Player Resurrections

[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.

it's that "Near" room descriptor you want to be paying attention to.

I haven't seen this thing, from how they described it does seem obvious to me too actually, but I guess there's something about the format of it that can confuse people? In that case they had actually stopped, but then carried on going because they misunderstood what the text was trying to describe as what they are seeing it seems like!

[RogueGunslinger]

Does it matter? The problem isn't that there are dangerous holes. It's that people follow leaders into holes. I have zero sympathy for someone who doesn't see warning signs and falls into a hole. The people tagging along though? That doesn't make any sense that they would fall in too. Are they all tied together and following in straight lines while spooning? Even then the weight of the people behind would suspend the idiot who fell.

[wizturbo]

Nevermind...  I'm staying away from this thread.  Nothing good will come of me lurking here.

[Nergal]

Edited out a log of a conversation that happened IG. Please refrain from discussing recent events or IG conversations in detail. I realize that is tricky given the nature of the thread, but should be possible if we stick to the topic at hand.

[BadSkeelz]

People fall for all sorts of reasons. Sometimes people misinterpret the name of the "near" room. Sometimes people mean to "look west" but forget to type "look" or "l" and just type "West". Ride check fails, loss of direction, just having an off day...

If I think a room MIGHT be a fall room, I don't move in to it. If I feel like I have to, I've wished up to staff asking "If I move in to this room that may or may not be a volcanic caldera, will I die?" And I accept the fact that I might just fuck up some day and get myself killed.

That said, I agree with RGS that it's the followers who really get shafted. Support No-Follow-in-Climb/Fall-Rooms 100%.

Just manually move everywhere.  Sure, your clan members will probably hate the delay that creates, but oh well.  It's realistic play.  Since there are no resurrections, it's better to play realistically than conveniently.

Is there a non-manual way of moving?

[MeTekillot]

Did Sorry's post get edited because it had recent in-game information in it?

[wizturbo]

Is there a non-manual way of moving?

I meant refuse to use the follow code.  Manually follow people.  But I deleted my comment because its was ripe with sarcasm.

[hyzhenhok]

Just make it default behavior for followers to automatically unhitch when the person they're following makes a climb check/enters a climb room. After all, you see them make the climb check before they enter that room. Then add nosave follow: "Your character will follow someone into a room with a climb check automatically."

[In Dreams]

Just make it default behavior for followers to automatically unhitch when the person they're following enters a climb room. Then add nosave follow: "Your character will follow someone into a room with a climb check automatically."

That's a great idea.

[MeTekillot]

http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,49544.0.html

I made a new thread for talking about how to fix the lemmings issue. Maybe we can turn this subject back to talking about the resurrection policy, since following into holes isn't the only half-buggy way to die that is technically not a bug.

[wizturbo]

Just make it default behavior for followers to automatically unhitch when the person they're following makes a climb check/enters a climb room. After all, you see them make the climb check before they enter that room. Then add nosave follow: "Your character will follow someone into a room with a climb check automatically."

Excellent idea.  Doubt it'll be implemented because it sounds tricky to code.

Would also be AMAZING if there was a nosave crime that would outright prevent your character from taking an action that would trig crim-code unless you turned the nosave option off, or repeated your command to confirm it.

Those two fixes would probably prevent 80% of the resurrection requests from ever needing to be made.

[Delirium]

I'll never forget the time I accidentally typed "kick clanmember" instead of "dump clanmember" because the echo for the dump command said something like "You kick soandso out of the clan" and wires got crossed in my brain. They got away, but didn't believe me that it was a mistake. Sorry, whoever you were.

[RogueGunslinger]

I continue to be blown away by these poll results.  

[Synthesis]

Just make it default behavior for followers to automatically unhitch when the person they're following makes a climb check/enters a climb room. After all, you see them make the climb check before they enter that room. Then add nosave follow: "Your character will follow someone into a room with a climb check automatically."

Excellent idea.  Doubt it'll be implemented because it sounds tricky to code.

Would also be AMAZING if there was a nosave crime that would outright prevent your character from taking an action that would trig crim-code unless you turned the nosave option off, or repeated your command to confirm it.

Those two fixes would probably prevent 80% of the resurrection requests from ever needing to be made.

The nosave crime thing would make it too easy for people to figure out the limits of the crime code.  E.g. what times of day are safe, what locations are safe, what other circumstances are safe, etc.

[wizturbo]

The nosave crime thing would make it too easy for people to figure out the limits of the crime code.  E.g. what times of day are safe, what locations are safe, what other circumstances are safe, etc.

So?  Why is this a bad thing?  I can assess whether or not something I'm about to do in real life is a criminal act, why can't I do that in Zalanthas?  Only explanation would be if my character literally had no idea what they were going to do was criminal (i.e. different culture, etc)...

This is one of the situations where the good players are punished with stupid deaths, and the bad players who are looking for ways to test the code can make throwaway characters to test all this anyway.

[valeria]

I don't think people should get resurrections just because they don't like how the code handles x or y,I just don't feel strongly enough about it to get into an argument over it.

[RogueGunslinger]

I don't think people should get resurrections just because they don't like how the code handles x or y,I just don't feel strongly enough about it to get into an argument over it.

Doesn't that apply to quite a few of the currently acceptable cases for resurrections?

[Barzalene]

When I first started my bynner was always randomly attacking people.

I'd type 'Hi so and so. '

[Synthesis]

I don't think people should get resurrections just because they don't like how the code handles x or y,I just don't feel strongly enough about it to get into an argument over it.

I don't think people should get resurrections at all, because even idiotic deaths build character, and the playerbase these days is suffering from a serious lack of bootstraps.

[QuillDipper]

I once saw a newer player's character die of thirst in a room full of fellow NPC clan members that one might assume would give him water, because he didn't understand the concept of losing link and the from in question was a faintly confusing one to quit OOC in. Several experienced players suggested that he just lose link rather than quit.

I've always been pretty strict on permadeath as far as my opinions go, but I think that when even a portion of the player base disagrees with policy it needs a review and revision. Sometimes the game forces an OOC situation on your character, that leaves you unsatisfied because the code forced you to act/die a certain way. It's not so much the idea of dying stupidly that's upsetting, it's the idea that your character's death could only happen if your character was not acting like you played them. It makes pretty much every interaction beforehand feel meaningless.

[Bogre]

I would be pro-resurrection reform, especially where code ends up in actions that would otherwise have not ICly occurred. (House guards beating their own nobles accidently, or crimcode wonkiness, mekillots spawning on top of your RPT group after a game crash,etc)

It's a game, and people invest a lot of time into their characters. I think it's worth investing time to figure out better ways to deal with it than just chalking it up and moving on. If you find yourself trying to justify ICly why Sergeant Githskull just got exploded by thirteen soldier NPCs...it might just make more sense to retcon and move along as though nothing ever happened.

[Reiloth]

My idiotic PKs and Deaths have only built character. I once accidentally backstabbed my best friend and was told by Staff 'Friendly Fire Happens'. It was definitely in the heat of the moment, I didn't mean to do it, but I didn't shit the bed over it. Sure, the game sucks sometimes and you lose a PC to something stupid (i've lost more than a few to Lemming Fall Death). It's also lead me to 'un follow' leaders or people I am following if I know I am nearing a dangerous area we are idling beside. It's easy enough to have a long-lived PC now-a-days. I'd rather not make it any easier. It kind of warms my heart when I hear about 'Long Lived PC X Died Today'. Sorry, it may be cruel, but it just makes me think 'Maybe they're happy they get to play a new PC now.'

Voted 'No' for reassessing the policy. I'm fine with it as it is, i've been on the short end of the stick more than a fair share of times, with PCs you wouldn't believe died to 'some bug' or 'link death'. I'd recommend taking a step back from the game, come back when you're ready, put the spike into your vein, and crackageddon.

[RogueGunslinger]

This is a game, it's not a character-building project. We play to have fun. If something happens that doesn't make sense, and isn't fun, why would you condone it? Why admit something is cruel to players and then say you're fine with it? Yes, it's easier for you to now have long-lived PC's because you've built up this knowledge over years... Everyone who isn't a vet though, they have to die in those shitty, maddening ways. And you think it's fine because you've already dealt with it and learned from it?

Forcing players to learn obscure, deadly artifacts of code by killing their PC's in OOC ways just so that they can avoid those situations later, sounds like the very worst of ideas in game design. No matter how much your recommend someone step away and come back later, some are just going to step away and never come back.

[Synthesis]

This is a game, it's not a character-building project. We play to have fun. If something happens that doesn't make sense, and isn't fun, why would you condone it? Why admit something is cruel to players and then say you're fine with it? Yes, it's easier for you to now have long-lived PC's because you've built up this knowledge over years... Everyone who isn't a vet though, they have to die in those shitty, maddening ways. And you think it's fine because you've already dealt with it and learned from it?

Forcing players to learn obscure, deadly artifacts of code by killing their PC's in OOC ways just so that they can avoid those situations later, sounds like the very worst of ideas in game design.

BOOTSTRAPS

[Reiloth]

The closer we'd theoretically move towards a more lax resurrection policy, the further away we'd get from the RPI Perma-Death MUD I grew to love.

Forcing players to learn obscure, deadly artifacts of code -- Welcome to Zalanthas.