PKing: Let's Talk About the State of It

[boog]

I'm not playing because I'm not inspired, and because I still can't get over having only one city state or thinly populated tribal clans to play in or as. *shrugemoji*

Allanak needs to be more socially and politically dynamic and less top heavy, imho. Luir's is cool, but eh, at the same time, uncool. Tribes could be cool, but they still don't really add to the story much, considering their low numbers and very, very limited power when it comes to the powerhouse of Allanak or even Luir's.

Eh.

[Bebop]

I'm not playing because I'm not inspired, and because I still can't get over having only one city state or thinly populated tribal clans to play in or as. *shrugemoji*

Allanak needs to be more socially and politically dynamic and less top heavy, imho. Luir's is cool, but eh, at the same time, uncool. Tribes could be cool, but they still don't really add to the story much, considering their low numbers and very, very limited power when it comes to the powerhouse of Allanak or even Luir's.

Eh.

I think what you said about Allanak is exactly what I'm trying to say.  The word dynamic is excellent.  Tit for tat PKs aren't engrossing or a substitute for a plot.  I'll say the same qualifier - they have their place, but when they are all consuming it's obnoxious.

I also agree, re-open Tuluk.  Create an IG antagonist.  I volunteer as tribute.  Put me in coach.

[Delirium]

Tuluk being open to players or not isn't the problem. The problem is that it effectively ceased to exist and went "virtual".

Freil's Rest is a viable option as a low-key play center, but what we need is for Tuluk itself to still be present in the story.

There are so many options for NPC antagonists that could come out of Tuluk.

Creepy gangs of bagheads, patrolling soldiers...

Basically what we need is a tangible external threat.

[Bebop]

Tuluk being open to players or not isn't the problem. The problem is that it effectively ceased to exist and went "virtual".

Freil's Rest is a viable option as a low-key play center, but what we need is for Tuluk itself to still be present in the story.

There are so many options for NPC antagonists that could come out of Tuluk.

Creepy gangs of bagheads, patrolling soldiers...

Basically what we need is a tangible external threat.

I don't agree.  There are plenty of raider groups and antagonists IG right now adding to the PK list.  It isn't the same as the socio-political dynamic people are looking for.

[Delirium]

Tuluk had the same exact top-heavy problem that some perceive in Allanak right now, and it definitely had the "high PK" moments, not even scratching the surface of the problems with active Lirathans and their stranglehold on plots.

Luir's outpost is basically the new northern city, with the added and arguably interesting dynamic that their "noble Houses" aka the GMH members are also permitted in and are part of the southern city's economy, and vice versa. Maybe it's time for Luir's Outpost to get a shanty town just northwest of the gates, in that open desert area. Lots of people living there... start building out a bit.

edit: crossposting to new thread to not clutter up this one.

[Bogre]

Agreed with Krath it definitely is keeping a few players out right now.

Well, shame on them. I'm dealing with it. They should too. There's some interesting zero karma combinations that can be had. What are they going to do? Just NOT play anything if they can't play the powerhouse?

I mean, I play concepts. Sometimes that means 2 mages in a row. Though sometimes the mood strikes me to play a throwaway, I'm usually very averse to playing throwaways just to be in game. If I don't have a compelling concept I'm playing, I'm most likely not going to play until I can do it.

The theory about PK driving people away can certainly be true. My first character in the SoI revamp (2014-15) was PK'd. Someone used advantageous code circumstances to PK a char of mine. (I was injured in a preceding RPT, but as everyone was headed back, I was pressed for time and had to log out due to OOC circumstance. When I logged in, though under no threat when I logged out, the opportunity was taken to kill me when I logged in). They also abused follow mechanics. That essentially left a bad taste in my mouth, and I essentially stopped playing for 3-4 years. -YEARS-. And that's not simply because 'I'm not SoI or RPI material'. I had the 30th or so most played PC in the original version of the game. But one simple interaction, combined with being very busy (It was my internship/junior residency) and lack of places to restart a char that I just felt it wasn't going to be very fun. And once I'd drifted off, nothing really jumped out and snagged me back in. I'm sure I would have had fun if I had played in the intervening years. But instead it's had -1 player for a long time.

I feel that's similar to how a lot of Armageddon players might become absentee. A sour experience leads to a break, a break leads to IRL stuff, other games, etc, and then suddenly, -1 character. There's nothing wrong with PK. I've been murdered before in Armageddon and the experience made me -hopping- on the keyboard to get back in and play and continue to explore the world. I've marked my share of kills.

But seriously, try to take in consideration someone else's person. It's a collaborative story, and it's going to be a sad one if no one's left in the sandbox to collaborate with.

[sleepyhead]

what we need is for Tuluk itself to still be present in the story.

Spot on. I feel uncomfortable playing in the north or even mentioning Tuluk IG because it's in such an awkward state. It's really OOC. This isn't some minor closed tribe. It's an entire city-state that somehow no one knows the state of and everyone pretends doesn't exist unless they are forced to acknowledge it. You can play a Tuluki refugee, but you can't know what's going on in the city that your character JUST escaped from. I would rather Tuluk be utterly destroyed forever than continue to exist in this jarring, immersion-breaking limbo. Tuluk has been in this uncomfortable half-existence for way too long now. Can we just do something? Anything?

[Krath]

Spot on. I feel uncomfortable playing in the north or even mentioning Tuluk IG because it's in such an awkward state. It's really OOC. This isn't some minor closed tribe. It's an entire city-state that somehow no one knows the state of and everyone pretends doesn't exist unless they are forced to acknowledge it. You can play a Tuluki refugee, but you can't know what's going on in the city that your character JUST escaped from. I would rather Tuluk be utterly destroyed forever than continue to exist in this jarring, immersion-breaking limbo. Tuluk has been in this uncomfortable half-existence for way too long now. Can we just do something? Anything?

Yes, I agree here. It is really awkward to bring Tuluk up at all because of the above statement

[Delirium]

what we need is for Tuluk itself to still be present in the story.

Spot on. I feel uncomfortable playing in the north or even mentioning Tuluk IG because it's in such an awkward state. It's really OOC. This isn't some minor closed tribe. It's an entire city-state that somehow no one knows the state of and everyone pretends doesn't exist unless they are forced to acknowledge it. You can play a Tuluki refugee, but you can't know what's going on in the city that your character JUST escaped from. I would rather Tuluk be utterly destroyed forever than continue to exist in this jarring, immersion-breaking limbo. Tuluk has been in this uncomfortable half-existence for way too long now. Can we just do something? Anything?

You said that far more eloquently than I could and I'm in complete agreement.

[Miradus]

If PK is such a sticky problem for so many of you ... here. I hereby sign the following PK pledge:

I will not kill you randomly, or if I suspect you're AFK, or just because I want your boots. I will not game the system in order to kill you. I may have to kill you in an apartment because you never leave the city and you only spamwalk between taverns and quit rooms, or I may have to kill you with a blowgun for the same reason, but rest assured your death is part of a larger story whether you know it or not, and if I can safely monologue for ten minutes while you expire in front of me as to the myriad of reasons why you're about to see the mantishead, then I shall. And if there's the means to simply maim or torture you instead of ending your story, I shall attempt that too, but know that when you refuse to give consent to anything ... well ... I probably got to just make some wine from your sour grapes and go ahead and kill you. Or if the last time I had you down stunned you immediately popped back up and ran to the nearest Templar to give them my entire masked description, well, I have to just kill you. Or if the last time I let you live it resulted in a city-wide manhunt by 20 people who didn't even have a thematic reason to even BE in the city, then I can't take the risk and ... I have to kill you.


Signed,
My many psychotic and murderous characters yet to come

[number13]

🙄

[tapas]

I wouldn't say player killing is the primary reason people leave. The game just exists in such a niche and appeals to such a particular age group and requires such a huge investment of time that of course players are going to move on. I just can't help but roll my eyes when someone says this or that reason or STAFF are the cause of the fading player base. It's just the nature of the beast.

That said. My disappointment in the past at how players handled player deaths has been palpable. So much so that I actually rage quit for a proper two years. And recently, again I've encountered some things that have left a bad taste in my mouth.

I play this game to have fun, bounce off of interesting characters and try to explore unexplored aspects of the game. Sorry but I have no interest in playing Locked Room Musical Chairs, Crime Code Tag or Lure the Patsy. And I don't care what your IC reasoning is either. I just don't. And I lose patience with players and staff that insist this is some sort of gold standard of Zalanthas.

You've got the tools. Assassins are better than ever. You've got all the heart-pounding pk-pvp you want. So cut out the scrub moves, please.

[Heade]

If PK is such a sticky problem for so many of you ... here. I hereby sign the following PK pledge:

I will not kill you randomly, or if I suspectbecause you're AFK, or just because I want your boots.but rest assured your death is part of a larger story whether you know it or not, and if I can safely monologue for ten minutes while you expire in front of me as to the myriad of reasons why you're about to see the mantishead, then I shall. And if there's the means to simply maim or torture you instead of ending your story, and it makes sense to do so IC, I shall attempt that too.

From the perspective of a player who has probably killed less PCs than you could count on one hand(directly), this is still all I'd be willing to agree to, from that pledge.

Wanting something another PC has and won't easily give up is completely legit cause for violence. In the synopsis of the game on the website, it suggests violence might occur over a drink of water. Them boots might pay ta fill up an entire skin. But I'd probably try other avenues, first. Just because you -can- kill someone, doesn't mean you -should-. But I want arm to be dangerous, and I like that some people play "desperate" PCs who are willing to kill or otherwise engage in violence to extract coin. I -do- wish those people would do it from the beginning, though, instead of spending 20 RL days twinking up their rinthi assassin to be able to steal boots. If they've put that much work in, I'd like to see players aim a little higher, at that point.

But I think this should be a general "ettiquette" style guideline in the docs somewhere, rather than a rule.

[Inky]

Combat code in Armageddon was clearly thoroughly tested on wildlife and in RPTs and the ilk. What is also plainly clear, is that there are enormous exploitable gaps that require quite a bit of player restraint to avoid when two people are fighting one another. Experiences vary, but when you have two 500 hours played characters engaging one another, with the potential risk being permanent loss of one character, it has been amply demonstrated that relying on players to moderate their gamesmanship is not possible.

My personal experience has been one of me attempting to exercise restraint -- letting people go where appropriate -- only to have them diligently apply perraine to 10-15 arrows over the next two OOC days and place them in a quiver with my name on it. I have had physics breaking, reality shattering exploitation of code smashed into me to lethal effect. And while I was never killed in this manner, I did play during the time period in which Whirrans were able to summon people over chasms for instant death by simply knowing their truenames, a state that persisted for some time before being acknowledged as the problem it was and patched out. Exploitative usage of code still persists and enjoys a vigorous prominence in PK.

Satisfying player on player conflict in Armageddon is only achievable when both players are more interested in telling an interesting story than they are with winning, because elsewise the less restrained of the two will smash their instant-win-button dejour and that'll be that. This is all terribly long-winded, but I'll concluded by simply quoting from the closing out requests I had as I was departing the game. I'm not sure if requests are intended to be confidential and I apologize if that is the case.

This really needs to be restated.

It's kind of hard to be charitable to the pro-pk players when you watch this sort of bullshit unfold over and over and over again.

It's really hard to be charitable to staff when they tell you to put in a player complaint you already know they're going to ignore.

[Armaddict]

Actually...that's all...pretty much a load of crap to me.  Just sayin'.

The code of Armageddon has shortcomings, but is actually by and large huge steps above other muds that are solely built around PvP, with the exception of -balancing-...something that is more in tune with pure PvP MUDS rather than RP Muds where roles are played but conflict is prevalent.  It's made up for by there being a whole other host of things that are important in the game besides combat in the first place.

Once again, the basis of that entire line of thought lies in permadeath, and every death needing to be 'tapped in' and filled with meaning pertaining to some non-existent arc.  It doesn't.  The characters, by and large, are meaningful to someone or another, but not every death is.  The story is told regardless, but not every character wraps up like the end of a well-written novel, because we are not writing novels.  We are writing paragraphs, chapters, footnotes, and blurbs in a much larger novel that never actually -does- wrap up.

It makes the age-old inference that short, sweet conflicts are deprivations and shouldn't happen.  It makes the age-old inference that such requires a 'winning armageddon' mentality rather than people just thriving in the setting the best they can.  And the irony of that latter inference is that it's...kinda the griper's desire to 'win' something out of it more than the guy who doesn't attach a bunch of additional meaning to the actions in the game.

[Veselka]

Actually...that's all...pretty much a load of crap to me.  Just sayin'.

The code of Armageddon has shortcomings, but is actually by and large huge steps above other muds that are solely built around PvP, with the exception of -balancing-...something that is more in tune with pure PvP MUDS rather than RP Muds where roles are played but conflict is prevalent.  It's made up for by there being a whole other host of things that are important in the game besides combat in the first place.

Once again, the basis of that entire line of thought lies in permadeath, and every death needing to be 'tapped in' and filled with meaning pertaining to some non-existent arc.  It doesn't.  The characters, by and large, are meaningful to someone or another, but not every death is.  The story is told regardless, but not every character wraps up like the end of a well-written novel, because we are not writing novels.  We are writing paragraphs, chapters, footnotes, and blurbs in a much larger novel that never actually -does- wrap up.

It makes the age-old inference that short, sweet conflicts are deprivations and shouldn't happen.  It makes the age-old inference that such requires a 'winning armageddon' mentality rather than people just thriving in the setting the best they can.  And the irony of that latter inference is that it's...kinda the griper's desire to 'win' something out of it more than the guy who doesn't attach a bunch of additional meaning to the actions in the game.

I agree. Being a long lived PC can provide your own natural story arc in a sense -- Scrub to Jaded Master. I've done it a couple times, and it's semi-satisfying in that any kind of death is a relief. What PK does is take away your control of that 'moment of death', much like in RL, and that can be upsetting to people. This idea of offering the benefit of the doubt, or restraining yourself, is an OOC construct. Would the PC restrain themselves? Would the PC give the benefit of the doubt? In a harsh world like Zalanthas, it's possible, but I also think it's fudging the lines of IC and OOC too closely for my liking.

I, personally, wouldn't offer the benefit of the doubt or restrain myself just because I'm considering the feelings of the other player. If the PCs have gotten to the point where a PK is happening, it's going to happen whether I like it or not, or whether they like it or not. It may be a long lived PC, I may have a long lived PC. But death has come, and it's time for one of us to roll up a new PC.

I think part of the issue here is attachment to PCs in general. The longer I play the game, the less attached I am to a PC, and the less I mind when/if they die. Have I had shitty deaths? Of course. I've been PKd while AFK, Paralyzed by an Elkran and given very little RP on the way out, and so on. You get over it. It might suck at the time, but it's part of what makes this game great or even possible. Permadeath, and PK within it.

The problem with saying you will give the benefit of the doubt or show restraint if it makes sense IC is that you can make anything make sense IC if you want. But you have to ask yourself -- Does this fit the setting of the game? Am I showing restraint out of some OOC consideration for a player? Because honestly, you aren't doing the game world itself any favors by not participating in one of the tagline of the game. In fact, the first one, in all caps.

MURDER.

[Inky]

Actually...that's all...pretty much a load of crap to me.  Just sayin'.

Nah.  Players that show restraint and a little bit of good faith are always going to lose to the players that don't.

The code of Armageddon has shortcomings, but is actually by and large huge steps above other muds that are solely built around PvP, with the exception of -balancing-...something that is more in tune with pure PvP MUDS rather than RP Muds where roles are played but conflict is prevalent.  It's made up for by there being a whole other host of things that are important in the game besides combat in the first place.

Once again, the basis of that entire line of thought lies in permadeath, and every death needing to be 'tapped in' and filled with meaning pertaining to some non-existent arc.  It doesn't.  The characters, by and large, are meaningful to someone or another, but not every death is.  The story is told regardless, but not every character wraps up like the end of a well-written novel, because we are not writing novels.  We are writing paragraphs, chapters, footnotes, and blurbs in a much larger novel that never actually -does- wrap up.

It makes the age-old inference that short, sweet conflicts are deprivations and shouldn't happen.  It makes the age-old inference that such requires a 'winning armageddon' mentality rather than people just thriving in the setting the best they can.  And the irony of that latter inference is that it's...kinda the griper's desire to 'win' something out of it more than the guy who doesn't attach a bunch of additional meaning to the actions in the game.

What? It's got nothing to do with the setting, how fast or slow conflicts are resolved or how storyable the death is.

It has everything to do with how the game is played and the choices made by the players.

[Vox]

+1 Vesleka and Armaddict

My biggest issue revolves around players' perception of how things should unfold for their character without allowing for that glorious variable of chaos to disrupt their carefully laid hopes and plans. Getting PK'ed is never going to feel great regardless of circumstances for the very fact that the player didn't 'choose' it. The only times I've heard players say they enjoyed their death is where they willingly chose it.. but even then they're faced with all the unresolved 'what if's. The sting is lessened though because they still felt 'in control.'

And that's my issue with people's complaints, the root is usually the lack of control. I encourage giving into the story and giving over control to the forces around you immediately upon log in. Everyone will have more fun.

[number13]

Fun PKs:
Two nearly equal characters duel to the death.
A dissonant gets chased down and slain by a large hunting party
Noble or merchants snipe at each other in escalating political moves that eventually involves minions dying on the street to each other's blades.

Unfun PKs:
Someone one-shots you in an tavern or apartment, and then sneak-hides back to their nigh-impenetrable fortress, in nearly perfect safety to themselves.

[Inky]

+1 Vesleka and Armaddict

My biggest issue revolves around players' perception of how things should unfold for their character without allowing for that glorious variable of chaos to disrupt their carefully laid hopes and plans. Getting PK'ed is never going to feel great regardless of circumstances for the very fact that the player didn't 'choose' it. The only times I've heard players say they enjoyed their death is where they willingly chose it.. but even then they're faced with all the unresolved 'what if's. The sting is lessened though because they still felt 'in control.'

And that's my issue with people's complaints, the root is usually the lack of control. I encourage giving into the story and giving over control to the forces around you immediately upon log in. Everyone will have more fun.

Nah. Players pk because they want to achieve control over their environment. And it's no wonder when there is little else someone can do to manipulate that environment.

I suspect the players that are more tolerant of uncertainty are less likely to pk because then they are not viewing anyone's characters as threats that need to be eliminated from their playsphere.

[Cind]

Its hard to play the game and not accidentally kill someone.

[Heade]

Noble or merchants snipe at each other in escalating political moves that eventually involves minions dying on the street to each other's blades.

This can't happen because of crim code.

Unfun PKs:
Someone one-shots you in an tavern or apartment, and then sneak-hides back to their nigh-impenetrable fortress, in nearly perfect safety to themselves.

Hence, this happens instead.

I don't think there is a problem with quick assassinations. The kneejerk reaction of most, if not all of the playerbase when confronted with the fact that there is a hostile person in a room with you who tries to RP is one of three things:

1. Drawing weapons to fight on more even terms,
2. Immediately trying to get out of the room,
3. or immediately waying people to get help.

Very rarely would it go to begging, or other general RP that wouldn't cost the aggressor pretty much ALL of their advantage. And therein lies the problem. You can't demand RP, then do one of the above. But if you(random person, not anyone in particular) were put into that position, it'd be very difficult to say you wouldn't do any of the above and have someone believe you. It's just instinct. Survival instinct, even. Having put so much time and effort into your character's story, it would be amazingly difficult to "reward" an assassin's attempted RP by not attempting to take away the advantage they had. And you'd be doing so by using code, which would include drawing weapons, waying, or trying to flee. And we have to bear in mind, quite often, the other person has JUST as much riding on the success or failure of that assassination as you do. Failure could absolutely mean their death. Even success, if they let you way first, could mean their death. And people who play assassins don't want to assassinate ONE person, ever, then die. That's not their vision for their character, just like dying to them isn't your vision for yours.

That's why the code is there. So that, when a conflict escalates to a point where emotes and says don't seem to be able to determine an outcome, the code then becomes the arbiter of who is the "victor".

If there was a room echo when someone used the way, just some sort of visual cue, it might encourage more RP before murders, since they'd know if you were trying to contact someone or not. But it wouldn't eliminate ALL of the instant assassinations, because they're coded that way as an arbiter of conflict. Stalking you around the city, or breaking into your apartment and waiting for you to get back, that -is- RP. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

It sucks, I know. I've been PKed that way, too. And there -are- some things I'd change if it were up to me, but requiring or expecting sneaky one-shot assassins to give up their coded advantage after they've put the work into the setup isn't it.

If a particular use of the code is viewed as unrealistic or abusive, or if code indirectly promotes abusive behavior, it should be the code that is asked to be changed, not the players utilizing it.

[number13]

And there -are- some things I'd change if it were up to me, but requiring or expecting sneaky one-shot assassins to give up their coded advantage after they've put the work into the setup isn't it.

I could abuse the fuck out of the code and get away with all sorts of improbable shit. It wouldn't be hard to log in way, way, way off peak and completely loot certain organizations. It would even easier just to get a backstage pass via joining organizations, and then completely loot them way off peak.

There's plenty of really super twinky things that could be done to "win" the game. We don't, generally, do them because these super twinky things aren't actually conducive to the overall story.

If a particular use of the code is viewed as unrealistic or abusive, or if code indirectly promotes abusive behavior, it should be the code that is asked to be changed, not the players utilizing it.

Both.

Let's take an extreme example and say I found a dupe bug that let me replicate obsidian within a Nenyuk account, and used it to make 100 million coins. Should the bug be fixed? Yes. Should I use the bug to do silly things in the story like dump chests full of 100,000 coins across every room in Allanak? No, I should not.

I could join the Arm, and go around PKing to my heart's content, with the aid of the wtfpwn NPC half-giants. Codewise, there's nothing stopping an Arm member from murdering the shit out of every last single noble in the game. I earned that coded advantage the hard way, by joining and advancing in what I consider an exceptionally boring clan. Who are you to say I shouldn't use it to murder PCs by the dozen?

[Heade]

And there -are- some things I'd change if it were up to me, but requiring or expecting sneaky one-shot assassins to give up their coded advantage after they've put the work into the setup isn't it.

I could abuse the fuck out of the code and get away with all sorts of improbable shit. It wouldn't be hard to log in way, way, way off peak and completely loot certain organizations. It would even easier just to get a backstage pass via joining organizations, and then completely loot them way off peak.

There's plenty of really super twinky things that could be done to "win" the game. We don't, generally, do them because these super twinky things aren't actually conducive to the overall story.

If a particular use of the code is viewed as unrealistic or abusive, or if code indirectly promotes abusive behavior, it should be the code that is asked to be changed, not the players utilizing it.

Both.

Let's take an extreme example and say I found a dupe bug that let me replicate obsidian within a Nenyuk account, and used it to make 100 million coins. Should the bug be fixed? Yes. Should I use the bug to do silly things in the story like dump chests full of 100,000 coins across every room in Allanak? No, I should not.

I could join the Arm, and go around PKing to my heart's content, with the aid of the wtfpwn NPC half-giants. Codewise, there's nothing stopping an Arm member from murdering the shit out of every last single noble in the game. I earned that coded advantage the hard way, by joining and advancing in what I consider an exceptionally boring clan. Who are you to say I shouldn't use it to murder PCs by the dozen?

In every scenario you described, there are NPCs or vNPCs that would be involved, and your actions would be punished ICly by staff(and possibly OOCly if they knew that you knew you were supposed to wish up if you were breaking into a compound full of NPCs, but you didn't.).

That is significantly different than what I'm referring to, and what several people are complaining about. People are complaining about assassins and sneaks using their skills as intended, by doing things like murdering you in your apartment without seen RP. But visible RP directly cancels out their main, coded, intended advantage, and transfers the opportunity for TONS of advantage to their victim, with I'd feel safe saying 95% of people would take advantage of. And sure, IRL, apartments/homes feel like a safe space. In arm, they're a killbox. I would like to see some effort put into changing that. But it's not the killers fault that apartments are that way. That's the codes fault, and you can't blame the players for ICly taking the route they're most likely not to lose their character on. Because BOTH characters have value to their prospective players.

And to answer your final hypothetical more directly:

"I could join the Arm, and go around PKing to my heart's content, with the aid of the wtfpwn NPC half-giants. Who are you to say I shouldn't use it to murder PCs by the dozen?"

First, I believe there is only 1 position in the game at the moment that isn't a highly policed sponsored role, who is in the Arm and could potentially incite aid from NPC half giants. And I don't think that PC can give them orders, so the NPC soldiers just have to HAPPEN to be nearby when someone is marked as wanted. It's not like they can run around with HG seal team six following them around to direct attack other PCs. HOWEVER, if -that- was your character, and it was IC for you to do kill all those people, I wouldn't fault you for doing it so long as you communicated with staff so that the NPC world reacted appropriately both during and after. If it was IC for you to kill 12 PCs in a single OOC night, and you pulled it off while still RPing everything on the money and communicating to staff? Fucking kudo's to you, my friend. That couldn't have been easy.

Now, if you're talking about PC sponsored roles who CAN order around half-giant seal team six to follow them around and murder whoever they want, those players have to follow a different set of expectations as outlined in the sponsored role when they're working with staff, specifically because those roles come with the power to perform partial game resets like that, and I imagine that in -most- cases, but not necessarily ALL cases, such an event wouldn't be within the scope of the sponsored role, as outlined in the agreement between staff and the player who is chosen to play it.

However, in the long history of Armageddon, I imagine there have been several instances of single players who have been responsible for similar numbers of deaths in single RPTs and such. It's not beyond the realm of reason for a player to do it, and have it be completely justifiable IC. And there is definite power imbalance between character types in the game. Not every pair of enemies in arm will be evenly matched, or even given an equal opportunity to BECOME evenly matched.

In that way, arm reflects the reality of real life, and it adds to the gritty, unforgiving, and yes, sometimes unfair feel of the world. And in this player's opinion, that is a part of it's charm.

[Inky]

Its hard to play the game and not accidentally kill someone.

I wouldn't call it a pk if it was an accident.

But I'll point out, following around some newbie who then just happens to lead us into an unwinnable fight with the pit gith is probably more enraging.