Player Resurrections

[RogueGunslinger]

So there have been numerous times where someone has died and I thought that person should be resurrected, but staff policy on this is very strict because... Well, I don't really know why.

I think it should be loosened up.

I suppose I should give some examples: Killed by own clan members for assisting someone. Killed by crimcode for defending self from attacker. The game disconnecting and reloading with a mekillot on top of where you were.
Even things like people dying for following their leader into a hole deserves to be considered, because that code doesn't really make sense.

[HavokBlue]

I would be concerned about setting precedents. You have to draw a hard line somewhere or people will keep pushing it, and then you open the whole can of worms where people cry favoritism! and unfair! because someone else got rezzed and they didn't.

[RogueGunslinger]

Yes, a hard line makes sense, I'm not against them, I'm suggesting it move a bit. If you die to OOC circumstances that aren't in your own control or are the result of the code, then why shouldn't that person be resurrected? If a half-giant NPC stomps in and smashes down a newbie in a clan who the leader forgot to induct before starting up a sparring sessions, they should be revived.

As long as the rules are outlined, not vague, and make sense, cries of favoritism wouldn't be a problem.

[In Dreams]

I can definitely see what Havok said being true! But! I also feel like having any or all of your examples happen to me and losing a character over them would be ugh. Very ugh. Mortifying is the best word I can come up with.

I don't know staff policy but I'm sure they have their reasons for them, and big incidents probably draw issues like those into the spotlight. I wouldn't be surprised if solutions to things like you mentioned were already being discussed - or at least considered - with seriousness on some level.

[manonfire]

It's clearly an unintended consequence of seriously ancient code, and it's happened twice recently.

Update the code, or resurrect the players who want it. It's a goddamn game.

[In Dreams]

It's clearly an unintended consequence of seriously ancient code, and it's happened twice recently.

Update the code, or resurrect the players who want it. It's a goddamn game.

This is worded kind of harshly, but I can't honestly say I disagree. Let's hope something happens.

[Synthesis]

I'm pro-resurrection in cases where the code is clearly asinine.

[Harmless]

I think in the cases of crimcode, mistargets, etc, where any degree of player error is involved, that resurrections shouldn't happen. If it's a bug, and clearly a bug, though, I would say a resurrection should be looked into. If it's a mistake staff made, I think it should be granted; players shouldn't have to suffer because of staff's mistakes, only their own (or other players). That would be where I draw the line.

A lot of times, deaths that clearly suck for RP reasons are still not due to bugs or staff mistakes.

Other times, deaths that suck for RP reasons are due to irritating artifacts of the keyword based targeting system; like typing backstab dark and then having someone else with the absurdly common keyword 'dark' walk in right before the backstab goes off. This could be preventable in a number of means, such as using combined keywords like tall.dark so that if short.dark comes in they won't be killed. Or knowing the name or full sdesc of your mark. If you're going by their cloak mistaken identity is not only OOCly understandable but ICly also.

In general, the use of commands like backstab, sap, and other things are extremely risky because of that delay where you just wait and see what happens, not to mention the long delay after they go off. I have seen both commands be the cause of unwanted PC death firsthand multiple times.

The use of movement commands also lead to unwanted deaths often. Movements should never be taken lightly; speedwalking and so on are obviously highly risky. The >stop command is instantaneous and is the best defense you'll have; I recommend having >stop macro'ed to an easy to find and hit key like F1.

The fall code is ridiculous. I think it needs revisioning, and I would say urgently. I agree with you, it makes no sense for a group of 10+ people to all go off an edge like lemmings, and wish there were some chance rolls to see if you indeed follow them. It's immersion breaking and it sucks. However, as it stands, there is nothing buggy about it, and it is preventable with better PC leadership, so... it wouldn't be grounds for a ress request until they change the code / revisit it / significantly change their stance on ressurections.

Disconnects and reconnects are so iffy an area to grant ressurections over. People have bad connections and you can't, as a staffer, tell why or how they were disconnected. Players could easily kill their clients, reload them later and then blame whatever happens on the MUD, when the MUD had nothing to do with it. I understand why staff don't grant ressurections here.

I guess i'm just being a long-winded devil's advocate here, but I wouldn't expect the policy to change any day soon.

[Asanadas]

I've had this argument with staff. What I walked away with was twofold:

1. Staff are afraid of choosing "favorites".
2. Code in game is "working as intended" and deaths that happen due to code are valid.

I vehemently disagreed but there's no argument in disagreeing.

Point 1 could be fixed by a change in policy.

Point 2... I just get the impression that nobody really understands or is able to fix the code surrounding those sorts of things.

But I don't think anything's going to change. It's a big issue for players but a non-issue for the administration, which speaks for how out of touch the two parties can get from each other from topic to topic.

[bcw81]

I suppose I should give some examples: Killed by own clan members for assisting someone. Killed by crimcode for defending self from attacker. The game disconnecting and reloading with a mekillot on top of where you were.
Even things like people dying for following their leader into a hole deserves to be considered, because that code doesn't really make sense.

Ex1: I'd agree with giving that a rez, but it would be a hard thing to say considering you have no idea if Amos the Assassin was just waiting to backstab you, the scrab-scarred man, when you went to fight a scrab. It's a hard line.

Ex2: When has crimcode -ever- set in from defending yourself? I can honestly only say that happened -once-, and that was because someone decided to use the KICK command in a brawl or something silly... About five years ago now.

Ex3: No, if your internet connection isn't stable I suggest you don't play outdoors. Just imagine what happens when Joblow the Asshat gets assassinated and cries to staff OoC that he was linkdead at the time.

Ex4: Falling in holes is the only one I will whole hardheartedly agree with.

I voted no because while there are a couple times where I requested to be resurrected for various silly code related deaths, and denied handily, I wouldn't want it to become any more commonplace than it already is. Unless it's a game bug you should not be resurrected.

[Lizzie]

There's already a rule that if a game bug, abuse of a game bug, or game crash (not internet glitch but if the server itself actually crashes) causes a character death, the staff will consider granting a resurrection.

I think it also depends on the situation. If the death occurs in a public place, and the body is looted, and dragged to the corpse pile and beheaded before the staff can respond, well it just doesn't make much IC sense to retcon it. In situations like that, I'm glad there's no resurrection.

If it happens in a situation where the staff can act quickly, OR where there is no one to loot the corpse/behead it... then it makes sense to allow the resurrection.

So in summary I see two criteria: is it the result of a game bug/crash/abuse of a game bug? AND would it create IC inconsistancy to resurrect, such as returning a head to a body?

[RogueGunslinger]

I suppose I should give some examples: Killed by own clan members for assisting someone. Killed by crimcode for defending self from attacker. The game disconnecting and reloading with a mekillot on top of where you were.
Even things like people dying for following their leader into a hole deserves to be considered, because that code doesn't really make sense.

Ex1: I'd agree with giving that a rez, but it would be a hard thing to say considering you have no idea if Amos the Assassin was just waiting to backstab you, the scrab-scarred man, when you went to fight a scrab. It's a hard line.

Ex2: When has crimcode -ever- set in from defending yourself? I can honestly only say that happened -once-, and that was because someone decided to use the KICK command in a brawl or something silly... About five years ago now.

Ex3: No, if your internet connection isn't stable I suggest you don't play outdoors. Just imagine what happens when Joblow the Asshat gets assassinated and cries to staff OoC that he was linkdead at the time.

Ex4: Falling in holes is the only one I will whole hardheartedly agree with.

I voted no because while there are a couple times where I requested to be resurrected for various silly code related deaths, and denied handily, I wouldn't want it to become any more commonplace than it already is. Unless it's a game bug you should not be resurrected.

example 2 I believe it's Luirs crimcode that will kill both the attacker and defender.

For example 3 it's not your internet, but the server restarting that re-spawns you back where you last saved.

For lizzie the point about IC consistency makes sense and I find myself agreeing with that. But the rule for game bugs doesn't cover quirks in code that aren't really bugs, but still don't make any sense, and it should. Like NPC's attacking people they shouldn't be just because of a coded "clan" feature of the game.

[Clearsighted]

No. No player resurrections. It would be impossible to apply it fairly and evenly across the board, and those voting for it thinking it would apply to them, would find that it probably wouldn't.

Too many people have died, in too many savage, illogical, random and unfair ways - often owing only to bugs or even to cheaters - and not be rezzed, for a trend to begin doing it now. Also? Every time a character has ever been resurrected in the past, it left an extremely bad taste in my mouth. Although I know today's Armageddon is not yesterday's.

It was always like, "Oh, so that character is important enough to various plots for a do over, but not the rest of us." Well all of us leave behind uncompleted quests and unrealized potential when we die.

[Asanadas]

Yep, let's prolong a grief-causing policy than attempt to fix it now.

Too many people have had their enjoyment of this MUD ended due to some fault to begin fixing it now.

[RogueGunslinger]

No. No player resurrections. It would be impossible to apply it fairly and evenly across the board, and those voting for it thinking it would apply to them, would find that it probably wouldn't.

This isn't an issue if the policy is not vague and is clearly outlined.

I voted no because while there are a couple times where I requested to be resurrected for various silly code related deaths, and denied handily, I wouldn't want it to become any more commonplace than it already is. Unless it's a game bug you should not be resurrected.

Circling back a bit, "Game bug" is too vague and limited of an outline to keep people happy. That is why the poll is if staff should re-examine their policy. People seem to be treating the question as "should staff resurrect people more for good reasons?" and are voting no out of what is a misunderstanding of the question.

If you think ANY of the situations I brought up deserve some sort of resurrection than your answer should be yes. Because as is, policy says it won't happen.

[Synthesis]

It could be done well.  It would probably take up a fair amount of staff time, but it could be done.  As more and more experience accumulates staff-side, these things would be faster and easier to rubber-stamp "yes" or "no."

I think it's less immersion-breaking to retcon a stupid death than to go around trying to justify:  THE PUNISHMENT FOR SPARRING IN THE YARD IS EXECUTION; or I TRIPPED AND ACCIDENTALLY STABBED THE WRONG DARK.MAN IN THE NECK, LORD TEMPLAR.

[Gaare]

In a game that you may lose your character in countless ways, it's extremly hard to put down and define conditions for ressurrection.

If you can not clearly define the situations, then almost each incident requires some attention and close communication with IMMs. Those situations make more people disappointed and frustrated about the game and how it is run.

No, I think resurrection policy is as good as possible.

[RogueGunslinger]

In a game that you may lose your character in countless ways, it's extremly hard to put down and define conditions for ressurrection.

If you can not clearly define the situations, then almost each incident requires some attention and close communication with IMMs. Those situations make more people disappointed and frustrated about the game and how it is run.

No, I think resurrection policy is as good as possible.

This is nonsense. Whats hard to define about the situations brought up in this thread? There's no gray area with them. They're all right there, they all fucking blow and don't make sense. And all of them will not be addressed by current policy.

[AdamBlue]

Suggested questions for possible ressurections:
Was the death within the last 12 hours? (If not, then instant rejection unless special circumstance, example: no admins on for twelve hours straight due to holidays, breaks, bad luck, ect)
Has the death been widely publicized? (If so, then instant rejection unless special circumstance, example: tektoles got wrecked due to a novice ranger abusing some new combat bug, everybody's heard about it)
Was the death a result of faulty code? If so, please explain how.
Please post a log here of what happened for us to examine.
How would you explain the situation ICly to the rumors of your death?
What players were about at the time of your demise, so that they can be sent an immediate message to cease publicization of your death? Please enter their names here, and they will be sent a message and will be able to send in their imput on the situation and what seemed to happen.

[Gaare]

This is nonsense. Whats hard to define about the situations brought up in this thread? There's no gray area with them. They're all right there, they all fucking blow and don't make sense. And all of them will not be addressed by current policy.

But there will be situations with gray areas. People, after losing their PCs  will want other, new situations should be added to the rules and conditions . After discussions with IMMs, some will think game treated unfairly to them.

[Nergal]

So there have been numerous times where someone has died and I thought that person should be resurrected, but staff policy on this is very strict because... Well, I don't really know why.

I think it should be loosened up.

It's strict because death is a big part of the game. Death is the end for your PC's story, and potentially a big part of the story for the other PCs around yours. By limiting resurrections to deaths that were the result of code bugs and server quirks it keeps things impartial, even if not necessarily pleasant to the players involved.

I suppose I should give some examples: Killed by own clan members for assisting someone. Killed by crimcode for defending self from attacker. The game disconnecting and reloading with a mekillot on top of where you were.
Even things like people dying for following their leader into a hole deserves to be considered, because that code doesn't really make sense.

- Players need to be excessively careful in combat situations. Combat is inherently dangerous, and there are ways to prevent accidental assistance or crimcode deaths (lowering hoods, knowing authority as a civilian/a recruit/a lifesworn soldier). Know how the world will reasonably respond to your character before doing an action that might end badly for you.
- If the server crashes and you reload with a mekillot on top of you, that is grounds for a resurrection, along with staff-caused accidents. Link-loss is when you disconnect from the game, not when the server goes down.
- We've recently worked to improve how players are alerted to holes. Leaders should meet us halfway and read room descriptions, and generally be attentive. It's possible that the follow code could be improved, but I'm not a coder so I can only suggest it.

The fact of the matter is, people die of accidents in real life and PCs could certainly die of accidents IG.  I don't think that loosening the resurrection policy is the right answer to those issues. I think the right answer is improving the code and raising player awareness of deadly situations so that the deaths don't happen in the first place.

[Synthesis]

Some basic investigative work would cover the vast majority of it.

Were you and Amos both wielding sparring weapons in the  yard when you initiated and got HG-ganked by your clan-bro NPC?  Were you talking about how you were going to spar in the yard because the weather's so nice, and the hall smells like dank pits?  Easy resurrection.  Were you actually wielding a poisoned longknife and initiated with a backstab, thinking to yourself about how you were totes gonna spend Amos's 'sids? No resurrection.

Did you use the keyword 'brown' when queuing up your fireball on the lanky brown gith, then the figure in a brown tattered hooded cloak rode in and took it to the face? Resurrection.  Did you actually use the keyword 'brown.tattered'? No resurrection.

Everything, presumably, is logged.  Everyone has an e-mail address that their account mail goes to.  It shouldn't be that difficult to figure things out.  As new and peculiar situations arise, make a thread in staff announcements and sticky it, updating the particular circumstances that do and don't warrant resurrection.  I'm sure there's a wealth of examples that haven't been covered yet, and everything doesn't need to be defined in stone at the outset.

[RogueGunslinger]

This is nonsense. Whats hard to define about the situations brought up in this thread? There's no gray area with them. They're all right there, they all fucking blow and don't make sense. And all of them will not be addressed by current policy.

But there will be situations with gray areas. People, after losing their PCs  will want other, new situations should be added to the rules and conditions . After discussions with IMMs, some will think game treated unfairly to them.

All you're saying is that you can't please everyone. That's fine, but we can please more. And if the new situations make sense to be added, why shouldn't they be added? What you're failling to do is explain how adding exceptions to the resurrection policy will make things worse.

[Asanadas]

Nergal, what about situations where the universe doesn't reasonably respond to character's actions?

By "unreasonable", I would qualify it as "would get the offending NPC soldier (or otherwise) executed by player Templar".

There has been at least one instance where I have outlined how a situation was unreasonable and a failure of the code to respond to in-universe actions rationally, and I've been told no-go on it because the code is working as intended.

There's got to be some vast discrepancy between what players and staffers view as "reasonable" for this to happen. Which is a bad thing to have in any environment.

[RogueGunslinger]

- Players need to be excessively careful in combat situations. Combat is inherently dangerous, and there are ways to prevent accidental assistance or crimcode deaths (lowering hoods, knowing authority as a civilian/a recruit/a lifesworn soldier). Know how the world will reasonably respond to your character before doing an action that might end badly for you.
- If the server crashes and you reload with a mekillot on top of you, that is grounds for a resurrection, along with staff-caused accidents. Link-loss is when you disconnect from the game, not when the server goes down.
- We've recently worked to improve how players are alerted to holes. Leaders should meet us halfway and read room descriptions, and generally be attentive. It's possible that the follow code could be improved, but I'm not a coder so I can only suggest it.

The fact of the matter is, people die of accidents in real life and PCs could certainly die of accidents IG.  I don't think that loosening the resurrection policy is the right answer to those issues. I think the right answer is improving the code and raising player awareness of deadly situations so that the deaths don't happen in the first place.

I'm glad to know server crashes spawning mekillots on you are grounds for resurrection.

I don't think placing the burdens of the code on PC leaders is the right answer to the issues. And if you can admit that code should be addressed in certain areas because it's causing unwanted deaths, then why should resurrection policy not cover those instances until it's fixed? Raising player awareness and improving code is not mutually exclusive with changing resurrection policy. If anything they're synergistic.