Is it wrong that I want to kill all of you?

[Clearsighted]

One of the things I do regret about Tuluk closing is that my Templar will not be able to coordinate with his partner on the other side of Luir's, arranging skirmishes between their units for their own mutual glorification.

I wish that I'd been playing while you were playing a templar a templar, Skeelz. We wouild have had some fun!

It's oft been stated in the past that the game population really can't handle sustained, open conflict.  It generally takes a significant investment of time and effort to be competent, so open hostility places someone at great risk of losing it all.  Seeing an increase in violence wouldn't be a bad thing, but perhaps the risk could be mitigated by players not making most PvP situations end in death.

Mass combat situations are something I hope to avoid at all costs, from any angle. As the number of combatants increases, the fight ceases to be a life or death struggle and instead turns into something akin to dropping grapes into a food processor.

Maybe I'm just getting old, but anything over two groups of four to five people fighting becomes too spamtastic (to use the technical term) to follow and react to, even more so when something unexpected happens in the middle of it.  So I like the idea of smaller engagements that focus more on the actions of just a handful of people.

I think most people agree that the game doesn't necessarily need another Copper War or Tyn Dashra-level event, except maybe, once every few years. But I think the game can handle and even thrive on skirmish/patrol/raiding level friction and hostility.

Even though I'm not advocating mass combat, it's still relevant to note that Arm's logins have spiked at times of upheaval and war. I think more people quit playing the game, or drift away, from boredom - by an exponential order of magnitude - than drift away from having been killed in pvp.

In fact, if I were to come up with the top 5 reasons that people stop playing Armageddon, (including RL interventions, and OOC drama), I think PK wouldn't even make the list - unless it was PK tainted by OOC drama. Most people are fine with PK that arises from logical in-game situations. In fact, they're far more likely to be okay dying on patrol or while raiding, than from being backstabbed in their apartment by some bored noble's retainer.

[Mordiggian]

During the most recent conflict between Allanak and Tuluk, the one time opposing warbands came across each other, they stared intensely at each other from a few rooms apart and then rode back the way they came. No staff involvement whatsoever.

[Clearsighted]

During the most recent conflict between Allanak and Tuluk, the one time opposing warbands came across each other, they stared intensely at each other from a few rooms apart and then rode back the way they came. No staff involvement whatsoever.

Ironically enough, I bet that staring contest was more exciting and heart-pounding to those involved, in terms of adrenaline, than watching any number of volcanos fall from the sky.

[Is Friday]

I was semi-present for the last Allanak/Tuluk groups that "came across" each other. I was hoping some hack 'n slash had happened, but that's not always the most interesting course of action. With that being said, plenty of players tried to get things going that were interesting. It's unfortunate that the code is so clumsy with stuff like this.

edit:

I wonder if a "created area" for RPT conflicts between armed forces would be good for event's sake? Kind of like instances in MMOs. I think it might provide staff with more options as to how to involve all the PCs.

[Eurynomos]

I was semi-present for the last Allanak/Tuluk groups that "came across" each other. I was hoping some hack 'n slash had happened, but that's not always the most interesting course of action. With that being said, plenty of players tried to get things going that were interesting. It's unfortunate that the code is so clumsy with stuff like this.

edit:

I wonder if a "created area" for RPT conflicts between armed forces would be good for event's sake? Kind of like instances in MMOs. I think it might provide staff with more options as to how to involve all the PCs.

We've certainly discussed things like this recently. We are really limited by our code, but we are trying to come up with more elegant solutions than '20 vs 20 PVP OK GO'.

[Majikal]

I was semi-present for the last Allanak/Tuluk groups that "came across" each other. I was hoping some hack 'n slash had happened, but that's not always the most interesting course of action. With that being said, plenty of players tried to get things going that were interesting. It's unfortunate that the code is so clumsy with stuff like this.

edit:

I wonder if a "created area" for RPT conflicts between armed forces would be good for event's sake? Kind of like instances in MMOs. I think it might provide staff with more options as to how to involve all the PCs.

I always thought it would be neat to have a way of setting a zone/room to have slower combat. Would be pretty handy in big mass combat events.

[CodeMaster]

Just spitballing, but a solution like this might feel better:


Dusty Plains [NESW]
A bloody skirmish ensues nearby.

> enter skirmish
You enter the skirmish [in a random location ...
  ... but probably closer to a couple of your allies]
A Bloody Skirmish [NESW]
You stand in the midst of a bloody skirmish, generically described.
The tall, muscular man is standing here.
The scarred, muscular man is standing here.

> follow muscular
You now follow the tall, muscular man.

The tall, muscular man walks north.
The scarred, muscular man walks north.
You can't get to the front lines in that direction.
 [only a limited number of PCs per clan are allowed in each room]

> look north
[Very Far]
Nothing.
[Far]
Nothing.
[Near]
The tall, muscular man is here, fighting the stout dwarf.
The scarred, muscular man is here, fighting the stout dwarf.
The stout dwarf is here, fighting the tall, muscular man.

The scarred dwarf has arrived from the east.
The peg-legged dwarf has arrived from the east.

The scarred dwarf charges into you, knocking you over.

The tall, muscular man has arrived from the north.
The tall, muscular man crumples to the ground.


[edit: looks like I don't know how the game looks]

[James de Monet]

Actualy, that sounds like a pretty sweet idea.  An area where North and South troops constantly spawn and kill each other.  If one side shows up with a band of PCs, they could rolfstomp for a while, but they'd eventuallg have to get out, as the spawning wouldn't ever stop.  I think you'd probably only want the entrance available during times of active war, though.

And you'd probably have to intersperse it with an echo like:

Code Select Expand

Slaves rush onto the battlefield to drag away the dead.

Then clear house, otherwise the room clutter would be cataclysmic.  But!  Anyone who was fast enough and sneaky enough to get by both sides (since both would be hostile if you weren't codedly in their clan) could slip onto the battlefield, scavenge the dead, and beat a hasty retreat with goods for the black market!  (All the cloaks would probably have to be a new one that was "ravaged" or "tattered" or something, to prevent the instance being used as a too easy source of opposing city camouflage...

Might be kinda fun if it was dangerous enough and was only available during wartime (so it wouldn't become boring and commonplace.)

[Dresan]

I think one of the major problems this game has with group combat is that 20+ PC/NPC can attack 1 person at once.The game should limit that to 4-5 (N)PCs max can attack one person, which is a bit more realistic to how many people can surround one person to swing weapons at them. If this were to happen, group fight wouldn't seem like a complete clusterfuck, unless one side completely outnumbered the other. People would have to spread out a bit more when dealing with group vs. group.

The beauty of this is that you could begin adding strategy to encounters. Large groups would effectively need to break down into smaller groups, where one individual (possibly with a shield) attacks first, and all others assist them. In such situations you could also have archers (within the same room) to add to the damage beyond the four/five people limit.   The most organized groups would most likely win. 

Military organizations (militia mostly) who have taken the time to practice these type of drills would probably be best at these encounters. I keep thinking as an added bonus if you join the militia and become life-sworn corporal+ your shield_use skill should probably be raised to master regardless of class to represent the expectation you might be leading groups of soldiers/mercenaries into battle and taking some hits.

[LoD]

The goal should be to provide conflict, but not inherently death.

Death is a very common byproduct of conflict, but any OOC motivations to cause conflict simply by killing people should be curbed and rethought.  Thus, I wouldn't ever want to see someone create a character whose purpose is to kill other characters in order to cause conflict, but to cause conflict through prejudice, racism, class warfare, territorial conquest, expansion, religious or political means and let death happen naturally in its wake.  This is what most people crave, an atmosphere of danger and betrayal.  Imperfections, cracks and rifts that exist through the flawed nature of characters, through effective storytelling and through introducing polarizing events that tend to place portions of the player base at odds.

The more coded power/influence a given organization/person has (e.g. a player-formed clan based out of an apartment vs. a Merchant House compound in a city vs. a templar protected by guards in a city), the easier a time they have manipulating the people around them and the harder someone has of taking that target down. Knocking off the head of some entirely PC-driven group (e.g. Radcheck's Roughneck Raiders) is probably a fairly simple task, whereas assassinating a red-robed templar on the city streets is more difficult.

The smaller and more isolated you are as a source of conflict (e.g. a bully in the rinth, a single raider in the wilderness, a loud mouth at the bar), the easier it is for the world to deal with you and, therefore, the more you benefit from being handled by an experienced player.  New players are often fun because they haven't grown attached to the notion of a long-lived character yet, and so they make foolish choices and allow themselves to flavor the world with mistakes, rashness, impatience, stupidity and willfulness devoid of fear from permadeath.  More experienced players are expecting more from the playing experience, and so they tend to fall into more cautious, calculated, patient and reserved styles of game play that can, after a time, start to make the world feel more stable, safe and easy.

If the world tends to be united by a band of highly-positioned do-gooders, then perhaps it would make sense for someone to spur conflict by creating a flawed character that worms itself into that organization, curries favor with its members, patiently gathers support and resources before quietly usurping control and then positioning that organization to oppose some of its current "allies" for an entirely IC, but conflict-driven, purpose behind that character's motivations.  It requires a lot more patience, planning, and work to achieve, but it's going to be much more effective and interesting a story line than simply attacking people in the wilds to "make it more dangerous".

There are lots of ways to begin introducing conflict into the game; you just need to seek out those cracks (or create them) and then exploit them to start the machine in motion.  It was one of the ways that I used to try and achieve my own goals with my characters.  Find an organization that has coded power and then work at convincing, persuading or intimidating the current management to go along with my vision.  If that leader couldn't be brought in line with my vision, then you find a way to quietly or neatly remove that opposition and groom a replacement who is more accommodating.

Be creative in your conflict.  Murder doesn't have to be the first goal.  Let it be a byproduct of smarter, and more goal-oriented, plans you set in motion.

-LoD

[SuchDragonWow]

Be creative in your conflict.  Murder doesn't have to be the first goal.  Let it be a byproduct of smarter, and more goal-oriented, plans you set in motion.

This exact thing has been on my mind recently.  I've been tired, and gotten lazy, and have felt disappointed in my own play.

[Barzalene]

I  clearly don't speak for everyone, but I think  I speak for a few people.  We don't want to kill more people. We're killing our share.

We want the opportunity to feel afraid. We want you to kill us. By all means, kill us creatively, but please come blade in hand (or poisoned keg in hand or whatever creative weapon you can devise) and do us harm.

[BadSkeelz]

I haven't killed anyone in months.

[AdamBlue]

Admins, you should randomly make a person a full-power sorcerer out of fucking nowhere. Any time. Any place.

[FantasyWriter]

I haven't killed anyone in months.

I think its been four or five years for me.... I need to get right on that.

[Kevo]

Jumping in a little late, as usual, but, to my knowledge, I've never Pk'ed anyone.

That's disappointing to me.

[Alesan]

It's been two whole weeks since I kill't me a man. And already I'm startin' to get the itch. Problem is, I ain't got nuttin' to scratch... god, I'm hungry... hungry for action... hungry for blood... hell... I'm just plain old hungry...

[Majikal]

While very few of my pc's are killers, I've had a few that definitely fell into the 'villian' category, some probably pretty memorable to some people. I'd like to say though, nearly all of my pc's, even the 'good ones' are oppurtunists. That very vulnerable person they bump into might just be an answer to one of their problems.

[Erythil]

I was semi-present for the last Allanak/Tuluk groups that "came across" each other. I was hoping some hack 'n slash had happened, but that's not always the most interesting course of action. With that being said, plenty of players tried to get things going that were interesting. It's unfortunate that the code is so clumsy with stuff like this.

edit:

I wonder if a "created area" for RPT conflicts between armed forces would be good for event's sake? Kind of like instances in MMOs. I think it might provide staff with more options as to how to involve all the PCs.

We've certainly discussed things like this recently. We are really limited by our code, but we are trying to come up with more elegant solutions than '20 vs 20 PVP OK GO'.

I thought the way SoI handled this was really neat, but it doesn't seem possible in Armageddon's codebase.  Basically, there was a neutral ground in between the two factions, full of small forts and strategic points of interest that you could capture, mainly by engaging NPCs.  Fortify it long enough, and friendly NPCs would populate the base.

Haven (I know, I know) had a similar system where there were points of interest to fight for, and whoever was currently controlling them obtained passive bonuses from them in terms of resource gain.

I think the main thing soldier clans lack is actual military field operations to engage in.  I'd love to see small outposts plugged into the game that could be assaulted by one side or the other -- carry the day, grab the enemy's flag, go back to base, etc., without admin intervention.  I always thought it a little odd that both sides maintain these large standing armies but basically only have one forward operating base each.

[BadSkeelz]

Well, if you reason it such that the armies don't exist to fight each other, but to clamp down on the populace of their own city-states, the lack of forward operating and conflict in general makes a lot of sense. Neither Templarate really stands to benefit from destroying the other.

[Erythil]

Well, if you reason it such that the armies don't exist to fight each other, but to clamp down on the populace of their own city-states, the lack of forward operating and conflict in general makes a lot of sense. Neither Templarate really stands to benefit from destroying the other.

True, but small-scale border scuffles also serves the purposes of the templarates in keeping the populace afraid of an external threat, and more willing to accept the tyranny of their 'protectors,' while keeping actual casualties to their overall forces relatively low.

Also it'd be a lot more fun for players to be able to actively go out on adventures more often, and military adventure is one flavor thereof that people are always keen on, I think.  With only one city currently open, I think it's less threatening to playability and less likely to fully wipe clans.  Gith and mantis and tribal and other neutral outposts could be part of a system like the one mentioned above, too.

[BadSkeelz]

I'd love to have forts that periodically get attacked by NPCs. Gith, mantis, and (formerly) kryl all provide ready-made opponents that are a lot more logical choices to fight than the other city.

I would have been completely fine with the entire War consisting solely of PC vs NPC actions, since PVP is just a massive clusterfuck. The recapture of Ten Sarak was a fantastic example of the war done right, when one side had only a single PC representative (RIP you poor bastard).

[Jingo]

I'm going to have a hard time giving other players the benefit of a doubt from now on. I was involved with a character that was apped and basically sentenced to die on day one by powerful characters, despite having next to zero connection to whatever the offending incident was.

It was shit, and it makes me think that the playerbase is derpy garbage. That they would rather squash a dozen interesting plot lines. That they would refuse to give the benefit of the doubt to a pc when it was extended to them already. That they would rather durr durr durr kill than try to interact with a pc.

It was so badly done that it makes me reconsider whether this hobby is worth my time.

[Jihelu]

I'm going to have a hard time giving other players the benefit of a doubt from now on. I was involved with a character that was apped and basically sentenced to die on day one by powerful characters, despite having next to zero connection to whatever the offending incident was.

It was shit, and it makes me think that the playerbase is derpy garbage. That they would rather squash a dozen interesting plot lines. That they would refuse to give the benefit of the doubt to a pc when it was extended to them already. That they would rather durr durr durr kill than try to interact with a pc.

It was so badly done that it makes me reconsider whether this hobby is worth my time.

You've gotta become the change man.
Kill the people who do this.
Become the great sorcerer or justice or something.
Or spec app an assassin IDK.
I haven't witnessed anyone get lawl killed yet, for bad reasons atleast, so I don't know.

I always go form the feeling of "I want to make a Krathi and max fire ball and establish my dominance over the wastes"
Then I go to "I want to max assassin stealth and backstab and give everyone a bad day while lawl running from room to room"
Then I realize I don't like any of that really.
(The true path is magic tho)

[Jingo]

Yeah, believe it or not. The temptation to just build a revenge pc is strong.