because if I tarry here too long, you're liable to contact some friends or authority figures to come and bail you out.  En garde!"

How do you propose to solve this little dilemma?

Kill Dude Being Raided
Raider 1 attacks Dude Being Raided
assist Raider 1
Raider 2 charges into the fight
assist Raider 1
Pink Raider charges into the fight.
flee
DBR flees heading south
bash DBR
Raider 4 slams into DBR knocking him to the ground.
The rest of the posses shows up
think Oh shit.
You... *beep*

[Heade]

Besides which...the point isn't to make it -easier- for raiders to kill people.

If you know what you're doing, it's stupidly easy to rack up raiding pkills.  I had a 5-day ranger who had already nailed 8 unlucky/stupid saps out in the desert.  You don't need anything to do it except a little common sense, and a skill that you can get from a subclass.

If you simply give combat bonuses to the raider, or make it harder for the victim to flee, it doesn't encourage the victim to roleplay any better...it just makes everyone more paranoid than they already are.  If anything, it encourages more people to become artless thugs, because it now takes even less finesse or forethought to get the job done.

I sympathize with the general observation that raiding roleplay is typically lame, but I haven't seen any proposed code fix that would remedy the situation, because the problem is largely a result of people roleplaying poorly, on both sides of the equation.

With my proposed system, it would encourage raiders to RP just as much as it would encourage those being raided. Since the raider gets a bonus for "threat" where he doesn't get the bonus if he simply attacks someone. It's one of those stalemate situations, where neither party is encouraged to make the first violent move.

Consider this situation.


>The tall, lanky raider enters the room.
>The tall, lanky raider begins threatening you!
>Holding your hands up, you say, in sirihish, "I don't want no trouble, man."
>The tall, lanky raider says, in sirihish, "Then drop your pack, holmes."
>Resting your hands on your hips, you say, in sirihish, "Now why exactly would I do that?"
>The tall, lanky raider says, in sirihish, "Because if you don't, I'll cut you.  And if you try to flee, I'll get -three- freebie cuts on you that will totally fuck you up."
>Holding a finger up, you say, in sirihish, "Aha, but I have no intention of fleeing! If you initiate combat with me, you'll lose your threat bonus, imbecile!  It's a catch-22! You haven't solved a damn thing by holding out that longsword at me, because I can stalemate you here indefinitely until you tire of it and forfeit your threat posture!"
>Facepalming himself, the tall, lanky raider says, in sirihish, "Egads, you're right. Well, I suppose I'll have to cut you, because if I tarry here too long, you're liable to contact some friends or authority figures to come and bail you out.  En garde!"

How do you propose to solve this little dilemma?

Actually, you misunderstood the system I proposed. You only get ONE freebie round with bonuses. The "three" thing came from your scenario with the three raiders. But as far as I'm concerned, the situation you proposed doesn't pose a "dilemma", and so there's nothing to solve. RP took place before the raiders were FORCED to resort to violence or leaving without any loot. Thats the entire point of the proposed system. Thanks for helping demonstrate it, albeit with your rather sarcastic scenario.

I'm not saying this system would completely, codedly stop twinkishness and lack of RP in raiding scenarios. Nothing anyone could come up with would do that. What it DOES do, is encourage RP and interaction.

[musashi]

My question is, what if the other person was holding a weapon as well?

It would seem unfair to me that a raider could pop into the room, type threaten <character> and enjoy a potentional attack bonus against them when they had their weapons drawn just the same.

But on the other hand, if the code didn't allow anyone to threaten an armed character ... it's not likely to change anything currently happening in game, save to make sure that EVERYONE has their weapons drawn outside the city gates, and not just most everyone.

Or so my thought process goes anyway.

[fourTwenty]

I don't think threaten should kick in for attacking. I think if you attack them they shouldn't get a bonus, only get the bonus if you try to run. And I also think it should be a flee self type thing, where it checked their flee skill vs your guard skill or something as to whether or not your threaten was successful. It should also be possible that 3 raiders ride up on some dude and dude:

emote :grins broadly, reaching beneath his cloak
' (chuckling darkly) Alright, I been bored all week.
Raider thinks Ohhhhhhhhh shit.

[Synthesis]

Furthermore, what about raiders who don't rely on silly things like "weapons"?

Or what about victims with magick abilities?

A magicker certainly wouldn't want to threaten anyone if it meant getting into a fistfight.  Conversely, why should a raider be able to close with and 'threaten' someone who could melt his face off with 5 words?

None of these clunky, stupid workarounds are necessary, given implementation of a two-word solution:

APPROACH CODE

[Ghost]

Even then, whose to stop the player from going ooc and breaking tone with their character so they can get "revenge." I've seen people I let go come back with posses time and again.

hahaha

so you were the victim of this or was it the other way around?

[Yokunama]

Even then, whose to stop the player from going ooc and breaking tone with their character so they can get "revenge." I've seen people I let go come back with posses time and again.

hahaha

so you were the victim of this or was it the other way around?

It happens...

[Delstro]

Well. I was once raided by one of those rascelly Soh.

The next time, I was escorted by several people. I ran into that raider again. That raider still tried to attack me. That raider died.
Did I set out for revenge? No. Did I get revenge? Yes, Yes I did.

[Heade]

Well. I was once raided by one of those rascelly Soh.

The next time, I was escorted by several people. I ran into that raider again. That raider still tried to attack me. That raider died.
Did I set out for revenge? No. Did I get revenge? Yes, Yes I did.

I'm curious. How did the raid play out the first time? Did you hand over what he wanted?

[Delstro]

He wanted all my weapons, I told him he can have some coin. He wanted all my weapons, I flipped him off and rode off. I didn't spam, I just rode off. He stayed with me for about 3 rooms, before shouting he is going to kill me.

[musashi]

Yeah the "give me all your weapons" probably doesn't win many votes. It tends to make the raidee think: Well if I give you all my weapons, you'll assuredly try to kill me because I'll be unarmed so ... you know ... bugger off with something else or lets just cut to the chase while I'm still wielding this sword.

I had a d-elf from the AV try that one time (more because my PC's weapon was elven make and they probably didn't think I should have it ... but I dunno). But, when I told them to take a few things my guy had been hunting and skinned instead, they just took those, said something like "You're luck, you got this to give to me" and ran away.

[Heade]

He wanted all my weapons, I told him he can have some coin. He wanted all my weapons, I flipped him off and rode off. I didn't spam, I just rode off. He stayed with me for about 3 rooms, before shouting he is going to kill me.

How long did you pause in each new room you rode to? If less than 5 seconds per room, it's pretty much spam. ::shrugs::

I view "spam running" as any coded means at which you're avoiding their character by walking fast enough as to not allow their character to target you.

So even if you just wait for them to hit the same room as you before you hit "N", they won't have time to type "kill you" in the time it takes you to type "N". I don't like the way the follow command works anyhow. As it stands, if I'm following someone, they can just force me not to follow them with a simple command, which isn't really cool.

If you could follow people without them being able to stop you, I wouldn't bitch about spam-runners.

[Delstro]

I usually give them a second or two after they joined the room, then run away.

[fourTwenty]

A chase command or something would be nice. Flee and then have it do a skill check to see if you where successful in loosing them. If not the delay should allow enough time to attack or do something else. It should check race/mount speeds against each other and if your faster than you should be able to attack before their move delay is up. If you're slower it should make it really hard of not impossible to keep up. This way your either fast enough to run them down or their fast enough to get away, either way, you don't get spamwalked to the authorities. Just a rough idea but an idea like this would be cool.

[FantasyWriter]

A chase command or something would be nice. Flee and then have it do a skill check to see if you where successful in loosing them. If not the delay should allow enough time to attack or do something else. It should check race/mount speeds against each other and if your faster than you should be able to attack before their move delay is up. If you're slower it should make it really hard of not impossible to keep up. This way your either fast enough to run them down or their fast enough to get away, either way, you don't get spamwalked to the authorities. Just a rough idea but an idea like this would be cool.

OOOOOOOO!!!!! Me Likes!