Quit Revamp

[Feco]

I'm /sure/ it's been discussed, but I think its worth discussing again.

Quitting.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who gets hell from a girlfriend/boyfriend/spouse/etc. when it comes time to quit.  I'm also sure I'm not the only one who has non-emergencies I need to leave ASAP for.  I also dont think I'm the only one who wants to do fun things, but cant always go far or to new places cause I need a quit room.  I think /all/ characters should be allowed to wilderness quit (aka Camp).  I also think it's easy to avoid abuse and give rangers an advantage.

1) Bedrolls/tents.  Just add a 'use', which allows the user to quit.  Give it a 30 second delay and a 'You begin to set up camp' echo.  No need to actually set up the object, it acts virtually.  User has 20 seconds to quit.  Now, everyone can quit, but they have to spend coin AND carry extra weight.  Bedrolls would be the cheap/light alternative.  Tents have coded benifits already.

2) Rangers stay how they are.  Those crafty bastards don't need extra equipment or time to set up.

I think this is a fair alternative.  Get on with discussing and linking me to past discussions.

I'm not sure what 2.Arm is like in this aspect, but I want to do this stuff in 1.Arm, and I can't imagine it's really that complicated.

[Nyr]

It has been discussed a few times even on staff side; it is not something we are going to put in for Arm 1.

This will be possible for Reborn.

[Feco]

I guess that's it than.

I'll close with the following:

[Akaramu]

I'm guessing that the greatest concern is abuse - people instaquitting to evade other PCs, or wildlife that is hunting them. Maybe Arm 2.0 has a solution for this that the code for Arm 1.0 wouldn't support.

Atonement logs people out 15 minutes after they disconnect (just close the game client) anywhere, but they are vulnerable to being robbed / killed during those 15 minutes. That isn't a horribly bad solution, I think.

[drunkendwarf]

I'm guessing that the greatest concern is abuse - people instaquitting to evade other PCs, or wildlife that is hunting them. Maybe Arm 2.0 has a solution for this that the code for Arm 1.0 wouldn't support.

Atonement logs people out 15 minutes after they disconnect (just close the game client) anywhere, but they are vulnerable to being robbed / killed during those 15 minutes. That isn't a horribly bad solution, I think.

Wait...is this the case already? You're automatically logged out after being LD for 15 minutes?

[racurtne]

That's another MUD, Arm doesn't log you out when you're LD. The staff have to do it, I believe.

[SMuz]

I'm guessing that the greatest concern is abuse - people instaquitting to evade other PCs, or wildlife that is hunting them.

To be fair, rangers can already do this and I don't think they're abusing it all that much. And if they did get in a fight earlier, the game has quite a long timeout before they can quit.

[drunkendwarf]

Yup, I don't see any real case for abuse of this given the whole "You're too excited to leave!" and the fact that rangers can do it already. I've not experienced any abuse by rangers of this that I've known about. I would love to have this ability for non-rangers. I brought this up many years ago and saw it shot down then as well, and that was before Arm2 was even in the picture so I don't have high hopes for it now. Probably capping out at the top of my wish list though.

[Akaramu]

If someone abuses it with rangers, staff can just block their ability to play rangers. If everyone had ranger quit, it would be more difficult to fix.

There's quite a few possible situations where someone is out in the wilderness and shouldn't just be able to quit out to avoid IC issues or problems. For instance:

-Person who gets thrown locked out of Allanak (doors closed) with no water and no mount as punishment. With ranger quit, they could just log out until the gates are open again or until their friend logs in to save them.

-Person is low on stamina and trying to rest when (insert hostile mob) wanders in. Person quits out during the short moment before (insert hostile mob) initiates combat.

-Non-elf on foot is being chased in the desert, has avoided a fight so far by insta-fleeing, but can't run much further now due to stamina. Group of people is actively looking for them.

Rangers can quit because they can be assumed to find food and water on their own during offline time. The same is not true for others, they are helpless in the wilderness.

[Feco]

I suggested it based on playability, not realism.

I also think a delayed set up time would discourage instaquit.

[drunkendwarf]

I suggested it based on playability, not realism.

+1

If someone abuses it with rangers, staff can just block their ability to play rangers. If everyone had ranger quit, it would be more difficult to fix.

There's quite a few possible situations where someone is out in the wilderness and shouldn't just be able to quit out to avoid IC issues or problems. For instance:

-Person who gets thrown locked out of Allanak (doors closed) with no water and no mount as punishment. With ranger quit, they could just log out until the gates are open again or until their friend logs in to save them.

-Person is low on stamina and trying to rest when (insert hostile mob) wanders in. Person quits out during the short moment before (insert hostile mob) initiates combat.

-Non-elf on foot is being chased in the desert, has avoided a fight so far by insta-fleeing, but can't run much further now due to stamina. Group of people is actively looking for them.

Rangers can quit because they can be assumed to find food and water on their own during offline time. The same is not true for others, they are helpless in the wilderness.

Yup, and we could come up with a ton of other ways in which it could be abused before the character in question has actually been in a fight. But why don't we ask the staff how often they find rangers abusing this? There's plenty of other ways to abuse the code as well. Ways that don't affect playability. And yet they're still in the game.

[SMuz]

You could abuse quitting indoors easily.
- Peek/pickpocket a PC near a tavern, hood up, then run in and quit before they look at you.
- Do similarly hostile thing - throw a punch at a templar, harass someone, then quit. I've seen someone actually swing his fist at a templar then quit.
- Pretty much the whole rinth. Attack or be attacked, run into a quit room, hide until the quit cools down, or just run far enough and quit, even while that PC you backstabbed is looking for you.

There should be better ways of punishing those abusers instead of punishing the whole playerbase for a few bad apples.

[Feco]

Rangers can quit because they can be assumed to find food and water on their own during offline time. The same is not true for others, they are helpless in the wilderness.

I don't think we should make this assumption.  Non-rangers can quit in wilderness rooms, they just have to be designated quit rooms, like caves, holes, broken wagons, etc.

Let's be honest.  Being able to quit in the wilds is akin to making camp.  Rangers camp.  Being able to quit in the wilds helps exploration.  Rangers explore.  Quitting anywhere can be abused.  Make it so only one guild can do it, lower abuse potential.

Let's not try to make it more than it really is.  Rangers can quit in the wilderness because it sort of just makes sense, and it's a halfway decent way to control people abusing wilderness quit.

I'm just saying it would be nice if everyone could, for playability sake.  We could even give RP tools (tents, bedrolls), or impose limitations or disadvantages (cost, weight, delay) for non rangers to make it seem "fair."

But, I doubt we're covering new ground if it has been discussed to death on player and staff side.

D:

Seeing as Nyr made it clear it has been discussed before, I say at this point, let's just hope it spurs conversation again staffside.  It's the only real thing we can hope for, seeing as they call the shots and makes the changes, one way or the other.  Even if we have to wait till 2.Arm, as crappy as that may be.

Nothing wrong with conversation, which I assume is the reason Nyr didn't just lock the thread.


EDIT:  Thread was started on my phone.  Impressive, no?

[Nyr]

It's not always about controlling abuse.  Sometimes it's about game balance.  Sometimes it's about a lack of desire to make every guild the same.

[Feco]

I'm just not sure how much quitting can be considered something that needs to be balanced.

I just see quitting as purely OOC, and I call it "camping" just to sort of avoid it being jarring.  

I suppose if it's about controlling who goes far in the wilderness, than it does a wonderful job.  But some non-rangers can't even /accompany/ a ranger someplace far away, for fear they'll need to quit and can't.

Emergencies, I realize staff is lenient.  I've had staff quit me out in an emergency.  But just having to go run a surprise errand, or attend to something in real life isn't always an /emergency/ we should be bothering staff for... but it's a legitimate reason to quit.

Either way, I'm not particularly affected by it.  I can regularly get long slots to play in (and can avoid any real issues with the lady in time, generally)... but I know someday it's gonna happen.  I can't get to x-area for y-reason, but I really should go.  I'll have to just drop link, and hope for the best.  I'm also sympathetic for people who may have to regularly experience that.

Shrug?

[Taven]

Yup, I don't see any real case for abuse of this given the whole "You're too excited to leave!" and the fact that rangers can do it already. I've not experienced any abuse by rangers of this that I've known about. I would love to have this ability for non-rangers. I brought this up many years ago and saw it shot down then as well, and that was before Arm2 was even in the picture so I don't have high hopes for it now. Probably capping out at the top of my wish list though.

This is slightly off-topic, but still a way that quitting out could be revamped. I don't like that when I'm sparring I get "You're too excited to leave!" and I have to hang around until that timer is gone. Having played several militia PCs, I can say that it's really annoying when you have real life things to do, and can't quit because you were sparring. I've seen people just opt to go LD in the barracks, since there's no hunger code after an hour and they needed to go do things. This works, but it seems silly to me.

Why not just make it so that in a fight with only sparring weapons involved, you don't get the "It's too excited to leave!" message?

I'm not sure how hard that would be to code, but I don't think it would be abused. I mean, certainly there's probably a way that someone could think of to try, but I don't think it would be common, and staff could handle the oddball abusers.

[Nyr]

I'm just not sure how much quitting can be considered something that needs to be balanced.

Sometimes it's about a lack of desire to make every guild the same.  (I wasn't necessarily saying that quitting needs to be balanced.  I was saying that there are many reasons we may not want to pursue something.)

[Feco]

Eh, I don't have any more to say on the matter.  Content agreeing to disagree until Reborn rolls around and there is further discussion.

[FantasyWriter]

Arm 2 has code built in to auto-log out idlers and people who have lost link.

I think this is a reasonable enough addition/change for Reborn.

One of the "advantages" of the lack of ability to quit out that I like is that it makes world exploration difficult for 90+% of characters.
This keeps rare things rare, secret things secret, and leaves hard to reach/find places hard to reach/find.

Also having "half" guilds (assuming that this is still how staff intends to handle skill selection) will enable more people to be able to use this ability as it exist now.
Assuming "ranger" as it currently is is split up into, say: survivalist and hunter, everyone will get the change to play a survivalist warrior or survivalist vivaduan or a survivalist assassin who insist on collecting his own hard to reach poisons and cures. Even though it takes 10 plus hours of play to reach them and you can only log in two hours a day.

[wizturbo]

Sometimes it's about a lack of desire to make every guild the same.  (I wasn't necessarily saying that quitting needs to be balanced.  I was saying that there are many reasons we may not want to pursue something.)

In my opinion trying to differentiate guilds based on OOC abilities isn't the answer.  This is purely an OOC ability with shabby IC justification, and greatly limits the gameplay for everyone else.  I would say this is the #1 reason I do not play the game as frequently as I'd like.  If it's a concern about abuse, make it unlock at a certain karma level.  But if all it is achieving is giving rangers a perk, why not give rangers something ICly cool instead and make this vital OOC capability more widely available?

[a strange shadow]

Sometimes it's about a lack of desire to make every guild the same.  (I wasn't necessarily saying that quitting needs to be balanced.  I was saying that there are many reasons we may not want to pursue something.)

In my opinion trying to differentiate guilds based on OOC abilities isn't the answer.  This is purely an OOC ability with shabby IC justification, and greatly limits the gameplay for everyone else.  I would say this is the #1 reason I do not play the game as frequently as I'd like.  If it's a concern about abuse, make it unlock at a certain karma level.  But if all it is achieving is giving rangers a perk, why not give rangers something ICly cool instead and make this vital OOC capability more widely available?

This. Players who can't reliably devote large blocks of time to the game shouldn't be forced to either play less or play rangers.

[Nyr]

What I am saying and have been saying is that this is something staff isn't going to do right now for a lot of reasons.  I listed some, one of the chief ones being that despite player opinion, it is the staff opinion that quit is not just OOC.  If you disagree with these points of view, that's fine.  If you'd like, you can read more and even get past staff opinions on it.  There are also plenty of decent player opinions on the matter.  Starting out with "I'm sure this has been posted before, let's discuss it again" is fine; do note that it has been posted before, and the rebuttals/replies/supporting stuff has been repeated many a time.

http://www.zalanthas.org/gdb/index.php/topic,40087.0.html
http://www.zalanthas.org/gdb/index.php/topic,38289.0.html
http://www.zalanthas.org/gdb/index.php/topic,39204.0.html
http://www.zalanthas.org/gdb/index.php/topic,35736.0.html
http://www.zalanthas.org/gdb/index.php/topic,35705.0.html
http://www.zalanthas.org/gdb/index.php/topic,22622.0.html
http://www.zalanthas.org/gdb/index.php/topic,20166.0.html

[wizturbo]

I suppose I went about this the wrong way.  There is no reason to argue that wilderness quit changes are needed, that point has already been debated and agreed upon.  It's being coded into Arm 2.0 after all, so obviously that side of the House won the vote.   

The reason for my post on this is I'm a bit annoyed that it won't be turned on for Arm 1.0 so I can enjoy the game now, instead of some indefinite waiting period.   Why wait?  Ranger quit code is in place, I can't imagine it being very complicated to implement for more guilds.  If there is special coding going in for Arm 2.0 to avoid abuse, I suppose I can understand that...but this is one of those issues that really does add a huge suck factor to an otherwise great game.  It wasn't so bad when I was younger and had less RL responsibilities, but it feels pretty crippling now whenever life gets busy.

[FantasyWriter]

my logically assumed answer:

1+2=3

1. Staff doesn't mind it being done in some form or other. (or they would not have coded it for 2.arm)
2. Many small code changes go in all the time.
3. It's not as easy as simply changing/adding a few lines of code, and therefore not worth the time it would take for restructuring v. spending that same coding time on getting Reborn out so that you have have you cake and eat it too.

[Nyr]

The reason for my post on this is I'm a bit annoyed that it won't be turned on for Arm 1.0 so I can enjoy the game now, instead of some indefinite waiting period.   Why wait? 

Perhaps because the two games run on different codebases.

It wasn't so bad when I was younger and had less RL responsibilities, but it feels pretty crippling now whenever life gets busy.

Linked previously, unquoted until now (and bolded for emphasis):

I don't think the current system is going to change at this point.

If you feel that you are going to be severely impacted by your internet connection or real life on a regular basis during your allotted Armageddon time, you should tailor your roles to that.  If you want to play in the wilderness and end up out there on a regular basis, play a ranger (you can quit anywhere).  If you want to play in the cities, know where the quit locations are.  The more socially-based your character, the better (less likely that you'll end up too far from a quit room).  If you know you have to leave in X time, then don't do stuff that will take longer than that. 

In the case of a spotty internet connection, it would be impossible to predict when it will decide to asplode.  Your solution would not address that.  In the case of the network to ginka deciding to go on the fritz, your solution would not address that, either.  The posts in "Ask the Staff" couldn't have been helped.  No one could get to ginka because the network was down.

One solution that exists presently is to wish up if you need to quit out.  Real life does happen, as do emergencies.  Most of the time, most people can probably fire off a quick wish or an ooc that RL struck and they have to go NOW and then drop link if necessary. If your internet connection sucks and is spotty, it's probably better to get that fixed.

and

From Morgenes here on the old blog:  http://www.zalanthas.org/blogs/brideofson/archives/001407.html

Link-dead Timeout [engine default 30 minutes]

If you're link-dead for more than the specified time, you are automatically extracted from the game.

Note that if we chose to use the link-dead timeout, it will allow a ranger-quit for non-rangers with the cost of having to leave yourself exposed for the delay specified.

In closing, please remember that this is just what the engine currently supports, more features could be added, and some, if not all of these might not be used at all.

Posted by Morgenes at January 4, 2008 12:00 PM

[wizturbo]

Most of the time it isn't an "emergency" I just need to go, so I feel bad wishing up.  If the staff truly don't mind if players do this, then I'll use that option and stop whining about this :-)

[SMuz]

If you feel that you are going to be severely impacted by your internet connection or real life on a regular basis during your allotted Armageddon time, you should tailor your roles to that.  If you want to play in the wilderness and end up out there on a regular basis, play a ranger (you can quit anywhere).  If you want to play in the cities, know where the quit locations are.  The more socially-based your character, the better (less likely that you'll end up too far from a quit room).  If you know you have to leave in X time, then don't do stuff that will take longer than that.

I think this is what aggravates me the most. "If you can't find the time to play, then don't play outside with a non-ranger." It is the primary reason why I'm not logging in right now. It's why I go for long periods of time without logging in. I don't like devoting 30 minutes to a game that's just supposed to be a break from RL.

Playing in cities off peak basically just means "sit in the tavern all day long", because any other action would get my character killed.

So, the least dangerous strategy is to simply not play. Like with wizturbo, sometimes I just want to do other things, like watch the Simpsons on TV, and it sucks that I can't forage a bit in the 10 mins until then. I think if I kept wishing up for 'emergencies' that way, I'd end up being no-wished or told to play a ranger.

In the end, I just stop logging in until I get bored with playing a non-ranger/non-rinthi, and store.

[BleakOne]

Maybe inside each of the main gates of each city could be quit rooms, to help those who want to duck out with less than 30 mins to play?

[SMuz]

Maybe inside each of the main gates of each city could be quit rooms, to help those who want to duck out with less than 30 mins to play?

The stables usually function as a quit room, but I would really appreciate this for the gates that are far away from stables.

[Reiloth]

I find the lack of limitations with Ranger liberating.

Being able to quit at anytime is definitely in the top 3 reasons why i'm a Ranger fanboi now.

[Marshmellow]

What, so because you can't find it in you to play a character without ranger quit but you don't want to play rangers, the game should be changed to suit you now?  Play what works for you as a player, and your playtimes/habits should be taken into consideration for this along with the consideration of what you enjoy playing.  If you want to play an outdoor character that can quit out whenever, learn the terrain to find quit rooms or play a ranger.  Adapt instead of ask that the game adapt to you.

[My 2 sids]

Change Ranger to be able to sleep undisturbed then (as in, they know how to be secure when they make camp)

But, give everyone the option of quitting wherever. 

[NOFUN]

Change Ranger to be able to sleep undisturbed then (as in, they know how to be secure when they make camp)

But, give everyone the option of quitting wherever.  

But then a warrior/scavenger could do everything a ranger could do, only better.
I think everything is fine as it is. A warrior wouldn't have the know how or the will to sleep outdoors, I think it's already generous that there's outdoor log out spots for every one to use.

Just as a ranger/pickpocker shouldn't be able to beat a warrior in a fight, a warrior shouldn't be able to survive in the wilds (for long periods of time)

Though I would like to see a feature that allows a ranger to log out other pc's in the wilderness, so that they become more valuable in exploration.

EDIT: If you want to explore, spend at lot of time outside city states but don't play often, play a ranger. Or stay in the cities and be a family man.

[My 2 sids]

Then how about making the main roads quit friendly?   

Here's the thing:  more than rangers travel -- merchants, armies, traveling entertainers... all use the main road

And I'm sorry, simply by being human I think there should be at lease a little common sense when it comes to figuring out where to stay the night.

[Marshmellow]

Actually, NOFUN, a warrior/scav can NOT do everything a ranger can.  In fact, not even close.

[NOFUN]

Then how about making the main roads quit friendly?  

Here's the thing:  more than rangers travel -- merchants, armies, traveling entertainers... all use the main road

And I'm sorry, simply by being human I think there should be at lease a little common sense when it comes to figuring out where to stay the night.

But see, the difference between a ranger and armies is that armies generally consist of more than one person which may very well have a ranger or two in it's ranks, and the key thing to remember here is lots of people do die in travel. A ranger, on the other hand would use his/her smarts to survive. Armies generally have food preprepared for travel. Two or three PC warriors aren't going to last too long, assuming the storms, or creatures of the wilderness don't get them then starvation or lack of water will. Rangers are allowed to log outside because it's assumed they know how to gather food/water.

As for merchants and entertainers:

Rangers are usually the second easiest persons to employ, next to
warriors. Any traveller would be a fool to neglect to take a ranger along
as a guide, and good rangers can make large sums of money in this
profession.

I think that implies that most NPC merchants hire NPC rangers for travel, and that any lone merchant wouldn't make it too far. And of course, it's not uncommon to hear of a PC dying whilst trying to get from allanak to tuluk or vise versa. I'm sure NPC's would die just as often, if not more so. The dangers of the wilds is generally why tourism doesn't exist, or rather is very rare IGly.

[NOFUN]

Then how about making the main roads quit friendly?   

Here's the thing:  more than rangers travel -- merchants, armies, traveling entertainers... all use the main road

And I'm sorry, simply by being human I think there should be at lease a little common sense when it comes to figuring out where to stay the night.

And I'm sorry, simply by being human I think there should be at lease a little common sense when it comes to figuring out where to stay the night.

As for this argument, there is. They're the log out spots that everyone can use in the wilderness.

[Nyr]

If you feel that you are going to be severely impacted by your internet connection or real life on a regular basis during your allotted Armageddon time, you should tailor your roles to that.  If you want to play in the wilderness and end up out there on a regular basis, play a ranger (you can quit anywhere).  If you want to play in the cities, know where the quit locations are.  The more socially-based your character, the better (less likely that you'll end up too far from a quit room).  If you know you have to leave in X time, then don't do stuff that will take longer than that.

I think this is what aggravates me the most. "If you can't find the time to play, then don't play outside with a non-ranger." It is the primary reason why I'm not logging in right now. It's why I go for long periods of time without logging in. I don't like devoting 30 minutes to a game that's just supposed to be a break from RL.

That's not what I said.  A better paraphrase would be, "If you know that real life is going to regularly impact your playing, play roles that suit that and delve into game knowledge that suits that."  You can play any role with any amount of time, but this game does require a certain amount of time management, even if negligible.  I think it's fair to say that this game can be for those with limited time to play, but they will have to be the ones to yield to the restrictions of the game, not the other way around.  If you KNOW you have 20 minutes to play (you seem to imply 30 minutes is too much to ask, so we'll go with 20), then you have to manage your time wisely.  If you're playing a non-ranger but want to go outside and hunt/forage something briefly, just outside of Allanak or Tuluk or Luir's, aim for daytime play hours (between dawn and dusk).  Storms in these areas are almost never too terrible for you to navigate.  Equip yourself with proper desert-traveling gear.  You can make it from a stable in either city-state and Luir's to the gates and to a reasonable hunting or foraging area in short order.  Limit your hunting to one or two targets as it is (a couple of reasons for this, but for the benefit of considering RL/OOC first, there is a combat timer that will last about 10 minutes after you cease combat).  Limit your foraging to a certain amount that allows you to get back inside the walls without resting first (if unmounted).  You get back in, stow away your beast (if applicable) and quit out as soon as you can.  (This all assumes you don't run into trouble, either PC-based or otherwise.  This can happen, and at some point, it very well might happen.  This is an RPI; other players are involved, and you can't control what they do.)

I managed to do something similar for a while with a ranger in Red Storm.  I enjoyed the role.  I didn't have much time to play it, but had some degree of control over what times those would be.  I'd keep an eye on the Armageddon time, and then be sure to log in around dawn and go see if it was stormy out.  If my ranger (actually, ranger doesn't really matter to this scenario--I still returned to the tavern/apartment when done playing because I didn't want to log in to a storm in which I could not see...besides, some subguilds get direction sense, and some equipment helps) couldn't even see well enough to see anything to hunt, I'd chill in the tavern, go look for things to buy, see if I could find a PC lingering around.  Due to my own limited playtimes, role choice, and location choice, I accepted that some things were going to be difficult.

Playing in cities off peak basically just means "sit in the tavern all day long", because any other action would get my character killed.

This is a fallacious argument.  You can buy things.  You can talk to people between places.  You can kill people and NOT die.  You can steal things and NOT die.  You can do many things besides sit on your ass in a city tavern.  Assuming you only have twenty minutes, try to play at night with a shady sort of character and do shady things.  Granted, you only have twenty minutes; you won't be able to roleplay things out so much, kill people with any degree of roleplay surrounding it (except a frenzied bit of emotive typing), steal from people with more than cursory hemotes, etc.  This is a limitation imposed by your limited time, not by the game.

So, the least dangerous strategy is to simply not play. Like with wizturbo, sometimes I just want to do other things, like watch the Simpsons on TV, and it sucks that I can't forage a bit in the 10 mins until then. I think if I kept wishing up for 'emergencies' that way, I'd end up being no-wished or told to play a ranger.

You're right.  If you wished up telling us you were out foraging and had to leave right now to watch the Simpsons because you knew you only had 10 minutes to play the game, we'd tell you to stop your whining and play a role suited to your limited time (or manage your limited time more wisely), then log you out.  (Alternatively, we might welcome you technologically to the past few years and introduce you to free services like Hulu or one-time purchases like a Tivo or other devices.)  If you only have 10 minutes to play, use those 10 minutes to flesh out some solo-RP with your character, maybe grab a bar conversation, etc.  You can MAYBE get out of a city and forage, but that's dicey.  You can't go hunt even if you were a ranger--you'd still have to wait the 10 minutes for the combat timer to go away.  The point to take away from this is not "staff is shitting all over my limited time to play the game," but "staff expect those with limited time to play the game to put in some effort in the time-management department."

In the end, I just stop logging in until I get bored with playing a non-ranger/non-rinthi, and store.

If your time is so tight that you only have 10 minutes to play or can't/don't want to invest even 30 minutes into the game at one sitting (and can't or won't play rangers or city-based roles?), then this behavior is unsurprising.

[drunkendwarf]

Actually, NOFUN, a warrior/scav can NOT do everything a ranger can.  In fact, not even close.

+1

I grow tired of the "But this is gonna nerf rangers!!" argument. The point here is for playability. Yes while people are free to chose a ranger for their class if they want to play an outdoor character, folks forget a large chunk of character concepts where it flat out is not an option to play a ranger - magickers. Tell me exactly how I play an outdoor magicker character concept as a ranger, please. I've argued before there should be a subguild that allows you to quit out in some form or fashion (with a tent, whatever) in the wilds. I will put forth that argument again. I don't care if that's the only thing that you get from that subguild - I can think of plenty of my characters that I would have picked that with.
I just don't like being locked down to a class to fit a concept I have, simply for playability reasons. Rangers get so many other things that show their ability to survive in the wilds, and to me quitting out is a matter of OOC playability, and shouldn't have anything to do with being tied a class.

[NOFUN]

Actually, NOFUN, a warrior/scav can NOT do everything a ranger can.  In fact, not even close.

+1

I grow tired of the "But this is gonna nerf rangers!!" argument. The point here is for playability. Yes while people are free to chose a ranger for their class if they want to play an outdoor character, folks forget a large chunk of character concepts where it flat out is not an option to play a ranger - magickers. Tell me exactly how I play an outdoor magicker character concept as a ranger, please. I've argued before there should be a subguild that allows you to quit out in some form or fashion (with a tent, whatever) in the wilds. I will put forth that argument again. I don't care if that's the only thing that you get from that subguild - I can think of plenty of my characters that I would have picked that with.
I just don't like being locked down to a class to fit a concept I have, simply for playability reasons. Rangers get so many other things that show their ability to survive in the wilds, and to me quitting out is a matter of OOC playability, and shouldn't have anything to do with being tied a class.

If you're sick of hearing the ranger nerf argument than try offering something that isn't "Waaah I want my PC to be able to kill twenty gith like only a warrior/magicker could and explore the world like only a ranger could"

Rangers get so many other things that show their ability to survive in the wilds,and to me quitting out is a matter of OOC playability, and shouldn't have anything to do with being tied a class.

The reason commoners tolerate the oppression of the templarate is because it's safer inside a city state than in the wilds. Your commoner isn't going to set up camp outside of the walls just because he/she feels like it, infact if your character has had very little experience with the wilds he/she is going to do everything he/she can do to avoid it. The wilds are supposed to be dangerous. If rangers get so many cool things then play one. Your commoner shouldn't be going into the wilds to find shit on there own, that's why rangers even exist. Don't know where the log out rooms are? Tough shit.

magickers. Tell me exactly how I play an outdoor magicker character concept as a ranger, please.

You don't. Magickers are over populated as it is, the last thing they need is the cool skills that are exclusive to mundanes. Magickers can conjure food, water and some don't even need mounts because they have some kind of magick that lets them move from place to place easily. The problem with magickers being able to quit outside is that every single PC mage would go rogue.

I promise you, if every one was able to quit outside rangers would become rarer than merchants, you say they get all these cool things but the only things that spring to mind are foraging for food/poison/sneak (Which an assassin can do all of, anyway) if rangers did have things that are seemingly as OP as you make them out to be this thread wouldn't even exist as every one would be a ranger.

City-states are supposed to be prisons. It should be very rare for anyone to leave, let alone spending weeks outside of the walls. You want that super rare gem that can only be found at the other side of the known world? Hire a ranger to get it for you.

[Xeran Van Houten]

It has been discussed a few times even on staff side; it is not something we are going to put in for Arm 1.

This will be possible for Reborn.

[jhunter]

Actually, NOFUN, a warrior/scav can NOT do everything a ranger can.  In fact, not even close.

+1

I grow tired of the "But this is gonna nerf rangers!!" argument. The point here is for playability. Yes while people are free to chose a ranger for their class if they want to play an outdoor character, folks forget a large chunk of character concepts where it flat out is not an option to play a ranger - magickers. Tell me exactly how I play an outdoor magicker character concept as a ranger, please. I've argued before there should be a subguild that allows you to quit out in some form or fashion (with a tent, whatever) in the wilds. I will put forth that argument again. I don't care if that's the only thing that you get from that subguild - I can think of plenty of my characters that I would have picked that with.
I just don't like being locked down to a class to fit a concept I have, simply for playability reasons. Rangers get so many other things that show their ability to survive in the wilds, and to me quitting out is a matter of OOC playability, and shouldn't have anything to do with being tied a class.

A Survivalist subguild? I -love- that idea. I have to say I like that idea better than any other sugggested.
Survivalists excel in surviving in the wilds. They are better than average at navigating through storms, finding food, and camping out in the wilds.
Skills- Increased Forage (ability to forage for food), Increased Direction Sense, and the ability to quit in any outdoor rooms.

[NOFUN]

Nerf everything I don't use.

Also I was wondering if my ranger could have the steal skill, since it is something that everyone should be capable of doing right?

[jhunter]

Don't be a troll.

[NOFUN]

Don't be a troll.

Not trolling. Giving an honest opinion.

If your pickpocket can log-off outside with a tent why can't my ranger steal? After all, they're both something every human is capable of doing.

Oh, right. My ranger would get caught every time because my ranger hasn't had any experience stealing.
A pickpocket can survive in the wilderness because.. well.. oh.

[Kalai]

Don't be a troll.

Not trolling. Giving an honest opinion.

If your pickpocket can log-off outside with a tent why can't my ranger steal? After all, they're both something every human is capable of doing.

Oh, right. My ranger would get caught every time because my ranger hasn't had any experience stealing.
A pickpocket can survive in the wilderness because.. well.. oh.

I'm pretty sure it's possible to steal with a ranger, just a tad trickier to set up.  

(You know, putting the arrow in the right spot of the back and all.)

[jhunter]

Correct, it is possible to steal with a character of any guild already. You just have to use the proper subguild.

[NOFUN]

Correct, it is possible to steal with a character of any guild already. You just have to use the proper subguild.

That's the thief sub-guild. Not the ranger guild.
The main argument for letting every one log off outside is that everyone is capable of setting up a tent, but on the other side of the coin every one is capable of stealing, bartering and sneaking. I mean, I could go outside right now and attempt to slip something from some ones pocket. Probably wouldn't succeed, but I could still try. In Armageddon mud, you're just frozen with the "you quietly approach your target" message forever.

Kind of seems like double standards if everyone is able to log off because they go inside a tent and then it's just assumed the animals of the wilderness just leave them alone and they happen to have a unlimited pile of food+water (Since your character is still in the games world while you're offline)  but my ranger can't steal because I did not choose the thief sub-guild.

[jhunter]

A Survivalist subguild? I -love- that idea. I have to say I like that idea better than any other sugggested.
Survivalists excel in surviving in the wilds. They are better than average at navigating through storms, finding food, and camping out in the wilds.
Skills- Increased Forage (ability to forage for food), Increased Direction Sense, and the ability to quit in any outdoor rooms.

This is the idea that I was referring to.

[Kalai]

Correct, it is possible to steal with a character of any guild already. You just have to use the proper subguild.

That's the thief sub-guild. Not the ranger guild.
The main argument for letting every one log off outside is that everyone is capable of setting up a tent, but on the other side of the coin every one is capable of stealing, bartering and sneaking. I mean, I could go outside right now and attempt to slip something from some ones pocket. Probably wouldn't succeed, but I could still try. In Armageddon mud, you're just frozen with the "you quietly approach your target" message forever.

Kind of seems like double standards if everyone is able to log off because they go inside a tent and then it's just assumed the animals of the wilderness just leave them alone and they happen to have a unlimited pile of food+water (Since your character is still in the games world while you're offline)  but my ranger can't steal because I did not choose the thief sub-guild.

When you think about it, assuming no one steals from you and you have plenty to eat and drink when you're homeless and logging off in the Gaj sleeping area is a bit of a stretch as well.

[NOFUN]

A Survivalist subguild? I -love- that idea. I have to say I like that idea better than any other sugggested.
Survivalists excel in surviving in the wilds. They are better than average at navigating through storms, finding food, and camping out in the wilds.
Skills- Increased Forage (ability to forage for food), Increased Direction Sense, and the ability to quit in any outdoor rooms.

This is the idea that I was referring to.

So, all of the useful skills of a ranger without actually needing to play one. How about a subguild that allows me to parry, disarm and bash?

[jhunter]

As Drunkendwarf said, there's alot more to rangers than those couple of skills. If you don't believe that, it just shows there's still alot for you to learn. Also, rangers would still be capable of doing two of those skills much better. A ranger guild pc is still going to be the -master- of the wilds compared to any other guild of pc with that subguild idea implemented.

[NOFUN]

As Drunkendwarf said, there's alot more to rangers than those couple of skills. If you don't believe that, it just shows there's still alot for you to learn. Also, rangers would still be capable of doing two of those skills much better. A ranger guild pc is still going to be the -master- of the wilds compared to any other guild of pc with that subguild idea implemented.

But those skills are the main reasons people play rangers. Sure, they might have a few other quirks but those are small in comparison. If you wanted to be good with poisons you'd be an assassin, if you wanted to be a good fighter you'd play a warrior.

Tell me, honestly if we made sneak, back-stab and poison available to everyone that anyone would still bother to pick assassins? Or if bash, disarm and parry was skill every one had people would still pick warriors?

[jhunter]

As Drunkendwarf said, there's alot more to rangers than those couple of skills. If you don't believe that, it just shows there's still alot for you to learn. Also, rangers would still be capable of doing two of those skills much better. A ranger guild pc is still going to be the -master- of the wilds compared to any other guild of pc with that subguild idea implemented.

But those skills are the main reasons people play rangers. If you wanted to be good with poisons you'd be an assassin, if you wanted to be a good fighter you'd play a warrior.

Tell me, honestly if we made sneak, back-stab and poison available to everyone that anyone would still bother to pick assassins? Or if bash, disarm and parry was skill every one had people would still pick warriors?

Speak for yourself. Those skills aren't the -main- reason I play rangers. It might be true for you but it isn't true for everyone. Sneak -is- available to anyone, with the right subguild.

[NOFUN]

As Drunkendwarf said, there's alot more to rangers than those couple of skills. If you don't believe that, it just shows there's still alot for you to learn. Also, rangers would still be capable of doing two of those skills much better. A ranger guild pc is still going to be the -master- of the wilds compared to any other guild of pc with that subguild idea implemented.

But those skills are the main reasons people play rangers. If you wanted to be good with poisons you'd be an assassin, if you wanted to be a good fighter you'd play a warrior.

Tell me, honestly if we made sneak, back-stab and poison available to everyone that anyone would still bother to pick assassins? Or if bash, disarm and parry was skill every one had people would still pick warriors?

Speak for yourself. Those skills aren't the -main- reason I play rangers. It might be true for you but it isn't true for everyone. Sneak -is- available to anyone, with the right subguild.

What are the main reasons you play rangers? Good job dodging the question by the way.

[Thunkkin]

Tell me, honestly if we made sneak, back-stab and poison available to everyone that anyone would still bother to pick assassins? Or if bash, disarm and parry was skill every one had people would still pick warriors?

Yes.

Guilds aren't just about individual skills, they're about skill synergies. Central to that is the synergies available once you have certain caps in a broad range of skills that go together. It's just as much about the toolbox as a whole as it is about any individual tool.

[jhunter]

 A ranger possesses two primary abilities: to know where she is at all times and to stalk and kill prey.  Ranger skills involve hunting persons or animals, exceptional powers of observation, a strong aptitude for archery, and some moderate skill with weapons. Exceptional rangers are able to move silently and remain unseen in the wilderness, detect sounds from far away, work with poisons, and parry enemy blows. Rangers are also able to rescue friends from deadly situations, bandage serious wounds, and have a well-known rapport with animals and can ride beasts of burden from the beginning. Any traveler would be a fool to neglect to take a ranger along as a guide, and good rangers can make large sums of money in this profession. In addition, rangers are excellent scouts and spies, able to eavesdrop without being noticed--good rangers can even act as assas- sins. If nothing else, rangers are superior hunters and can typically feed themselves in such places as the Grey Forest (q.v.), and can bring back skins of animals to sell.

There's nothing more deadly in the wilds than a skilled ranger with a bow.

[jhunter]

Tell me, honestly if we made sneak, back-stab and poison available to everyone that anyone would still bother to pick assassins? Or if bash, disarm and parry was skill every one had people would still pick warriors?

Yes.

Guilds aren't just about individual skills, they're about skill synergies. Central to that is the synergies available once you have certain caps in a broad range of skills that go together. It's just as much about the toolbox as a whole as it is about any individual tool.

You got it man.

[Marshmellow]

A Survivalist subguild? I -love- that idea. I have to say I like that idea better than any other sugggested.
Survivalists excel in surviving in the wilds. They are better than average at navigating through storms, finding food, and camping out in the wilds.
Skills- Increased Forage (ability to forage for food), Increased Direction Sense, and the ability to quit in any outdoor rooms.

Nah, better:

Subguild Survivalist     (Character)

Survivalists aren't any better at much than most people, but what they are pretty decent at is getting from one place to the next through the wastes.  They have a good sense of where they're going (direction sense) and can get past many obstacles (climb).  They can keep themselves fed too, having a knack for finding edible roots (food forage) and cleaning their kills (skinning).

I still like this one better, but give it ranger-quit.

[NOFUN]

A ranger possesses two primary abilities: to know where she is at all times and to stalk and kill prey.

Direction sense and hunt. Hunt isn't overwhelmingly useful anyway.

archery, and some moderate skill with weapons.

Warriors can do both of these things, but better.

Work with poisons, and parry enemy blows.

Assassins can do both of these things. Warriors can parry.

Rangers are also able to rescue friends from deadly situations, bandage serious wounds

Warriors can do both of these.

can ride beasts of burden from the beginning.

Every one but elves can ride. But sure, starting at journeyman is helpful.

In addition, rangers are excellent scouts and spies, able to eavesdrop without being noticed--good rangers can even act as assas- sins.

Only if you can convince some one to eat something you've poisoned, or the other person is sleeping. Every guild is going to fuck you up in combat with the sole exception of merchant.

If nothing else, rangers are superior hunters and can typically feed themselves in such places as the Grey Forest (q.v.), and can bring back skins of animals to sell.

Skinning is a useful skill, I'll give you that.

Skills rangers will have that a warrior/survivalist won't: Hunt, skin and poison.
Skills rangers will have that a assassin/survivalist won't: Hunt, skin and rescue.
Gee. Might as well remake ranger into the hunter sub-guild.

[jhunter]

You're just plain wrong about several of those things you posted. Like I said, it's obvious your knowledge of the game is limited.

[NOFUN]

You're just plain wrong about several of those things you posted. Like I said, it's obvious your knowledge of the game is limited.

Care to point out where I was wrong?

[Marc]

As Drunkendwarf said, there's alot more to rangers than those couple of skills. If you don't believe that, it just shows there's still alot for you to learn. Also, rangers would still be capable of doing two of those skills much better. A ranger guild pc is still going to be the -master- of the wilds compared to any other guild of pc with that subguild idea implemented.

But those skills are the main reasons people play rangers. Sure, they might have a few other quirks but those are small in comparison. If you wanted to be good with poisons you'd be an assassin, if you wanted to be a good fighter you'd play a warrior.

Tell me, honestly if we made sneak, back-stab and poison available to everyone that anyone would still bother to pick assassins? Or if bash, disarm and parry was skill every one had people would still pick warriors?

Change your perspective on skills.  Just because it shows up on your skill list doesn't mean you're any good.

People would still play assassins because assassins are the BEST at sneaking, backstabbing and poison.  Other classes get those skills, but people play assassins because they are the BEST.  People would still play warriors because they are the BEST fighters.  They are the BEST at bashing, disarming and parrying.  If you add them to a subguild, they would be capped low (like current subguilds) that they would not be a replacement for the real thing.

[sarc one]People choose rangers because of Strider and LotR.  Anyone saying otherwise is a damn liar![/sarcasm]

Hunt is fucking awesome.
Rangers are brutal fighters hand to hand
If you can't figure out how to poison people, you need to read some history.  Real-world examples aplenty and Rangers are good at most of them.
You should play some rangers for a few 10days and change your tune

Quit will not be changed in 1.Arm.  Nyr all but said this.  Codebase is different to port and the current system has worked for 15+ years.  Perfect?  No, but it is what it is.

[jhunter]

You're just plain wrong about several of those things you posted. Like I said, it's obvious your knowledge of the game is limited.

Care to point out where I was wrong?

Nope. Find out IC.

[NOFUN]

As Drunkendwarf said, there's alot more to rangers than those couple of skills. If you don't believe that, it just shows there's still alot for you to learn. Also, rangers would still be capable of doing two of those skills much better. A ranger guild pc is still going to be the -master- of the wilds compared to any other guild of pc with that subguild idea implemented.

But those skills are the main reasons people play rangers. Sure, they might have a few other quirks but those are small in comparison. If you wanted to be good with poisons you'd be an assassin, if you wanted to be a good fighter you'd play a warrior.

Tell me, honestly if we made sneak, back-stab and poison available to everyone that anyone would still bother to pick assassins? Or if bash, disarm and parry was skill every one had people would still pick warriors?

Change your perspective on skills.  Just because it shows up on your skill list doesn't mean you're any good.

People would still play assassins because assassins are the BEST at sneaking, backstabbing and poison.  Other classes get those skills, but people play assassins because they are the BEST.  People would still play warriors because they are the BEST fighters.  They are the BEST at bashing, disarming and parrying.  If you add them to a subguild, they would be capped low (like current subguilds) that they would not be a replacement for the real thing.

[sarc one]People choose rangers because of Strider and LotR.  Anyone saying otherwise is a damn liar![/sarcasm]

Hunt is fucking awesome.
Rangers are brutal fighters hand to hand
If you can't figure out how to poison people, you need to read some history.  Real-world examples aplenty and Rangers are good at most of them.
You should play some rangers for a few 10days and change your tune

Quit will not be changed in 1.Arm.  Nyr all but said this.  Codebase is different to port and the current system has worked for 15+ years.  Perfect?  No, but it is what it is.

And people will still want to play as rangers because rangers are the best at skinning.

[Thunkkin]

You're just plain wrong about several of those things you posted. Like I said, it's obvious your knowledge of the game is limited.

This.

[drunkendwarf]

If you're sick of hearing the ranger nerf argument than try offering something that isn't "Waaah I want my PC to be able to kill twenty gith like only a warrior/magicker could and explore the world like only a ranger could"

The reason commoners tolerate the oppression of the templarate is because it's safer inside a city state than in the wilds. Your commoner isn't going to set up camp outside of the walls just because he/she feels like it, infact if your character has had very little experience with the wilds he/she is going to do everything he/she can do to avoid it. The wilds are supposed to be dangerous. If rangers get so many cool things then play one. Your commoner shouldn't be going into the wilds to find shit on there own, that's why rangers even exist. Don't know where the log out rooms are? Tough shit.

You don't. Magickers are over populated as it is, the last thing they need is the cool skills that are exclusive to mundanes. Magickers can conjure food, water and some don't even need mounts because they have some kind of magick that lets them move from place to place easily. The problem with magickers being able to quit outside is that every single PC mage would go rogue.

I promise you, if every one was able to quit outside rangers would become rarer than merchants, you say they get all these cool things but the only things that spring to mind are foraging for food/poison/sneak (Which an assassin can do all of, anyway) if rangers did have things that are seemingly as OP as you make them out to be this thread wouldn't even exist as every one would be a ranger.

First off, rangers get several things that assassins don't, and vice versa. Comparing the two is just silly. Even in your example...assassins can NOT forage for food.
Second off, my argument isn't "Waaah I want my PC to be able to kill twenty gith like only a warrior/magicker could and explore the world like only a ranger could". It's if I want to play any kind of outdoor character concept, it's very difficult to do with anything other than a ranger. I said this is fine when it comes to most character concepts, you just have to deal with the ranger skill set and make due. But it doesn't work whatsoever with a mage. Who said anything about pwning the world with my mage? I've had a mage that wanted nothing to do with killing folks or pwning anything - his ultimate goal was to make an awesome garden out in the middle of nowhere.
Not all magickers can conjure food or water. In fact, very few can. Not all have magicks that allow them to move from place to place easily.
I highly disagree rangers would become rare if everyone could quit outside. They have an incredibly useful skill set for wandering the wilds and staying alive.
The problem is the line between IC and OOC is blurred here - people seem to think the ability to quit out is a 'skill'. I see quitting out as purely an OOC action. People are equating quitting out in the wilds as your character setting up camp and indefinitely sitting there with plenty of food/water. So if I quit out in a stable somewhere, is it assumed my character is setting up camp in the stables indefinitely? No. I find this view just silly. I will often times quit out for RL weeks at a time - to imagine my character sitting in the stable this whole time just silly. There's no real good IC explanation for when a character is logged off. Some things are just OOC. Quitting out is one of them.
'Wish up' people say. That doesn't work, especially for off peak characters. I've had to try before, and got no response, had to cut link and logged in several hours later to find my character still just sitting there. Any reliance upon the staff for this is just unreliable. They're not always around.

Don't be a troll.

Not trolling. Giving an honest opinion.

If your pickpocket can log-off outside with a tent why can't my ranger steal? After all, they're both something every human is capable of doing.

Oh, right. My ranger would get caught every time because my ranger hasn't had any experience stealing.
A pickpocket can survive in the wilderness because.. well.. oh.

Stealing is not an OOC action. Quitting out is.

[Marshmellow]

All I will say is this:  NOFUN, you have obviously not played a well-branched Ranger and/or a well-branched Warrior and/or a well-branched Asssassin (or enough of all three, rather)... etc.  How I (and others) know this?


...you don't seem to understand the fact that Assassins are just the city-version of Rangers (with some overlapping skills and other complementary skills and some other skills that just don't match up in any way shape or form because they are a wilderness guild compared to a city guild)...

...and the suck that is a sub-guild compared to a guild skill.

Anyway, of course Assassins can do some things that Rangers can do, but Rangers can do other things still that make an Assassin/Hunter or a Warrior/Whatever look like a chump when it comes to doing shit in the wild.  I'm not kidding.  How these difference really stack up, you need to discover on your own by playing a variety of characters.  We can't tell you, but trust us when we say that things are more complicated than you seem to regard it.

...and that is one of the things that make this game awesome.

[Marc]

That is one valid reason to play a Ranger.  One of many.

I am shocked this has come up to be fair.  Someone arguing the -Ranger- class is under powered

If the argument is the IC/OOCness of quitting, make up any reason you want.  It will not be changed according to staff.

I personally go with the "Rangers are the only ones who have the sixth sense to find a place to sleep in the wild and wake up again.  Everyone else gets eaten by scrab."

If you want another reason call it balance.  Or tradition.

[drunkendwarf]

It's obvious NOFUN has no idea how rangers actually work. I'm done talking about this with this person.

[NOFUN]

If you're sick of hearing the ranger nerf argument than try offering something that isn't "Waaah I want my PC to be able to kill twenty gith like only a warrior/magicker could and explore the world like only a ranger could"

The reason commoners tolerate the oppression of the templarate is because it's safer inside a city state than in the wilds. Your commoner isn't going to set up camp outside of the walls just because he/she feels like it, infact if your character has had very little experience with the wilds he/she is going to do everything he/she can do to avoid it. The wilds are supposed to be dangerous. If rangers get so many cool things then play one. Your commoner shouldn't be going into the wilds to find shit on there own, that's why rangers even exist. Don't know where the log out rooms are? Tough shit.

You don't. Magickers are over populated as it is, the last thing they need is the cool skills that are exclusive to mundanes. Magickers can conjure food, water and some don't even need mounts because they have some kind of magick that lets them move from place to place easily. The problem with magickers being able to quit outside is that every single PC mage would go rogue.

I promise you, if every one was able to quit outside rangers would become rarer than merchants, you say they get all these cool things but the only things that spring to mind are foraging for food/poison/sneak (Which an assassin can do all of, anyway) if rangers did have things that are seemingly as OP as you make them out to be this thread wouldn't even exist as every one would be a ranger.

First off, rangers get several things that assassins don't, and vice versa. Comparing the two is just silly. Even in your example...assassins can NOT forage for food.
Second off, my argument isn't "Waaah I want my PC to be able to kill twenty gith like only a warrior/magicker could and explore the world like only a ranger could". It's if I want to play any kind of outdoor character concept, it's very difficult to do with anything other than a ranger. I said this is fine when it comes to most character concepts, you just have to deal with the ranger skill set and make due. But it doesn't work whatsoever with a mage. Who said anything about pwning the world with my mage? I've had a mage that wanted nothing to do with killing folks or pwning anything - his ultimate goal was to make an awesome garden out in the middle of nowhere.
Not all magickers can conjure food or water. In fact, very few can. Not all have magicks that allow them to move from place to place easily.
I highly disagree rangers would become rare if everyone could quit outside. They have an incredibly useful skill set for wandering the wilds and staying alive.
The problem is the line between IC and OOC is blurred here - people seem to think the ability to quit out is a 'skill'. I see quitting out as purely an OOC action. People are equating quitting out in the wilds as your character setting up camp and indefinitely sitting there with plenty of food/water. So if I quit out in a stable somewhere, is it assumed my character is setting up camp in the stables indefinitely? No. I find this view just silly. I will often times quit out for RL weeks at a time - to imagine my character sitting in the stable this whole time just silly. There's no real good IC explanation for when a character is logged off. Some things are just OOC. Quitting out is one of them.
'Wish up' people say. That doesn't work, especially for off peak characters. I've had to try before, and got no response, had to cut link and logged in several hours later to find my character still just sitting there. Any reliance upon the staff for this is just unreliable. They're not always around.

Don't be a troll.

Not trolling. Giving an honest opinion.

If your pickpocket can log-off outside with a tent why can't my ranger steal? After all, they're both something every human is capable of doing.

Oh, right. My ranger would get caught every time because my ranger hasn't had any experience stealing.
A pickpocket can survive in the wilderness because.. well.. oh.

Stealing is not an OOC action. Quitting out is.

Assassins could forage for food with the survivalist sub-guild.
City-states are supposed to be prison-like. It should be rare and dangerous to leave. I very much doubt your character would want to go outside anyway.
Quitting is a skill, when you're quitting outside the city's walls. Rangers are allowed to because it's assumed they know how to gather food/water. - I now realise I'm wrong about this from nyr's post.

[Cutthroat]

Instead of arguing about quitting everywhere when staff has said several times in the past that it won't be changed, perhaps address things that CAN be changed, or haven't been ruled out yet, like the availability of quit rooms in the wilderness (I personally think there are plenty quit rooms in some areas, but other areas could do with more). That's a far more productive argument than arguing about how guilds and skills work.

[NOFUN]

All I will say is this:  NOFUN, you have obviously not played a well-branched Ranger and/or a well-branched Warrior and/or a well-branched Asssassin (or enough of all three, rather)... etc.  How I (and others) know this?


...you don't seem to understand the fact that Assassins are just the city-version of Rangers (with some overlapping skills and other complementary skills and some other skills that just don't match up in any way shape or form because they are a wilderness guild compared to a city guild)...

...and the suck that is a sub-guild compared to a guild skill.

Anyway, of course Assassins can do some things that Rangers can do, but Rangers can do other things still that make an Assassin/Hunter or a Warrior/Whatever look like a chump when it comes to doing shit in the wild.  I'm not kidding.  How these difference really stack up, you need to discover on your own by playing a variety of characters.  We can't tell you, but trust us when we say that things are more complicated than you seem to regard it.

...and that is one of the things that make this game awesome.

Assassins are just the city-version of Rangers

My point exactly. They shouldn't be able to survive outside the walls because they are the city-version of rangers. It's like, expecting a city elf to survive like a desert elf. It shouldn't happen.

I am shocked this has come up to be fair.  Someone arguing the -Ranger- class is under powered.

I'm not, I'm arguing that quitting outside the walls should remain a ranger only skill.

[Nyr]

Per current staff policy on this as well as code, quitting is not entirely IC or OOC, nor is it a skill.

[Marc]

But those skills are the main reasons people play rangers. Sure, they might have a few other quirks but those are small in comparison. If you wanted to be good with poisons you'd be an assassin, if you wanted to be a good fighter you'd play a warrior.

I am shocked this has come up to be fair.  Someone arguing the -Ranger- class is under powered.

I'm not, I'm arguing that quitting outside the walls should remain a ranger only skill.

Sorry if I misinterpreted.  Sure seemed you were thinking Quit was the beesknees of ranger skills.  I'm probably wrong but if they disabled ranger quit it's my opinion rangers would still be the most popularly played class.  So that's that.

Instead of arguing about quitting everywhere when staff has said several times in the past that it won't be changed, perhaps address things that CAN be changed, or haven't been ruled out yet, like the availability of quit rooms in the wilderness (I personally think there are plenty quit rooms in some areas, but other areas could do with more). That's a far more productive argument than arguing about how guilds and skills work.

Is this possible?  Maybe regular intervals along the north road?  Certain landmarks in the desert?  I don't see it abused too often.  Staff frowns heavily on logging on from conflict.  If someone made a habit, the hammer would fall eventually.

[drunkendwarf]

Nyr,

Is there really a problem with adding a subguild that allows outdoor quitting?

[jhunter]

I'm probably wrong but if they disabled ranger quit it's my opinion rangers would still be the most popularly played class.

I don't think you are wrong. I think you're spot on.

[NOFUN]

If you're sick of hearing the ranger nerf argument than try offering something that isn't "Waaah I want my PC to be able to kill twenty gith like only a warrior/magicker could and explore the world like only a ranger could"

The reason commoners tolerate the oppression of the templarate is because it's safer inside a city state than in the wilds. Your commoner isn't going to set up camp outside of the walls just because he/she feels like it, infact if your character has had very little experience with the wilds he/she is going to do everything he/she can do to avoid it. The wilds are supposed to be dangerous. If rangers get so many cool things then play one. Your commoner shouldn't be going into the wilds to find shit on there own, that's why rangers even exist. Don't know where the log out rooms are? Tough shit.

You don't. Magickers are over populated as it is, the last thing they need is the cool skills that are exclusive to mundanes. Magickers can conjure food, water and some don't even need mounts because they have some kind of magick that lets them move from place to place easily. The problem with magickers being able to quit outside is that every single PC mage would go rogue.

I promise you, if every one was able to quit outside rangers would become rarer than merchants, you say they get all these cool things but the only things that spring to mind are foraging for food/poison/sneak (Which an assassin can do all of, anyway) if rangers did have things that are seemingly as OP as you make them out to be this thread wouldn't even exist as every one would be a ranger.

First off, rangers get several things that assassins don't, and vice versa. Comparing the two is just silly. Even in your example...assassins can NOT forage for food.
Second off, my argument isn't "Waaah I want my PC to be able to kill twenty gith like only a warrior/magicker could and explore the world like only a ranger could". It's if I want to play any kind of outdoor character concept, it's very difficult to do with anything other than a ranger. I said this is fine when it comes to most character concepts, you just have to deal with the ranger skill set and make due. But it doesn't work whatsoever with a mage. Who said anything about pwning the world with my mage? I've had a mage that wanted nothing to do with killing folks or pwning anything - his ultimate goal was to make an awesome garden out in the middle of nowhere.
Not all magickers can conjure food or water. In fact, very few can. Not all have magicks that allow them to move from place to place easily.
I highly disagree rangers would become rare if everyone could quit outside. They have an incredibly useful skill set for wandering the wilds and staying alive.
The problem is the line between IC and OOC is blurred here - people seem to think the ability to quit out is a 'skill'. I see quitting out as purely an OOC action. People are equating quitting out in the wilds as your character setting up camp and indefinitely sitting there with plenty of food/water. So if I quit out in a stable somewhere, is it assumed my character is setting up camp in the stables indefinitely? No. I find this view just silly. I will often times quit out for RL weeks at a time - to imagine my character sitting in the stable this whole time just silly. There's no real good IC explanation for when a character is logged off. Some things are just OOC. Quitting out is one of them.
'Wish up' people say. That doesn't work, especially for off peak characters. I've had to try before, and got no response, had to cut link and logged in several hours later to find my character still just sitting there. Any reliance upon the staff for this is just unreliable. They're not always around.

Don't be a troll.

Not trolling. Giving an honest opinion.

If your pickpocket can log-off outside with a tent why can't my ranger steal? After all, they're both something every human is capable of doing.

Oh, right. My ranger would get caught every time because my ranger hasn't had any experience stealing.
A pickpocket can survive in the wilderness because.. well.. oh.

Stealing is not an OOC action. Quitting out is.

Read through this about three times and couldn't find an argument that isn't "Waaah I want my PC to be able to kill twenty gith like only a warrior/magicker could and explore the world like only a ranger could"

Not a ranger? Stay in the walls and be a family man.

[Samira]

I think it'd be neat to have () and [] emotes for quit.

Code Select Expand

> quit (flopping wearily onto her bunk)
Flopping wearily onto her bunk, the round, cockeyed dwarf has departed from the land of Zalanthas.
Come back soon!

You may:
     (C) Disconnect from character      (V) Toggle ANSI/VT100 mode   
     (B) Toggle 'brief' menus           (D) Documentation menu       
     (M) Mail menu                      (S) Stats of your character   
     (E) Enter Zalanthas                (X) Exit Armageddon           
     (?) Read menu options         

Armageddon is OPEN.

[Nyr]

Nyr,

Is there really a problem with adding a subguild that allows outdoor quitting?

Drunkendwarf,

I don't think I understand the question.  I can think of several obstacles to doing this; I can also see that this thread isn't about a subguild for quitting but people seem to want to discuss that.

Read through this about three times and couldn't find an argument that isn't "Waaah I want my PC to be able to kill twenty gith like only a warrior/magicker could and explore the world like only a ranger could"

NOFUN,

Don't troll.

[drunkendwarf]

If you're sick of hearing the ranger nerf argument than try offering something that isn't "Waaah I want my PC to be able to kill twenty gith like only a warrior/magicker could and explore the world like only a ranger could"

The reason commoners tolerate the oppression of the templarate is because it's safer inside a city state than in the wilds. Your commoner isn't going to set up camp outside of the walls just because he/she feels like it, infact if your character has had very little experience with the wilds he/she is going to do everything he/she can do to avoid it. The wilds are supposed to be dangerous. If rangers get so many cool things then play one. Your commoner shouldn't be going into the wilds to find shit on there own, that's why rangers even exist. Don't know where the log out rooms are? Tough shit.

You don't. Magickers are over populated as it is, the last thing they need is the cool skills that are exclusive to mundanes. Magickers can conjure food, water and some don't even need mounts because they have some kind of magick that lets them move from place to place easily. The problem with magickers being able to quit outside is that every single PC mage would go rogue.

I promise you, if every one was able to quit outside rangers would become rarer than merchants, you say they get all these cool things but the only things that spring to mind are foraging for food/poison/sneak (Which an assassin can do all of, anyway) if rangers did have things that are seemingly as OP as you make them out to be this thread wouldn't even exist as every one would be a ranger.

First off, rangers get several things that assassins don't, and vice versa. Comparing the two is just silly. Even in your example...assassins can NOT forage for food.
Second off, my argument isn't "Waaah I want my PC to be able to kill twenty gith like only a warrior/magicker could and explore the world like only a ranger could". It's if I want to play any kind of outdoor character concept, it's very difficult to do with anything other than a ranger. I said this is fine when it comes to most character concepts, you just have to deal with the ranger skill set and make due. But it doesn't work whatsoever with a mage. Who said anything about pwning the world with my mage? I've had a mage that wanted nothing to do with killing folks or pwning anything - his ultimate goal was to make an awesome garden out in the middle of nowhere.
Not all magickers can conjure food or water. In fact, very few can. Not all have magicks that allow them to move from place to place easily.
I highly disagree rangers would become rare if everyone could quit outside. They have an incredibly useful skill set for wandering the wilds and staying alive.
The problem is the line between IC and OOC is blurred here - people seem to think the ability to quit out is a 'skill'. I see quitting out as purely an OOC action. People are equating quitting out in the wilds as your character setting up camp and indefinitely sitting there with plenty of food/water. So if I quit out in a stable somewhere, is it assumed my character is setting up camp in the stables indefinitely? No. I find this view just silly. I will often times quit out for RL weeks at a time - to imagine my character sitting in the stable this whole time just silly. There's no real good IC explanation for when a character is logged off. Some things are just OOC. Quitting out is one of them.
'Wish up' people say. That doesn't work, especially for off peak characters. I've had to try before, and got no response, had to cut link and logged in several hours later to find my character still just sitting there. Any reliance upon the staff for this is just unreliable. They're not always around.

Don't be a troll.

Not trolling. Giving an honest opinion.

If your pickpocket can log-off outside with a tent why can't my ranger steal? After all, they're both something every human is capable of doing.

Oh, right. My ranger would get caught every time because my ranger hasn't had any experience stealing.
A pickpocket can survive in the wilderness because.. well.. oh.

Stealing is not an OOC action. Quitting out is.

Read through this about three times and couldn't find an argument that isn't "Waaah I want my PC to be able to kill twenty gith like only a warrior/magicker could and explore the world like only a ranger could"

Not a ranger? Stay in the walls and be a family man.

Read it again.

[valeria]

I think it'd be neat to have () and [] emotes for quit.

This is about all the quit revamp I'd love to see 

[drunkendwarf]

Nyr,

Is there really a problem with adding a subguild that allows outdoor quitting?

Drunkendwarf,
I don't think I understand the question.  I can think of several obstacles to doing this; I can also see that this thread isn't about a subguild for quitting but people seem to want to discuss that.

Well, it looked like it was qutting revamp, and an argument that everyone should be able to do it. I didn't think it to be much of a jump to offer up a suggestion everyone be able to do it with a subguild. I know there would be obstacles to implementing a subguild that allows outdoor quitting, I've just thought this to be a decent suggestion that would allow some more playability to the playerbase when it comes to wanting to play an outdoorsy character but not having to be pinned down to a ranger because of it, especially when it comes to mages. I think it's fairly clear that the staff aren't going to touch this in Arm1, but a man can always hope as I don't have any plans to play Arm2 when it comes out.

[SMuz]

I'm probably wrong but if they disabled ranger quit it's my opinion rangers would still be the most popularly played class.

I don't think you are wrong. I think you're spot on.

I would definitely play ranger even without the outside quit. It was the first guild I picked, and most of the time I chose them, it had nothing to do with them being outdoors quitters. If that's the only remarkable trait that a ranger has, then it's a horrible guild.


Quitting is really about OOC convenience. Few other skills are as OOC convenient as quitting. Perhaps racial walking speed or being able to hold more stuff or maybe climb, but even then, it's not as convenient as just being able to quit anywhere.

I get that the outdoors is supposed to be scary to anyone who isn't a ranger. But it's just such horrible game design to discourage by spanking people OOC. It probably can't be changed because of the way the outdoors map is already designed and such, but I hope Armageddon Reborn has a better alternative.

[NOFUN]

I've just thought this to be a decent suggestion that would allow some more playability to the playerbase when it comes to wanting to play an outdoorsy character but not having to be pinned down to a ranger because of it, especially when it comes to mages.

I'd like to be able to disarm people without being pinned down to a warrior. I'd also like to be able to cast magick from all types of magick without being pinned down to a sorcerer because that whole everyone wanting to kill me thing is rather inconvenient.
[/snarkiness]
I'd like to see a feature that allows rangers to log other people off outside of a save-point, that would make them even more useful as a travelling companion.

[Taven]

I made a new thread, if it's a quit thing not related to rangers: http://www.zalanthas.org/gdb/index.php/topic,41125.0.html

Otherwise, carry on.

[Nyr]

I've just thought this to be a decent suggestion that would allow some more playability to the playerbase when it comes to wanting to play an outdoorsy character but not having to be pinned down to a ranger because of it, especially when it comes to mages.

I'd like to be able to disarm people without being pinned down to a warrior. I'd also like to be able to cast magick from all types of magick without being pinned down to a sorcerer because that whole everyone wanting to kill me thing is rather inconvenient.
[/snarkiness]
I'd like to see a feature that allows rangers to log other people off outside of a save-point, that would make even more useful for a travelling companion.

I'd like to be able to post on the GDB without temporarily banning people for trolling.

[Barzalene]

Quick question for staff:
If I have an emergency and need to log NOW and I wish up and no one is around or responds, is there a value to changing my objective to something that indicates that I needed to go and would appreciate if someone would get rid of me?

[Nyr]

Nyr,

Is there really a problem with adding a subguild that allows outdoor quitting?

Drunkendwarf,
I don't think I understand the question.  I can think of several obstacles to doing this; I can also see that this thread isn't about a subguild for quitting but people seem to want to discuss that.

Well, it looked like it was qutting revamp, and an argument that everyone should be able to do it. I didn't think it to be much of a jump to offer up a suggestion everyone be able to do it with a subguild. I know there would be obstacles to implementing a subguild that allows outdoor quitting, I've just thought this to be a decent suggestion that would allow some more playability to the playerbase when it comes to wanting to play an outdoorsy character but not having to be pinned down to a ranger because of it, especially when it comes to mages. I think it's fairly clear that the staff aren't going to touch this in Arm1, but a man can always hope as I don't have any plans to play Arm2 when it comes out.

Ah...in that case, yes, I do see a problem with it for many of the same reasons the staff position is officially against the OP stuff.

[Nyr]

Quick question for staff:
If I have an emergency and need to log NOW and I wish up and no one is around or responds, is there a value to changing my objective to something that indicates that I needed to go and would appreciate if someone would get rid of me?

Probably better to toss in a request along with your wish/objective change (assuming you have the time, if not, objective is fine...no guarantee that it will be noticed quickly, though.  you wouldn't be on the wholist for us, being disconnected).