Crime: Makes the game harsher?

[My 2 sids]

Murder, corruption, betrayal.

Every templar and soldier should be able to be bribed.  It's a matter of knowing what a templar or soldier wants.  (This is not always sid, and in some places, that's unfeasible.)  Every templar and soldier should also have no qualms with betraying someone that bribed them by taking another bribe, or trying to look better by "dealing with crime."  Conflict naturally exists if people are corrupt, because corruption works both ways.

If it's all an act, why not just we all sit around in one room playing poker?  Better yet, why not only play in Tuluk if we're only going to have one type of society?


I understand what you mean about conflict.  But, if there's only going to be one layer of conflict to the game... than that's a pretty one dimensional game filled with one dimensional PCs.   Why go to the trouble of having different races/ guilds/ societies/ thoughts (think/ feel/ hemote/ etc)??   


If the current staff are going to turn Arm into a game of "master mind and spies" so be it...  All I'm saying is that that's very different than how the game is currently portrayed by the docs and advertisement ( doesn't matter the setting or how it's done... a hack and slash game is hack and slash because it's so single dimensional w/ no need for well rounded and/or in depth type characters)

[Nyr]

It looks to me like you are making a jump from this statement:

Every templar and soldier should be able to be bribed

and this statement:

Every templar and soldier should also have no qualms with betraying someone that bribed them

to these conclusions:

It's all an act
we are only going to have one type of society
there is only going to be one layer of conflict to the game
we shouldn't have different races and guilds and societies and thoughts
staff are turning the game into a game of mastermind and spies

I don't understand how you got from point A to point T.
Could you please elaborate on what you mean?

[ibusoe]

Nyr,

Thank you for responding personally.  You ask what game features would increase crime?  Obviously, anything that contributes to anonymity.  There are other posts addressing this and it's hard to get any two players to agree which ones would improve a balance and which ones would detract from it.  I'll stay out of those arguments but I'm sure that some enterprising player could supply links to the individual discussion threads.

Unfortunately I feel that most of the problem is administrative or policy based.  I hope that you or another staff member will give my suggestion a little more consideration.  With just a bit of staff support, I feel sure that I could make a PC-based raider clan and a PC-based group of street thugs, and that both groups would generate enough momentum that they would last for a while before staff would need to recharge them.  

Edit: Other players have gone into detail about the barriers that I face and as a player who has started other in-game trends, I'm honest when I say that I'm hitting a brick wall here.

lots of good stuff

[Greve]

.

[Ghost]

If it wasn't for the first paragraph quoted, raiding sounds like a blast. Of course you don't need to be isolated from the world while you are doing the first five days of playtime.
There is nothing stopping a group of northerners, possibly apart of the Legion, from raiding some southerners.

Dude, I explained the raiding in the broadest way I could think of.  Of course raiding is basically a PvP action, you have to have a strategy and always outthink your opponent.  If you come on top, there is the divine feeling of badassness at the end.

But raiding is a horrible horrible profession.  The obvious pointer to prove that of course, is that you don't see an occasional raider group popping up every once in a while.  If being a part of a raider group was even remotely possible and offered some fun in return, there would be a lot of people doing it right now.  The reason you do not see groups like "Blackmoon" so often now, is because either it is near impossible to make one, or it is not fun at all.

Keep this in mind, being a raider is mostly solo RPing.  You will probably get a route that you think is frequented by PCs, and most of your logged in time will be spent staying there hidden, or riding around that place in circles.  If you have a group, you can talk with them sometimes and that might at least make you feel better, but if your raider group log in 2 hours late one day, that is some 2 hours of empty world for you to play in.

I am sure it looks all doable and fun when you imagine your badass PC playing cat and mouse with a group of two hunters, who were reported coming to your hiding spot by your raider buddies, and sweet rush of adrenaline as you go through the ways to confront them will make you feel all warm and fuzzy, but that won't be happening often.  You will first have to lose some interest in the grinding your character to a point where he won't be sucking in skills part.  You will start being burnt when you lose couple of your raider buddies and you will probably feel frustrated when you try to recruit another into your group, you get ratted out and now everybody knows you are a raider.  You will probably feel helpless when a few bored mages come to your place and throw their demands at you (if you are lucky) or just attempt to incapacitate you and your raider party to sell you to whoever paid them (if you are not so lucky).   You will probably feel cheated when you try to stand in a merchant's way and ask him to hand his valuables, and find him instead spamming direction commands run away from you.  If you decide to act first and RP later, then you will probably get even more burned to see a post on GDB calling you twink.  
And you will probably start wondering why you even wanted to play a raider, when you have not seen a single PC going through your raiding spots over the last two RL weeks.

Of course, it is not all that negative.  Of course there may be some very good aspects of being raider and pulling it off in a very fun way.  However, all of the above is highly likely to happen when you pursue a career in raiding.   So when you want to make a raider character, that is what you are signing up for.  You will be playing by yourself most of the time, your raider party will most likely die one by one (either to NPC critters, or PCs, or some stupid mistakes) and they will be practically irreplacable.  And that is where it sucks the most.

Playing a northern soldier to raid the southerners have been done.  It might work, but I don't think it will.  Some folks did it long time ago, it did not last long.  My guess is, if you make a group like that at the moment, it won't even last long enough to be recognized as a threat to anyone .  Of course, all it takes is for someone to step up and show me I am wrong.

[My 2 sids]

It looks to me like you are making a jump from this statement:

Every templar and soldier should be able to be bribed

and this statement:

Every templar and soldier should also have no qualms with betraying someone that bribed them

to these conclusions:

It's all an act
we are only going to have one type of society
there is only going to be one layer of conflict to the game
we shouldn't have different races and guilds and societies and thoughts
staff are turning the game into a game of mastermind and spies

I don't understand how you got from point A to point T.
Could you please elaborate on what you mean?

I'm talking about a lack of contrast.

If everyone plays the mastermind, exceptional character than there really isn't any basis for the docs to say "the world is 99% common, everyday Amoses"
If everyone is a murderous, corruptible than there isn't any real law ... because murder and corruption is the law.
No different than if everyone is a ultra-powerful hunter...  suddenly everyone is off hunting and thus the sands are no longer considered dangerous (because from every PC's perspective they're some killing-machine of a hunter)



My thoughts are if a PC must deal with their everyday job, and relationships, and their own thoughts/feelings, and finding nourishment/water/food, and keep unnoticed by societal betters, and constantly replace the items stolen from them, and not get eaten -- that makes for a very complex and multi-layered life.   If, however, a PC must only deal with finding secrets and lying to others...   no matter the amount that is done, it is not nearly as complex.   Juggling friends/family/ office competition/ and the occasional enemy is a lot more than simply dealing with enemy 1/ enemy 2/ enemy 3 --  Again, if everyone is lacking scruples, than there is nothing sacred and everyone is some kind of enemy.

It looks to me you're suggesting everyone become mercenary elves -- arrogant enough to assume only matches of wit are worth their time, and worst still -- you always look to screw the person over and always assume someone is trying to screw you over (at least elves have honor among their tribes!)    What I'm saying is according to the docs there is a lot of contrast between different clans and races.  What happens to those differences (the real beauty of the game) when everyone starts to play in similar fashion? 




Look, this thread is about ensuring the game remains "harsh" right?  W/o some basic level of hierarchical glass ceilings, and rough justice...  there's not going to be any fear to make the world seem harsh.   

[Nyr]

My 2 sids:

I don't mean to single you out, but I'm having trouble seeing your point of view. You are making a vast jump in logic.  Nowhere did I write any of that.  If you want to discuss that, feel free to, but it has nothing to do with what I wrote. The capacity for corruption does not equate to being a mastermind.  It is simple.  Being corruptible does not mean that you only deal in secrets and neglect a PC.

"Citizen, you broke the law.  You are going to jail."
"I have 100 sid.  Will you overlook it?"
"Yeah.  Gimme."

That is an example of corruption.  This is what Zalanthas embodies.  There is no lawful good in Zalanthas.  The definition of corruptible:  possible to corrupt; capable of being corrupted. It does not mean that every character has the same price. It does not mean that every character has thought about it. It means that a person has the capacity to be corrupted; they have some price that will sway them to do something they would not normally have done.  Maybe no one will ever reach that price.  Oh well--characters are different.

The documentation supports this.  Remember that this is Armageddon.  If Armageddon has seriously moved away from being about murder, corruption, and betrayal, I'm sure someone would have noticed.

The world of Armageddon is known as Zalanthas. It is a harsh planet where only the fittest survive, and competition over extremely scarce resources causes constant strife, struggle, and bloodshed.

Two, life is hard. There are no free lunches on Zalanthas. There aren't even free drinks of water. It is likely that you will die, and if you are unlucky or unintelligent you will die very fast. Only the fittest live long enough to retire in comfort at the end of their careers.
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.
What does all of this mean ? It does not mean that Armageddon is for people who revel masochistically in abuse. We have created this harsh world with the idea that the heart of narrative lies in conflict and dealing with hardship. The point of the world is not to allow a few overachieving players to boost their egos at the expense of the rest of the players; on the contrary, we hope that players will find in the harsh, unforgiving reality of Armageddon a great deal of freedom in which to explore the narrative of the world and, even more importantly, the nuances of its characters and the stories played out there.

Anyway, derail off.  As for issues of anonymity and empowering raiders, I'll look over some possibilities and I will discuss them with other staffers.  I know many have been touted over the years.  Some may not be possible, some may not be feasible, and some may just not work well on Arm's codebase.  I can't promise anything except a look, though.

[My 2 sids]

Nyr,

With all due respect, there is no "derail"


Bottom line I'm simply saying that having a hierarchical, totalitarian society is crucial to ensuring a harsh game as well as define what it means to have criminal activity.   That hierarchy isn't based on wealth (correct me if I'm wrong) -- so, all I'm saying is there should be glass ceilings when it comes to what corruption, murder, and betrayal can do for a PC.  I mean, I'm having a hard time understanding your point of view as well Nyr.  


How is saying "enforce the hierarchy to increase harshness of crime (victim and criminal)"  off topic?   I'm saying at some point it shouldn't matter how much sid is tossed at the templar...  if an elf has stolen from a noble's top assistant, that is an offense which cannot be over looked for any amount of sid.


Folks, am I way off in believing that to have a totally Capitalistic society (where everything can be bought and sold) is against a society based on blood/ family structure?  I'm not saying there isn't/ shouldn't be murder/ corruption/ betrayal --- I'm saying such things should be limited.

[Nyr]

That hierarchy is based on power, not wealth or capitalism or blood or family (although wealth and power tend to go hand in hand).  Tektolnes Jr. killed his own father and took over Allanak.  I would think that sort of thing is the primary example of how far you can go with betrayal, and what this game embodies.

I'm saying at some point it shouldn't matter how much sid is tossed at the templar...  if an elf has stolen from a noble's top assistant, that is an offense which cannot be over looked for any amount of sid.

It could be overlooked for something the templar wants more than the templar cares about the noble's satisfaction.  This may not be 'sid.  The templar may execute or enslave the elf because he or she wants to look good to the noble and other nobles, thereby ensuring that farther down the road, that can be used for their benefit.  Maybe the templar will execute the elf just because the templar hates elves and no price is high enough for that templar. Maybe the templar will execute the elf because he or she wants to make an example this time of criminals. Maybe the templar is a sadist and just wants to hear the elf beg for its life, so he or she asks what it would offer to be spared--and maybe one of the things it offers DOES pique the interest of the templar.  Hell, I dunno, I'm not a templar, I'm just an Administrator.  There are a lot more options than just kowtowing to the noble's demands without consideration for anything else.

[Lizzie]

Then there's the possibility that the templar is of higher social rank than the noble, and the templar never could stand the noble's aide, or the noble...so the templar actually paid the elf to harrass the aide. And now, that the elf got caught, the templar has to do -something- so he just gives him a couple of lashes with the whip, slips him 500 sids when no one's looking, and tells the elf to work on his sneakiness a little more before doing it again - for double the fee.