Player Resurrections

[Eyeball]

EDIT: *shrug* pointless to try.

[HavokBlue]

I think it's kind of funny that people want code changes for something that can be addressed entirely by player behavior. Like... yeah, it's dumb to follow the leader off the cliff but... It's probably a lot easier for the leader to pay attention or the follower to unhitch than it is to redo code.


also friendly reminder that if we start insulting people who disagree with us the thread will probably be locked and everyone will be sad

[KankWhisperer]

Code should be fixed rather than resurrections. I'll probably believe it was Staff favored who hot resurrected.

I don't if this example is still accurate:

Noble aide Amos guarding Noble Fancypants. Smelly 'rinther attacks noble and Amos jumps in due to guard code. Amos gets killed by Soldiers for stopping someone from attacking his noble. It's little things like that which infuriate me. Shouldn't the one who initiated the attack get crim flagged?  Having to OOCly think I need to let them attack then rescue or I'll be killed because ?

[Marauder Moe]

Answer my last question to you Moe. Your reason (really the only attempt at one I've seen) didn't make sense to me and your refusal to answer the question is telling me that it doesn't really make sense to you either. The idea that suddenly a bunch of butthurt people are going to come flooding in and giving staff a hard time and more work is knee-jerk and unsubstantiated. I contest the opposite would happen. Youd have LESS buthurt people complaining to staff, becuase in the instances where it makes sense to give them resurrections, they would get it.

See how I explained my reasoning there? Now you try.

No.

I think I'm better off exiting this thread.

[RogueGunslinger]

Which is what I expect everyone defending that rationale to do. Give up. Because it's indefensible.

[Ender]

Which is what I expect everyone defending that rationale to do. Give up. Because it's indefensible.

Chill out dude.

It's not the game I'm taking too seriously, it's the argument. In my continual efforts to be more sane, I think I'll stop posting there and leave the discussion to others. So thanks for good advice.

Take your own advice and step back from this thread.

[Asanadas]

It's just not good for the discussion to state an opinion, be asked to explain it, and refuse. Sure that's your right to have an opinion, but it doesn't create the best discussion environment.

[jcortrig]

[Nergal]

If staff and players recognize that certain aspects of code is killing players unfairly/OOCly, and that that code should be fixed. Then why should the players who suffer from those aspects of code not be worthy of a resurrection just like other bugs or flaws in the system currently warrant?

For what it's worth, I did not say that the code is killing players unfairly/OOCly. I said that I feel that there is already quite a lot of information provided to players to avoid accidental deaths (which I consider to be completely IC, even if they are annoying/saddening), but if the code can be improved to prevent unrealistic situations, then it should be - and in the past, it's been the case that code that allows unrealistic situations gets improved.

If on the other hand, the code is working as intended, then other things could be added to prevent deaths - better documentation, better descriptors etc.

[Narf]

If staff and players recognize that certain aspects of code is killing players unfairly/OOCly, and that that code should be fixed. Then why should the players who suffer from those aspects of code not be worthy of a resurrection just like other bugs or flaws in the system currently warrant?

For what it's worth, I did not say that the code is killing players unfairly/OOCly. I said that I feel that there is already quite a lot of information provided to players to avoid accidental deaths (which I consider to be completely IC, even if they are annoying/saddening), but if the code can be improved to prevent unrealistic situations, then it should be - and in the past, it's been the case that code that allows unrealistic situations gets improved.

If on the other hand, the code is working as intended, then other things could be added to prevent deaths - better documentation, better descriptors etc.

You could always create a FAQ entitled "How to avoid unrealistic deaths" and throw it in the help file.

This would actually help with two problems. It would decrease the number of unrealistic deaths, and it would be a list of things that /aren't/ exemptions for dying (and thus requesting resurrection). I know there's a few tricks that I really think people should know. Turning on "nosave combat" in Luirs for instance is something that everyone should know. Remembering to double check their mercy setting when they spar, and make sure their opponent did the same. For super paranoid players you could even mention the option of manually following leaders as opposed to letting the code handle it (though this requires you to have a good direction sense skill, so it's not a perfect fix).

[MeTekillot]

I've been playing for six years and I didn't realize Luir's crimcode was that broken. Good thing I've never been killed by it. Being refused a resurrection and being told that my death was code working as intended would be a slap in the face.

[Harmless]

The consensus in this thread is clearly that of all the kinds of silly deaths, fall deaths from inept leadership is the number one most hated.

The reason being that, though with sparring there are checks and balances such as, "In this clan we all say we're ready first before we spar," giving people ample time to LOOK at each other and check for sparring weapons, etc etc... with following people off cliffs, it's an instantaneous death that nobody had any real opportunity to react to.

I've follow self'd when leaders have gone to cliffs before, mind you, but only when they aren't going off into a cliff anyway. If that's the only defense we have against lemminghood, then it's just not adequate, because every deadly cliff-fall I've endured has come so out of nowhere that nobody could stop it. And that's exactly how it goes -- the whole group goes tumbling down.

I don't expect the monster of crim-code to be tackled even in the next 10 years, but I really hope the lemming code gets tackled in a few. It's been yelled about as a problem on the GDB for as long as I've been playing which is many years, and it has never felt fun or realistic. The idea of a saving throw against following people into climb checks seems pretty doable to me, codewise; there is already "nosave climb." There is already code in the Merchant's gate of Nak that forces people to go into a room one person at a time; etc etc.

[RogueGunslinger]

If staff and players recognize that certain aspects of code is killing players unfairly/OOCly, and that that code should be fixed. Then why should the players who suffer from those aspects of code not be worthy of a resurrection just like other bugs or flaws in the system currently warrant?

For what it's worth, I did not say that the code is killing players unfairly/OOCly. I said that I feel that there is already quite a lot of information provided to players to avoid accidental deaths (which I consider to be completely IC, even if they are annoying/saddening), but if the code can be improved to prevent unrealistic situations, then it should be - and in the past, it's been the case that code that allows unrealistic situations gets improved.

If on the other hand, the code is working as intended, then other things could be added to prevent deaths - better documentation, better descriptors etc.

Do you think players being killed by their NPC colleagues for not being in the proper clan is fair and IC? You think players who follow their leaders off of cliff is? What about if a templar mistargets an incrimination, or someone attacks you in Luirs in order to get the soldiers to stomp you down? Is that fair and IC? Why do you think these things are fair and IC? Is it because it's easy to make up an IC excuse to cover them? If that's the limiting factor then you could easily get rid of all rezzes because anything can be explained IC with enough imagination.


I suppose at this point I should state I've never asked for a resurrection, because I've never been in one of these situations over 100+ of character deaths. I've never even thought the fall-death parades were worthy of a rezz until this thread. But now it makes sense to me. It and a lot of other things. It's really just seeing newbies and other players die in stupid-ass ways that make me hate the current policy. It break immersion and feels tacky as hell to talk about in-game to the point where people completely avoid those topics IC.

[Beethoven]

I feel bad that people are calling the leadership in these cases "inept." People make mistakes. Sometimes those mistakes are large blunders that can really screw other people. That doesn't make them, in general, "inept." There's a lot of OOC pressure on IC leadership already and it kind of stings to see that people are willing to totally write off those leaders for a single mistake, even a big one. Even, in certain cases, a fatal one.

[Nergal]

If staff and players recognize that certain aspects of code is killing players unfairly/OOCly, and that that code should be fixed. Then why should the players who suffer from those aspects of code not be worthy of a resurrection just like other bugs or flaws in the system currently warrant?

For what it's worth, I did not say that the code is killing players unfairly/OOCly. I said that I feel that there is already quite a lot of information provided to players to avoid accidental deaths (which I consider to be completely IC, even if they are annoying/saddening), but if the code can be improved to prevent unrealistic situations, then it should be - and in the past, it's been the case that code that allows unrealistic situations gets improved.

If on the other hand, the code is working as intended, then other things could be added to prevent deaths - better documentation, better descriptors etc.

Do you think players being killed by their NPC colleagues for not being in the proper clan is fair and IC? You think players who follow their leaders off of cliff is? What about if a templar mistargets an incrimination, or someone attacks you in Luirs in order to get the soldiers to stomp you down? Is that fair and IC?

1) Not sure what you're referring to with this situation, because I can't think of a time where this has happened as-described. If an NPC of a clan attacks a PC within the clan, it's probably because that PC is outranked and did something they weren't supposed to do.
2) It certainly can be, if visibility is bad or depending on the position of the leader or followers. Whether the follow code can be improved or not is up for discussion.
3) That's on the templar or whoever else is triggering the crimcode. Deaths related to code abuse or typos are not that common and the player that caused it is held responsible. However, the death is still IC.

Why do you think these things are fair and IC? Is it because it's easy to make up an IC excuse to cover them? If that's the limiting factor then you could easily get rid of all rezzes because anything can be explained IC with enough imagination.

I think they are IC because you can conceive of them happening realistically. IRL, the world doesn't stop and start again and cause an aggressive rhinoceros to appear next to a school bus - however, sometimes the server stops and starts again and puts a group next to a mekillot. On the other hand, IRL, people accidentally lead one another into dangerous situations, there are friendly fire incidents and the like. IG equivalents to these accidents are sad, distressing, but still valid.

[Synthesis]

I feel bad that people are calling the leadership in these cases "inept." People make mistakes. Sometimes those mistakes are large blunders that can really screw other people. That doesn't make them, in general, "inept." There's a lot of OOC pressure on IC leadership already and it kind of stings to see that people are willing to totally write off those leaders for a single mistake, even a big one. Even, in certain cases, a fatal one.

[Asanadas]

Nergal, if you want to see (what I feel is) an example of #1, you can look at my request history regarding staff complaints.

[BadSkeelz]

I feel bad that people are calling the leadership in these cases "inept." People make mistakes. Sometimes those mistakes are large blunders that can really screw other people. That doesn't make them, in general, "inept." There's a lot of OOC pressure on IC leadership already and it kind of stings to see that people are willing to totally write off those leaders for a single mistake, even a big one. Even, in certain cases, a fatal one.

Inept's the only word for it. Everyone who's played a leader has been there. Even good leaders can have moments of ineptness. I lost a 3 year leader PC (who I don't consider to have been a particularly good leader) because I didn't know what a spider's nest looked like and decided to check it out. Character ineptness is often driven by player ineptness. All we can do is live and learn from the experience (and laugh at how stupid we all were).

The above applies mostly, if not wholly, to death from falls where the point man has led a patrol off a cliff. My thoughts on NPC crimcoding are different.

[Asanadas]

For the record, if we're talking WARNING SIGNS, "completely dark" over there 2 rooms away ain't the best warning sign.

Wink wink I'm being round-about. 

[Rokal]

I feel bad that people are calling the leadership in these cases "inept." People make mistakes. Sometimes those mistakes are large blunders that can really screw other people. That doesn't make them, in general, "inept." There's a lot of OOC pressure on IC leadership already and it kind of stings to see that people are willing to totally write off those leaders for a single mistake, even a big one. Even, in certain cases, a fatal one.

Inept's the only word for it. Everyone who's played a leader has been there. Even good leaders can have moments of ineptness. I lost a 3 year leader PC (who I don't consider to have been a particularly good leader) because I didn't know what a spider's nest looked like and decided to check it out. Character ineptness is often driven by player ineptness. All we can do is live and learn from the experience (and laugh at how stupid we all were).

The above applies mostly, if not wholly, to death from falls where the point man has led a patrol off a cliff. My thoughts on NPC crimcoding are different.

I agree with this.

I approach Armageddon with dwarf fortress logic.

[BadSkeelz]

For the record, if we're talking WARNING SIGNS, "completely dark" over there 2 rooms away ain't the best warning sign.

Wink wink I'm being round-about. 

lol, no it ain't. I'd love for staff to do something about that (I was even reading room descriptions trying to figure out what the fuck it was!), but the game is what it is. Hopefully enough players in-game survived to learn from my mistake

[RogueGunslinger]

If staff and players recognize that certain aspects of code is killing players unfairly/OOCly, and that that code should be fixed. Then why should the players who suffer from those aspects of code not be worthy of a resurrection just like other bugs or flaws in the system currently warrant?

For what it's worth, I did not say that the code is killing players unfairly/OOCly. I said that I feel that there is already quite a lot of information provided to players to avoid accidental deaths (which I consider to be completely IC, even if they are annoying/saddening), but if the code can be improved to prevent unrealistic situations, then it should be - and in the past, it's been the case that code that allows unrealistic situations gets improved.

If on the other hand, the code is working as intended, then other things could be added to prevent deaths - better documentation, better descriptors etc.

Do you think players being killed by their NPC colleagues for not being in the proper clan is fair and IC? You think players who follow their leaders off of cliff is? What about if a templar mistargets an incrimination, or someone attacks you in Luirs in order to get the soldiers to stomp you down? Is that fair and IC?

1) Not sure what you're referring to with this situation, because I can't think of a time where this has happened as-described. If an NPC of a clan attacks a PC within the clan, it's probably because that PC is outranked and did something they weren't supposed to do.
2) It certainly can be, if visibility is bad or depending on the position of the leader or followers. Whether the follow code can be improved or not is up for discussion.
3) That's on the templar or whoever else is triggering the crimcode. Deaths related to code abuse or typos are not that common and the player that caused it is held responsible. However, the death is still IC.

Why do you think these things are fair and IC? Is it because it's easy to make up an IC excuse to cover them? If that's the limiting factor then you could easily get rid of all rezzes because anything can be explained IC with enough imagination.

I think they are IC because you can conceive of them happening realistically. IRL, the world doesn't stop and start again and cause an aggressive rhinoceros to appear next to a school bus - however, sometimes the server stops and starts again and puts a group next to a mekillot. On the other hand, IRL, people accidentally lead one another into dangerous situations, there are friendly fire incidents and the like. IG equivalents to these accidents are sad, distressing, but still valid.

I understand, thank you for responding and explaining yourself. Just for the sake of clarity the first example I took from when there were a couple inter-clan training accidents. Though I suppose I may be misremembering.

[Sorry]

Code change to the follow code.  It's possible to stop people from following through the merchant's gate, that means there's some sort of mechanism available to make a room "No-Follow".  Fall rooms might want to follow that logic.  Some code change, but possibly not completely new code.

I always type "look <direction>" around holes. Never "l <direction>"

That sounds a good idea, it does seem a bit silly.

[BadSkeelz]

On a completely unrelated note, it's that "Near" room descriptor you want to be paying attention to.

[wizturbo]

I've decided to save my breath and not try and actually enter into this discussion.  It's a dead horse.  I will offer a description change suggestion to more accurately convey the danger of holes in the desert though.  See below.