Magickal auto-defense system in Cities

[Inks]

I actually don't know what they look like in Allanak currently. But in Tuluk they were a plate of bullshit and chips. It seemed like it was specifically designed to replace the previous bullshit and chips system *COUGH* Lirathans *COUGH*.

No, I don't understand the need for these protections. Getting auto-crimmed for casting where someone can see you is good enough. Any further uncovering of magickers should involve detective work from the players.

Yes. And also reduce response soldiers from giants to humans pls.

[Majikal]

In Tuluk I got railed by this when I was deep underground and barriered. It seemed like overkill when it blasted out my info to Tuluk and got me crimflagged. It's just an unbeatable wall of 'gotcha'. The idea of magickal defense for a city makes perfect ic sense, however I dislike the lack of holes in it.

I also found it's treatment of spells to feel oddly inconsistent. Mixed feelings I suppose, love/hate.

[Suhuy]

One of my biggest, long standing issues with the game has always been the willy nilly changing of how the code functions without any IC explanation to it. Suddenly nil doesn't work and we're supposed to pretend that this is how the world has always been, when in fact it's been the opposite for IC centuries?

I'd rather something as big a change as the sudden removal of nil reach be explained with an IC storyline to go along with it. It's great to implement changes that better reflect the way the game world should function, but not if you sacrifice realism or completely disregard of IC history.

[flurry]

I found it awkward when the change happened, in part because I wasn't sure (okay, I'm still not sure) what magickers, especially gemmed ones, were meant to understand about the protections in the first place. I don't think it was intended as a retcon, but I also don't think there was anything like an IC announcement. Maybe I'm misremembering, though.

As a player, it's hard to know if something is working properly if I don't understand the rationale behind it. After playing under the changes for a while, I had some sense of how this worked, and maybe some sense of why. I also ran into one spell that seemed to be buggy, but evidently is not. In that specific case, I think that spell was substantially handicapped by the change, but other than that, I didn't see anything unexpected.

[Jingo]

One of my biggest, long standing issues with the game has always been the willy nilly changing of how the code functions without any IC explanation to it. Suddenly nil doesn't work and we're supposed to pretend that this is how the world has always been, when in fact it's been the opposite for IC centuries?

I'd rather something as big a change as the sudden removal of nil reach be explained with an IC storyline to go along with it. It's great to implement changes that better reflect the way the game world should function, but not if you sacrifice realism or completely disregard of IC history.

I don't need an ig justification every time staff change the mechanics of the game. That's just a way to give staff more work and get less done in the meantime.

I just want those mechanic changes to be sensible enough to allow and interesting role play and player-to-player interaction. I also want these changes to be well documented and well understood UNLIKE the way these magical protections were implemented.

Who the hell thought that trial and error would be a good mechanic here? Seriously.

[Jingo]

And finally why do we want hidden magickers to be basically unplayable? Why are we moving this way? It's the rogue mages that spamcast in caves that will become the terrors of the land. Not the ones living normal lives in the city. Do we actually want mages to go spamcast in caves? Is that a thing that we're trying to encourage?

I feel like nobody has given the requisite thought needed.

[Incognito]

Without going into too much IC detail, for those who've experimented, or had the misfortune of being detected; as things stand - the auto-magickal defenses combined with the restrictions on certain movement/manipulation spells - makes it impossible for mages to do "bad things(tm)" inside cities.

Just feels like a very sanitized version of Arm 

Some Staff views will be welcome at this stage, just to review if/how the change has affected/helped the game.

[Delirium]

OT: I hate it, and I think it was a mistake. Omnipotence might make sense IC  but it is a horrible gameplay decision.

By trying to force renegades and rogues into extreme isolation and refusing to give them a support structure you're dooming the game to stagnancy and an almost complete lack of PC-based antagonism. Not to mention the cities now feel ridiculously, stupidly safe from outside influences. They shouldn't be.

Just put a VERY simple check/balance on the two "gotcha" spells that cause them to be far too powerful since the addition of keyword targeting:
the spells in question only work if you have "nosave magic" on.

You can easily come up with IC justification for it working like that, too.

Then they turn into powerful utility skills but they are no longer a freepass assassination for anyone with patience and enough karma.

That way renegades actually have to be hunted down, and the auto-defense systems for the cities become largely irrelevant.

[dravage]

Being relatively new around here, how likely is it on topics like this that the staff tend to revert on sweeping changes of this kind? As someone looking in, that hasn't experienced this, or played a magicker, it seems like a pretty serious problem with some widespread gameplay issues. What are the chances we could see these things changed for the better?

[Pale Horse]

Being relatively new around here, how likely is it on topics like this that the staff tend to revert on sweeping changes of this kind? As someone looking in, that hasn't experienced this, or played a magicker, it seems like a pretty serious problem with some widespread gameplay issues. What are the chances we could see these things changed for the better?

Based on what Staff have mentioned in the past, topics and decisions of particular interest to the player-base often have a corrollary thread created on the Imm. discussion forum for the administration to hash out their views, opinions and discussions.

Whether or not this leads to change is an "up in the air" sort of thing.

[RogueGunslinger]

I'd say the chances of it suddenly going away are slim.  I'm sure it was something they discussed plenty before implementing it. The idea of them going back on something they already discussed and agreed on seems unlikely.

[Jingo]

I'd say the chances of it suddenly going away are slim.  I'm sure it was something they discussed plenty before implementing it. The idea of them going back on something they already discussed and agreed on seems unlikely.

I actually feel like this is what didn't happen. Like someone thought this was a cool idea and then threw it into the game without consideration for the impact it has.

[Jingo]

http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,47647.0.html

This is the thread following the announcement.

Looking at it, I'm less and less impressed with how much knowledge was kept from the players here. I would even go so far as to say this is one the nails in the coffin of Tuluk.

[Patuk]

Being relatively new around here, how likely is it on topics like this that the staff tend to revert on sweeping changes of this kind? As someone looking in, that hasn't experienced this, or played a magicker, it seems like a pretty serious problem with some widespread gameplay issues. What are the chances we could see these things changed for the better?

The chances are there, they just unfortunately take a while.

[Incognito]

The chances are there, they just unfortunately take a while.

This "feature" went in, in June 2014.

Staff and players alike have had more than enough time to experiment and review the effectiveness and usefulness and detriments.

Could Staff consider a Staff-Player conference (with a group of players who they think have the experience about this "feature" as well as changes to certain spells) to discuss changes/tweaks?

[Patuk]

Two years may seem like a long time, but it took way longer than that for brew to get something of a fix, for example. Extended subguilds have been around for five years, whilst CGP might be almost maybe perhaps coming around by now, and adding a room or two to Allanak with some elves insides to add an elf tribe takes so long I keep pretending celves don't exist around here.

So sure, it may get changed, maybe. Eventually.

[Pale Horse]

Two years may seem like a long time, but it took way longer than that for brew to get something of a fix, for example. Extended subguilds have been around for five years, whilst CGP might be almost maybe perhaps coming around by now, and adding a room or two to Allanak with some elves insides to add an elf tribe takes so long I keep pretending celves don't exist around here.

So sure, it may get changed, maybe. Eventually.

...has it really been that long? 

I still keep thinking of them as these "new-fangled-things."

[Incognito]

Two years may seem like a long time, but it took way longer than that for brew to get something of a fix, for example. Extended subguilds have been around for five years, whilst CGP might be almost maybe perhaps coming around by now, and adding a room or two to Allanak with some elves insides to add an elf tribe takes so long I keep pretending celves don't exist around here.

So sure, it may get changed, maybe. Eventually.

If you're ever in a quandary about time taken for any sort of decision on Arm, follow these guidelines

Think of players as humans or dwarves from LoTR**

Think of Storytellers as elves from LoTR.

Then think of Administrators and Producers as Ents.

Then you'll be able to figure out relative time-frames of:
a) How fast a player will reach a conclusion.
b) How long it *might* take Storytellers to reach a decision about IC events.
c) How long it *might* take Administrators and Producers to reach a decision about Worldwide/Gamewide decisions.

**Unless you're Gandalf - then all bets are off!

[RogueGunslinger]

Ung, that post so quotable, by too long for a sig. So I'm just going to quote it.

If you're ever in a quandary about time taken for any sort of decision on Arm, follow these guidelines

Think of players as humans or dwarves from LoTR**

Think of Storytellers as an elves from LoTR.

Then think of Administrators and Producers as Ents.

Then you'll be able to figure out relative time-frames of:
a) How fast a player will reach a conclusion.
b) How long it *might* take Storytellers to reach a decision about IC events.
c) How long it *might* take Administrators and Producers to reach a decision about Worldwide/Gamewide decisions.

**Unless you're Gandalf - then all bets are off!

[wizturbo]

This is the best analogy ever.

[Little Buddy]

You must understand, young playerbase. It takes a very long time to say anything in Old Staffish. And we never say anything unless it is worth taking a long time to say.

[Kryos]

I have disliked criminal code and magical instant death code from the beginning.  Thankfully criminal code got some changes that I feel were for the better over time, but could perhaps use one final push.  Magical instant code is a bit trickier but I'd be for a repeal and reevaluation over letting it lay as is.

However, there's a problem one's staring at.  For those who do not pursue combat effective characters, some degree of protection and assurance is required, lest all the game devolve into the 'rinth.  As it is though, Allanak is the Fortress of Solitude, an no ill will is permitted to be leveled against those who inhabit it unless invited and specially sanctioned.  That's probably too far in the protection direction.

[Suhuy]

I don't need an ig justification every time staff change the mechanics of the game. That's just a way to give staff more work and get less done in the meantime.

Certainly not every time, agreed. But in instances like this, there are some players whose characters are literate and may take the time to document how magick functions. Removing nil or implementing other pretty big changes like this (without an IC explanation) would invalidate their efforts. It may sound like it gives staff more work to you, but I think the telling of stories is the sort of work we should be embracing and frankly, if I were on staff, I would enjoy the effort involved in creating a backdrop to explain a change in the magick code probably more than creating the change in the code itself.

[Jingo]

Consider that we're playing a game in which any work can be invalidated by the whims of another player. I don't think it's a problem.

[Suhuy]

Well if instant gratification is more appealing to you than telling a story, that's your preference. Personally, I've enjoyed the occasions in game history where a change was supported by the backdrop of an IC event or story.

But that's just me.