Discuss: Changes To PK Guidance & Helpfile

[Halaster]

We all know about the string of dwarf PCs emerging from the dormitory in the Gaj to kill the first PC they saw sitting at the bar. No amount of karma deductions or bans will stop that style of griefing.

It should be a bit harder for that style of griefing to occur now.  Dwarves are now 1 karma, so a brand-new account cannot play one (this is a big reason WHY dwarves are now 1 karma).  Someone engaging in such obvious griefing will be banned.  We would -consider- a resurrection in this specific instance you mention when it's obvious, blatant griefing like that.

As for @Lizzie 's example, the raider could still kill someone for not obeying when they have them in such a situation.  The expectation however would be that the raider gives the victim a "good scene" to the best of their ability as the situation allows.  And if the raider displayed a pattern of this, we'd have a chat with them.  It would all depend on the specifics of the scene.  Ideally the raider would beat the victim to unconsciousness or incapacitate them if said victim wasn't being cooperative.  Maybe leave them for dead and let fate decide their outcome.

These new rules aren't meant to remove PK and danger.  They are meant to expect players to be considerate of each other from an OOC perspective, and work together to create more interesting scenes and stories.  Sometimes death IS the interesting scene or story, but it doesn't have to be.  The ask is that people think "Is killing the other person the only option here, or is there alternatives?" and "If I must kill them, is there a way for me to make it more interesting or meaningful for them?".  There will be times when a sudden, quick death is required, though the expectation is those will be unusual.

This is all going to be a bit of a change for everyone - staff and players alike.  We are going to have to work together to elevate the community's qualify of Role-Playing, and be understanding and patient with each other as we figure it all out.

[Dresan]

It is concerning that PCs dying at the hands of other PCs is anticipated to be so frequent that staff won't have time to fairly review it.

We all know about the string of dwarf PCs emerging from the dormitory in the Gaj to kill the first PC they saw sitting at the bar. No amount of karma deductions or bans will stop that style of griefing. The integrity of the game world is damaged more by nonsensical killings than by resurrection. In one case everyone has to awkwardly play around the nonsense and often adjusts their behavior based on the OOC knowledge that the griefing can happen and on what ways. In the other, everyone can accept that an event was retconned and the players of the killer dwarfs won't get the same kick out of it.

I think steps have been taken to mitigate dwarves from one shotting PC from happening. More common and egregious is powerful PCs targeting non-combat PCs such as aides, newbies, crafter and other non-combat PC for lame reasons because they are easy kills. This is what I am hoping the policy and the changes to code begin to better address.

Again with Rezz, a general no resurrection policy is systemically much more fair than anything else. Where if there are any exceptions(e.g staff accidently kills entire clan), they should be announced to the community with reasonable justification.

[Kavrick]

As a side note about Raiders, if we're going to look at it from an RP/Realism perspective, Raiders killing people is actually a terrible 'business' practice. Victims killed by raiders can't be robbed a second time and killing merchants means a worse economy which also means worse opportunities for raiding in the future. Otherwise I pretty much completely agree with what Halaster said. Also, if mercy is made so you can guarantee not killing someone as long as you're using blunt weapons or something, that'd be awesome for people just wanting to rob others without becoming a murderer.

[Usiku]

I distinctly recall past staff members telling us that PK was a once-in-a-week kind of event. With the rules you've made currently, it'll likely be even less. Even if every single PK ended up contested - and they won't - you'd talk about this once a week at the absolute very most.

Is that really the realm of the impossible? One such a talk a week, at absolute most?

Yes, it is in the realm of impossible. Not due to how often it may or may not occur, but due to the nature of the required decision making. Armageddon is a coded game. Whether or not the death happened is based on the code. We will consider resurrections based on what is outlined in the helpfile. What gets added there are instances that we can assess that are basically black and white, was it a bug, were they cheating, did a staff member royally screw up and set a bahamet to have 1,000,000 strength by accident, did that person die of dehydration with a full waterskin in their hand and so on. There is simply not a chance in the burning firepits of Suk Krath that I am opening up staff to have to mediate over every PK that happens on the basis of 'was their RP good enough' where the progress of the story and life of a PC one way or another hinges on that decision. I'm sorry, but that is a fast track to a high stress, no win scenario for staff where whatever they decide, someone will be angry and it would ultimately chip away at the relationship we are trying to restore between players and staff and almost certainly cause higher staff turnover. So no. Draw a line under that. I can understand why people wish this was a thing that we could do, but unfortunately it simply is not.

[Dresan]

This might lead to the birth of actual group vs group fighting.

If staff had the ability to change and lock the mercy toggle during certain events two groups could go ahead and just fight it out with skills, poison and spells. One groups would eventually be knocked out, and the winner could capture the leader/captain as well as tend to their wounded before running off.

It would be fun and meaningful to both winner and losers, with only casualties perhaps being only NPCs(who could also have mercy toggled for PCs during this time).

[Kavrick]

This might lead to the birth of actual group vs group fighting.

I think the only way you could really fix group v group fighting is to limit how many people can attack the same target at the same time. Group combat usually becomes an 'assist amos'-fest that results in one poor sod getting massive debuffs from fighting multiple enemies and nigh-immediately dying one-by one. This is also a problem with AI and PvE group fighting, not sure how'd they fix it but even when you're in a group, fighting groups of enemies can be super dangerous. I remember the time I went into a silk spider cave to gather silk and four of the five spiders were attacking me when we had a group of six.

[Krath]

I think it is just as easy to not PK, as it is to PK. It depends on the situation though

Going on a hunt for a noble or bastard in the sands? OOC: Everyone turn Mercy on.
I want your boots and you will not give them to me? Mercy On, PK, steal boots, wait for them to wake up, talk shit and leave
Trespassing onto elven lands? Peraine/Heramide/Grishen - KO, steal boots, scar them, subdue, toss outside of the lands

You murder my best friend: Mercy off

ALL THAT BEING SAID - Mercy needs to be fixed like the suggested post above. Accidents do happen. There was a Bastard noble that was in the sands, we got information he was out there with a group looking for us. We all rode out to meet him and his group. Before the battle I had OOCd "Everyone, mercy on please", with full intention of KOing them, scarring and sending them back to nak naked. We had a mul that attacked after he was damaged and mantis head. No KO, nothing. It was not what I had hoped for and OOCly i was disappointed. A fix of the Mercy On code would be great. Heck, just changing  combat to once a pc hits 0 or goes negative instantly moving them to the knocked out state and ending combat, rather than them dying. At that point the PC can "Kill Joe" and end the PCs life, or let them live.

[Riev]

Mercy being fixed would be paramount. Secondary is just changing attitudes across the board. Sap vs Backstab ... Sap had always been something you branched and was an advanced technique because of its ability to knock someone out FAR easier than it is to damage their HP.

Unfortunately, the way the code works, being knocked out is basically a free kill and losing stun CAN BE easier than losing HP. So the non-lethal combat methods the game allows are basically "get the opponent into a position where I can kill them faster".

Attitude wise, I mean the people that feel you have to kill a PC because they looked at you and see your description. Because being anonymous means you can still socially roleplay with people back in the city. Because once you know Green-eye Amos is the raider, every templar and Bynner in the game will be contacting green.eyed.amos and hunting him. Once we can collectively get over the idea that a PC raider in the sands doesn't need the other 120 people in the game hunting them, we'll be closer to allowing more fun raider RP.

Again, with staff focusing more on the players and plots, hopefully there can and will be more opportunity to play things out, rather than "win".

[Lizzie]

I believe up until now, characters log into the game with mercy OFF being the default.  Perhaps that toggle could be switched, so everyone who logs in, starts out with mercy ON, and they have to turn it off intentionally if they are consciously planning on killing someone.

[Krath]

Attitude wise, I mean the people that feel you have to kill a PC because they looked at you and see your description. Because being anonymous means you can still socially roleplay with people back in the city. Because once you know Green-eye Amos is the raider, every templar and Bynner in the game will be contacting green.eyed.amos and hunting him. Once we can collectively get over the idea that a PC raider in the sands doesn't need the other 120 people in the game hunting them, we'll be closer to allowing more fun raider RP.

Staff could bring back the mask that hide mdesc to solve this issue.

[Dresan]

Attitude wise, I mean the people that feel you have to kill a PC because they looked at you and see your description. Because being anonymous means you can still socially roleplay with people back in the city.

Actually, this is the importance of making sure the different areas (redstorm, rinth, luirs and allanak) are somewhat autonomous to each other. Fucking up in one location shouldn't ruin your ability to live in all locations but we will see how this is managed.

This allows people to practice the age old art of 'Not shitting where you eat'. It was one of the purposes to my thread here: Closure vs Unsupported

If you choose to not follow this rule, there should be IC consequences to personally killing/attacking your neighbor like needing to leave find a new neighborhood. And with the policy changes, some OOC consequences if you keep using anonymity as an excuse to repeatedly murder people especially when you had the option of just going to live somewhere else or hire someone else to send a message.

[Dresan]

Staff could bring back the mask that hide mdesc to solve this issue.

This should be an ability linked to assassination techniques(backstab or sap) which only lasts for a couple minutes after performing the attack or be an assassin skill that activates for a limited time after attacking from stealth.

It should not be an item that freely allow people to act like fools without IC consequences.

[Patuk]

I distinctly recall past staff members telling us that PK was a once-in-a-week kind of event. With the rules you've made currently, it'll likely be even less. Even if every single PK ended up contested - and they won't - you'd talk about this once a week at the absolute very most.

Is that really the realm of the impossible? One such a talk a week, at absolute most?

Yes, it is in the realm of impossible. Not due to how often it may or may not occur, but due to the nature of the required decision making. Armageddon is a coded game. Whether or not the death happened is based on the code. We will consider resurrections based on what is outlined in the helpfile. What gets added there are instances that we can assess that are basically black and white, was it a bug, were they cheating, did a staff member royally screw up and set a bahamet to have 1,000,000 strength by accident, did that person die of dehydration with a full waterskin in their hand and so on. There is simply not a chance in the burning firepits of Suk Krath that I am opening up staff to have to mediate over every PK that happens on the basis of 'was their RP good enough' where the progress of the story and life of a PC one way or another hinges on that decision. I'm sorry, but that is a fast track to a high stress, no win scenario for staff where whatever they decide, someone will be angry and it would ultimately chip away at the relationship we are trying to restore between players and staff and almost certainly cause higher staff turnover. So no. Draw a line under that. I can understand why people wish this was a thing that we could do, but unfortunately it simply is not.

Okay then.

[Bogre]

Attitude wise, I mean the people that feel you have to kill a PC because they looked at you and see your description. Because being anonymous means you can still socially roleplay with people back in the city. Because once you know Green-eye Amos is the raider, every templar and Bynner in the game will be contacting green.eyed.amos and hunting him. Once we can collectively get over the idea that a PC raider in the sands doesn't need the other 120 people in the game hunting them, we'll be closer to allowing more fun raider RP.

Staff could bring back the mask that hide mdesc to solve this issue.

Exactly this. Anonymity actually promotes the ability to be an antagonist in between the 0 (don't do anything conflict related) and 100 (instant PK before you can get desc sniped). There is so much more hoop-jumping, workarounds, and abuse potential that comes about because people try to avoid the consequences of getting look-ID'd than the downside of someone running around incognito. It opens up many more avenues of roleplay (infiltrating, cults, subterfuge) that the absence of being able to obscure identity actively stifles.

And no, people aren't going to act like fools without IC consequences. There are very easily enforceable IC consequences to being masked up all the time, the Guild boss can kick you out, the Templar's can have you seized and searched, etc. What exactly are people worried about? That someone in a mask will PK them or steal from them? I mean, that's exactly what's going to happen without mdesc obscuring ability, because that's what happens now. There's really much less room for you being left alive, and frankly, I'd rather have a raider leave me bruised and wondering than dead with a glimpse of who it was.

Atonement, Shadows of Isildur, Harshlands, essentially every other RPI could cloak up. It didn't break the game. It in fact led to some of the coolest reveals and situations I can remember. Sure, there might be some edgelord who wears a greathelm literally every second in game, but there's ways of discouraging that. (Needing to remove to eat / drink, etc).

---

The ways of addressing mdesc obscuration also opens up a good avenue. Basic information is already available with assess -v, and sdesc. But many of the muds I listed above had a 'study' command, where you could obtain things like eye color, build, hair color, etc, which could be set in character generation. It's something that could potentially be piggybacked of watch, or a new skill that could serve as a boon to the subterfuge / noncombat roles branching from it.

[flurry]

This doesn't seem like a huge departure from the status quo, but it does seem like a good change. Clear expectations are always welcome.

[Dresan]

And no, people aren't going to act like fools without IC consequences. There are very easily enforceable IC consequences to being masked up all the time, the Guild boss can kick you out, the Templar's can have you seized and searched, etc. What exactly are people worried about?

If you play elves this is a moot point since people just search the ground, see the tracks and contact the only elf in the game. 

Conflict is better promoted with autonomy of regions, allowing people to work as a villain in one place while being a saint in the other.

I admit that having some anonymity when performing high risk actions(assassinations/attacks from stealth) makes some sense but this should be very very limited.

If done incorrectly it has the potential to prevent meaningful RP because its harder to hold people accountable for their day to day behavior due to the fact they can become anonymous/someone new whenever the heck they want. It will lead to pure foolishness.

That said, if staff are not able to properly maintain autonomy of regions then perhaps this might be the only possible solution.

[Windstorm]

imo its important to note that staff don't actually have a way to do the right thing by everybody.

If they start giving themselves more rules to be able to restore dead PCs, and some are going to get that rule applied and some aren't, so then that looks like favoritism, which is so rampant a problem in RPI staffing that it always looks sinister to the outside eye. Further, it's not just a once a week review it's a long conversation w/ embittered passionate ppl that are going to flip out arguing back and forth, then try to quit if they don't get their way and drag all their OOC friends with them. They don't want to have to be run through the court of public opinion over every little thing every time they have to make a call like that. They want to run the game, have fun, and make fun for other people.

But when they have to make judgment calls and they have the weight of the absolutely nutty rpi community on them over every little thing it's not even nearly so easy's some of you try to make it sound. So they make the rules more conservative and try to let the code handle it, but of course they get dragged over that too.  That hasn't worked in the past so they're moving in a direction. If even it's just in writing now, it's movement in a direction I believe we can see is the right one.

Anyway whatever but my point is, there's not really a totally winning answer. At the end of the day most of us are tired of the same crap everyone else is tired of, and we're probably in agreement over it. These rules at least to me read like they're giving the staff a clear pathway to doing something about crappy behavior and that's a good direction.

TLDR i'm glad to see that direction being headed in. Let's do so bravely, and supportively.

[Lizzie]

mdesc-hiding masks were silly because they weren't head-to-toe disguises, but acted as such, even though only worn on the face.

So a guy with two extra fingers on one hand, who was hunchbacked - would APPEAR to be whole just because the mask's mdesc implied as such. Or the guy with thick hair down below his back in knotty dreadlocks would APPEAR to be short-cropped - just because the mask's mdesc specified as such.  Or the guy with the barrel chest would APPEAR to be wide in the hips with a caved-in chest, because the mask's mdesc indicated as such.

A mask should ONLY obscure the face, but that's not how mdescs in this game work. Because of that, mdesc-hiding masks don't fit.

[Malken]

We would -consider- a resurrection in this specific instance you mention when it's obvious, blatant griefing like that.

That's what I was hoping to see. Griefers don't care about being banned, we all have and use VPNs these days.

[eska]

mdesc-hiding masks were silly because they weren't head-to-toe disguises, but acted as such, even though only worn on the face.

So a guy with two extra fingers on one hand, who was hunchbacked - would APPEAR to be whole just because the mask's mdesc implied as such. Or the guy with thick hair down below his back in knotty dreadlocks would APPEAR to be short-cropped - just because the mask's mdesc specified as such.  Or the guy with the barrel chest would APPEAR to be wide in the hips with a caved-in chest, because the mask's mdesc indicated as such.

A mask should ONLY obscure the face, but that's not how mdescs in this game work. Because of that, mdesc-hiding masks don't fit.

True. But a cloak that covers your body head to toe with hood up should solve most of the trouble. Put a facewrap or mask on, then your mdesc should become just a short/tall, thick/thin figure with a facewrap/mask whose hood is up.

As long as someone can identify me just by looking at me when I only want to rob them, I would probably kill them to save me from future troubles. Because that is what I do, if I ever manage to avoid PK'ed, I just go and spread the word that there's such and such person who's raiding people out there. And also that is what a normal PC/NPC would do in the harsh world we call Zalanthas. If you don't want to be PK'ed, stay alert all the time.

[Krath]

mdesc-hiding masks were silly because they weren't head-to-toe disguises, but acted as such, even though only worn on the face.

So a guy with two extra fingers on one hand, who was hunchbacked - would APPEAR to be whole just because the mask's mdesc implied as such. Or the guy with thick hair down below his back in knotty dreadlocks would APPEAR to be short-cropped - just because the mask's mdesc specified as such.  Or the guy with the barrel chest would APPEAR to be wide in the hips with a caved-in chest, because the mask's mdesc indicated as such.

A mask should ONLY obscure the face, but that's not how mdescs in this game work. Because of that, mdesc-hiding masks don't fit.

I hear what you are saying and if we are going to go down that road, then anyone that has equipment on, their mdesc should be hidden.

[Lizzie]

mdesc-hiding masks were silly because they weren't head-to-toe disguises, but acted as such, even though only worn on the face.

So a guy with two extra fingers on one hand, who was hunchbacked - would APPEAR to be whole just because the mask's mdesc implied as such. Or the guy with thick hair down below his back in knotty dreadlocks would APPEAR to be short-cropped - just because the mask's mdesc specified as such.  Or the guy with the barrel chest would APPEAR to be wide in the hips with a caved-in chest, because the mask's mdesc indicated as such.

A mask should ONLY obscure the face, but that's not how mdescs in this game work. Because of that, mdesc-hiding masks don't fit.

I hear what you are saying and if we are going to go down that road, then anyone that has equipment on, their mdesc should be hidden.

No, because my greaves and plate-horror breastplate doesn't obscure my face. Only sunslits obscure eyes at close range, only face coverings obscure faces, only hats and hoods and helmets and such can obscure the top of the head.

Again - individual pieces of gear shouldn't ever obscure the entire mdesc, because in -this- game, mdescs aren't the summary of coded individual body parts.  There have been games in the past, where body parts could be obscured from the mdesc, because they were coded that way. Your description would be things like - a sentence for your hair, color, texture, length. Another for your face - oval, square, heart-shaped, etc. Another for eyes, another for nose, another for mouth, overall body build, another sentence for each limb, and so on and so forth.

Those were coded. So if you wore a facewrap, then every reference to your face, in your mdesc, was obscured - but the rest of the mdesc remained and stood as complete. Totally different code.

[eska]

mdesc-hiding masks were silly because they weren't head-to-toe disguises, but acted as such, even though only worn on the face.

So a guy with two extra fingers on one hand, who was hunchbacked - would APPEAR to be whole just because the mask's mdesc implied as such. Or the guy with thick hair down below his back in knotty dreadlocks would APPEAR to be short-cropped - just because the mask's mdesc specified as such.  Or the guy with the barrel chest would APPEAR to be wide in the hips with a caved-in chest, because the mask's mdesc indicated as such.

A mask should ONLY obscure the face, but that's not how mdescs in this game work. Because of that, mdesc-hiding masks don't fit.

I hear what you are saying and if we are going to go down that road, then anyone that has equipment on, their mdesc should be hidden.

No, because my greaves and plate-horror breastplate doesn't obscure my face. Only sunslits obscure eyes at close range, only face coverings obscure faces, only hats and hoods and helmets and such can obscure the top of the head.

Again - individual pieces of gear shouldn't ever obscure the entire mdesc, because in -this- game, mdescs aren't the summary of coded individual body parts.  There have been games in the past, where body parts could be obscured from the mdesc, because they were coded that way. Your description would be things like - a sentence for your hair, color, texture, length. Another for your face - oval, square, heart-shaped, etc. Another for eyes, another for nose, another for mouth, overall body build, another sentence for each limb, and so on and so forth.

Those were coded. So if you wore a facewrap, then every reference to your face, in your mdesc, was obscured - but the rest of the mdesc remained and stood as complete. Totally different code.

Closed and hooded up ankle-length djellebah. All mdesc is gone.

[Halaster]

Yeah I don't think a mask alone is 'enough'.  Maybe (and this is just me theorycrafting, no promises or commitments) if it was a mask + a longcloak + hood up then it hides the mdesc.  Or something like that, where it's a combo of items that "make sense".

[Roon]

Maybe (and this is just me theorycrafting, no promises or commitments) if it was a mask + a longcloak + hood up then it hides the mdesc.

Well, you're the one who can make that happen, and I think you should.