The Reverse-Threaten: Evade!

[Windstorm]

evade raider
You prepare to evade the figure in a dusty, dust-colored dust-looking dustcloak.

emote tries to roleplay a scene with the figure in a dusty, dust-colored dust-looking dustcloak, grebbing with excruciating, insufferable detail and flowery emoting.

The figure in a dusty, dust-colored dust-looking dustcloak attacks you.
You're prepared, and attempt to evade the figure in a dusty, dust-colored dust-looking dustcloak!
You flee, heading west!

ALSO:
In the vein of giving agility and/or smaller-sized PCs an advantage over megastrengthbros, evade could factor agility into who "succeeds". Elves are suddenly slippery like they are meant to be, while Half-giants have an exploitable weakness.

[BadSkeelz]

Isn't this just >Flee self?

[Windstorm]

It's an instant reaction to being attacked.

A potentially threatening PC gets to approach without being immediately spamwalked away from. It allows for a potential of interaction despite threatening circumstances.

That's how I see it anyway.

[Dracul]

auto flee self.

Please add this! This will open up the engagement of descriptive scenes just as much as threaten does with the "I'm going to flee but...I'm emoting until you kick in the code"

[Brokkr]

If you want a better chance to avoid the consequences of being threatened, then learn threaten.

[creeper386]

If you want a better chance to avoid the consequences of being threatened, then learn threaten.

In what I've seen of people talking about this, this isn't about avoiding being threatened. This is a mechanic to allow someone to hopefully RP some, without immediately fleeing or spam walking away, when they see someone else.

Threaten, really doesn't apply in this sense though. Because the auto-flee kicks in if the ""threatener"" attacks. They are already attacking so threaten I don't think applies any more.

[LindseyBalboa]

please don't add auto flee.

remove flee for a bit after a failed flee? sure. but don't add wimpy 100.

[Windstorm]

Well the alternative is just the status quo: spamwalk away from raiders and they can't do anything and generally don't get to interact.

I just don't think that's ideal. This is an alternative.

[Gunnerblaster]

So, as neat an idea as it is, I don't see any feasible way to train this, in-game. Same as, to me, the only way to increase your skill of Threaten is via actually attacking and trying to kill people.

And, while not codedly exactly to work in the way you describe, there is the flee command which, if you're being attacked, has no lag. Additionally, the >nosave combat option I believe makes you fight defensively, focusing more on evasion and defense - And it has no noticeable echo.

[Dar]

Additionally, the >nosave combat option I believe makes you fight defensively, focusing more on evasion and defense - And it has no noticeable echo.

I don't think nosave combat improves your defence.  Though it should.  It merely prevents you from attacking back.

[Brokkr]

If you want a better chance to avoid the consequences of being threatened, then learn threaten.

In what I've seen of people talking about this, this isn't about avoiding being threatened. This is a mechanic to allow someone to hopefully RP some, without immediately fleeing or spam walking away, when they see someone else.

Threaten, really doesn't apply in this sense though. Because the auto-flee kicks in if the ""threatener"" attacks. They are already attacking so threaten I don't think applies any more.

Ok, so straight up nope on an auto flee.  If a threatener attacks, that has nothing to do with threaten.  Threaten only activates if you do something, like type a movement command.  Threaten has a chance not to activate when you do something.  Increase this chance by knowing how to threaten.

[Windstorm]

I feel like my idea's maybe being misinterpreted.

It's not a counter to threaten, it's giving a potential raider victim a chance to interact with the raider instead of just walking away instantaneously before they can even be threatened.

The way things are, people will (and do) probably just walk away instantaneously and no roleplay's really had out of it.

Just like there's a prepared attack if someone tries to leave, this is a prepared retreat if someone tries to attack. In the meanwhile, there's a potential for interaction.

The alternative, how things currently stand, is just typing "w" and that being the end of the encounter.

[Kaathe]

This isn't complex it's just threaten flee. Doesn't and shouldn't be a new command.

https://armageddon.org/help/view/threaten

Presumably there's already some checks for threaten vs threaten.

And it already supports these actions: bluff (aka do nothing), bash, subdue, kill

So you would just add "flee" to the list. Then in all the same cases as threaten currently activates, it would issue a flee self instead of bluff, bash, subdue or kill

as to WHY this is useful, it's useful the same reason threaten is: it lets you ready your action so you are not at a disadvantage while writing a emote or having a conversation. Really everyone should be able to threaten instead of it being just combat classes. Sure they would stay the best, but it's a valuable RP tool and still skill based. Let's give it to everyone.

I think this all is good idea, but it's well outside my purview so my opinion is worth as much as any player here.

[creeper386]

If you want a better chance to avoid the consequences of being threatened, then learn threaten.

In what I've seen of people talking about this, this isn't about avoiding being threatened. This is a mechanic to allow someone to hopefully RP some, without immediately fleeing or spam walking away, when they see someone else.

Threaten, really doesn't apply in this sense though. Because the auto-flee kicks in if the ""threatener"" attacks. They are already attacking so threaten I don't think applies any more.

Ok, so straight up nope on an auto flee.  If a threatener attacks, that has nothing to do with threaten.  Threaten only activates if you do something, like type a movement command.  Threaten has a chance not to activate when you do something.  Increase this chance by knowing how to threaten.

We are talking about a command that could help INCREASE interaction. The point is you can go ahead and have a chance of interacting with a player, instead of just going, "Oh no, another player. I better spam walk away from them." Which definitely happens now, and plenty.

[racurtne]

This isn't complex it's just threaten flee. Doesn't and shouldn't be a new command.

https://armageddon.org/help/view/threaten

Presumably there's already some checks for threaten vs threaten.

And it already supports these actions: bluff (aka do nothing), bash, subdue, kill

So you would just add "flee" to the list. Then in all the same cases as threaten currently activates, it would issue a flee self instead of bluff, bash, subdue or kill

as to WHY this is useful, it's useful the same reason threaten is: it lets you ready your action so you are not at a disadvantage while writing a emote or having a conversation. Really everyone should be able to threaten instead of it being just combat classes. Sure they would stay the best, but it's a valuable RP tool and still skill based. Let's give it to everyone.

I think this all is good idea, but it's well outside my purview so my opinion is worth as much as any player here.

Promoting interaction while still giving people a coded chance at getting away.

[LindseyBalboa]

They have a chance to get away. It's built into threaten. If your options when it comes to running into people are "spam smash flee" and "auto escape wimpy 0" there are lots of characters that will protect you for money or favors.

[creeper386]

They have a chance to get away. It's built into threaten. If your options when it comes to running into people are "spam smash flee" and "auto escape wimpy 0" there are lots of characters that will protect you for money or favors.

That's IFFFFF threaten gets used, this really has nothing to do with threaten. Other then as a way to describe the concept.

Lets say raider walks into a room and just goes, "kill grebber" because you gave them time by typing an emote, and you die.

Next time, you see someone in the sands and you choose to spam walk away instead.

With this idea, you could queue your flee, for if they decide to attack. So lets say, they come in and they threaten you, you can threaten to flee. Then until on side decides to try and leave, or the other side decides to attack, there is a chance to interact before introducing coded actions.

So threaten has a way to queue an attack if they do something. This concept would be to queue up a flee, if someone decides to do something. Whoever decides to do something first, triggers the others queued action.

[LindseyBalboa]

They have a chance to get away. It's built into threaten. If your options when it comes to running into people are "spam smash flee" and "auto escape wimpy 0" there are lots of characters that will protect you for money or favors.

That's IFFFFF threaten gets used, this really has nothing to do with threaten. Other then as a way to describe the concept.

Lets say raider walks into a room and just goes, "kill grebber" because you gave them time by typing an emote, and you die.

Next time, you see someone in the sands and you choose to spam walk away instead.

With this idea, you could queue your flee, for if they decide to attack. So lets say, they come in and they threaten you, you can threaten to flee. Then until on side decides to try and leave, or the other side decides to attack, there is a chance to interact before introducing coded actions.

So threaten has a way to queue an attack if they do something. This concept would be to queue up a flee, if someone decides to do something. Whoever decides to do something first, triggers the others queued action.

I get the concept, and I even understand why this is attractive. I just think that in a collaborative roleplaying game, there should not be things that make it easier to avoid interaction.

Someone whose first instinct is to run away from PCs they meet in the wilds could benefit greatly from hired PC guards, which then not only puts them on the same playing field (because guard is a command that automatically provides defense) but includes other PCs in the roleplay.

What I would really like to see is something usable in the wilderness only, which codely represents how large the rooms are if someone is trying to keep distance. This would give the same basic end, but be more like:

Amos shows up from the west, Soma shows up from the east. Amos hits the distance command and emotes about coming in and spying someone far off. Soma can do what they want, now, but if they want to perform any aggressive, touching, or short-range action, they have to make a check to get closer to Amos. If Amos succeeds the check, Soma does not close any distance and has a delay in which they can only emote etc. Amos cannot attack back except using ranged combat without dropping out of the distance stance, which also has a delay.

This way there is never any roleplay or interaction lost, but there's a reasonable expectation of safety in wilderness rooms if you can manage to keep your distance from someone in the huge-ass rooms. No possibility of Amos Kurac walking in from the west and Doofus the d-elf stalker/slipknife sneaking in hidden from the east and backstabbing Amos immediately, etc.

[creeper386]

That concept gives the same option of as this suggested one.

But also doesn't have the same use. Both would be great.

What you suggest doesn't offer any more chance for allowing interaction then the queuing up a flee.

Both would be for allowing interaction to happen.

But the evade option ... Say would allow someone to do trade. Because there isn't some arbitrary distance involved.


I'm not sure why combat characters get an option to force interaction before code. But someone potentially fleeing isn't given the same support. It's either flee, or just hope that someone else wants to RP.

[LindseyBalboa]

Flee leaves the room.

An idea using distance would keep both PCs in the same room.

It's not supposed to offer more avoidance of interaction, it's supposed to offer less avoidance of interaction.

Because both PCs would be in the same room the entire time able to talk and emote, safe from each other unless one runs up on the other, or they start shooting bows or casting magic.

Threaten is an action that is in response to another character's action. It can fail, because the threatener is too slow.

Auto flee... what? Would you run away from the room randomly because you're jumpy and think someone reaching for a drink on the bar is actually pulling a knife? Because that's the inverse option of failure, and although hilarious, I don't think it would work well. Really asking because I don't think it has a viable fail.

You can flee in response to being attacked now as-is, by typing flee. There just is not a way to flee before being attacked, because that's just leaving the scene by typing a direction.

[creeper386]

Sorry. For avoiding conflict not intereaction.


The evade option allows part parties to stay in the same room without initializing combat or fleeing.

That's the point.

It's saying, hey, i'm ready to run. Just like threaten says, hey I'm ready to attack.

In the mean time. Flee doesn't happen. They can interact. Talk do whatever. Until someone decides to walk away ( threaten kicks in) or attack ( evade kicks in ).

It allows interaction before engaging code.


You suggestion works great, but also limits the type of interactions that can happen. They'd probably work best together. Allowing people that want to stay away from people outside, to stay away from people outside and allowing people that want to interact, do so, without the penalty of the other person getting a hand up because they typed, "kill grebber" before the grebber typed flee.

[LindseyBalboa]

You're always ready to flee though. You can flee before combat at any point.

You're asking for code that makes you try to anticipate an attack, and then avoid it somehow, and then also turn and disengage and then run off away from someone.

Threaten ONLY indicates they're going to try something and then takes one reaction, based on character skill, which is avoidable. It is one action.

You threaten someone, they move, you try to bash them at a lower success rate than if you'd just bashed them. You have given up combat utility, skill level, and a chance at winning, in exchange for the opportunity to RP. That's how serious you are about RP, you've weakened yourself and given someone else an advantage over your character's life.

Auto flee gives up nothing in exchange for making several actions at once and indicates that you're okay with roleplay only if you have an advantage over the other player and less risk.

[creeper386]

You don't just do one action. Barring bluff and subdue I'm pretty bash and kill all initiate combat.

This evade should probably also be a skill check, based off your .... Flee skill. To avoid the incoming combat. So just like, if you try and walk away, if someone threatens you, they have a chance to do something, if someone tries to do something, you have a chance to run away. To me it already incidates, I'm trying to keep my distance. I'm being weary of the situation


Right now, the combat characters hold ALL the cards, which leaves folks into avoiding interaction.

The flee allows you to say, "hey i'm ready to run is something goes wrong." Just as much as threaten says, "Hey, I'm ready to attack if you do something I don't like."

This would be GREATLY more preferable over, I see an elf, "e;e;e;s;s;e;e;n;n;enter wagon".

[creeper386]

The same conversation has been had from before I starting playing Arm.

Raiders kill on sight, and they do it because people auto flee and spam walk away from.

Other people say they auto flee and spam walk away from them because they kill on sight.


Giving tools to solely two one of these groups to force interaction doesn't help anything. Especially when that interaction is to engage code. I don't care if it's a bash, or a subdue or kill. Then you've given more power to the raider, to have control over the confrontation, and make the people that want to auto flee and spam walk away feeling even more vulnerable and out of control.

That inherently doesn't fix the problem. It makes it worse.

[Riev]

Anecdote:

New PC. Rinthi Warrior. Got hired to guard someone out on the sands. Took it seriously.
Raider clan PC comes by. Guardee spam-flees immediately. I get attacked. Knocked out in the sands.
Did not die. Just got raided. My PC later becomes a Guild Boss that interrupts weddings and paints lewd pictures of templars AND GETS AWAY WITH IT.

Hire more people to guard you in the sands.


On topic? Raiders now HAVE threaten to let people know they should expect a scene. Do some people still run;e;e;kill man ? Of course they do. You will never get away from that, and NPCs will do the same.
I'm almost on board with the idea, but I don't think it wil fix the issue.

[Brokkr]

I'm just not seeing the usefulness other than for slow typing.  I mean...

Raider Comes in.
You type evade raider.
Raider attacks you.
Raider gets first set of attacks in.
You flee.

Not sure how that is any different than just typing flee when they attack.

It may be you envision the blue bit not happening, but I can't really envision that not happening.  Otherwise this would become a bash/charge/whatever defense, which is entirely different.

[Riev]

I believe the intention is:

Raider Comes in.
You type evade raider.
Raider ATTEMPTS TO ATTACK/BASH/ENGAGE you.
You attempt to flee before combat engages.

A failure being you get hit and have to try and flee again.
The suggestion is to be able to auto-flee BEFORE the raider attacks, not to flee after the first attacks come in.

The idea is that, like how threaten engages combat when the opponent performs an action, flee would go off before combat initiates.

Not that I am for it, but so that we are thinking of the same thing.

[Brokkr]

I can't really envision that not happening.  Otherwise this would become a bash/charge/whatever defense, which is entirely different.

Bolded for emphasis.  It isn't even an auto-flee if you evade the attacks, it becomes a defense skill against those attack skills.

And then how are they supposed to kill you?

[creeper386]

The problem is even you as staff can't forsee it going to code. Neither can the grebber. - misread

Threaten was given as a tool for players to help engage without going to code.

But the other side of the equation, was giving no tools.

You have a raider and a grebber right. They both are concerned with unrealistic play taking away their agency. So they both result to code, right of the bat. No interaction.

The raider was giving threaten, which helps provide opportunity for RP. The grebber was given no tool to help ensure their agency. They have no way to enforce that they aren't letting the raider near them, or that they are ready to run. Other then just spam walking away.

The grebber doesn't trust the raiders play. Giving the raider threaten which just helps take away the grebber's agency doesn't help the grebber trust the raiders play.

Auto flee gives up nothing in exchange for making several actions at once and indicates that you're okay with roleplay only if you have an advantage over the other player and less risk.

The same could be said of threaten. The Raider isn't okay with roleplay unless they have an advantage over the other player and less risk of their raid being foiled.

It isn't multiple actions in my mind. It'd preparing to run. And then running if things go wrong. If you fail, their actions still go through.

[Brokkr]

Then it becomes who could type evade or threaten first?  Because obviously given the nature of them, they couldn't be in place at the same time on each other (one is you get close enough to threaten someone, the other is you keep them far away enough so you can run).

[Riev]

Trigger
Match *has arrived from the*
execute: evade

[Pariah]

I am completely confused as to what the two sides of this debate are trying to convince the other about.

Is one side arguing that they should be able to "Get ready to run." and get a chance to flee sans attack?  Like a successful flee command currently?

And the other is arguing they should just type Flee?

So automation is the argument here?

[Armaddict]

I would also like a auto-cure poison skill please.  And an auto-dodge bash skill.

I would also appreciate a coded in chance to dodge arrows in addition to the ones in place.  And I'd also like an additional skill to catch a thief's hands when they steal.

If you do this I will feel more confident having a scene where I win and have more control so that I can look down my nose and tell them I'm rping now where they weren't.

[Riev]

I would also like a auto-cure poison skill please.  And an auto-dodge bash skill.

I would also appreciate a coded in chance to dodge arrows in addition to the ones in place.  And I'd also like an additional skill to catch a thief's hands when they steal.

If you do this I will feel more confident having a scene where I win and have more control so that I can look down my nose and tell them I'm rping now where they weren't.

Have my children, though.

[LindseyBalboa]

The same conversation has been had from before I starting playing Arm.

Raiders kill on sight, and they do it because people auto flee and spam walk away from.

Other people say they auto flee and spam walk away from them because they kill on sight.

Nobody can kill on sight. They have to try and attack you or engage you and then attack you, or do some other command. Threaten doesn't even do that - it's actually the opposite. They are not 'giving up roleplay,' they are literally making themselves combat vulnerable and giving themselves a malus to their skill to try and get roleplay.

Whereas with auto flee, anyone who is playing the game can type flee at any time. If you want to flee before someone attacks you, flee self can be done anytime.

Or:

Trigger
Match *has arrived from the*
execute: evade

I mean this is basically the same thing. If you have mudlet you can script a %chance into it, and maybe some fun factors like if they're taller, bigger, or it's night.

I am completely confused as to what the two sides of this debate are trying to convince the other about.

Is one side arguing that they should be able to "Get ready to run." and get a chance to flee sans attack?  Like a successful flee command currently?

And the other is arguing they should just type Flee?

So automation is the argument here?

One side has suggested that there should be a command that puts you into a ready-to-flee stance that makes you flee before you're attacked, and also makes you disengage from the combatant, and also turn around, and also flee. The idea is that threaten is for aggressors to RP so non-fighting-characters should have a command that lets them run off, which will stimulate roleplay between strangers, especially players that are fearful of being attacked quickly without RP.

The other side says there is a flee command that you can use to do that right now. Just like threaten has to succeed and then the skill has to succeed, if you're attacked you have a chance of successfully dodging, and successfully fleeing. It is already the opposite of threaten, and combat characters who might actually attack you are giving up some of that utility to use threaten to ask for RP. This is a command that uses skills and stats of characters and is used based on the character.

[Windstorm]

I would also like a auto-cure poison skill please.  And an auto-dodge bash skill.

I would also appreciate a coded in chance to dodge arrows in addition to the ones in place.  And I'd also like an additional skill to catch a thief's hands when they steal.

If you do this I will feel more confident having a scene where I win and have more control so that I can look down my nose and tell them I'm rping now where they weren't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Politely, let's keep things productive.

[Armaddict]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Politely, let's keep things productive

Hold on.  Which part did I misunderstand?  Are we NOT presenting a skill that adds another check to the success of another skill made by another person, despite its own inherent checks?  I'm afraid I must have read this entirely wrong.

Or I didn't, and these are just comparable ideas, not strawmen, particularly since I didn't present them in order to make an argument against those as if I was arguing against the original idea.  It's sarcasm, sure.  Fallacy?  Naw.

[Windstorm]

Not worth it, nevermind.

[Armaddict]

Where was an auto-poison cure proposed?

Where was an auto-arrow-dodge proposed?

Where was an auto bash dodge proposed?

Please list specific examples.

Or, admit they were strawmen.

They're not comparable examples, it's arguing in bad faith, being snarky and cute, and fairly transparent about it.

They were proposed by me.  Because they follow the same premise as the original idea.  You find them distasteful because they follow the same approach but sound a lot worse.

If you want it to be all nice and dandy:

If we want to add more checks to the use of aggressive skills, then those can be done directly in the skill.  Something along the lines of 'Can threaten give an echo to the receiver that they try to take a position of initiative but fail', which could then lead to the same argument, which is that there's already skill checks for failure via [threaten] as well as skill checks for your success via [flee].  If threaten is too effective, we could also talk about that.

What is actually desired here is confidence in the control, i.e. your knowledge that you can behave confidently in nullifying someone else's skill whose level you don't know yet.  That is why they're not strawmen, is because you're focusing as if the argument was directly about one thing and one thing alone.  But it isn't.  It's about mechanics, and how to be confident in those mechanics.  So I've shown the same mechanic in similar scenarios.

It also does not do anything to increase interaction; that's the original purpose of threaten in the first place, is to allow for someone to use a command that still allows them to maintain initiative, but allow for other actions to take place without losing that initiative.  This gave the aggressor the ability to make for more elaborate scenes.  The 'increase in interaction' in adding another skill check is just to reduce effectiveness for what inevitably becomes the same action:  Right now, if someone threatens you, and you decide you want to play, you can.  If you decide you want to run, you get to try to run.  As mentioned above, a 'counter-skill' isn't any more needed here than any of the other listed skills unless you are specifically trying to make those skills less effective.

If you want an example of an actual strawman, albeit a poor one:
"By adding this check, you are trying to eliminate combat. [Notice how this statement has nothing to do with what you've said.  I'm taking the idea you've presented, and pushing it into grounds where I'm putting words in your mouth.] Eliminating combat is a bad endeavor, because it is integral to the strife of the game. [Notice how I am no longer arguing against your presented idea, I am now arguing against what I've changed your argument into.]"

What I've done is shown similar cases where a skill from one person has success checks for their effectiveness, and made the same request: Please add another skill to give me a chance to make that skill less effective at what it's supposed to do.  They follow the same mechanic as presented here (except the poison one, that's actually a bad one that's more centered on negating effect rather than action).

They aren't even slippery slope despite sounding extreme.  They are, literally, the same mechanic proposed in the same arena in order to demonstrate why a new skill, and in particular a new skill, is not a great solution.  You seem to be assuming that I'm saying no change can happen.  What I -am- saying is that creating counter-skills is clunky and weird.  I also think it likely results in having to re-evaluate how we determine success and failure for any skill that a counter-skill is created for.

Would you care to redirect into what it is about threaten in particular that is stifling to the interaction that it was put in to enable?  Does it not fail often enough?  Does it not account for enough?  Or is it just anxiety-inducing to know that your general defensive actions still give them their move as the scene unfolds?

[Windstorm]

It's not a counter to threaten, it's giving a potential raider victim a chance to interact with the raider instead of just walking away instantaneously before they can even be threatened.

The way things are, people will (and do) probably just walk away instantaneously and no roleplay's really had out of it.

Just like there's a prepared attack if someone tries to leave, this is a prepared retreat if someone tries to attack. In the meanwhile, there's a potential for interaction.

The alternative, how things currently stand, is just typing "w" and that being the end of the encounter.

[Armaddict]

Why is there no chance to interact with the threatener as it stands?  If they attack instead of interact after the threaten, the threaten goes away and you flee, where the additional skill check never comes into play.  If they threaten and start to interact, you have interaction.

If you are walking away before they have the chance to threaten, you are not looking for interaction.  If you stick around to interact, then decide you need to leave, they have a skill check (and possibly another skillcheck) and you have a skillcheck.

How does the additional skill check (making 2 and possibly 3 that they need to succeed at for actual success at the aggression) promote any more interaction when every scenario already allows for that same interaction?

[creeper386]

I would also like a auto-cure poison skill please.  And an auto-dodge bash skill.

I would also appreciate a coded in chance to dodge arrows in addition to the ones in place.  And I'd also like an additional skill to catch a thief's hands when they steal.

If you do this I will feel more confident having a scene where I win and have more control so that I can look down my nose and tell them I'm rping now where they weren't.

Lets see, auto cure, you can now take cures before hand and they help. So that's in. As you've stated you've already have chances to avoid a bash and a dodge. And a steal.

You know what you don't have control over, RPing trying to keep distance from someone and them charging/bashing you instantly when they come into a room and killing you.

Instead, we well just continue having players spam walk away from other players like currently happens.

[Armaddict]

I would also like a auto-cure poison skill please.  And an auto-dodge bash skill.

I would also appreciate a coded in chance to dodge arrows in addition to the ones in place.  And I'd also like an additional skill to catch a thief's hands when they steal.

If you do this I will feel more confident having a scene where I win and have more control so that I can look down my nose and tell them I'm rping now where they weren't.

Lets see, auto cure, you can now take cures before hand and they help. So that's in. As you've stated you've already have chances to avoid a bash and a dodge. And a steal.

You know what you don't have control over, RPing trying to keep distance from someone and them charging/bashing you instantly when they come into a room and killing you.

Instead, we well just continue having players spam walk away from other players like currently happens.

Saying those are already is the same state that threaten is currently in.

Threaten is the increased interactivity.  It's actually less effective than just running in with a bash or charge or what have you, so the aggressor already takes a hit to basically let you know that there is the opportunity to play.  But if you're just looking to walk away, it's not the aggressor causing a lack of interactivity, it's you.

They have the chance for threaten to fail, you have the chance to flee.  There is no 'additional skill' that gives you a second attempt at avoiding a steal or bash, it's just you.  It -is- influenced by you having the same skill, which I believe is also in for threaten.

I'm uncertain why instead of asking for a modification to threaten to do this or that, you're presenting an entirely new skill that specifically targets threaten.  And I'm still not seeing how that increases interaction, when in reality with 'how these scenes go', it's actually just giving more reason to skip threaten altogether and jump straight into combat.

Threaten specifically takes that first offensive action that occurs in raiding/mugging/guarding and puts it in delay so that you have the chance to play a scene without losing the initiative as the aggressor.  This is a giant boon as far as trying to make scenes with clear communication rather than only interaction being the actions themselves (which are still roleplay, mind you).

I really don't know what else to say; the description of this interaction is more telling of why threaten was put in the first place than anything else, and a full on verification of why the raider/raidee interaction goes this way.

[Pariah]

I don't think I've ever been codedly threatened in game, is this really a very used skill?

I'm not Poo Poo ing improvements to it, but just wondering if on all my stalkers I just got lucky and never ran into all the people using Threaten.

[creeper386]

That's the thing. Threaten still being put in, still doesn't help prevent anyone from spam walking away. While you are walking towards them.


I've been riding around a lot. You know how many people instantly walk away. A ton, seems to be pretty much a common occurrence and threaten hasn't really changed that.

The point is, this sort of skill would allow you to actually wait and interact INSTEAD of walking away.

Grebber is grebbing. Raider walks in.

Grebber evades raider.
Raider threatens grebber.

Interaction can happen. If it escalates to kill, grebbers evade gives a chance to run, without just getting charged/bashed  possibly instantly killed.

If the grebber tries to leave, the threaten skill would kick in.

Currently though, the power just still exists all within the attacker. If they come in and hit threaten, and that's it. They don't have to care about anything else. How large the rooms are, how likely someone is trying to avoid them anything.

And it does NOTHING for the grebber to trust that the Raider is playing in good faith. Instead it just says, the raider is interested in RPing only if they have the upper hand. This sort of thing helps even that out.

[Kaathe]

Then it becomes who could type evade or threaten first?  Because obviously given the nature of them, they couldn't be in place at the same time on each other (one is you get close enough to threaten someone, the other is you keep them far away enough so you can run).

Calling it evade is confusing.

It's threaten flee.

However 2 people using threaten on each other works is the same way this would work (assuming threaten doesn't activate threaten. If it does it's not in the help file.)

The point is to queue the action you want to do if they attack or flee so the computer can do it if you're in the middle of typing an emote or a say.

I'm not Poo Poo ing improvements to it, but just wondering if on all my stalkers I just got lucky and never ran into all the people using Threaten.

You'd be lucky if you did run into threaten because it's the attacker saying "hey i could have typed bash immediately, but instead I'm doing threaten so we can RP"