Make Camp

[FantasyWriter]

Make camp.
Available to Rangers, D-elves, human tribals, Nomad/Tribal subguilds.

This skill allows one through time and work to create a campsite and quit safe room in the wilderness.
In order to do so, a character must have the Campsite skill and the room must contain a both a campfire and a set-up tent [or wagon] (the tent may be taken down later when the character is ready to quit or move on).
The campsite will decay over time based on weather and wildlife traffic.  The campsite will not decay while there is a set up tent and/or lit campfire in the room.  In order to maintain a campsite, anyone can keep a fire built regularly (minimal time extension) or a character with the campsite skill can >maintain camp to extend the campsite for a longer period of time based on skill level.  Emoting how you are "make"ing or "maintain"ing camp is highly encouraged.  Arranging items in the campsite can help add flavor to your campsite and is encouraged.  Both commands carry very long delays (before).

Edited to add: "or wagon"

[FantasyWriter]

States of decay:
There is a fresh campsite here.
Someone has been camping here recently.
Here lies an abandon campsite.
The remains of an old campsite can are scattered about the area. (not quit safe, lasts a while)

[Jihelu]

Would this help the Hunt skill? Say you show up, fresh campsite, use hunt, get a bonus?

[Jeax]

I voted that I disliked. I think it would be create to have a craftable camp, and I would say the only thing it should do is raise regen. I don't know how much it would really be used. People would have to start carrying around kindling and stuff like that. Definitely not quit-safe, as I think that would turn into a pain on lots of levels.

And I see no reason that a camp would up your hunting ability. Hunt shows you tracks of who has been there. If anything, the ground would look like crap where someone had built a camp, or you would just be able to see that there had been a camp there, sort of like you can see when there has been a battle, for much the same reason.

[Jihelu]

I voted that I disliked. I think it would be create to have a craftable camp, and I would say the only thing it should do is raise regen. I don't know how much it would really be used. People would have to start carrying around kindling and stuff like that. Definitely not quit-safe, as I think that would turn into a pain on lots of levels.

And I see no reason that a camp would up your hunting ability. Hunt shows you tracks of who has been there. If anything, the ground would look like crap where someone had built a camp, or you would just be able to see that there had been a camp there, sort of like you can see when there has been a battle, for much the same reason.

AH. maybe tell you how many people were there or something? Then again, if people are moving around left and right like I assume they would, it would look like a hunk of shit.
Though if there were only two sets of foot prints you might be able to get 'Fewer than five people camped here" maybe.

[Quell]

I voted like because I like the idea of creating communal quit rooms out in the wilds, but I think something simpler might be more suitable.

[HavokBlue]

I voted yes, but can't you already quit out in tents?

[FantasyWriter]

Tents are save rooms but not quit room.

[HavokBlue]

Shows how much I know.

Maybe staff will look at code improvements to the tent/camp system at some point this year. I know it's been mentioned in the past that there are issues with the way tents save.

[Patuk]

Subg_nomad is plenty powerful as it is. Delves are plenty powerful as it is. Rangers are plenty powerful as they are. This'd benefit all the people who wouldn't need this in the first place.

[Delirium]

Actually it would benefit all the people who are trying to benefit from their existence. Not being able to set up a camp without staff assistance borders on silly.

[Patuk]

Lots of things are silly. Not being able to codedly chop off an arm, barricade a door, or toss a torch into another room without staff aid is silly, too. I'm not against staff adding this per se, but something tells me that if it's not been done yet, it's pro ably for a reason.

[Delirium]

Actually it's probably because it requires coding and there's a million things on the coding to-do list.

[Patuk]

Yep! Basically, this thread goes on the 'good idea get in line with the other 1000' pile, IMO.

[slvrmoontiger]

I actually like this idea. As for it only benefiting those who are already powerful, that's not true.

For instance:

Ranger Bob is escorting a group from Tuluk to Red Storm. The group consists mostly of a starter MMH that has no real affiliation and they don't want to spend the night in Allanak and it's late and people want to OOC'dly get some sleep and they can all be around the next time at the same time. They still have quite a ways to go and don't want to turn back to Luir's. Ranger Bob can quit safely out in the wild. What do the other 5 people with him do that cannot? Quit OOC for 5 people in a group? I'm not sure how that would fly with Staff. This is an awesome idea actually. Will make rangers more USEFUL.

Now I'll play the other side. This sounds like it would be extensive coding to do. There would be various checks and virtual die rolls. I don't think it's entirely impossible to do though. But perhaps something like this is the reason Tuluk is closing, to allow Staff to do more things that would take a lot of time to do.

[Desertman]

I think adding the Ranger ability to desert quit to Desert Elves and Tribals would be the easiest fix.

You can already drop a tent and set it up anywhere and it will save through crashes/reboots, even if that room is not a save room.

Drop your tent (which you can already do), make your fire (which you can already do)....upkeep your camp and quit out when you feel like it (with your new ranger quit ability for desert elves and tribals).

Unless I am misunderstanding the idea here, this would give you the exact same outcome.

If the problem is, "Other non-ranger-quit people still can't quit there!", I would argue they shouldn't be able to. Surviving in the desert requires a lot more knowledge and skill than just having a tent. Logging out in the desert makes the assumption your desert-worthy character is able to survive in the desert to at least the minimal degree while you are offline. Desert elves should be able to. Tribals should be able to. Rangers already can.

Having a tent and a fire in a dangerous area is not IC'ly enough of a reason to let non-desert-worthy folk quit there.

[Narf]

I think adding the Ranger ability to desert quit to Desert Elves and Tribals would be the easiest fix.

You can already drop a tent and set it up anywhere and it will save through crashes/reboots, even if that room is not a save room.

Drop your tent (which you can already do), make your fire (which you can already do)....upkeep your camp and quit out when you feel like it (with your new ranger quit ability for desert elves and tribals).

Unless I am misunderstanding the idea here, this would give you the exact same outcome.

If the problem is, "Other non-ranger-quit people still can't quit there!", I would argue they shouldn't be able to. Surviving in the desert requires a lot more knowledge and skill than just having a tent. Logging out in the desert makes the assumption your desert-worthy character is able to survive in the desert to at least the minimal degree while you are offline. Desert elves should be able to. Tribals should be able to. Rangers already can.

Having a tent and a fire in a dangerous area is not IC'ly enough of a reason to let non-desert-worthy folk quit there.

I think the problem here is how easy it is for a wandering grebber to wander by and steal your tent while you're supposedly sleeping in it.

[CodeMaster]

Just a random thought, but it might also be cool if the quit command had some additional syntax.

Ranger sees:

Code Select Expand


> quit with amos malik
You leave the world of Zalanthas, offering your camp to:
  the scarred, muscular man
  the tall, muscular man
Come back soon!


Maybe this would tax the ranger some of his hunger/thirst level for every character he was offering to support, so it could be a dangerous thing to do.

Then, non-ranger Amos sees:

Code Select Expand


The stout, muscular man has left the world of Zalanthas, setting up camp.
[OOC: You may quit in this room for the next 5 minutes.]


I mean, this would make rangers kick so much ass it isn't even funny, but it would be neat.


[edit: I guess this is just a variation on the original idea with a different interface.  so I guess I support the idea of quit rooms being creatable, at a significant cost ]

[Narf]

Just a random thought, but it might also be cool if the quit command had some additional syntax.

Ranger sees:

Code Select Expand


> quit with amos malik
You leave the world of Zalanthas, offering your camp to:
  the scarred, muscular man
  the tall, muscular man
Come back soon!


Maybe this would tax the ranger some of his hunger/thirst level for every character he was offering to support, so it could be a dangerous thing to do.

Then, non-ranger Amos sees:

Code Select Expand


The stout, muscular man has left the world of Zalanthas, setting up camp.
[OOC: You may quit in this room for the next 5 minutes.]


I mean, this would make rangers kick so much ass it isn't even funny, but it would be neat.


[edit: I guess this is just a variation on the original idea with a different interface.  so I guess I support the idea of quit rooms being creatable, at a significant cost ]

As much as I think rangers are already the best mundane class by a sizable margin, and I have deep seated 17 year long resentment against them for this, I'd still be in favor of this idea to make them even cooler.

At least with this, they're being given an awesome support ability instead of a bunch of "I don't need anyone for anything" skills.

[Molten Heart]

If there were some kind item that could be bought or constructed (a crate of supplies or something), maybe that'd be enough to allow people to quit in the wilderness. Maybe the camp object would have a certain amount of uses or would have a timer that gets used up when the camp supplies are 'used up'. It could be use in conjunction with Codemaster's idea where it only works with specific party members.

[FantasyWriter]

My concern was not making quit rooms for people who would be able to survive in the wilds, but for these people to be able to set up and maintain camps for groups of travelers.
Examples: Clans and exploration groups could explore the Known/unknown as a group without requiring a return to civilization at when non-ranger #6 needs to log out.
It makes playing a group of nomadic tribals or traders a possibility without having to make it to the next city to quit.
You can make outdoors RPTs last for more than one day with large clans or groups of clans.
You could end up with a salting camp or two out in the wild where certain groups gather.
Obsidian hacking/logging camps.

Basically it makes GROUP role play more playable out of doors.
It would add a level of organic change and story telling to the wilderness that isn't seen today.
It gives witches/witch hunters/criminals/bounty hunters more places to hide out/check out without the boring old rotations of checkpoints 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5, rinse/repeat.

Maybe limit it to rangers, outdoorsmen, and coded tribals to make those people more useful.

[aeglaeca]

A ranger worth their salt would probably be able to find a 'good camping spot', i.e., a quit-safe room out in the sands. Aren't there quite a few of them? It seems like a good builder job if there aren't enough of them! Maybe rather than this, giving a ranger a directions command to a quit-safe room within x rooms might be better if they're too hard to find? But :? that might be too OP.

I don't really think pitching a tent somewhere random and calling it a week is quite a substitute of finding proper shelter for those you're protecting. Rangers protecting themselves is one thing, rangers protecting a group of non-wilds-survivors in the wilds for x amount of time is another. (Because when the trained ranger leaves the group alone for five minutes to go bring back a meal, one of the hobbits will probably immediately set up a fire beacon to attract monsters. Wait, what?)

Anyway, I think it'd be cool to see more oft-used camping spots (i.e., quit safe rooms), if there aren't enough of them?

[Jihelu]

On the topic of quit rooms.
You say OP.
I say, I got caught out in a sandstorm and it's 2 am irl pls let me leave without using quit ooc.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

But ... that's what quit occ is ... for.

On topic: I'm down with a system to create and maintain a camp. I like the quit out option, but I'm good with just a really good resting bonus.

[Jihelu]

But ... that's what quit occ is ... for.

On topic: I'm down with a system to create and maintain a camp. I like the quit out option, but I'm good with just a really good resting bonus.

I always thought quit ooc was for only real life 'emergencies' not just 'pls god save me from this sleep'

[RogueGunslinger]

But ... that's what quit occ is ... for.

On topic: I'm down with a system to create and maintain a camp. I like the quit out option, but I'm good with just a really good resting bonus.

I always thought quit ooc was for only real life 'emergencies' not just 'pls god save me from this sleep'

I use it as a secondary quit function a lot of the time, never had staff say anything about it. Quitting is an entirely OOC device, giving players shit for it would be a bad idea for staff, in my opinion.

But the fact that you can't use it twice in a row means that staff on some level don't want you to use it as a replacement for quit... so who knows. I think it's a stupid limit. Maybe staff can clarify.

If you are not in a quit safe room, you may use 'quit ooc <reason>' to get a special release to quit so long as you are not dying or subdued. When you log back in, you will be unable to use 'quit ooc' again until you log out normally. You must provide a reasonable reason as to why you are doing this, which is logged. Any who are found to be abusing this will lose the ability to do so.

What sort of abuse is this talking about if there's already a qualifier for "so long as you are not dying or subdued"?

[Riev]

Being chased by someone but havn't entered combat yet. I'd assume generally using quit ooc to avoid having to play in that sudden level 6 storm would be abuse if done consistently.

[Nyr]

The implementation discussion thread covers that pretty nicely, I think.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

Per that thread:

I'll quote 'help quit':

> quit ooc RL emergency gtg

We don't want to set a guideline for how often.  Use it as often as you need it.  However we ask for you to plan accordingly and not rely on it. 

We also don't want to come up with a laundry list of acceptable ooc situations, but they should be beyond 'I don't want to bother playing by the rules'.  Don't use it because you're 'bored'.  Things like 'munchies' and 'played past bed time' is understandable.  Things like a friend/SO says, hey lets' go grab some food, and rather than having to tell them that you need to walk 15-20 minutes to find a safe spot, you can use it.  Things like 'your pet just pooped on the floor', a-ok.  See...I said I didn't want to write a list and I started writing one. 

Simple answer is use your best judgement.  Use it if you need it to not miss the bus.  Try not to make it a habit.  Real life should come first, this code was intended to make it easier for people with less time, or more accident prone to help out.  We won't yank it from you if you're using it all the time because you have a string of bad luck.  Similarly, we won't pull it for something we deem questionable the first time you do it.  We will remove it if we see a pattern of abuse, and after talking to you about it you still continue, we will remove it.

Edited to highlight a guideline that I think I see being asked repeatedly here.  'plan accordingly and not rely on it'

[perfecto]

I voted dislike as well for the reasons
1. Getting safely to and from "safe/quit/resting" areas is part of the fun of this game
2. Anyone can already "set up camp" and RP with a tent and regen wherever they like (outside a city)

[Asmoth]

Don't tents still weight like five hundred pounds that make them not really suited for traveling with or did they change that?

Also the reason I didn't like tents is because you couldn't bring your mount inside so while you're resting desert elves or thieves will walk in and take your mount.

[Riev]

Don't tents still weight like five hundred pounds that make them not really suited for traveling with or did they change that?

Also the reason I didn't like tents is because you couldn't bring your mount inside so while you're resting desert elves or thieves will walk in and take your mount.

Tents are heavy, because they are not really small camping tents, as much as the kind of tents you'd see in Lord of the Rings when they're preparing for war. Big enough for a couple people to lay in, and rather conspicuous unless specially made.


Also, no you can't bring your mount in, but they are still "hitched" as long as you just enter the tent. If something takes your mount while you're sleeping in a tent, be glad they ONLY took the mount.

[BadSkeelz]

There is at least one tent in game that you could bring a mount in to (or several, damn ranger hitch), but as that was a semi-permeable staff construct it might just have been an oversight with its coding.

[Asmoth]

Don't tents still weight like five hundred pounds that make them not really suited for traveling with or did they change that?

Also the reason I didn't like tents is because you couldn't bring your mount inside so while you're resting desert elves or thieves will walk in and take your mount.

Tents are heavy, because they are not really small camping tents, as much as the kind of tents you'd see in Lord of the Rings when they're preparing for war. Big enough for a couple people to lay in, and rather conspicuous unless specially made.


Also, no you can't bring your mount in, but they are still "hitched" as long as you just enter the tent. If something takes your mount while you're sleeping in a tent, be glad they ONLY took the mount.

I'd be cool with them taking it if I was sleeping in the tent.  But unless it's changed, I can technically be wide awake, resting in the tent, holding the reins and someone outside can lead mount, and roll off with my mount and I have no idea.

That's the problem in my eyes.  If I'm sleeping and they take it, then hey that's the rub, but when I'm wide awake and they can yank the reins outta my hands without me knowing that is lame.

[HavokBlue]

If the animal is hitched to you, it won't hitch to someone else.

[Asmoth]

If the animal is hitched to you, it won't hitch to someone else.

They must have changed it then, because I stole sooooo many mounts as a D-elf this way.

[Delirium]

If the animal is hitched to you, it won't hitch to someone else.

False, if you're not in the same room, even if it's hitched to you, it can be stolen. Bug or feature? Who knows.

[Incognito]

I'd be ok with this - IF - the campsite - codedly attracted more aggressive beasts from the surrounding areas. (provided of course that there are some nasties lurking around in the zone, in the first place).

I mean, there's gotta be some bad with the good.

You're a non-ranger, out in the wilderness, you make a campfire, you set up camp, you're probably cooking something that is sending out scents into the air - then it's natural for the native animals to take notice of this disturbance in their environs - and take a chance at attacking the camp.

[HavokBlue]

sandbears