Aggressive Following - Legit or Code Abuse?

[whitt]

If three raiders are following you, there's absolutely no reason why you should be able to "unhitch all" and then spam movement commands, knowing that reaction time and latency will be on your side.

I just want to be sure I understand the thought here.  It's sketchy to unhitch folks following you, but not at all sketchy to allow "aggressive follows"?  Which allows followers to unerringly pursue their stalkee without any skill required, potentially through guarded gates they should not have been otherwise able to pass, potentially benefitting from skills their stalkee might have to navigate terrain/weather that are allowed to benefit followers when they otherwise might not be able to, and with no recourse for the stalkee.

I'd be tempted to file a player complaint if you used follow this way as an abuse of code.

[nauta]

I'm sure Synth can defend the idea better, but here's a crack at it.

1) Under the assumption there is some way to unhitch legitimate minions (e.g., nosave unhitch)...

2) If a raider follows you, you can still do (a) flee self (which is a coded skill check) and (b) outrun them (which is a coded something check).

I can certainly see cases where popping on 'follow', 'watch' are the first two commands a raider would pop on when they come on you.  Seems fair, granted how easy it is to just spam walk east.  It certainly would make battles in the sand more exciting.

[whitt]

I can certainly see cases where popping on 'follow', 'watch' are the first two commands a raider would pop on when they come on you.  Seems fair, granted how easy it is to just spam walk east.  It certainly would make battles in the sand more exciting.

I would buy this if Follow was a skill like Watch is.  Watch [person] doesn't guarantee success or allow you bypass coded barriers like follow does.

Someone mentioned a chase skill, that would work as an alternative.

It's already twinkish to me if you walk into a "room" on the Salt Flats, for instance, and punch follow and watch or just straight up initiate combat like an aggro-NPC without even emoting your arrival first.

Yes the spam walk is real.  Abusing code shouldn't be the solution.

[BadSkeelz]

If I'm not mistaken, it's already possible to lose people in your follow-train if you move through rooms too fast. What if we made that easier to do, so that someone running (or on a running mount) is much more likely to lose their followers? I don't know how it currently works of course, but I wonder if it's checking the leader's movespeed or Ride skill against that of the followers. I know my half-elf characters would leave humans behind on a semi-regular basis just by walk-spamming. I've done it while mounted too, although not as frequently.

Ride skill would make for a convenient skill check. A grebber with good rider would be able to outrun three raiders with poor ride on their mount.

Movespeed is a little more problematic since we can't train up how fast our characters walk or run.

Alternatively just slap a hefty delay on any sort of "Unhitch all" command so that it's more practical to use the riskier countermeasures that Nauta's already lined out.

[Delirium]

I'm just glad someone's out there making the salt flats dangerous.

Flee self is the command you're looking for. You can even tack an emote onto it!

[BadSkeelz]

Flee self (shooing all his minions away)

Shooing all his minions away, the tall muscular Templar runs into his office

[Delirium]

I mean for cases like the OP is describing, Skeelz... OBVIOUSLY GOSH

[nauta]

Flee self (shooing all his minions away)

Shooing all his minions away, the tall muscular Templar runs into his office

Code Select Expand


The keen-eyed templar attempts to flee.
The keen-eyed templar tries to climb, but slips.
As the keen-eyed templar falls, she lands on her neck!


[Molten Heart]

.

[Synthesis]

If three raiders are following you, there's absolutely no reason why you should be able to "unhitch all" and then spam movement commands, knowing that reaction time and latency will be on your side.

I just want to be sure I understand the thought here.  It's sketchy to unhitch folks following you, but not at all sketchy to allow "aggressive follows"?  Which allows followers to unerringly pursue their stalkee without any skill required, potentially through guarded gates they should not have been otherwise able to pass, potentially benefitting from skills their stalkee might have to navigate terrain/weather that are allowed to benefit followers when they otherwise might not be able to, and with no recourse for the stalkee.

I'd be tempted to file a player complaint if you used follow this way as an abuse of code.

The problem is that spamwalking nearly always defeats manually following by entering direction commands (assuming same base walking speed, obviously), because of the nature of latency and reaction time.  If it were reasonably possible to successfully manually follow someone, this wouldn't be an issue.  As long as you or your mount has stamina points, "unhitch" is essentially a form of magick:  you can spam movement commands with zero latency between movements, because they're stacked, but the follower has to wait for you to move, then input a command, doubling their server ping every movement, and it doesn't take long for that latency+reaction time to build up to the point where they've now moved multiple rooms away from you and you have no chance of keeping up, because now not only do you have to input a movement command, you also have to input multiple look commands, wait for the output, then input a movement command.

The onus of losing a tail should be on the leader, not the follower, because following after someone (when you are presumably moving at the same speed) is a simple task.  Assuming same speed and same stamina, it is a trivial task to follow someone walking in a straight line.  "Losing" a tail implies some sort of active effort, and thus the onus is on the leader.  It should not be possible to lose a tail by default simply because of the physics of internet communication.

[Riev]

Codedly, would the situation be alleviated if the Unhitch command came with, say, a 5-6 second timer delay? So if you use unhitch, or even unhitch all, it takes you a moment to "get away"? Otherwise, you can flee self and run to achieve the same results in a raider situation?

[chrisdcoulombe]

This is a non issue.

[Armaddict]

Following someone is a personal action. You have chosen to follow and must be stopped.

Unhitching is an action that, used in this way, stops the action with no real reason for why that's possible.

Badskeelz has proposed the best solution (even though unhitch all has been expressed by nessalin as only working on mounts). If something arose where unhitch could be used in this way, attach a delay to it.

However, there is a thread where stealth/shadow was discussed where I'd like things to move closer to. Set a follow distance...longer distance is more secure, but requires use of watch. Dynamic follow could add a lot to hunter/hunted scenarios.

[whitt]

The onus of losing a tail should be on the leader, not the follower, because following after someone (when you are presumably moving at the same speed) is a simple task.  Assuming same speed and same stamina, it is a trivial task to follow someone walking in a straight line.  "Losing" a tail implies some sort of active effort, and thus the onus is on the leader.  It should not be possible to lose a tail by default simply because of the physics of internet communication.

You had me up until this part.  Tailing someone is definitely not a simple task, when travelling over desert sands, with dunes, full of other grebbers and desert traffick, or through city streets or the bazaar where any number of distractions can and would get in the way.  Heck.  Just following someone that -does- know you're following them can be difficult.  In the codely empty one dimensional text of the MUD?  Maybe.

I'm not saying their shouldn't be a coded way to do it.  Just that Follow (because of all the reasons I noted above) shouldn't be that way.  Does Shadow only work if you're hidden?  That would seem the more likely choice... or the chase command, which would function like follow, but not bypass things like Direction Sense or guarded gates.

Also, I'm with you that spamwalking to avoid an interaction is just as complaint worth.

[Synthesis]

Codedly, would the situation be alleviated if the Unhitch command came with, say, a 5-6 second timer delay? So if you use unhitch, or even unhitch all, it takes you a moment to "get away"? Otherwise, you can flee self and run to achieve the same results in a raider situation?

Yeah, that could work, as long as "follow" doesn't have a delay on it.  Once you re-followed, it would be clear to the "leader" that they are going to have to do something substantial to get you away from them.

[Molten Heart]

.

[Synthesis]

The onus of losing a tail should be on the leader, not the follower, because following after someone (when you are presumably moving at the same speed) is a simple task.  Assuming same speed and same stamina, it is a trivial task to follow someone walking in a straight line.  "Losing" a tail implies some sort of active effort, and thus the onus is on the leader.  It should not be possible to lose a tail by default simply because of the physics of internet communication.

You had me up until this part.  Tailing someone is definitely not a simple task, when travelling over desert sands, with dunes, full of other grebbers and desert traffick, or through city streets or the bazaar where any number of distractions can and would get in the way.  Heck.  Just following someone that -does- know you're following them can be difficult.  In the codely empty one dimensional text of the MUD?  Maybe.

I'm not saying their shouldn't be a coded way to do it.  Just that Follow (because of all the reasons I noted above) shouldn't be that way.  Does Shadow only work if you're hidden?  That would seem the more likely choice... or the chase command, which would function like follow, but not bypass things like Direction Sense or guarded gates.

Also, I'm with you that spamwalking to avoid an interaction is just as complaint worth.

I'm not talking about being stealthy or unseen, or whatever.  I'm talking about riding directly behind someone in the middle of the damn salt flats.  Hand-waving about "oh, there are obstacles" or "oh, there's a crowd" is a bunch of bull, because the underlying explanation is the physics of data transfer, and that almost always favors the leader (with the one exception being if your connection is absolutely heinous).

[Pale Horse]

Add a timer that prevents someone from "following" a target with which they've recently engaged in combat is the only suggestion I'd have for the posted issue.

As far as the advantage given to the fleeing character...I don't have a good solution.  It's a code limitation that you can't natural see movement in the distance without "watching" and that there's no diagonal movement in the code system the game uses, which would allow the pursuer to better track their target.

[Molten Heart]

.

[Synthesis]

Add a timer that prevents someone from "following" a target with which they've recently engaged in combat is the only suggestion I'd have for the posted issue.

As far as the advantage given to the fleeing character...I don't have a good solution.  It's a code limitation that you can't natural see movement in the distance without "watching" and that there's no diagonal movement in the code system the game uses, which would allow the pursuer to better track their target.

The posted hypotheticals aren't a following issue, they're a gate-guard issue or a player complaint issue.  If someone is spam-following you through a clan gate, while you're in front of a gate guard and telling them to fuck off, that's obvious abuse, and if they take it any further, you can wish up to address it.  I suppose you could come up with a code solution to address this, but it would presumably be more elegant than completely nerfing the ability to follow anyone, anywhere, at any time (assuming equal movement speed).

[Brytta Léofa]

Create a "chase" command to signify hostile following. Chasing someone through a guarded gate (that they're allowed through and you're not) auto-initiates combat with the guard.

[Black]

I dislike people that follow like that on any MUD, so something to make it harder for folk to do unless they know the leader's mind makes sense. Like the leader deciding to run, and follow auto-setting you on walk-mode so if they run and leave you behind then they have time to do that.

[chrisdcoulombe]

I they follow you through a clan gate just type this to solve the problem..  Kill man.

[Riev]

Tangential but related:

I wish clan/gate guards worked like innkeepers with back rooms. Allow clanned people through without question, but if ANYONE not clanned is following, force them to use the "rent self <person>" code to let them be allowed to pass. Otherwise they are blocked.

[valeria]

I have never once had a random visible person in the desert start following me for no reason. If they did, I would feel completely justified in unhitching them before I left (if I didn't just 'flee self' in the first place).

Follow to me has always implied a consensual followee/follower relationship. It echoes to the person being followed. And unhitch echoes to the person being unhitched. I don't have to LET anyone follow me that I don't want to.

If you have popped on watch as well as follow, you can very easily see where people are going.

I wouldn't mind a nonconsensual follow skill, like "chase." I'd argue that at high levels it should even follow someone THROUGH a flee self.