Concerning game trend: Not harsh enough?

[KankWhisperer]

That's like using Mendel's 4 space pea plant charts to explain the entirety of genetics.

[MarshallDFX]

faulty assumptions are faulty

That's like using Mendel's 4 space pea plant charts to explain the entirety of genetics.

NO!  Interest rates are fixed!  We are all self-interested utility maximizing consumers!  Markets are perfectly competitive!  Purchasing-price-parity holds always!

LALALA I'm not listening!

Yes, I succumbed to the Ricardian vice.  The point was only to illustrate a Nash perspective, and of course in the real game there is plenty of variability and other factors which we don't need to list.  Although, I don't think the moral of my story is really that false.

[Majikal]

Many times I've wondered. If you were a noble, somebody great and powerful, better by blood etc etc etc. Why exactly would you notice if some dirty commoner insulted another dirty commoner...even if dirty commoner #2 did work for your house in some manner? One of hundreds or even thousands. Hell, I'd be more pissed off about that commoner bothering me with dirty commoner problems then anything.

Of course, if dirty commoner #2 is offering me say, 10k to look into the matter, well, maybe I won't be quite so pissed off.

And templars are even worse. Your above most of the nobles of your city, you are the highlords enforcers or the sun kings faithful. The antics of the commoners should mostly be if anything, a mild source of amusement.

Too many times have I seen a templar collect up a bunch of soldiers and personally ride out chasing some mugger/raider into the wild because salt grebber wood chopper #625543 got mugged.

I mean come on now, would a templar really use his invaluable time and resources to avenge somebody that is not even worth a sip of tea to him? No.

Yes, I know riding out with the posse to chase the outlaw is fun, but 99% of the time, it is not very realistic.

/rant

This message recieves Maj's seal of approval.

How much tiny stuff finds itself at the mercy of the bored templar/noble player. I know the roll is a bit dull at times, but damn.. I've seen some massive templars moves made for the sake of one tiny speck on the radar. I would like to see small problems fly under the radar more often than they spawn city-wide manhunts.

/derail

[X-D]

Eh, I've had "agreements" with templars, before.

First time I failed raiding someone they just happened to like, I got tossed in the Arena, without any sort of prior warning like, "Oh, hey, don't raid -these- guys."

Thanks.

Anonymity > bribes any day of the week.  The only time you need bribes is when anonymity is broken.

This is true.

Also, I've had many...many..manymanymanyMANY times better luck in bribing crime bosses then templars. Funny that a guild leader is actually more honest then your average templar at least on the point of staying bribed and not wanting to kill the goose.

[musashi]

I agree with X-D totally. I feel like ... unless the raiding was on a scale so massive that bulk resources for the city-state were being crippled ... I wouldn't care at all, if I were playing a member of the templarate. Going after "a raider" who robbed "a grebber", or chasing "a desert elf" out the city gates half away across the known world ... meh. Gruntwork for a militia private at best. A tad bit funny when newplars do it.

[Versu]

I'm tarded and should be quiet... Blech..

[musashi]

I would be inclined to agree, but ...

I think a lot of it is also just OOC expectations meet IC expectations and they conflict heavily.

OOC Expectation: You're playing some super uber class with magick rawrness or psionic juju or crazy warrior bruce lee mega-smack down ...

IC Expectation: You're not really ever supposed to use any of that in public unless there's a global war happening.

[Synthesis]

You really shouldn't assume that templars are hunting your ass down simply for shits and giggles.

The ripple effects of a single successful raider or group of raiders can be such that it becomes -extremely- lucrative for a templar to attempt to personally apprehend said individuals.

For example, if you're a successful ranger raider who's maxed archery and uses poisons to great advantage, not only are you having an economic impact on your victims, you're imposing a great deal of difficulty on all the merchant house hunters who have to reduce their hunting excursions due to the risk involved with going out alone...now they have to go out in groups of three or more, to be safe.  Since it's exceptionally difficult to get 3+ people in a single clan all together for enough time for a hunt, they rarely go out.  The crafters start getting antsy because they can't make shit anymore and they're losing their fat bonus paysacks.  The hunters are getting antsy because they'd really like to go out and skill up.  The Agents are getting antsy because all this is making them look incompetent.

Now multiply this by three open GMH's.  Add in all the miscellaneous difficulties you're imposing on all the indie merchants and traders out there.  That's a -lot- of economic opportunity cost you're imposing by being such a high risk.  -That's- why people want you dead, and pay templars to make it happen.  That's why it's worth it for templars to go and fuck you up.  Because they have the badass magick, skills, and soldiers to pulverize you into a pink mist with essentially zero risk to themselves, and even if the templar's been paid, he's still got all sorts of favors to cash in for being a team player.  Hell, I had a militia sergeant who was paid 10,000 'sid by a single merchant house to make sure a certain troublemaker never made it to the dungeons.  If a damn sergeant can pull that kind of coin, imagine the deals that are going down to get templars involved.

The sniper motto "kill 1, terrorize 1,000" works both ways:  you start making a ruckus, and that ruckus is amplified 1000x by the fear instilled in everyone who could potentially be a victim; alternatively, if a templar makes an example of 1, it's amplified 1000x by the fear instilled in every potential raider who now knows how long the Arm of the Dragon really is.

[X-D]

Which in turn means that if you are playing the raider you have to kill your marks.

Which puts you back to

Anonymity > bribes any day of the week.

Which of course gets everybody complaining that people are too willing to kill instead of using other options.

And round and round we go.

There has to be a point where you can stop that circle...and really, I see that point at the templar/noble level.

The GMH should have to handle shit outside the city themselves. Or hire the byn. Or even find and hire a rival raiding group to deal with the problem. Or even pay protection fees to larger raiding groups to leave their hunters alone.

I tell you, if templars had to pay npc soldiers 10 coins each for each room outside the walls they went they would laugh at people complaining that some raiders stole a pack and a mount.

[KankWhisperer]

Everyone write three detailed descriptions of imaginary raiders.

Everyone junk a valuable item and a bunch of sids.

Everyone run into the city complaining about the bad bad <insert your raider descs> and how they robbed you and punched you in the face. Add some tdesc action.

Everyone keep doing it until Templars get tired of chasing your imaginary vnpcs and never listen to a grebber again.

Problem solved.

[Kankfly]

You really shouldn't assume that templars are hunting your ass down simply for shits and giggles.

The ripple effects of a single successful raider or group of raiders can be such that it becomes -extremely- lucrative for a templar to attempt to personally apprehend said individuals.

And Do try to remember, much of your power actually comes FROM that small group of raiders outside the city. They are the ones that make the cities feel safer to commoners so they stay there to work for you and bribe you etc.

So to strike the balance between the two, I'm thinking the templar would most likely ignore the occasional lowlife getting raided and all, until the raiders grows bolder, and start to threaten more people, or people who are richer, and hence, more important. Then the templar goes out to hunt them with his minionz.

Think GTA. The more people you shoot, the more law enforcers come after you. The more law enforcers you kill, the more better law enforcers come after you, until you get the army. And in the world of Zalanthas, templars are probably at the top of that list.

Unless you start killing templars too. Then you'll get Muk Utep or Teknolses. The Big Boss. Dun dun dun...

[FantasyWriter]

I once played a leadership role where I was told by staff that I was having people PKed too often.
Three characters in seven months, I believe.

Having otherwise only PKed twice (once as a noob and once because it was ICly necessary for my survival), I was saddened a bit.

[Cutthroat]

About raiding, and chasing after raiders -

The blanket statement "templars shouldn't chase after raiders" does not work. I think people realize that, but there's plenty of reasons why a templar would chase after a raider. Especially if:

- the raider has sacked a GMH caravan intended for your city.
- the raider has attacked someone important, and the important person or group goes to the templarate about it.
- the raider is also a rogue magicker near the city.
- the raider hasn't paid off the templar, and the templar is just looking for some extra funds.
- the raider is gaining a lot of infamy, and cutting down the raider will make you look good.

There is a vicious circle possible when it comes to crime and punishment. If players of criminals and players of law enforcement aren't willing to deal with each other on basic issues in a way that leaves them both better off, then there won't be crime.

[Yam]

The majority of city-based raiders are apprehended in the Gaj.

[FantasyWriter]

I love raiding and I love being raided.
One of the biggest piece of advice is not to--pardon the language--piss in your own back yard.

Using Allanak as an example:

• If you are going to be raiding Nakis around Allanak, it would be a good idea for you to assume
  that you might be wanted in Allanak, and not go there with in the reach of the guards. 
  Pretend that you are codely wanted.  (if you would be IC)


• If you get to be a fairly popular raider, drop an email to the AoD IMMs.  If you are lucky, they
  might even have you perma-crimed in Allanak, and get the PC Templars and militia looking for
  you.  (RP, Plot, and Conflict: OH MY!)


• Tuluk, Luir's and Red Storm, most likely won't care that you are raiding Naki's as long as you
  aren't messing with any of the GMHs (they can have a lot of pull power).  You might even
  eventually me made a hero in Tuluk if you cause enough trouble for The Black.

Other advice for the raider:

• Choose your targets carefully.  (No soldiers, bynners, GMHs, etc.)
• Try to know who you are raiding.  (before you start your career, Hang out in the Gaj and get
      to know people: traders, grebbers, hunters, etc.)
• Listen in the other cities' bars for talk of trade trips coming from Allanak.
• Stalk people.

To kill or not to kill:
WWYPCD. What would your PC do?

• If he is in it for the coin.        Killing future repeat victims: not good for business.
• If he is in it for the prestige.  Kill some, leave most alive. (bonus points for having a calling card)
• If he is in it to survive.          Most likely would not kill unless he had to.
• If he is just a plain monster.   THERE MUST BE BLOOD!!!

Advice for the raided:
WWYPCD. What would your PC do?

• Taking off across the desert, trying to get away from a raider IRL and IC would most likely
       mean death. (even though it is codely easy)
• Is what the raider asking for worth risking our life?  If not, give it up and enjoy the RP.
• Remember that most players (and PC raiders<see above>)don't like to PK (kill their victims)
       when they don't have to, So if you give it up, you will probably live.
• Don't be a hero... docs say they are VERY rare.  100 coins is not worth dieing to your PC.

None of this advice is affected by the recent code change.

[Lizzie]

As far as mobs go - I think it's "harsh" enough.
As far as player mentality goes - I think it depends on the circumstances.

Templars *seem* to be over-eager to wield their power against nobodies, and kill unimportant PCs as a result of pettiness. "I want your ball, you don't want me to have it, so I will destroy it and you can't have it anyway aaaaahhhh lozar."

Nobles that I've encountered seem to do most of the world with regards to trying to keep their people alive, trying to give them more -constructive- things to do than -destructive- things to do, and my hats off to those nobles for it. A little destruction goes a long way.

The rest of my opinion unfortunately is a result of things too recent to go into. But suffice it to say I agree with whoever said that getting a reputation for killing your minions, doesn't mean you actually are killing your minions. And sometimes..you really SHOULD kill your minions, but aren't allowed to.

[Dar]

One of the reasons, why nobles are so eager to stand up for their underlings, is to make the underlings like the service under that particular Noble. Afterall, if they're like entirely unhappy ... they'll drift off, and then the Noble is one underling short.


Buuut ... yeah, it's overdone. Nobles responsibility as a sponsored role is to improve the game. Not just their particular house.

[ibusoe]

Thanks for your responses guys.  I can tell that a lot of players agree that we are doing better than we were a year ago, but we're still having the wrong sorts of conflicts and the wrong quality of conflicts.  I'll draw your attention to a few of the posts that I liked best.

In my opinion, there are three ways to fix this problem. The simplest would be a concerted effort on the part of players to create conflict - just decide that you want whatever your rivals want, and try to stop them from obtaining what they want. The second is my favorite - a larger playerbase would fix most of these problems. Third, staff could force characters into conflict with one another by artificially limiting resources, real and virtual. Reduce the number of huntable mobs, encourage two nobles to go after the same qynar, dangle a single promotion to Lieutenant in front of two Byn Sergeants. Also, though nobody wants to do this, close clans and re-organize the playerbase into a new arrangement that would promote more conflict and activity.

Yeah, you're a little bit ahead of me -- you're already pointing out possible solutions, and I like your ideas.  Good stuff.

I know what you're talking about, I think. I really wish people would more willingly accept when something bad has happened to their character, and just roll with it. I also think that non-lethal conflict (when possible) tends to open up more possibilities for conflicts. Lethal conflict opens up possibilities for conflict with the victim's surviving friends. I think a conflict is a natural way to draw people into a plot, but it isn't the only way.

Yeah, exactly.  If you beat somebuddy up in the Gaj, rather than pretending that their character is too drunk to remember the incident, they will instead go whine to the nearest templar and get you thrown in the arena.  The result is that the Gaj is safer than a sunny day in a small town in Oklahoma.

I actually think that an overabundance of lethal conflict tends to diminish the "harshness" of the game.

Oh yeah, definitely.  It creates a higher "barrier to entry."  What players don't take into acount is that you might get beat up on or humiliated by one or two PCs every real life month, but you're also getting beat up and intimidated by ten or twelve VNPC.  You don't have time to go for revenge over every small slight or imagined insult.  You can only bother to go for revenge against people who are really getting on your nuts or who represent a very dangerous threat.

If your character rarely leaves the city, doesn't ever make any enemies, doesn't ever join a clan that has a built-in allies and enemies list, and doesn't happen to be played during a time of large-scale conflict ala Tuluki Riots, Copper War, or Gith Siege... then yes, I can imagine you would think the game isn't very harsh. But there's plenty of things you can do to initiate some harshness yourself. Or, if you think the tavern scene isn't harsh enough, you are always welcome to roll up a desert elf, a citizen of UnderTuluk, a rogue mage, or a 'rinthi.

If you think it's too easy to survive, try playing like a newbie would. Roll up a character who has no idea how to use half the skills on their skill list. Play a guild you've never played before. Play in a location you've never played before.

Yeah, but I think that's part of the problem.  Zalanthans are raised in a conflict-rich environment with poor nutrition, plenty of alcohol and no education.  It's not realistic to think that any character "has no enemies."  People who play characters that are too bland, in my opinion, are thinly-veiled power players who contribute little to the game.

Also, I'm not saying the game is too easy.  I'm saying it's not harsh enough.  There's a subtle difference.  My complaint doesn't relate to the availability of resources or the strength of traps, pitfalls or mobiles.  It's about the amount and the quality of conflict between players.

I swear, there are PCs out there I dont even bother to antagonize, because they manage to involve templars and nobles over the smallest, most casual arguments. If it was anyone else, I would engage them in a conversation and either learn to like them or you know ... create 'some' kind of content. But those people I just ... ignore. So they sit in silence on their side of the bar, and I on another.

Yeah.  Secretly, I'd like for the staff to arrange some kind of a purge of characters (edited for syntax) who play people who are too mild rather than going after the people who make too many waves.  I think their heart is in the right place, but they're actually discouraging the sort of realism they'd like to create.

Two,  quit babying your subordinates!!!   Let them fight their own battles and if they get in trouble in the street than they get in trouble at home!  Stop making up excuses to punish those who looked at your cook funny or yelled "I hate you" at your stable-girl!!!   YOU are the reason there is so little conflict -- you're the "unknown" backing up that filthy 'rinither who doesn't feel the need to step off the street when someone is walking there!

Look, people, things aren't going to be harsh until players decide they're PCs aren't so cheap they don't care if they have to make a new one vs. deal with consequences.  And/or there isn't more blood shead and humiliation.  AND ROLE-PLAYED OUT!!!   Commoners out number important people 9/1 -- so it's not up to them to make sure your PC feels threatened.

Yeah, as I stated in the original post people are too quick to help commoners, or even strangers solve problems.

To your second  point, people value their PCs so much because it takes such a long time to establish your PC and to jack up their skills.  If it were easier to establish a PC and if there were a smaller delta between starting skills and peak skills, people would be less concerned about loosing their characters, myself included.

Many times I've wondered. If you were a noble, somebody great and powerful, better by blood etc etc etc. Why exactly would you notice if some dirty commoner insulted another dirty commoner...even if dirty commoner #2 did work for your house in some manner? One of hundreds or even thousands. Hell, I'd be more pissed off about that commoner bothering me with dirty commoner problems then anything.

Yeah, this is a common problem both in real life and in Armageddon.  Bureaucrats often misinterpret their roles.   For example, people who player militia or templars often think their roles are to fight crime.  This is of course not true -- there's not enough crime around for them to fight.  Their role is to provide game atmosphere.  

A very well-played templar could play for a year and not bust a single PC bad guy.  After all, they could bust plenty of NPC or VNPC bad guys.  Removing PC villains is counterproductive.  

One of my main rant about the topic of raiding is that if PC 1 lets PC 2 walk away alive, but his pride wounded and his gears completely stripped. PC 2 would then go and find a templar nearby and complain about how he got unjustly raided by a bunch of elves/mages/muls/undead mantis. Templar would then jump to the opportunity to go and hunt down the said raiders, mobilizing his entire unit to wreck vengeance over a little suffering a little commoner grebber had endured. Now that just doesn't make sense to me at all.

Yeah, exactly.  Most of this sort of misbehavior is the result of boredom.  People need to learn to brush it off if they get bullied/mugged/raided.  This isn't easy but it is worthwhile.

As long as templars are basically bored and basically think they are supposed to be combat PCs, they will always go chasing after raiders and meddling in affairs that really should be far beneath them.

So true.

Some of you guys have a tendency, in character, to be way too helpful. I'm plenty guilty of this myself, and when it becomes common it can really damage the atmosphere.

One good way to play a desperate, thrifty commoner is to help people only when you expect to get something fairly tangible out of it.

So true.

Spawning scripted NPC incursions to keep militia/Legion amused could be one solution. If they are busy beating back riots from the Rinth or hordes of flaming, mutant raptors, the militia isn't going to be worried about a raider stealing someone's bag of salt.

Yeah, I think the staff could do a little more to give PC lawmen actual problems to solve.

There's that too. Especially in Tuluk, being shady without at least some sanction from the authorities is usually suicide.

That's another thing, people tend to forget that in Zalanthas, it's rare to find people who are virtuous or straightforward.  Most people are shady or dishonest in one fashion or another.

Everyone write three detailed descriptions of imaginary raiders.

Everyone junk a valuable item and a bunch of sids.

Everyone run into the city complaining about the bad bad <insert your raider descs> and how they robbed you and punched you in the face. Add some tdesc action.

Everyone keep doing it until Templars get tired of chasing your imaginary vnpcs and never listen to a grebber again.

Problem solved.

I like this.  I'll give this a shot.

[MarshallDFX]

I swear, there are PCs out there I dont even bother to antagonize, because they manage to involve templars and nobles over the smallest, most casual arguments. If it was anyone else, I would engage them in a conversation and either learn to like them or you know ... create 'some' kind of content. But those people I just ... ignore. So they sit in silence on their side of the bar, and I on another.

Yeah.  Secretly, I'd like for the staff to arrange some kind of a purge of players who play people who are too mild rather than going after the people who make too many waves.  I think their heart is in the right place, but they're actually discouraging the sort of realism they'd like to create.

Welcome to Armageddon, where our roleplay guidelines are so strict, staff will purge you if ibusoe finds you boring.

I think I'd keep that in the "secret" desire realm. 

[Ocotillo]

My ego compels me to point out that the prisoner's dilemma is very arguably a specific manifestation of a greater trend referred to as the tragedy of the commons.

[Gimfalisette]

And it's all why we keep having to talk over this issue, because this is our version of community correction.

Though now I am fantasizing about what if the imms had a system of "roleplaying skills to learn" which would ultimately convert to gaining karma. When players showed clear evidence of doing those things, such as not PKing/fleeing immediately from potentially dangerous encounters, then that would be one checkmark on the list.

[MarshallDFX]

My ego compels me to point out that the prisoner's dilemma is very arguably a specific manifestation of a greater trend referred to as the tragedy of the commons.

The tragedy of the commons as I'm familiar with it is the inefficient (overuse) outcome arrived at with rivalrous but non-excludeable goods.  In other words, a finite but public resource, such as a fishery or public camp-site (non-pay).

That said, I can see what you mean.  They're both environments where people acting in rational, self-intereted fashions lead to non-pareto optimal solutions.

I'd still say the prisoner's dilemma is the better comparison to the topic at hand.

[Ocotillo]

Right, though I might phrase it more anecdotally. The prisoner's dilemma is particularly relevant to the immediate confrontation of PKer and PKee, where what I was moreso trying to articulate was an abstract tragedy of the commons, with the public resource being "trust" and/or "not backing the fuck off when the ass is kicked," and thus the macro effect that, over time, fucktards will accumulate, the perceptions of the situation will change for the negative, and thus you experience cycles of tolerance as everyone says "fuck it," kills the bitches, and then eventually get up the balls to try tolerance again, leading to an unpredictable-length period of awesome before the public resource is overused again and the fucktards return.

[MarshallDFX]

Right, though I might phrase it more anecdotally. The prisoner's dilemma is particularly relevant to the immediate confrontation of PKer and PKee, where what I was moreso trying to articulate was an abstract tragedy of the commons, with the public resource being "trust" and/or "not backing the fuck off when the ass is kicked," and thus the macro effect that, over time, fucktards will accumulate, the perceptions of the situation will change for the negative, and thus you experience cycles of tolerance as everyone says "fuck it," kills the bitches, and then eventually get up the balls to try tolerance again, leading to an unpredictable-length period of awesome before the public resource is overused again and the fucktards return.

Certainly a little abstracted, but I'll swing it with y'baby.

[Gimfalisette]

Right, though I might phrase it more anecdotally. The prisoner's dilemma is particularly relevant to the immediate confrontation of PKer and PKee, where what I was moreso trying to articulate was an abstract tragedy of the commons, with the public resource being "trust" and/or "not backing the fuck off when the ass is kicked," and thus the macro effect that, over time, fucktards will accumulate, the perceptions of the situation will change for the negative, and thus you experience cycles of tolerance as everyone says "fuck it," kills the bitches, and then eventually get up the balls to try tolerance again, leading to an unpredictable-length period of awesome before the public resource is overused again and the fucktards return.

I love this.