Nosave

[creeper386]

Okay, I've always wondered, and seen lots of posts about it, but nothing specific. As far as I've read on the boards, seen in game and from the documents nosave does alot. It controls rather or not you save against subdues, climbing checks or spells to say the least. I'm not sure why though. I would think the nosave against spells wouldn't exist. Yes if you want to be healed you don't want to resist that, but is it then saying your running from the caster or want not to avoid some or all of what they are throwing at you? Or is it some natural thing? Either way I think it could be handled better.

Also, although you seem a choice of rather or not you want to try and resist spells. You don't have a choice of resisting subdues. Either you try and resist or you don't. You don't have a choice of resisting the filthy 'rinthi elf trying to kidnap you, but still go easiely when you somehow fall on the wrong side of the law. This is a big thing. As subdued, although not as much as before, is a very powerful thing, and I doubt many would actively resist the Law wherever they are at but because of the code they more then often do when first crim flagged and the attempt at arrest made.

On top of that, if your trying to escape soldiers, but don't want to be killed if you ARE caught. You can't very well climb anyplace unless you want to start resisting soldiers.

It's all fairly distinct and easiely figured out, but I couldn't figure it out at all when I first came to Armageddon. Though, even once you figured it out, it's not so easy to decide what choice to take. It seems to me this is another part of the code that kind of doesn't really help criminal characters, and really over all is just too much in one togleable thing.

I personally would like to see saves versus spells something that isnt' controled except by code. Saves versus subdues and things such as that to allow submission to soldiers but noone else, or everyone. And if needed leave the climb toggle seperate. As I could still see need to fall quickly from time to time.

Creeper

[Anonymous]

Good points and I agree.  Though, I've never read an Imm saying that nosave has any bearing in those situations.  I'm not doubting it, just I've never heard it from the horse's mouth.

Nosave is sorta tricky wording anyways.

Going with what I understand Creeper's gist to be, I'd like to see Nosave changed in score (or stat whichever it is, I get confuzzled) to say:

Law Abiding Status: Compliant|Non-Compliant

This way you don't end up with a situation where you are gleefully allowing an elf to subdue you because you forgot to turn off nosave.  It would only apply to subdue attempts made by the two militias.  You don't have to worry about subdue attempts in RSV.

[spawnloser]

I do have to agree with the belief that there are too many things part of 'nosave' as it is.  You can't not resist arrest but save versus the spell that some random magicker casts at you.  You would still resist, but because you aren't given a choice to resist any specific thing (the game not being turn-based) there should be further division of the 'not resisting' toggle.

[Kalden]

That would be very convenient - maybe too convenient? We wouldn't have any people accidentally dying from guards anymore, and maybe that's what the imms want, huh?

The hardest thing about playing as a thief as a newbie is getting the 'nosave command'(my first character was a briskly slaughtered pickpocket). Since every character would start out "law-compliant", it would also be easier for newbies to play thieves. Good thing or a bad thing? I'm thinking it's a good thing, but some people might disagree with me.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

Magick is something that no character should be able to logically save against, other than the save alloted him due to his race and/or endurance. How do you decided that you will avoid that wrathsome fireball that blossomed out of nowhere? No, saves against magick should be based on coded stats/skills/etc, not some nosave flag.

[Anonymous]

That would be very convenient - maybe too convenient? We wouldn't have any people accidentally dying from guards anymore, and maybe that's what the imms want, huh?

I can't speak for the staff, but I can't imagine they want people accidentally dying to soldiers if they were intending to give up.

Take a noble who gets crimflagged.  Who wants him to die to militia in what's probably not a very realistic situation?  But at the same time I can't imagine a noble of all people going around with nosave on all the time.

What's 'too convenient' about it?  How your PC would react to being taken into custody is an easy thing about their nature to know, so why rely on quick typing and quick thinking?

[Kalden]

I can't speak for the staff, but I can't imagine they want people accidentally dying to soldiers if they were intending to give up.

I was being a bit sarcastic, but the reason I said that is because this has come up at least once before, with no response from the staff. It doesn't seem like it would be difficult to code, and the benefits would be pretty huge. I don't even see why it wasn't done in the first place - back in the day, did people actually fight off guards, or something?

Is there anyone who would try to fight off guards? Those guys are uber.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

Yes, in the old days, one could hear about a master fighter wading through soldiers. I suspect that there have been changes in the code recently (past few years) which make this more difficult. Still, there are a good many reasons one would attempt to fight off guards, even now.

[spawnloser]

The fact that someone could 'wad[e] through soldiers' is disturbing.  This is not Dynasty Warriors that we are playing here...we are playing Armageddon.  I'm glad that the people that could take on multiple opponents of decent training is a good thing in my eyes.