Suggestion: Tavern rooms also flagged "no combat"

[mansa]

I have a suggestion:
All tavern rooms are also flagged as non-combat rooms.

This would prevent players from initiating deadly combat with other players in these special rooms.


Reasons for:
Combat is binary, either you are or you aren't.  Brawling is an alternative which is enabled in these rooms with the hit command, which is already non-life-threatening.

This will prevent people from being killed in certain 'safe' rooms.


Reasons against:
If a character is being a jerk against another character, the only option is to leave the safe room.


Unanswered questions:
Can you do activities that may result in combat if the activity fails?
Should NPCs be exempt?
Can you subdue someone?
Can you cast a spell or will a barkeep throw a mug at you and say do this elsewhere?
Are certain clans exempt?

[Lizzie]

Another question:

Can people throw/shoot weapons from a -different- room, into the tavern room, targeting someone?

[Riev]

For:
If someone is chasing you through the alleys/etc ... running into a lit tavern SHOULD be a safe zone. It can always cause a bit of a fun ruckus as people see some possibly bleeding, haggard person running for their life.

Against:
People should have consequences for trying to murder or kill someone in a lit tavern with plenty of virtuals and actuals around, and that should be their discouragement.


The issue with 0-day "Dawarf" issues was that there were no consequences and no real 'protections'. By the time 2-3 NPC guards could react, a seated unarmed person could take 100+ damage. But if that person held a weapon (to increase their chances of survival) they risk being arrested.

[mansa]

Another question:

Can people throw/shoot weapons from a -different- room, into the tavern room, targeting someone?

Yes.

This is already accounted for with the Tavern flag.

https://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,49825.msg1088360.html#msg1088360

- Tavern flag finished.  Any room you see that says "Tavern" will do the following:
       - Throwing/shooting into a tavern suffers a severe penalty to success.  If you're IN the tavern, there is no penalty
       - Improved Language Learning - double the speed, and twice as likely to 'pop' a new language
       - Taverns treat crimcode as if a soldier is there - meaning if you fail something, your are guaranteed to get flagged as a criminal
       - Using the PSI command only consumes 2 focus

[Patuk]

None of this beats the best solution, which is staff setting straight or kicking out the people who caused this issue in the first place.

[Armaddict]

No.  There are not 'safe rooms'.

[Roon]

I don't think I've ever seen anyone in a tavern attacked with ranged weapons from outside, so I'm not convinced that this was ever really an issue, though it doesn't hurt if code was put in that makes it more difficult. It's realistic enough that a crowded locale would make it harder to shoot at any particular individual.

As far as tavern-ganking dwarves, this was an isolated series of incidents from long ago that, to my knowledge, did not continue past the month or so where it happened repeatedly. As bad as it was, again, not some recurring problem that I'm aware of. It was just some idiot griefing people for fun. I think the problem at the time was not that it was possible to kill people in taverns (though much could be said of the idiotic nature of strength+bludgeoning) but that it was carried out with no pretense of roleplay and staff did not see fit to retcon the events, which encouraged the griefer to do it again. The issue was not that you can attack people in taverns, but rather that the supposed sanctity of in-game events were allowed to take precedence over actual roleplay, meaning that if you're able to do it, it doesn't matter if you were IC at all; just the fact that you did it means it's allowed to stand, even if you were obviously griefing for the sake of harming the game.

One might opine that this philosophy has generally tainted PvP in this game, allowing players to wholly ignore roleplay in favor of smacking each other over the heads with the code, knowing that unless actual bug abuse was involved, staff would not care about what actually happened and always side with the perpetrator. Even when doing so is patently absurd and anti-roleplay. I've seen some truly ridiculous shit go down that had nothing whatsoever to do with roleplay, and then heard staff say that since no definable rule was broken, it was kosher.

I have personally attacked people in taverns--hired assassinations that happened to take place there because that's where it was convenient, either because it was the only place they could be got or because there was a desire to send a public message. If combat in taverns is made impossible, I suspect we block out more valid PvP than invalid griefing, because the latter just doesn't happen that often. Feels like treating influenza with chemotherapy.

Just make a formal rule that if someone goes around PKing without any valid reason, just sheer OOC ganking for the lulz, the result will be retconned. That basically erases any incentive for doing so. There have been many valid cases of PvP taking place in taverns, some of which were character-defining moments that created a lot of legitimate roleplay and reinforced the nature of the setting. In a game that purports to have a motto of 'murder, corruption and betrayal,' I don't think there need to be rooms flagged as no_combat. There just need to be safeguards against blatant griefing, and the absence of that is the only thing I've ever had a problem with.

I lost a cherished character to the throwaway dwarf tavern ganker back when that was going on, and I would not want taverns to be no_combat. I just want staff to have the guts to say that actions carried out for the clear purpose of harming the game, with no pretense of roleplay, will be handled accordingly and not ruled in favor of the griefer who is then encouraged to keep doing it. When it happened to me, they did just that: since it happened, it had to stand, end of story. Lo and behold, it happened several more times. The solution is painfully obvious. Don't we have a rule that says you must be IC at all times? Well, enforce that. Easy peasy.

[Halaster]

No.  There are not 'safe rooms'.

Agreed.

[CirclelessBard]

I'd like to see simulation of available space in combat. For example, combat in a tavern should probably take into account the fact that it's a crowded space with a lot of closely-packed furniture. It should also be harder to fight in places like narrow passageways or atop steep slopes. Though I do also think that any griefing occurring in taverns should not count as an IC occurrence.

[Tuannon]

Getting rid of the ability to get into a fight in public spaces weakens the militia and legion, their job is primarily to keep the peace and be soldiers second.

[chrisdcoulombe]

I had a character that threw a spear at an AOD soldier that was sitting at the bar in the Gaj.  The character was a stealth character, a burglar back when there was such a thing.  It broke stealth when the spear was thrown and the character was arrested promptly.  I don't think rooms should get flagged 'no combat'.

[Dresan]

While i certainly believe characters with money, connections and influence should be able to enjoy more coded protections in central city locations, harder to kill is not the same as impossible.

Something like safe rooms should not belong in armageddon. They would cause more problems than solve with people abusing the mechanic to avoid consequences or causing situations where staff need to intrevene to uphold realism.

[Windstorm]

While I don't entirely disagree with the idea that there shouldn't be anywhere totally safe, there should also be more of a difference and less of an instantaneous one between "hanging out and chilling and able to take my time writing out an emote" and "someone is murdering me and will complete this task within seconds (or less) if I do not put in an input immediately." This particular aspect of Armageddon feels very gamey and outdated given all else Armageddon seems to idealize and aspire to be in terms of being roleplay-centric.

The instantaneous nature of combat and often, death, means roleplay in areas where roleplay is encouraged and expected becomes far more difficult for PCs who have reached any level of long-term investment, fame or status unless they're to a point where they're near-invincible to that sort of attempt. Really, even then: no one is truly invincible.

While a room should maybe not be no-combat, I would absolutely agree with the idea of some rooms, or all rooms for that matter, or even combat in general, being delayed-combat.

[Lotion]

I think a few wilderness rooms should have the tavern tag added so that wilderness hgs can actually way. Just like roll it in with the shade tag.

[The Lonely Hunter]

I think the solution to perceived problem is going to cause more problems than the perceived problem.

I'm aware of a few instances that were pretty crappy involving taverns but I don't think it's enough of an issue too restrict people from resorting to violence in a game that is supposed to be very violent.

People shouldn't feel safe anywhere. This is Armageddon.

We've already been sprinkling sparkles and fairy dust on top of it, and that hasn't worked very well.

While most taverns are described as crowded, as someone previously mentioned, if an altercation breaks out the crowds move. I see it all the time - I'm a part-time bouncer in additional to my main mode of employment. I bounced a lot of different places; adult clubs, bars, and nightclubs. While my patrons aren't waving around bone swords, I do see how crowds react in that type of environment when something happens.

Besides, in a crowded bar it would be much easier to walk by and slide a dagger between someone's ribs. If anything, now that I'm thinking about it, give me a bonus to backstab while in a crowded area would make a lot more sense than just restricting people from having combat.

I could very easily see combat safe areas being abused a lot.

[mansa]

I like the idea that tavern rooms have a slower combat rounds more than no combat.

[NinjaFruitSalad]

There could be some zones (perhaps at very high class social functions) where you must pass through a checkpoint and be frisked and any found weapons are confiscated. A big scary mul or dwarf would not be bringing in a giant axe or maul to oneshot anybody, but perhaps the more stealthy types could still slip in a poisoned dagger.

And of course, given the security of the checkpoints just outside these areas, trying to throw or shoot inside these rooms would be all but impossible, seeing as the security would likely stop that attempt once they see it happening.

As for the taverns themselves, it makes sense that violence is a very real possibility, but I don't think it would be as easy as out on the streets.

[Dresan]

I like the idea that tavern rooms have a slower combat rounds more than no combat.

I dont like this idea either.

What may make more sense is taverns having guards or bouncers that will attempt to jump in during altercation with a rescue...with potentially much greater success for a couple ic hours if you throw them a 50 to 100 coins as you enter. Again all for more protection for those who can afford it.

Other than that all tavern should have at least one human soldier keeping the peace there, oddly enough something that was added for a time in one tavern but i felt it was mostly to try to deter thieves, lol.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

Make soldiers in "safe-ish" rooms act differently. They try to rescue as their first action, subdue maybe secondly, and kill third. IIRC, they try to subdue first, then try to kill.

For many of these situations, if the NPC soldier had tried to rescue the victim first, there's a good chance that the murder doesn't happen.

Under no circumstance should ANY room be "no-combat" though. This is 'Geddon, dammit.