Hear me out - slight mounted stamina regeneration.

[Pariah]

...

As Inks sort of alluded to, I am talking a real vulnerability that would potentially allow someone a good opportunity to kill your character.  Your above example would just mean you were pretty much always at a set level of stamina, because you would move up or down to it.

So elves who are a much smaller subset of the playerbase having a chance to attack/kill/harass you is the main reason against this?

[Armaddict]

So elves who are a much smaller subset of the playerbase having a chance to attack/kill/harass you is the main reason against this?

Not elves, and not necessarily death.  I know it may not make sense to you yet, or may never will, but it falls into the 'realism vs playability' scale, where ideas can't always be automatically accepted just because they are realistic, or just because they improve gameplay.

In this case, it's because there are some unrealistic benefits/detriments around riding that are based on playability, and the scale of stamina is one of them.  It's about inconvenience.   It's about the possibility of poor circumstance based off of something that is foreseeable, so that you can take the gamble (I could go do x, but that would result in the chance of y).  It's about the chance encounter in the wilderness at the well-known water hole that can be both friendly or unfriendly, but will not happen if the stamina games get 'too comfortable'.

A lot of 'weird' things in the game are at least one-foot-in on this sort of game design.  Brokkr is saying that if you can come up with a -real- downside to what you propose that could create these sort of aforementioned scenarios or some new ones that are likewise 'chances for things to happen', it could be entertained more, but he's not interested in removing the small downsides of ride in its current state.

[Pariah]

So elves who are a much smaller subset of the playerbase having a chance to attack/kill/harass you is the main reason against this?

Not elves, and not necessarily death.  I know it may not make sense to you yet, or may never will, but it falls into the 'realism vs playability' scale, where ideas can't always be automatically accepted just because they are realistic, or just because they improve gameplay.

In this case, it's because there are some unrealistic benefits/detriments around riding that are based on playability, and the scale of stamina is one of them.  It's about inconvenience.   It's about the possibility of poor circumstance based off of something that is foreseeable, so that you can take the gamble (I could go do x, but that would result in the chance of y).  It's about the chance encounter in the wilderness at the well-known water hole that can be both friendly or unfriendly, but will not happen if the stamina games get 'too comfortable'.

A lot of 'weird' things in the game are at least one-foot-in on this sort of game design.  Brokkr is saying that if you can come up with a -real- downside to what you propose that could create these sort of aforementioned scenarios or some new ones that are likewise 'chances for things to happen', it could be entertained more, but he's not interested in removing the small downsides of ride in its current state.

I'll leave that for you more creative folks to look for, I've always thought the bend of everything leaning towards PVP was a bit much.  I understand this is a game where codedly I can play a dude for a RL year and kill that newbie hunter for his boots and be within the rules, but I would never look to do something like that because I don't enjoy roleplaying someone of that slant.

I do get it, I've seen plenty of posts on here where folks said they play this game to cut up people with bone swords.

It's just not for me, I look at ways to make the game more enjoyable and alive, not just ways to kill someone.

(Had to run to a C Level meeting, so was typing fast on my phone, sorry if this comes across sorta short.)

[Armaddict]

So elves who are a much smaller subset of the playerbase having a chance to attack/kill/harass you is the main reason against this?

Not elves, and not necessarily death.  I know it may not make sense to you yet, or may never will, but it falls into the 'realism vs playability' scale, where ideas can't always be automatically accepted just because they are realistic, or just because they improve gameplay.

In this case, it's because there are some unrealistic benefits/detriments around riding that are based on playability, and the scale of stamina is one of them.  It's about inconvenience.   It's about the possibility of poor circumstance based off of something that is foreseeable, so that you can take the gamble (I could go do x, but that would result in the chance of y).  It's about the chance encounter in the wilderness at the well-known water hole that can be both friendly or unfriendly, but will not happen if the stamina games get 'too comfortable'.

A lot of 'weird' things in the game are at least one-foot-in on this sort of game design.  Brokkr is saying that if you can come up with a -real- downside to what you propose that could create these sort of aforementioned scenarios or some new ones that are likewise 'chances for things to happen', it could be entertained more, but he's not interested in removing the small downsides of ride in its current state.

I'll leave that for you more creative folks to look for, I've always thought the bend of everything leaning towards PVP was a bit much.  I understand this is a game where codedly I can play a dude for a RL year and kill that newbie hunter for his boots and be within the rules, but I would never look to do something like that because I don't enjoy roleplaying someone of that slant.

I do get it, I've seen plenty of posts on here where folks said they play this game to cut up people with bone swords.

It's just not for me, I look at ways to make the game more enjoyable and alive, not just ways to kill someone.

(Had to run to a C Level meeting, so was typing fast on my phone, sorry if this comes across sorta short.)

It's not really a PvP mechanic, it's a survival-game mechanic.  Survival games notoriously insert inconveniences to create challenges or survival scenarios that result in challenges or odd events.  PvP in Armageddon, at least by intention, is a lot less of a 'Go after other players!' and a lot more about including other players in your survival scenarios.  The ruthlessness and underhandedness and overall 'meanness' isn't about permissiveness for cruelty, it's about including other players in the challenges you face, because ultimately players are better at creating challenges to overcome than any DIKU mud will ever really set up.  Without it, the concept of 'roleplaying in a brutal harsh world where survival is hard and life is cruel' is really just learning some code tidbits just like any other survival game.   With it, it turns into a need for hypervigilance and a force reduction of trust that makes cooperative endeavors gambles and makes death more certain, leading through the next playthrough of the hardcore-roleplay-roguelike.

My desert-elf raider isn't created because I want to chase people all over the known shooting arrows.  It's because I want to be part of a harsh desert environment where mistakes can cost the ultimate price, and where I am constantly fending off that ultimate price myself as well; you, the player, help me in the coolness of that story by merely existing.  You, the character, are just another threat or opportunity in an entire game of threats and opportunities, but you are far more interesting.