Casual Armageddon

[Barsook]

Rooms outside of city gates are now quit-safe - Nyr

THANKS!

[Harmless]

This is a good thing.

[jstorrie]

Nyr you are the sickest dude. I love you.

[A Large Bag]

Rooms outside of city gates are now quit-safe - Nyr

THANKS!

+1

[FantasyWriter]

>steal credit Nyr

j/k

Thanks for the "fix"!

[Yam]

city-gate fortress
you broke my immersion, Holmes
I quit in your arms

You know you don't have to campaign for re-election, right?

[musashi]

Just make the outside gate rooms quit-safe.

I like this idea a lot more than keeping the gates open all night.

Yeah. Great idea FW.

[Yam]

This change is so good.

[Reiteration]

I'm partial about it, it's another nerf that helps a non-ranger who is getting chased down by a nasty and "DANGEROUS BEAST APPROACHES: CLOSE THE GATES", well, not to worry because its quit-safe right outside and you can just come back in a half hour or so when the nasty beast has wandered off.

[Yam]

That's a pretty heavy edge case, considering how long the "you're excited!" code lasts.

Hypothetical situation:

Someone is chased by a tracking NPC all the way to the gates of Tuluk for so long that the excited code does not apply. They quit out. What would their death have added to the game, aside from loot?

[Nyr]

I'm partial about it, it's another nerf that helps a non-ranger who is getting chased down by a nasty and "DANGEROUS BEAST APPROACHES: CLOSE THE GATES", well, not to worry because its quit-safe right outside and you can just come back in a half hour or so when the nasty beast has wandered off.

A few points:

1.  If a nasty beast is chasing you, it's just as likely that it has already attacked you and put you into combat, which adds a no-quitting timer to you for a while.  If it hasn't attacked you/vice versa, then yes, you could do as you describe.  We call that abuse.  We'd handle it, don't worry.
2.  It'd be more apt to call it stupid abuse at that because there's no guarantee the nasty beast will wander off or that staff won't notice and just kill your PC virtually for not getting away/abusing quit rooms.
3.  The even stupider part of the abuse is that for it to work, so many things would have to line up in favor of the abuser.  Run into something nasty?  Check.  Not get into combat?  Check.  Have the thing that is chasing you chase you indefinitely even after you would (within reason) have lost it?  Check.* (Alternatively:  be close enough to a gate that you're still within line-of-sight of the beastie, but able to get to the gate?  Check.)  Successfully get away to a gate?  Check.  Gates are shut/or gates have closed automatically due to the creature being on your tail?  Check.  You'd have to have all of that happen and then be enough of a goober to quit out at that point.  Conversely, a ranger can just quit out right in front of a mekillot, removing several steps on the way to abusing quit for that role.
4.  That code for gates shutting when stuff approaches only exists in Tuluk; you can always go around to another gate.

*it was mentioned previously elsewhere that you can get away from creatures that do not hunt so much by "line of sight."  It's just incredibly difficult for someone to do that.  We'll kick that around again if we haven't fixed it already.

[Harmless]

Nyr,

reading the posts in the casual armageddon thread, it seems you unintentionally opened the game for abuse by allowing tuluk to have quit safe rooms outside its gates. I really think you need to reverse that for tuluk and leave it for allanak, since the original complaint had more to do with allanak in the first place.

I was surprised that you called the strategy of using these new quit safe rooms to avoid nasty monsters abuse. When I saw the change my first thought was, "oh boy, the death rate from (IC INFO) is gonna fall now. I'll be seeing lots more scrubs logging in here too, maybe I'll just stand here and report everyone I see logging in after the (IC INFO) is killed." I did not think of this for the south, i.e. the original focus of this thread.

[Nyr]

Nyr,

reading the posts in the casual armageddon thread, it seems you unintentionally opened the game for abuse by allowing tuluk to have quit safe rooms outside its skates. I am really think you need to reverse that for tuluk and leave it for allanak, since the original complaint had more to do with allanak in the first place.

Yeah, because fuck Tuluk.  Those guys don't casually play.

I was surprised that you called the strategy of using these new quit safe rooms to avoid nasty monsters abuse.

Using any quit-safe room to avoid conflict is abuse.

[Harmless]

actually, because tuluk's gates don't close at night. But I guess we'll see whether the abuse happens or not, hmmmm?

[Cutthroat]

I like this change as a convenient way to quit out if you are really running out of time to play. I don't think it will be used for much else, though, including abusive reasons. The possibility that you will log in to be attacked by wild animals nearby far outweighs any gain from abuse. It should always be considered preferable to log out inside a safe area if possible.

[Nyr]

actually, because tuluks gates dont close at night. But I guess we'll see whether the abuse happens or not, hmmmm?

The gate code for Tuluk's gates isn't ideal.  This is evidenced by numerous wishes about "gates being shut but nothing being outside them" or "gates being shut because a cricket hit the infrared beam." This is a relatively simple change meant to improve casual play in any instances where a player might run into a gate being shut and they need to log out.  While those instances may occur less in the areas outside of Tuluk rather than the areas outside of Allanak or Red Storm, they still occur.

[Harmless]

Ok, I can understand that as a solution to tuluk's unique gate difficulties. Thanks for addressing my concern.

[Nyr]

Ok, I can understand that as a solution to tuluk's unique gate difficulties. Thanks for addressing my concern.

No problemo.  The gate issue is a separate problem I've looked at before mostly because of that whole thing.  The "closed when there's no reason" is only half of the problem.  The rest is a bit more complicated. 

[BadSkeelz]

The other half "Closed because Utep thought it'd be funny."

[Delirium]

He sits up in his pyramid giggling at all the hunters banging their noses on the gates when they try to walk east. Like birds and glass doors.

[valeria]

When I have frequently heard the justification that rangers can wilderness quit because they can virtually support themselves "out there," I think it makes a lot of sense.

[RogueGunslinger]

Which sort of completely fails when you have a non-ranger that can also easily support themselves "out there". Or a guild-ranger who wouldn't survive a night outside. I don't like trying to justify it ICly because it's an OOC mechanic.

[hatchets]

Which sort of completely fails when you have a non-ranger that can also easily support themselves "out there". Or a guild-ranger who wouldn't survive a night outside. I don't like trying to justify it ICly because it's an OOC mechanic.

I wouldn't say either of the two examples given relate to OOC. Some folks forget that you can suck at what you do. Just because you choose Ranger doesn't mean your any good at it, maybe your better at juggling, you just wish you was a good ranger. And same goes for someone who is a non-ranger whom can survive outside, maybe they would have been a good ranger, but instead they like to juggle and they suck at it.

So it does work for an IC explination, and yes it is an OOC mechanic, course when you think about it, the entire game is an OOC mechanic.

[Delirium]

I do think that Rukkians should be able to ranger_quit. That's the only other class I'd want to see do so, though.

[A Large Bag]

I do think that Rukkians should be able to ranger_quit. That's the only other class I'd want to see do so, though.

I've always thought so too. I think I've idea'd it before.