Locked Apartments

[Dunetrade55]

While the apartment kill technique, or locked door or what have you can seem like an unfair advantage, and yeah, wish up before doing it so staff can decide any reaction the virtual world may have (generally a good idea, but not always practical in spur of the moment things, I've heard it's bad form to wish up like, five seconds before you ding someone, but I prefer it to be more pre-planned if I can do so), if any. I agree with Armaddict's point, approaching a Templar about a scuffle that might have been more of an intense sparring match, which people use their apartments for sometimes as well, or just some really rough mudsex, would probably not occur to a vNPC as the brightest of ideas, because, what if they're wrong? What if the Templar just up and decides they'd be excellent for the arena?

Thing is, Templars do what they want. They selectively enforce the law as suits their interests and are highly corrupt. The Templar the vNPC goes to may have been bribed by the killer beforehand, and might just end up being a loose end that needs tying off. Now, is it disturbing that a murder took place next door? Yes, but they happen all the time. I've lived in neighborhoods where the biggest rules are mind your own damn business, and never call the cops, because the cops will come out with itchy trigger fingers and you never know WHAT might happen. Also, they'll show up way too late to do anything. In light of all this, killing someone in your apartment is totally legit. It's not like CSI is going to show up carefully bagging evidence and maintaining the scene of the crime.

In fact, in Zalanthas, once reported, the authorities are pretty much obligated to arrest someone, and, you could be accused of reporting it to avoid suspicion. You witness a murder or see a body in the streets? Welp, sucks to be that guy, but I don't want to get fed to the Gaj, so I didn't see shit.

[Reiloth]

I've been trying to figure out how to put my difficulty with this suggestion into words that would make sense to someone.  It's true that it's a little gamey that you can kill people in apartments and get away with it, but it's also gamey how ridiculously difficult it is to do it otherwise and get away with it.  There is so much codedly on the side of the victim in this game, some of which don't make a lot of sense either.

There's a considerable amount of RP involved in earning trust and luring a victim someplace you can lock them in, too.  I've worked for IG years on people at times.

So I think it's ok the way it is.

This is about spot on. I don't think it's overly gamey to use apartments to kill people -- As it stands, on the other hand, it takes a lot of preparation and skill to take people out on the street/in broad daylight or nightlight and get away with it. The crime code is against you, and the victim typically has the advantage in that fleeing is quite easy without precautions to reduce their ability to flee.

Some zany ideas:

*Increasing the difficulty in fleeing from combat, once initiated. Delays to things like flee, or increased stamina loss. Perhaps cumulatively running reduces stamina over time (so when you first start running, the first few rooms are X stamina, the second few rooms are Y stamina, and the rest are Z stamina until you rest. How many rooms between X, Y, and Z is based on your endurance.

*Having difficulty shouting/talking during combat. You can, but similar to 'flee', you might not be able to concentrate enough to get out a shout or say. Perhaps dependent on combat skills, allowing for the Duelist to mock you repeatedly.

*Only allow for patrolling soldiers, as stated above. So combat in the streets is technically possible, and knowing which parts are the 'bad parts of town' that aren't patrolled as much suits your advantage as a criminal. It also behooves the wise traveler to not take certain streets at night, making these actually 'the bad parts of town'. So instead of a world of extremes, like the Labyrinth, where there is no law and order, you can have bad neighborhoods within say, the Commoner Quarter, and better patrolled neighborhoods. AoD can supplement patrols with PC presence. Could put them on cycles, so that certain areas of the city are better patrolled at different times of the year. Base it off the moon cycle to keep it cryptic.r

*Allow for degrees of crime, and responses to the crime that suit. Having pillories and gibbets near the pile of corpses where pickpockets and thieves are kept, possibly for days on end until they starve to death (Have it be a public prison basically, where people can either slip them a lock pick, or throw fruit at them). Putting them in public allows for public interaction, making jail time less of an annoying AFK unless a Templar is around. Deals can be made, feces can be thrown.

*Have Soldiers be mostly human. Humans are a surmountable obstacle, dangerous to some, and especially in numbers. But the amount of half-giant soldiers in game is a bit ludicrous. They should be summonable by Templar PCs, but otherwise, not just sitting around, IMHO.

*Do away with automatic crime code attached to a crime within populated areas of a city/outpost. Unless witnessed by a soldier in that room, or perhaps an adjacent room for some actions (Firing a bow, something quite obvious, murder for instance), crime code must be appended by a PC.

*Have critical fails in populated rooms lead to (minor) crime code attached to a Burglar.

*Have landlord NPCs report people's sdescs seen beyond the rental point (even hooded) to Templars unless they are following a tenant of the building. This includes shadowing. So a Burglar going ham on an apartment complex would most certainly be automatically noticed and reported.

The worst that can happen:

*People commit more crime and get away with it.
*Streets become more dangerous.
*Burglars aren't invincible any longer.
*Puts more emphasis on day-to-day operation of the AoD, and Criminals. As a Criminal, you can get away with more. As a PC AoD member, you are more empowered to find and report criminals, as the NPCs will not be doing the job for you as much.
*Different parts of town become dynamically bad parts of town. Sometimes this improves based on AoD efforts, but if one area gets better, another gets worse.
*Move away from the Binary "Labyrinth is Bad, rest of Allanak is 100% protected" paradigm.
*Move away from the Binary "All of Luirs is off limits".

[Armaddict]

I'm all for the crimcode changes which would...not make this 'more gamey', but less prevalent.

That and it would allow that thing I've been wanting for a long time:  Street wars between clans!  Not open war, but close.

[Dunetrade55]

I'm all for the crimcode changes which would...not make this 'more gamey', but less prevalent.

That and it would allow that thing I've been wanting for a long time:  Street wars between clans!  Not open war, but close.

Do you bite your thumb at me, sir?

Yeah, definitely could get behind those changes. The objective of the AoD is not to solve ALL crimes, just to keep up the appearance of law and order.

And WTF with all these HG soldiers? Granted there should be a few, mostly accompanying  Templars, but for the most part the soldiers should be human. I'd really like to see some improvements to Storm and Luir's code, but, something tells me that's not happening. Storm and Luir's are thematically places where you're not supposed to fuck around.

[evilcabbage]

npcs report to soldiers who report to a higher ranking soldier who reports to a templar, just to say "this fuck stole from some dude in plain sight"

npcs 99% of the time are not reporting directly to a templar because that would be fucking retarded.

[tapas]

I avoid players who do this. It's gotten to the point where I avoid certain clans and certain leaders because they either do it themselves or they enable minions to do it.

It's a good way to prevent conflict though, if that's your game plan. If I can't engage in even minor friction with another player without running the risk of playing the backroom trap game; then I guess I'll just play a happy dopey fucker that likes everyone and is friends with everyone.

[Desertman]

The only time a conflict really ends is when the person you are having the conflict with dies.

Up until that point, even if you have a truce or have "made friends", there is still the slim possibility they are just playing you until you have your back turned and they can end you.

For this very real reason a lot people feel the best course of action is to skip the foreplay and move right to the end game.

Get rid of the current/potential/future threat and move on as the victor not having to look over your shoulder.

With that being said I've intentionally let people go with minor punishments or something similar knowing it might come back to haunt me one day because that can be fun.

I've also cut people down on the spot if I felt they might be a real potential threat in the future and I didn't want to risk that.

I have also told people we have had truces or that we had agreements in the past only to intentionally kill them the first chance I had for reasons specific to that character.

Now, as for doing it in an apartment, I can't say I recall doing this very many times. I can actually only recall one time where I did it for sure, and that was many years ago.

However, I don't see an issue with it. It's a smart play and completely realistic.

If I was living in the ancient Roman times and I had a senator I hated secretly that I wanted to kill I would absolutely invite him over to my place for drinks. I would get him inside, lock my door to make sure he couldn't easily escape, have a drink with him, then stab him to death.

It makes perfect sense so I don't see the issue other than, "You killed me so good I didn't even get a chance to escape because you are smarter than me and that makes me mad.".

[Jingo]

Gotta win gotta win gotta win.

It is so disappointing players think this is a cool thing to do. I'd rather just twink my characters and play armageddon like the shitty pvp game it is.

[BadSkeelz]

The good news is that when you find yourself in competition with someone who relies on a locked room to kill anyone (and those players are generally not hard to spot), you have effective invulnerability by simply not going in to locked rooms.

Unless the locked-room scrub is mudsexing a templar 8 hours a day or something.

[BadSkeelz]

Wasn't this thread originally about door guards?

I don't think there should be guards on apartments, except for the higher class ones. And even then there should be alternative methods of entry.

Breaking in and murdering people in apartments is sometimes the only way to get rid of shitty sponsored roles.

[Riev]

Originally it was about the idea that maybe if you were in a locked apartment, you could leave, but you couldn't re-lock the door. Sort of a one-side-only lock. Presumably because it would cut down on apartment murders, and apartment shadowers who break their tools.

[manipura]

Gotta win gotta win gotta win.

It is so disappointing players think this is a cool thing to do. I'd rather just twink my characters and play armageddon like the shitty pvp game it is.

Why is everything you post in every code thread some variation of "if you do something with the game code involved and someone dies, you're just a shitty twink who has to win win win and you're just using the code to your advantage to be a shitty player"?

Man, I thought -I- was a jaded veteran.
We get it.  You've had PCs die in shitty ways.  Everyone has, join the club. 
That doesn't mean that everyone who has killed someone through the use of some sort of code is a shitty player who is only here to win. 
And when a player argues for the code to either change or stay as is, so that risks remain in game, it doesn't mean they are trying to use some knowledge learned long ago, just to kill other PCs.


On topic: As I said before, I think that apartments are fine as they are.  I've had many instances where I've had PCs gauge someone's trust based on their reactions to being behind a locked (or unlocked) door.  I've also had many instances where I've been the one behind the locked door and I've showed my trust, or discomfort, to another player.  It opened up a lot of RP and character development that wouldn't have happened if I knew I could just walk out if I suddenly got worried I was at risk. 

[BadSkeelz]

Gotta win gotta win gotta win.

It is so disappointing players think this is a cool thing to do. I'd rather just twink my characters and play armageddon like the shitty pvp game it is.

Why is everything you post in every code thread some variation of "if you do something with the game code involved and someone dies, you're just a shitty twink who has to win win win and you're just using the code to your advantage to be a shitty player"?

I believe it has something to do with the sentiment expressed in Desertman's post:

The only time a conflict really ends is when the person you are having the conflict with dies.

Up until that point, even if you have a truce or have "made friends", there is still the slim possibility they are just playing you until you have your back turned and they can end you.

For this very real reason a lot people feel the best course of action is to skip the foreplay and move right to the end game.

Get rid of the current/potential/future threat and move on as the victor not having to look over your shoulder. [the notorious "zero sum" mindset -Skeelz]

The frustration comes from the play-to-survive-at-all-costs mentality. Getting someone in a locked room is hands down the easiest and safest way to kill them. Personally I wish we had less crimcode so people could be ambushed more effectively in the streets.

Now, as for doing it in an apartment, I can't say I recall doing this very many times. I can actually only recall one time where I did it for sure, and that was many years ago.

However, I don't see an issue with it. It's a smart play and completely realistic.

If I was living in the ancient Roman times and I had a senator I hated secretly that I wanted to kill I would absolutely invite him over to my place for drinks. I would get him inside, lock my door to make sure he couldn't easily escape, have a drink with him, then stab him to death.

It makes perfect sense so I don't see the issue other than, "You killed me so good I didn't even get a chance to escape because you are smarter than me and that makes me mad.".

I also have to disagree on whether apartment-killing is realistic. Roman Senators didn't invite each other over for dinner to murder one another. You'd either see someone judicially murdered (tried in a kangaroo court) and/or politically out-maneuvered so that suicide was the only way to spare one's family or dignity, etc. Think more Tuluk than Allanak.

Inviting people in to your home and then murdering them tends to carry severe social and political repercussions across all societies. I'm more familiar with the concept of "Guest right" from a Medieval concept, but even in antiquity killing your guest was considered extremely poor form. It's tantamount to betrayal, and few people would trust a known betrayer. Julius Caesar executed at least a few people who had betrayed and killed enemies of Caesar as rewarding them would set a bad precedent. In Zalanthas, people who have a habit of giving guests a one-way ticket to their apartments or estates should quickly become known for it.

All that said, my personal historical favorite means of settling political disputes was rousing a mob and heaving the offending party torn apart in the streets. Which happens to feed back in to my desire for less crimcode

[Jingo]

Gotta win gotta win gotta win.

It is so disappointing players think this is a cool thing to do. I'd rather just twink my characters and play armageddon like the shitty pvp game it is.

Why is everything you post in every code thread some variation of "if you do something with the game code involved and someone dies, you're just a shitty twink who has to win win win and you're just using the code to your advantage to be a shitty player"?

Man, I thought -I- was a jaded veteran.
We get it.  You've had PCs die in shitty ways.  Everyone has, join the club.  
That doesn't mean that everyone who has killed someone through the use of some sort of code is a shitty player who is only here to win.  
And when a player argues for the code to either change or stay as is, so that risks remain in game, it doesn't mean they are trying to use some knowledge learned long ago, just to kill other PCs.

Pretty much. I've been killed by players in ways that I wouldn't even consider because of how lame it is. I've been meta'd by players I gave the benefit of the doubt to. And yes I consider it twinky hogshit.

Now explain to me why the fuck I should continue in good faith? Give me a reason why I shouldn't be angry?

[Jingo]

I also have to disagree on whether apartment-killing is realistic. Roman Senators didn't invite each other over for dinner to murder one another. You'd either see someone judicially murdered (tried in a kangaroo court) and/or politically out-maneuvered so that suicide was the only way to spare one's family or dignity, etc. Think more Tuluk than Allanak.

Inviting people in to your home and then murdering them tends to carry severe social and political repercussions across all societies. I'm more familiar with the concept of "Guest right" from a Medieval concept, but even in antiquity killing your guest was considered extremely poor form. It's tantamount to betrayal, and few people would trust a known betrayer. Julius Caesar executed at least a few people who had betrayed and killed enemies of Caesar as rewarding them would set a bad precedent. In Zalanthas, people who have a habit of giving guests a one-way ticket to their apartments or estates should quickly become known for it.

All that said, my personal historical favorite means of settling political disputes was rousing a mob and heaving the offending party torn apart in the streets. Which happens to feed back in to my desire for less crimcode

Old school assassination is another one the romans liked.  And I would seriously like to see more of it. Titus Pullo did some hitman work in Rome and I keep wondering why that sort of thing rarely shows up in armageddon reletive to key-lock assassinations that every leader and their mother seems to prefer. (I mean I know the answer, it's hard. But backroom killings are easypeasylemonsqueezy.)

[BadSkeelz]

That's the rub. People, as a general rule, will take the path of least resistance.

[Reiloth]

That's the rub. People, as a general rule, will take the path of least resistance.

Exactly. And in the present way Crime Code works, the path of least resistance is an apartment killing.

Now -- An Apartment killing isn't a walk in the park. It either requires skill (Sneak/Hide/Shadow/Kill, because we aren't backstabbing here), and/or RP (Convincing the person they aren't going to be murdered when they go into the apartment, or making them feel at ease (both as a player and a PC) and then killing them).

However -- For reasons stated by many -- The 'meta' aspect to me is that PCs of mine and probably of others wouldn't consider the Apartment to be the 'Death Trap' that it currently is. As a one-way exit, your PC doesn't necessarily know that apartment is impossible to get out of, do they? So, they might be suspicious of doors that lock in general, as a rule I find that totally acceptable. However, I saw a lot of this in Tuluk:

"My employer said I can't go into apartments alone with people."

or

"Apartments? I'd never set foot in one unless I had to."

I mean -- That struck me as a little meta, a little too aware of the danger that an apartment might present, simply by being a room that one party can lock and the other cannot (easily) unlock.

So -- I would look at the overarching issue here, rather than apartments as a microcosm. As a path of least resistance, and most reward vs risk, the apartment is the easy answer. Your victim cannot get away, you are assuredly able to get the drop on them (first few attacks while they are unarmed), and you can dispose of the body without being seen, and you will likely not be spotted committing the crime. To a criminal, it hits every mark for "Yes, please".

However, we should ask ourselves -- Should people so easily get away with a murder? While I am all for murder, corruption, and betrayal, and i've been on both sides of the coin (committed and been committed to apartment murder), one has to wonder if this is where we want our murders taking place -- Behind closed doors, and away from possible risk.

It's a bit of a large question, because what could be tweaked in order to make Apartment Murders one of a few different options? As it stands:

*It's relatively easy for the victim to get away, and to way their friends the description of their murderer/raider. Fleeing, and then running. No problemo.

*It's relatively difficult for a murderer to chase their victim, if they do get away. Double-back-switch-back-fleeing is very possible, and without actual graphics or 'line of sight', it's hard to keep an eye on someone, even if you just brutally stabbed them.

*Populated rooms within a city mean almost certain death for your PC, especially if you are caught in 'delay'. You could not-resist arrest, but if you attack someone and a soldier walks in, they cannot subdue you, and will instead attempt to kill you.

When we are talking about risk vs reward, it's a clear cut answer. Get your victim somewhere that makes it hard to flee (Apartment with a lockable door), get them somewhere where you as the attacker will not need to chase them around unrealistically (See above), and get them somewhere that the binary crime code does not kick in (A private apartment).

While I do applaud people who go through the effort to find a more realistic setting for murder, I do understand that the options available to them are limited and few. If you really want to make sure someone will die when you attack them, an apartment is a surefire way to go. Expanding these options somehow would be exciting to say the least, I think both for a 'victim' and a potential 'assailant'.

When a Guild Boss has to wonder aloud 'how are we going to get them into an apartment', it feels that something is a little funky.

[Dunetrade55]

Definitely, adjust the risk vs. reward for an assassination outside an apartment, and you will see fewer locked door kills. It feels clunky for me when I have to not lock my door when guests come over because that might cause them to panic, yet the risk outside the door is greater still and indeed, people do walk around checking doors to see if they'll open. I know some players try very hard to avoid killing people in apartments, particularly their own, but in places like Storm, where ELSE can you do it? I suppose you could lure them out onto the sands with a little creativity and forthought. Yeah, eh, there are ways to avoid it, but I can see why it happens. Conflicted and unsure about what I'd like to see.

I spend a lot of time in areas where crim-code will not save your ass, it's not so bad, it just means you have to be even more careful who you're an asshole to if you don't want to get diced.

[Armaddict]

I also have to disagree on whether apartment-killing is realistic. Roman Senators didn't invite each other over for dinner to murder one another. You'd either see someone judicially murdered (tried in a kangaroo court) and/or politically out-maneuvered so that suicide was the only way to spare one's family or dignity, etc. Think more Tuluk than Allanak.

I have to say that historically speaking, the events you speak of are certainly the ones that are remembered/admired over a thousand years later.  But if you really think some simple underhanded shit didn't happen involving a simple deceit such as coming over and getting killed by surprise, I think you're romanticizing it a little much to keep it more in line with that Tuluk/Allanak comparison.  I am kind of a pragmatist, and I really doubt that every roman scheme required intricate webs unless the target was someone where there would be a public uproar over it (edit: i.e. This isn't a world filled with roman senators...and even if it was, not all of them receive the benefit of having the entire military hell bent on avenging their death).

I agree with the overall synopsis of Reiloth's posts (among others, but he's the forefront); a lot of this has to do with the hard-line 'no' that is experienced elsewhere, making not getting seen paramount to the successful scheme.  Even if a templar is corrupt and open to bribes, it becomes a gamble to rely on it too heavily.  While I still have absolutely no problem with someone using this method, that 'lack of trust' and discomfort that manipura describes is the side effect, which I'm okay with in a world like Zalanthas where life is cheap, and friends are valuable.

Old school assassination is another one the romans liked.  And I would seriously like to see more of it. Titus Pullo did some hitman work in Rome and I keep wondering why that sort of thing rarely shows up in armageddon reletive to key-lock assassinations that every leader and their mother seems to prefer. (I mean I know the answer, it's hard. But backroom killings are easypeasylemonsqueezy.)

I think they exist...somewhat, but agree there should be more.  For the record, when this originally came up as a topic, I thought we were talking about breaking -in- to kill people in their own apartment, not inviting people to your own.  I'm still fine with the latter, but I think people should innately be paranoid enough about it that it's actually pretty hard to pull off, and if you get the opportunity, it's usually after a good amount of trust has been earned which makes it fit in with the 'betrayal' part of the game.  For the old school assassinations, the current function of crimcode means that it pretty much relies on someone willing to twink certain things out, or be familiar enough with functions of the crimcode to take the job.  This makes it far more comfortable for someone like me, who's lost dozens of characters to crimcode and figured things out, than a newer player who's just trying to get their feet wet in the criminal parts of the game.  I think it's okay, though, that assassinations are like car accidents; most of them occur a small radius from the home.

Pretty much. I've been killed by players in ways that I wouldn't even consider because of how lame it is. I've been meta'd by players I gave the benefit of the doubt to. And yes I consider it twinky hogshit.

Just a note, I think this is pretty much a rehash of the raider/raidee argument.  I fault no one in this game for not giving the benefit of the doubt after it's fucked them a few times, and that seems more in keeping with the lack of trust I'd see as rampant in Zalanthas.  Doing my whole veteran thing, I will say I think newer players have it harder because as a whole, the PC playerbase is much more averse to killing each other at this point than it used to be.  Raiding was common.  Rogue mages were more common.  Criminals fought soldiers openly in the streets after killing a PC in the streets.  So on and so forth.  We've developed as a community to be much more trusting of each other, which makes the guy who finally wants you dead, regardless of who it is, seem like an asshole when they rely on the code of the game to catch you rather than your good faith in letting it happen.  This makes it more difficult because it's become more 'standardized' to show a certain amount of trust in other players not wanting you dead.

With that being said I've intentionally let people go with minor punishments or something similar knowing it might come back to haunt me one day because that can be fun.

It can be.  And sometimes, it really does fuck you.  I know I've been the guy who came back and fucked someone who let me off, and I've been the guy who got fucked because I let someone off.  I've also been the guy who -knew- something was off, but blamed it on paranoia...and it turns out I was actually right.

More than anything else, I think players as a whole are a little too quick to make mortal enemies out of minor infractions.  You can not like the guy and not want them dead...as long as you are okay with giving the benefit of the doubt that they aren't going to exaggerate the relationship and actively plot to kill you while you leave yourself defenseless.  Meanwhile, defending against it tends to escalate it, and so on and so forth.  Most minor infractions can very quickly build into mortal combat, which is just kind of how social roleplaying games where enemies are other players tend to be when death is permanent.

On the actual topic, I still dislike this idea in particular as a whole.  But I also think that there are lots of adjustments in the game to be made that would make changes to apartment code to get rid of this a lot more appealing, first and foremost a lot of the ideas that Reiloth suggested, and in the meantime, I'll continue to treat apartments as what they've been for a long time, which is both extremes of the scale: Ultimate safety, and ultimate danger.

[manipura]

Now explain to me why the fuck I should continue in good faith? Give me a reason why I shouldn't be angry?

Because it's a game.  It's a game that plenty of us are passionate about and very invested in, yes...but in the end, it's a game.
Because when someone's knee-jerk response seems to be "This person is disagreeing with me so I lump them all into the category of They're Trying To Fuck Me" then what you're actually saying just gets lost.

For the record, I'm not saying you shouldn't be angry.  Hold on to whatever you want and dwell on whatever you want and be angry about it all you want.
It's just hard to listen to your arguments, even when there's a speck of validity to them, when they get lost in you vaguebooking again about some time that some player did you wrong and you just lump everyone into the category of 'Twink'.

[SuchDragonWow]

We've all twink killed Jingo. It's a rite of passage.  Sorry, bro.  You play too many high karma undesireables!

[Majikal]

I don't think the timeless strategy of 'Trap them in a meeting place' is exactly meta, or something that needs to be removed from the game.

I agree with this.

Do I do it? No. I prefer to find more entertaining ways to murder mundanely, and plus.. who wants to clean up the body in your own crib? Go to their crib and you don't have to get out the bloodstains. Bonus points if you kill someone in the middle of the street, a feat I've pulled off only twice since the crim code changes way back when.

Expanding on my previous point, my biggest gripe is with the crim code, while it's improved a billion times over since the days of old the sheer number of soldiers and general safety of being in the public is overdone. Especially in the cases of characters that travel only from clan compound to the tavern and back. I would love for walking the street to be more dangerous, unfortunately any sort of public attack is near-impossible unless you are one code savvy son of a bitch. I wish the night-time crim code limitations were ALWAYS in effect.

The mindless npc's that are everywhere in nak make public violence nearly non existent. I don't care for yee old 'com meet me @ mi apartment/compound/office so I ken murdrr u therr' tactic, mostly because it's boring. However, I can see why it's the crutch of so many players because oftentimes there's not many other options or they simply like to win.

[Reiloth]

I think boiling it down to 'like to win' is a little over simplified. I do give the players the benefit of the doubt, and at the end of the day, the risk vs reward points most people towards Apartment Killings.

As Armaddict points out, those with the code savvy to pull off assassinations in broad daylight can and will do it. People who are experienced enough with how crime code works, and how some skills work, can pull off public violence with relative ease, once they have the skills required to do so.

However, what is missing from the puzzle are petty crimes, such as assault, muggings, and pickpocketings. Crimes of passion, or public displays of violence, such as a Bruce Wayne-esque mugging gone wrong, or murder in the street.

To me, it says that to perform such crime, you must be a very talented individual. This is sort of at odds with the general 'criminal element' of any city, where you have all walks of life. Many people who perform petty crime are drug addicts, or transients. It is rare (if ever) you will see crime performed by unskilled, but determined, criminals who hold you up with a knife or intimidation. It's simply too easy to ignore someone who isn't dangerous enough (in our meta, coded understanding of it) to actually harm you.

This is incongruous with our IC, RP understanding of the world. Of course, if a menacing person came at you with a knife, you wouldn't first size them up by the equipment they wear (Are they holding a serrated, rare dagger, or a simple, Labyrinth-make starter weapon?), if you've seen them before (which of course implies they've been around, and they might have the skills to back up their claim), and so on. I think often, myself included, we jump to OOC conclusions about our assailants before we reach IC ones, which can make the life of a petty criminal unrealistically difficult.

The ease a 'victim' can get away, as well, makes petty crime impossible as well. I've seen (and reported) people who've been hit with peraine daggers just stand up as the poison wears off and walk away, as if nothing had happened. I've also seen people getting raided just walk off, run away, not interact.

It's been mentioned before, but having movement delayed, or 'approach' code that doesn't allow someone to disengage except by force, would present an option for engagement. It wouldn't allow people to automatically run away. You would need to flee. This is at odds with what Armaddict mentioned earlier, that everyone should have the 'flee' skill. I disagree. I think it should be difficult for people to escape situations like these -- Which may increase the likelihood of their occurrence on a day to day basis.

I think it's silly that everyone needs to stock up with poisons, in order to incapacitate people so they don't automatically flee. Similarly, it would be a silly world if the Assasilant could always disable their victim with ease. A balance should be struck, but it's difficult to finger exactly what that balance should be. Should people who were recently in combat be able to immediately use the Way? Perhaps similar to the combat timer, their mind isn't calm enough to use it. Should people who were recently in combat be able to run a million rooms away without recourse? It seems we live in a world of extremes at the moment, so what is the middle way?

[Jingo]

Now explain to me why the fuck I should continue in good faith? Give me a reason why I shouldn't be angry?

Because it's a game.  It's a game that plenty of us are passionate about and very invested in, yes...but in the end, it's a game.
Because when someone's knee-jerk response seems to be "This person is disagreeing with me so I lump them all into the category of They're Trying To Fuck Me" then what you're actually saying just gets lost.

I'm back on my meds again so I suppose I should try to rein it in a bit. As I get caught up emotionally sometimes when I'm on them.

But as far as lumping people into the twink catagory? I'll continue to do that. I honestly don't care. I wouldn't play the game in such a shitty way, so I don't see why I should indulge you.

For the record, I'm not saying you shouldn't be angry.  Hold on to whatever you want and dwell on whatever you want and be angry about it all you want.
It's just hard to listen to your arguments, even when there's a speck of validity to them, when they get lost in you vaguebooking again about some time that some player did you wrong and you just lump everyone into the category of 'Twink'.

You're probably thinking I'm referring to one particular incident, I'm not. But even then, I can't be bothered to care when the defense of the behavior is pretty egregious at best.

I think boiling it down to 'like to win' is a little over simplified. I do give the players the benefit of the doubt, and at the end of the day, the risk vs reward points most people towards Apartment Killings.

I think it can be described this way.

Some players are very rooted in the zero sum mentality of the game. In order for them to win, someone else has to lose. This conception lacks nuance, but conceptions of players who think like this also lack any meaningful nuance. To them it's just black and white. They can't see how playing out a rivalry might be rewarding. They can't understand the social and psychological repercussions of being a murderer. They don't understand how politics in Allanak could be ten times cooler if pc's weren't just knocked off the moment they step out of line. They just see Armageddon as a game to win.

[Majikal]

However -- For reasons stated by many -- The 'meta' aspect to me is that PCs of mine and probably of others wouldn't consider the Apartment to be the 'Death Trap' that it currently is. As a one-way exit, your PC doesn't necessarily know that apartment is impossible to get out of, do they?

I give the benefit of the doubt alll the time, mostly because I have an overabundance of trust in my fellow players (which fucks me over quite regularly). Also, when someone invites me to their apartment and I suspect a murder is afoot, I feel like a meta bastard if I tell them no. Especially after the twenty-ninth invitation, eventually I just say "Fuck it, whatever happens happens." *click*I once got to be murdered behind a curtain by two assassins, one of the assassins just spammed close curtain as though the curtain itself would hold me back, jokes on me.. it did and I died.

A less magickal crim-code that would promote action to happen all over would make for more interesting play, couple this with doors being able to lock/unlock from the inside without a key would also make things more exciting and realistic IMO. Can you imagine two nobles clashing to the point of nearly open war, then the nobles bump into eachother walking with opposing entourages on a nearly vacant street... such potential. Salarr and Kadius hunting branches talking that mad shit to each other while they walk down Commerce Way, only to end with spears and shit getting drawn? THIS is the kind of action I wish was possible.