Threaten, fleshed out

[da mitey warrior]

I think Dauntless was the first person to think of this idea.

The idea is to let people RP out conflict scenes before the fighting breaks out.  People can point their weapons at their targets and demand money, trade insults etc.  The victim has incentive to stay, because either way he'd have to face a couple rounds of combat if he ran and he has a chance to talk himself out of the situation (or wait for the cavilry to arrive).  The aggressor has incentive to not start attacking because he can make demands or get money from the victim, or wait for more friends to show up.  Plus he knows that if the victim tries to flee he'll get a round or two of combat just like if he'd used the kill command.

To start threatening someone, the attacker types "threaten (victim)".

You cannot threaten people while in combat or while the victim is in combat.
You can threaten while hidden, but doing so makes you visable.
I'm not sure where to put the delay.
You cannot threaten more than one person at a time, but multiple aggressors can all threaten the same victim.
Threatening makes you wanted in cities.
Threatening would make aggro npcs attack you, and fleeing ones run away.

What the victim sees:

The thick figure in a dark, hooded cloak points his sword at you!
You are now being thretened by the thick figure in a dark, hooded cloak

Third parties see:

The thick figure in a dark, hooded cloak points his sword at the tall elf!
The thick figure in a dark, hooded cloak starts threatening the tall elf.

The aggressors ldesc changes to:

The thick figure in a dark, hooded cloak is here, pointing his sword at the tall elf

If the victim tries to use movement commands (n, s, e, w, u, d, leave, enter) he gets:

You cannot leave while being threatened.  Use "flee self" if you want to run for it.

If the victim does any of the following actions combat starts: flee, wield, draw, mount, cast, plus all the usual combat commands.  Combat would start instantly, so the aggressor would get a round in before the victim's action.

The tall elf moves and so the thick figure in a dark, hooded cloak attacks!
The thick figure in a dark, hooded cloak slashes at the tall elf, but misses
The thick figure in a dark, hooded cloak slashes the tall elf on the body, connecting hard
The tall elf draws a bone longknife

The victim would be able to remove, get and drop.  They could also follow the aggressor.  

Any sort of attack on the aggressor by a third part would break his concentration and let the victim escape.
The aggressor can stop threatening someone by using "threaten me"

This type of command would be a HUGE improvement on the "thick hooded figure arrives from the north, the thick hooded figure bludgeons you on the head, flee, flee, flee" type RP that is so common now.

[Rindan]

The only thing I would change would be to have it so that if a person who is doing the threatening is attacked, they attack the person they are threatening.  This would allow one to place a knife to someone and declare that that person is going to die if anyone tries to help.

[da mitey warrior]

Imagine a traveller on the north road.  Suddenly you see...

Someone points a crossbow at you!
You are now being threatened by a tall figure in a dark, hooded cloak.

Someone points a spear at you!
You are now being threatened by a figure in a dark, hooded cloak.

A thick figure in a dark, hooded cloak arrives from the north
A huge and obese figure in a dark, hooded cloak arrives from the north

A thick figure in a dark, hooded cloak points his battleaxe at you!
You are now being thretened by a thick figure in a dark, hooded cloak.

A huge and obese figure in a dark, hooded cloak points a greatsword at you!
You are now being threatened by a huge and obese figure in a dark, hooded cloak.

Snarling, the figure in a dark, hooded cloak says, in sirihish:
  "Don't move or you die!"

Snarling, the figure in a dark, hooded cloak says, in sirihish:
  "Don't try to be hero now.  hand over all yer sid and no one gets hurt."

Holding up your hands, you say, in sirihish:
  "I don't want no trouble."

Poking you with his spear, the figure in a dark, hooded cloak says, in sirihish:
  "Hand over your kank and your sids, NOW!"

You dismount from a yellow kank

You stop leading a yellow kank

You get a pile of obsidian coins from a leather backpack

You drop 2927 obsidian coins

The thick figure in a dark, hooded cloak gets a pile of obsidian coins

The figure in a dark, hooded cloak says, in sirihish:
   "Let's go, boys, before his friends show up"

The figure in a dark hooded cloak starts leading a yellow kank

The thick figure in a dark, hooded cloak stops threatening you
The thick figure in a dark, hooded cloak runs north.
The figure in a dark, hooded cloak stops threatening you
The figure in a dark, hooded cloak runs north
A yellow kank runs north
The tall figure in a dark, hooded cloak stops threatening you
The tall figure in a dark, hooded cloak runs north
The huge and obese figure in a dark, hooded cloak stops threatening you
The huge and obese figure in a dark, hooded cloak runs north

You think:
"I hate raiders"

(ok it's shakespear, but you get the idea)

[Delirium]

You've made me into a fan of the idea.

[Bestatte]

I like the idea too! I'd also like to see the threaten toggle automatically turn off if a person doing the threatening moves to another room.

So if I threaten Delirium with my vile evil magick steel broadsword of deth and destrukshun, and she gives me all her loot, I can just go "east" and the threaten would shut off by itself. Well, I'd thank her politely for her cooperation first and maybe smile or something.

[Carnage]

I'm not in favor of it because it gives MORE of a code-wise advantage against, well, the one being threatened. Outdoor room:

A large, enormous barren portion of barren plains [NESW]
The Krathi arrives from the east.

The magicker-slayer arrives from the west.

Magicker-slayer threatens Krathi, despite the distance between them, then proceeds to talk/do whatever.

The Krathi is left completely defenseless. The second he tries to get off a spell, the game kicks in and gives the PC the same advantage a NPC has: lightning-fast reflexes. Once again magickers are screwed in PVP combat.

'Threaten' isn't going to solve twinkish behavior. If anything it's going to increase it. PKer arrives from the west and then just as quickly threatens you without a single emote or taking into consideration room size. Frankly, I'm happy with the system the way it is. You want to play a raider/mugger? Take into consideration the risks.

[Anonymous]

'Threaten' isn't going to solve twinkish behavior. If anything it's going to increase it. PKer arrives from the west and then just as quickly threatens you without a single emote or taking into consideration room size.

I wouldn't like that either, but the same thing happens with the kill command as things stand now.  At least this threaten command would allow for some dialogue.

There is a problem of perspective that no command  will fix.  Outdoor rooms are huge and people who don't treat them like that annoy me because as the target of a raid, you'd probably notice that dark kank-mounted figure three leagues off some point before he got within kicking distance of you.

Frankly, I'm happy with the system the way it is. You want to play a raider/mugger? Take into consideration the risks.

I don't see how threaten mitigates any risks for the attacker.  I have't heard anyone suggest that you'd get a bonus in combat one way or the other.

This thread has turned me into a threaten fan.  It gives you a chance to talk your way out of a problem or to at least walk away free.  It could also be used for more situations than just a raid.  Interrogations, stuff like that.

[da mitey warrior]

How does using the threaten command better than using the kill command for the magicker slayer?  Combat would start the same either way.  And once it did the magicker could flee like normal.  He could even flee while being threatend, he'd just get attacked a couple times.

It actually gives a slight advantage to the victim since the attacker loses the element of surprise.

Magicker killer arives from the north

Magicker killer blugeons you on the head
Magicker killer stabs at you, but misses

flee
You run away!

Or

Magiker killer arrives from the north

Magiker killer points his warclub at you!
Magiker killer starts threatening you.

...RP maybe? ...

flee self
As you move, magiker killer attacks!
Magiker killer blugeons you on the head
Magiker killer stabs at you, but misses
You run away!

....


Same difference.  He'd probably just use the kill command, since he'd probably get 2 or 3 rounds in before the magiker could react.

[Ueda]

I'm not saying this is an advantage or not, but you would be able to contact people while being threatened. You could also look at the Raiders, while there doing this. Think of the possiblities, you try to stall as much as possible, giving all the information of what -Raider- looks like while your stalling him. Hence bringing more RP into the whole world.

[Rindan]

Carnage, how is what you describe any different from everyone walking in and typing kill?  Threaten isn't going to fix the problem you describe, but it sure as hell won't make it worse.  It will solve one problem and leave another problem untouched.  That sounds like a fair deal to me.  If anything, as a victim I would rather a person threaten me then kill me then simply kill.  If a person walks in and types kill I will be surprised OOCly and probably fumble to escape.  If I know an attack is likely to come I will probably be hovering my finger over the flee command.  Threaten is only going to make the life of a victim easier and the life of a raider less twinkish and open to more possibilities other then killing everyone you meet or giving them a near 100% chance of escape if they decide to run.

[ashjpd]

Could it even be a skill though?
If you have a higher flee skill then the threat wouldn't work maybe?
*shrug*

Or if you have a higher threaten skill then the other person would have a harder time trying to get away. Something of that sort...

You enter a room, then everyone threatens you and they all get attacks if you try to move away. At least with kill some may lag or somerthing or be slow on the kill switch. Its as if they automatically get to surround you, if they don't rp surrounding you then its just as bad as kill except now they attack you no matter what.

Why not just have approach code. You can't attack someone until you approach them. If you are sneaky, they won't get the so and so approaches you message. Or maybe have it so they have to approach you before they can threaten you. You can't threaten me from way over there. Psh. Sure you can wave your sword at me from across the tavern but that in no way means that you could hit me with it before I made it to the entrance as you fought through a throng of ppl etc. Make it have a delay and such. Make moving to another room have a before delay too .
So depending on speed, you may or may not get there in time to threaten kill the victim. If you get there before his prelag runs out, you start attacking him or you get close enough to threaten and attack him if he moves. SO being a stinking elf or riding an uber fast mount you'd catch em. Probably make it too easy to kill people or too easy to get away etc.
Anyway just an idea i like.

Kill newb>
He is too far away.
Threaten Newb>
You raise your sword at newb but he is awfully far away.
Approach newb>
You begin walking towards newb.
Newb begins running.
Newb runs north.

Got away cause you were walking and newb was running. Silly you.

[X-D]

Alright, I'm not sure this has been addressed, but I will be a fan if it is.

Once the attacker is threatening, he can turn it off by toggle or leaving, we know that, But, far as I can see, he still keeps his 'suprise' attack advantage, I do not think this should be.

In other words, once threatoning, if he decides to attack, he will still get his round or so advantage, same as if he would have done, L e/e/kill elf.

But at this point they should no longer get this full advantage, they should either have to break threaten then attack, or there should be an echo and a small delay, otherwise, you would be getting abuse, people who currently would flee the insta attackers would maybe hold off because of threaten, So and so threatens you with his sword, you start typing something out to save your life, So and so slashes you on the neck....

[ashjpd]

Once again what if it was a skill, but...
Only given to Templars or something like that. Then it would be used for good, but maybe a big abuse also.

[sacac]

thuggin' skill?

I'm all for it.. yes ..i am.

[Rindan]

But at this point they should no longer get this full advantage, they should either have to break threaten then attack, or there should be an echo and a small delay, otherwise, you would be getting abuse, people who currently would flee the insta attackers would maybe hold off because of threaten, So and so threatens you with his sword, you start typing something out to save your life, So and so slashes you on the neck....

I am afraid you have lost me.  Why would someone threaten, then kill?  Why not just type kill?  Code wise it would be the exact same thing, except that the guy who does threaten first then kill is going to give his victim to get a response (fleeing or drawing a weapon) ready.  If someone enters a room, types threaten, then types kill, it is no more twinkish then just typing kill.

As to other complaints, the thing people are missing out on is that threaten does nothing more then kill does.  If a dozen guys in a room could type threaten on one person without RPing surrounding that person, they could also all type kill or assist.  If a person could run up to another person and type threaten without explaining how they close the distance, then they could run up and type kill.  There is not a single instance where threaten offers any more of a coded advantage then kill.  On the contrary, threaten could be made to not always work and so be LESS effective then kill code wise, AND threaten is always less effective from the OOC stand point because a threatened person who is wise will have a response to any attack ready.

If someone types kill, they get a free round off, pure and simple.  Hell, they likely will get more if the victim is OOCly surprised.  If someone types threaten, then you get a chance to RP and potentially the attacker gets a free round off, but against a victim that is aware.  

The point people are missing I think is that threaten is NOT designed to keep people from running across the desert and attacking.  It doesn't fix that problem and it doesn't even try to.  Complaining that this is a problem is pointless.  It is a problem right now and threaten will have no effect upon this either for better or for worse.  That is a fundamental problem with combat and a much bigger fish to tackle.

Threaten solves a much more modest problem.  Threaten gives someone who is going to attack the ability to hold their blow just before hitting.  Instead of viciously slashing someone's neck, a person who is threatening can hold off the blow right before that point.  It is like leveling a pistol at someone's head and telling them if they move you are going to pull the trigger.  The only thing threaten is going to do is make it so that in the many situations where the attacker wants to code wise hold his blow from hitting so long as the defender does nothing aggressive, the code will now support this action.  It can only lead to more and better RP in my opinion.

[Krath]

Sacac Suckus..Im all for it too!

[Rindan]

You enter a room, then everyone threatens you and they all get attacks if you try to move away. At least with kill some may lag or somerthing or be slow on the kill switch. Its as if they automatically get to surround you, if they don't rp surrounding you then its just as bad as kill except now they attack you no matter what.

Let me address this one more directly.  Let's compare everyone in a room threatening to everyone in the room killing.  If everyone in the room kills, the first guy will attack, you then have the option of running or not running.  As others join the battle, you will always have the option of running or not running.  If you wait until everyone has joined the battle you will suffer each round of combat an entire round of combat attacks from each person.

If everyone in the room threatens, the first guy will threaten.  The longer you wait to run, the more people are going to threaten you.  If you were to run instantly the second the first guy was to threaten you, you would take one round of free attacks – just like in if someone was to type kill at you.  If you choose to not to flee, then you are letting yourself be surrounded.  That is not to say that this still can't be done in a twinkish way, but it is no more twinkish then using kill.  If you respond to threaten exactly the same way as you respond to kill, you will take exactly the same number of free attacks.  

Actually, if you want to get technical, if you respond to threaten the same way you respond to kill, and it takes you a couple of seconds to register the threat and respond, then kill will actually end up in MORE attacks landing while you are unprepared.  

Let's say it takes four seconds four seconds for you to respond to a threaten or kill.  Let's also say that each second a new person threatens or kills at you, and every two seconds there is a combat round.  In the case of threaten, after four seconds you will take attacks from four people.  In the case of kill, you will take six attacks; two from the first two people to attack and one from the last two people to attack.  It seems pretty clear to me that threaten is far more merciful then kill is.  Threaten also has the added bonus of giving you a chance to talk your way out of the mess you are in, kill does not.

[Carnage]

It gives the attacker a bonus because the attacker doesn't need that second or two to type kill soandso. They just get an insta-attack in. That's how you mitigate away danger from the attacker. When that warrior draws out his swords you get a free attack beforehand. Drawing out your weapons can be a lightning-quick thing. The Japanese had it refined into a series of techniques on its own. Iai or Iaido was it called? Drawing your blade and attacking/killing your opponent with one hard slash.

When you're in the middle of a sentence while talking to someone, as it is in game, and then you suddenly want to attack them, you have two options: Add -- to the end to show being cut off or delete all the text, then typing kill soandso. This second is easily an accurate representation of the time it takes to attack and kill. Threaten takes this away and brings Joe Schmoe Warrior one step closer to being insta-action gith NPC. Whether you want to admit it or not, threaten has the effect of paralyzing someone and letting you attack them at your discretion.

How can you bring dialogue into these things? Well, most muggers/bandits work in groups. Have one of your men grab and subdue the people and hold them in place. If they try and get away or do then go right ahead and try to kill them.

[Bestatte]

Carnage wrote: Whether you want to admit it or not, threaten has the effect of paralyzing someone and letting you attack them at your discretion.

I say:

[kill PC] already lets you attack someone at your discretion. Hell, you don't even need discretion for that. What threaten does, is give the roleplayed conflict the opportunity to pause, and end without violence of any kind. It's a slim chance, granted, but it is an opportunity that currently doesn't exist code-wise.

If I'm a raider and I got my hood up and my target hasn't looked at me yet to see my main description, I would want to give him a chance to give me his stuff and run away. A chance. Not a guarantee. But if I'm a raider and just say "Give me your loot!" The victim (if he has ANY brains in his head) is gonna high-tail it the hell out of there, game over, I lose.

With threaten, I just put him in a position where he can't just walk away without risk - but he -can- roleplay AND use the code to make the decision on whether or not he wants to give me the loot without my clubbing him over the head, or attempting to flee and risk getting clubbed anyway.

Currently you have no choice but to either use the code, OR rely strictly on trusting the other guy to RP with you. You currently can't do both at the same time. Threaten allows you to do both at the same time, because it forces both parties to pause before weapons start swinging.

[Callisto]

I don't like it.

I don't like the idea that someone could code-wise use it as a quick route to some easy damage right off the bat. Someone walks in from the south, you click off threaten <jerk> before the movement lag wears off and one way or the other the threatening party is given an almost 100% chance of scoring some huge damage.

You could just walk into a tavern and threaten a Templar, so as soon as someone tries to assist him, you go into combat against him. Seems like a good way for an above average warrior to work around those NPC subdue machines Templars keep around in case abuse levels drop a little too low.

What happens when a pack of raiders decide to all threaten random people passing on the road? Nine of ten people enter the next movement command before the last move delay wears off after a quick scan of the room, pausing every few rooms to drop an emote or look in directions. Right there... I just found your first exploit and the code isn't even in place yet, you get your first attacks in before their entered command comes through, if the victim complains, you could just back it up with "Well if you didn't spam walk, you wouldn't have died!" and it now you have to waste an Imms time to get it resolved.

The old subdue code was ideal for hostage taking and raiding because you could place a weapon to said person throat and the second said person resisted, you could nail them for some heavy damage. However, the code was changed due to long-running abuse... I'd imagine this would end up much the same way.

We don't need new code to force people to role-play, because coded measures based on that intent will never fail to end up being more easily abused then the problem they were created to solve.

We have the subdue command, we have the kill command, we have the emote command. Use them.

[Anonymous]

It gives the attacker a bonus because the attacker doesn't need that second or two to type kill soandso.

Right, because typing 'threaten soandso' is so much faster and easier to type.

[Lazloth]

I can go either way here.  Don't see a real need for it but might be fun.

[X-D]

I really can't believe that Rindan cannot see all the possible abuse in threaten as stated so far.

Sure, one can walk in and just attack, but the victem may have already typed in flee self and could even beat the attacker to the punch.

With threaten, that becomes a sentence to at least a heavy wounding, unless the delay was before, Which might be alright, at least it would simulate distance some.

Over all, I think nothing would be solved and if anything more problems created, So, a minimal or even undesirable return for some probly heavy coding. I voted no on the poll and am gonna stick too it.

And come now CRW, Like you could not alias or macro threaten, hell, you could alias kill to threaten, the time it takes to type is nul and it is mildly silly to have even brought it up.

[Rindan]

It gives the attacker a bonus because the attacker doesn't need that second or two to type kill soandso. They just get an insta-attack in.

The point you are missing is that they could simply type kill.  That takes just as long to type as threaten.  Simply typing kill will result in an 'insta-attack' where the poor bastard does not get to draw weapon, run, or whatever it is they would normally do.  All the disadvantages that can be applied to threaten are also applied to kill.  Every argument used against the threaten command can be used against the kill command.  There is NO bonus other then the normal bonus you get when you attack someone who isn't ready.  Alls threaten is, is attacking like normal, but stopping at the point right before attacking, and making it clear that if the person tries to do anything you will simply carry through with the attack you have already started.  Hell, if you throw in a skill/stat check the victim might actually be able to draw a sword or flee in a situation where a simple kill would have given neither option until after combat had started and it was too late.

I don't like it.

I don't like the idea that someone could code-wise use it as a quick route to some easy damage right off the bat. Someone walks in from the south, you click off threaten <jerk> before the movement lag wears off and one way or the other the threatening party is given an almost 100% chance of scoring some huge damage.

How is this any different from typing kill at someone before the movement lag wears off?  That also gives you a 100% chance of landing the first few hits.  Neither instance gives a 100% chance of scoring damage though.  Threaten just causes the kill command to trigger before they do any hostile action.  This means that if you threaten a fully armed warrior with his weapons out, your threat is all but meaningless.  Great, you get the first attack as if you had typed kill.  So what?  He has his defenses fully prepared and will soundly beat them off and return his own assault.  Threatening an armed and prepared person would do nothing.  Threaten is no different from kill, except that the 'kill' command won't go through until you either force it through, or the person does something aggressive or tries to flee.

[You could just walk into a tavern and threaten a Templar, so as soon as someone tries to assist him, you go into combat against him. Seems like a good way for an above average warrior to work around those NPC subdue machines Templars keep around in case abuse levels drop a little too low.

You could walk into a tavern and threaten a Templar.  That would be stupid as his guards would simply guard threat like they would guard any attack.  If threat is treated just like a kill command for the purposes of guarding this problem is solved.  You could threaten a templar, but you will need to got through his guards and face the fact that they are going to beat the life out of you even if you do get through.  Again, it would work no different from the kill command, and when used against a guarded person would for all intensive purposes work exactly like the kill command because the guards would respond to it like it was a kill command.

What happens when a pack of raiders decide to all threaten random people passing on the road? Nine of ten people enter the next movement command before the last move delay wears off after a quick scan of the room, pausing every few rooms to drop an emote or look in directions. Right there... I just found your first exploit and the code isn't even in place yet, you get your first attacks in before their entered command comes through, if the victim complains, you could just back it up with "Well if you didn't spam walk, you wouldn't have died!" and it now you have to waste an Imms time to get it resolved.

Two points.  First, let's say it works exactly as you describe.  How would this be any different then typing kill at people as they arrive?  Threaten does not give any magical bonus to attacking, it acts EXACTLY like the kill command, except that instead of instantly killing, it is triggered.  The 'bonus' you would get to attacking this way would be exactly the same bonus as if you had used the kill command.

We don't need new code to force people to role-play, because coded measures based on that intent will never fail to end up being more easily abused then the problem they were created to solve.

We have the subdue command, we have the kill command, we have the emote command. Use them.

We have a kill command, we have a subdue command, and both of those commands will initiate combat and you can expect the RP from that point on to be whatever hastily typed emotes one can squeeze out, if any.  Threaten is simply a pause before combat.  It is the ability to basically declare that you are going to type kill if the person does anything hostile.  It does not and can not have any forms of abuse that kill does not already have because threaten IS the kill command, only delayed.

[Rindan]

I think you people have a misconception as to what threaten is supposed to be.  It is not a -50% to your combat abilities and first attack.  It is "kill", pure and simple.  Code wise, typing kill and having combat start and typing threaten and having combat start would result in the exact same rolls and exact same out comes.  If you threaten a guy with his weapons out and he flips you the bird then when combat starts he will defend just as well he would if you had typed kill.  Threaten is kill, just delayed.  The code would treat a 'threatened' attack that starts combat the exact same as it would treat a 'kill' attack.  Same dice rolls, same modifiers, same results, same everything.

Threaten is kill, just delayed.

[X-D]

Rindan wrote:

Same dice rolls, same modifiers, same results, same everything.

Threaten is kill, just delayed.

X-D wrote:

Over all, I think nothing would be solved and if anything more problems created, So, a minimal or even undesirable return for some probly heavy coding. I voted no on the poll and am gonna stick too it.

[lukie]

I think this is pretty frivilous, really. If somebody won't RP before attacking, a new command isn't going to change that.

[Ueda]

People keep saying it gives disadvantages to the threatened person, but it actually gives advantages in my opinion

I don't like it.

Do you not like the kill command either?

I think this is pretty frivilous, really. If somebody won't RP before attacking, a new command isn't going to change that.

I doesn't have too, & personally I don't even think thats what it's suppose to do.

[Bestatte]

Actually, threaten, as I understand it described in this thread and the other..

it's more of a "consider" type thing. There's no skill check to the command. You're basically saying:

I'm putting myself in a position to smack you silly, and I think I can succeed. You have the option of doing what I ask you to do, and I'll back off with NO combat at all, OR you can try and make a move.

Currently, typing kill instantly puts the victim in combat. You can subdue, but that is also an immediate and aggressive move. Threaten is a potentially non-aggressive move, and leaves that decision up to the victim. If they try to run or take out a weapon, combat ensues, same as usual - but if they remove their pack and drop it on the ground, then the victim has the opportunity to walk away unscathed, because at that point, there -is no combat- at all.

[sacac]

What would it add?
Well.. let me collect some points and you get these.
--- Give a chance for people to RP without having to worry about fighting for a moment or so.
--- It would possibly avoid Some PC deaths that could of been Rp'ed out.
--- Give thugs an ability to help the class out.
--- It is kill with a delay? But not really a kill?

[da mitey warrior]

I hope this debate isn't getting repetative.

Callisto wrote

What happens when a pack of raiders decide to all threaten random people passing on the road? Nine of ten people enter the next movement command before the last move delay wears off after a quick scan of the room, pausing every few rooms to drop an emote or look in directions. Right there... I just found your first exploit and the code isn't even in place yet, you get your first attacks in before their entered command comes through, if the victim complains, you could just back it up with "Well if you didn't spam walk, you wouldn't have died!" and it now you have to waste an Imms time to get it resolved.

With what I proposed if a person enters a movement command they get the message like:

You are being threatened, type 'flee self' to make a run for it

Which is equivilent to what happens if you are riding down the north road and someone types 'kill' instead of threaten.

Threaten does give you a bonus attack when a the victim does something, but you also get a free attack when you use the kill command.

It gives the attacker a bonus because the attacker doesn't need that second or two to type kill soandso.

The attacker still needs to type threaten soandso.  Yes, it does give the attacker an instant attack if the person tries to run or fight back, but that's the point.  He could have used the kill command instead.

The delays have to be worked out.  Whether the delay is before, after, or after the 'kill' is triggered will be very important.  I'm not sure where they should go.


X-D wrote:

Over all, I think nothing would be solved and if anything more problems created, So, a minimal or even undesirable return for some probly heavy coding. I voted no on the poll and am gonna stick too it.

Ah, but it does solve something big.  Namely it helps promote conflict RP.  Right now you either have one side spam killing or the other side spam fleeing.  This type of code lets there be some RP in between.  Which is a big thing, because half the complaints people have are about poor RP on the part of attackers or victims.

It is also something that the militia clans would use alot, since right now when dealing with trouble-makers they only have the option of kill or subdue.  No more criminals typing hide and sneaking away while you're questioning them.

[Carnage]

If I'm a raider and I got my hood up and my target hasn't looked at me yet to see my main description

That's bullshit. If someone's charging at you with a sword, of COURSE you're going to look at them. I don't quite understand how you can expect someone to not look at them. In reality, if some guy runs at you with a gun are you going to look at the ground and wait for them to mug you and hope that they let you live just because they didn't see you? You may as well kill them for breathing too.

With threaten, I just put him in a position where he can't just walk away without risk - but he -can- roleplay AND use the code to make the decision on whether or not he wants to give me the loot without my clubbing him over the head, or attempting to flee and risk getting clubbed anyway.

Currently you have no choice but to either use the code, OR rely strictly on trusting the other guy to RP with you. You currently can't do both at the same time. Threaten allows you to do both at the same time, because it forces both parties to pause before weapons start swinging.

Or you could attack them with clubs, knock them out, strip them, and then leave them there. Or you could have a partner (since most muggers/raiding groups tend to work with multiple people) subdue them. Use your imagination and read over my previous post completely before saying there's no other options.

Again, how is this any different from when subdue allowed you to be able to hold a weapon and subdue someone at the same time?

The old subdue code was ideal for hostage taking and raiding because you could place a weapon to said person throat and the second said person resisted, you could nail them for some heavy damage. However, the code was changed due to long-running abuse... I'd imagine this would end up much the same way.

Agreed.

Right, because typing 'threaten soandso' is so much faster and easier to type.

alias t threaten

The point you are missing is that they could simply type kill. That takes just as long to type as threaten. Simply typing kill will result in an 'insta-attack' where the poor bastard does not get to draw weapon, run, or whatever it is they would normally do. All the disadvantages that can be applied to threaten are also applied to kill. Every argument used against the threaten command can be used against the kill command. There is NO bonus other then the normal bonus you get when you attack someone who isn't ready. Alls threaten is, is attacking like normal, but stopping at the point right before attacking, and making it clear that if the person tries to do anything you will simply carry through with the attack you have already started. Hell, if you throw in a skill/stat check the victim might actually be able to draw a sword or flee in a situation where a simple kill would have given neither option until after combat had started and it was too late.

I'm not missing anything. Threaten does not equal kill no matter how you put it. There are obvious side effects that kill does not bring. First of all, threaten works like a more powerful yet stationary version of subdue. Keep someone in place and doing absolutely nothing except emptying their pockets unless they die. Great, a new subdue command except with absolutely no skill check. Oh, but what if you -do- want to subdue someone and you're with a partner? Threaten soandso while your buddy goes up and subdues them.

Now what happens if, while threatening someone, another person comes up and attacks them? Does the threaten break and stop since they're fighting? Does it stay, despite all the movements combat tends to involve? Or can you involuntarily attack them against your will? Seems like a great way for a powergamer to get someone killed. Soldier threatens them. PG attacks, flees, then sneaks off to the 'Rinth. Meanwhile the person is now wanted and most likely dead. SUPERB!

We have a kill command, we have a subdue command, and both of those commands will initiate combat and you can expect the RP from that point on to be whatever hastily typed emotes one can squeeze out, if any. Threaten is simply a pause before combat.

Subdue does not initiate combat.

This is a simple ability that requires no skill and is poorly fleshed out. You wish to use the code to FORCE people to roleplay. This code is riddled with possible bugs and odds and ends. You want to force people to RP so badly? Start waving a banner and crusading for subdue while being able to wield and attack to be brought in. It's much more thought out and better than this threaten junk.

For those of you screaming that 'threaten' is simply 'kill' with a delay: No, it's not. If you can only see it as kill then you need to step back and get an idea of the whole picture.

[Anonymous]

Right, because typing 'threaten soandso' is so much faster and easier to type.

alias t threaten

alias t kill

First of all, threaten works like a more powerful yet stationary version of subdue.  Keep someone in place and doing absolutely nothing except emptying their pockets unless they die.

Wrong.  It works nothing like subdue.  It's a delayed kill command with an option to abort.

Is it twinkish for subdued PC to emote inching towards their kank?  Yes.  But a 'threatened' PC can do that and even mount up, the only thing they would suffer is the same outcome if someone typed 'kill man'.

Subdue does not initiate combat.

Tell me what happens when you don't have nosave on and you resist a subdue attempt inside a city with NPCs around.

You wish to use the code to FORCE people to roleplay.

No, I wish to use the code to ALLOW for RP by giving everyone a moment to breath before combat starts.

This code is riddled with possible bugs and odds and ends.

It's an idea, not a perfect one.  And a flaw is not a reason to dismiss it out of hand, especially if those flaws can be addressed.  Say through the magick of if/then/else statements.

For those of you screaming that 'threaten' is simply 'kill' with a delay: No, it's not. If you can only see it as kill then you need to step back and get an idea of the whole picture.

Please, give me the whole picture.  You type threaten.  There is a delay during which people can either interact or flee.  Then combat starts.

It sounds remarkably similar to the kill command to me.  Well, only with a delay.

[Callisto]

No, I wish to use the code to ALLOW for RP by giving everyone a moment to breath before combat starts.

That's hilarious.

[Carnage]

alias t kill

This entire section went completely over your head. Let me quote myself (and edit it to completely clarify it):

It gives the attacker a bonus because the attacker doesn't need that second or two to type kill soandso. They just get an insta-attack in. That's how you mitigate away danger from the attacker. When that warrior draws out his swords you get a free attack beforehand[Without having to type anything]

...

When you're in the middle of a sentence while talking to someone, as it is in game, and then you suddenly want to attack them, you have two options: Add -- to the end to show being cut off or delete all the text, then typing kill soandso. This second is easily an accurate representation of the time it takes to attack and kill. Threaten takes this away and brings Joe Schmoe Warrior one step closer to being insta-action gith NPC.

Wrong. It works nothing like subdue. It's a delayed kill command with an option to abort.

Is it twinkish for subdued PC to emote inching towards their kank? Yes. But a 'threatened' PC can do that and even mount up, the only thing they would suffer is the same outcome if someone typed 'kill man'.

Subdue: Immobilizes the victim and generally stops them from doing pretty much anything.
Threaten: Immobilizes the victim and generally stops them from pretty much doing anything unless they want to get insta-attacked like most of the aggro NPCs in the game work.

OMG! THESE TWO ABILITIES ARE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ALIKE! HOW COULD I POSSIBLY BE SO FUCKING STUPID AND THINK THEY WERE?! CRW, YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT AND I SEE THE LIGHT NOW! HALLE FUCKING LUJAH!

Tell me what happens when you don't have nosave on and you resist a subdue attempt inside a city with NPCs around.

A script goes off that triggers other NPC soldiers and, if you're not Militia or lower-ranked than the person that you're trying to subdue, you get the 'Wanted' flag. A soldier then sees you and then attacks you.

The statement was whether or not subdue initializes combat. It does not. SUBDUE DOES NOT INITIATE COMBAT. In cities it will give you the wanted flag that will make soldiers attempt to subdue you or attack you if they fail. If you want to speak indirectly and have a chain of utter nonsensical bullshit, you are correct in every way then and I stand down.

No, I wish to use the code to ALLOW for RP by giving everyone a moment to breath before combat starts.

The code already does. Did you not fully read any of my posts where I listed about the multiple ways that breathing room can be given or did you just ignore them because there was no rational argument against them? Although, as far as I can tell, that hasn't stopped you yet.

Please, give me the whole picture. You type threaten. There is a delay during which people can either interact or flee. Then combat starts.

It sounds remarkably similar to the kill command to me. Well, only with a delay.

It's an idea, not a perfect one. And a flaw is not a reason to dismiss it out of hand, especially if those flaws can be addressed. Say through the magick of if/then/else statements.

First of all, you admit that this idea has several flaws. Second, dismissing this because it has several flaws and is going to be a bitch to code IS a reason to dismiss it out of hand. You've already got other options, yet you still crusade for this code rather than think up new solutions. What's the point? And third, I haven't seen any solutions yet for the flaws that I've brought up for it. I suppose I'll save you the exercise and sum it up: I don't like it for the reasons I listed and unless every one of them comes up with a good solution, every single flaw is covered, and this becomes a much better option than for the reason I listed, I'm not going to support it and you're not going to change my mind.

[Anonymous]

Subdue: Immobilizes the victim and generally stops them from doing pretty much anything.
Threaten: Immobilizes the victim and generally stops them from pretty much doing anything unless they want to get insta-attacked like most of the aggro NPCs in the game work.

Nobody is immobilized by threaten.  Run and you'll be attacked.  But you can run, attempt to arm yourself, all sorts of things that you can't do while being subdued.  I still do not see how this chain of events:

Attacker enters room
Attacker types 'threaten man'
Attacker and Target interact via emotes and/or says
Combat ensues
Target flees or is killed

is not preferrable yet ultimately the same coded result as this chain of events:

Attacker enters room
Attacker types 'kill man'
Combat ensues
Target flees or is killed

Neither scenario offers the target or the attacker an advantage or disadvantage codewise.  Not that you've explained to me in a way I can see or agree with.

A script goes off that triggers other NPC soldiers and, if you're not Militia or lower-ranked than the person that you're trying to subdue, you get the 'Wanted' flag. A soldier then sees you and then attacks you.

The statement was whether or not subdue initializes combat. It does not. SUBDUE DOES NOT INITIATE COMBAT. In cities it will give you the wanted flag that will make soldiers attempt to subdue you or attack you if they fail.

In a city, the net result is you get attacked.  It's a valid use of this command to allow a more target-friendly interrogation without the risk of killing the target because they outmuscle a soldier who attempts to subdue them.

Scenario 1:
soldier types subdue elf and fails
elf gets mowed down

Scenario 2:
soldier types threaten elf
soldier and elf have a tough conversation

Please, give me the whole picture. You type threaten. There is a delay during which people can either interact or flee. Then combat starts.

It sounds remarkably similar to the kill command to me. Well, only with a delay.

It's an idea, not a perfect one. And a flaw is not a reason to dismiss it out of hand, especially if those flaws can be addressed. Say through the magick of if/then/else statements.

First of all, you admit that this idea has several flaws. Second, dismissing this because it has several flaws and is going to be a bitch to code IS a reason to dismiss it out of hand.

I said it's not a perfect idea, it is still in it's inception stage.  And unless Carnage is an alias for a staffmember, I do not think you are in a position to determine what would or would not be a bitch to code.  And, like me, in only a lesser position to determine whether or not it would be worth the investment.

It's a kill command with options.  Whatever holes exist in it's current logic can possibly be addressed, but I have yet to hear one that I personally think outweighs the benefit of the command.

I think this command would be best used by those who express opinions about not trusting their targets, that they wouldn't mind dropping emotes or adding non-combat interaction prior to issuing the kill command but not if they put their PC at what they perceive to be an unfair disadvantage.

And the place where I think it would really shine is in giving the targets of raids a chance to talk their way out of it, or flat out stall until help arrives.

There is a trust gap in this game between attackers and their targets.  This is the best idea yet I've seen to use the code to bridge that gap in a way that will alleviate some of the situations where people had a sour taste in their mouth.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

I have to say:

I think this 'Threaten" command is the best idea that I have heard in a fucking long time. Anyone who doesn't like it probably has not really thought about it. Of course we don't need it, but it will help the game, and to say that it would not help is to say that you are having a kneejerk action, most likely the same that you would have with the addition of any new combat skill addition.

[Ueda]

Bestatte wrote:
With threaten, I just put him in a position where he can't just walk away without risk - but he -can- roleplay AND use the code to make the decision on whether or not he wants to give me the loot without my clubbing him over the head, or attempting to flee and risk getting clubbed anyway.

Currently you have no choice but to either use the code, OR rely strictly on trusting the other guy to RP with you. You currently can't do both at the same time. Threaten allows you to do both at the same time, because it forces both parties to pause before weapons start swinging.


Or you could attack them with clubs, knock them out, strip them, and then leave them there. Or you could have a partner (since most muggers/raiding groups tend to work with multiple people) subdue them. Use your imagination and read over my previous post completely before saying there's no other options.

Subdue so&so. despite your attempts to... Auto combat.
Think feck I didn't want to attack him, I just wanted to talk

Again, how is this any different from when subdue allowed you to be able to hold a weapon and subdue someone at the same time?

Subdued... Draw sword... you are held tight and unable to do anything.

Threatened... Draw sword... Auto combat

Rindan wrote:
The point you are missing is that they could simply type kill. That takes just as long to type as threaten. Simply typing kill will result in an 'insta-attack' where the poor bastard does not get to draw weapon, run, or whatever it is they would normally do. All the disadvantages that can be applied to threaten are also applied to kill. Every argument used against the threaten command can be used against the kill command. There is NO bonus other then the normal bonus you get when you attack someone who isn't ready. Alls threaten is, is attacking like normal, but stopping at the point right before attacking, and making it clear that if the person tries to do anything you will simply carry through with the attack you have already started. Hell, if you throw in a skill/stat check the victim might actually be able to draw a sword or flee in a situation where a simple kill would have given neither option until after combat had started and it was too late.


I'm not missing anything. Threaten does not equal kill no matter how you put it. There are obvious side effects that kill does not bring. First of all, threaten works like a more powerful yet stationary version of subdue. Keep someone in place and doing absolutely nothing except emptying their pockets unless they die. Great, a new subdue command except with absolutely no skill check. Oh, but what if you -do- want to subdue someone and you're with a partner? Threaten soandso while your buddy goes up and subdues them.

No it's not a stationary version of subdue tell me how you draw a weapon with subdue, I would really like to know.

They have the choose to Flee.

It has a skill check, as soon as they do something that starts combat.

Subdue would break any Threaten on someone.

Now what happens if, while threatening someone, another person comes up and attacks them? Does the threaten break and stop since they're fighting? Does it stay, despite all the movements combat tends to involve? Or can you involuntarily attack them against your will? Seems like a great way for a powergamer to get someone killed. Soldier threatens them. PG attacks, flees, then sneaks off to the 'Rinth. Meanwhile the person is now wanted and most likely dead. SUPERB!

I would like to quote the big lewboski on this... "What on gods green earth are you babbling about?"

Of course combat would break threaten

& you yourself shoulden't be talking about other people needing to read your posts when you don't even read the first one.

Threatening makes you wanted in cities.

Rindan wrote:
We have a kill command, we have a subdue command, and both of those commands will initiate combat and you can expect the RP from that point on to be whatever hastily typed emotes one can squeeze out, if any. Threaten is simply a pause before combat.


Subdue does not initiate combat.

Really? I need to send a few emails to the mud then.

This is a simple ability that requires no skill and is poorly fleshed out. You wish to use the code to FORCE people to roleplay. This code is riddled with possible bugs and odds and ends. You want to force people to RP so badly? Start waving a banner and crusading for subdue while being able to wield and attack to be brought in. It's much more thought out and better than this threaten junk.

How about the people that want to try and avoid combat, because I really do believe when you fail your subdue its wha? Yes, thats right auto combat.

For those of you screaming that 'threaten' is simply 'kill' with a delay: No, it's not. If you can only see it as kill then you need to step back and get an idea of the whole picture.

I don't think that.

CRW wrote:
No, I wish to use the code to ALLOW for RP by giving everyone a moment to breath before combat starts.


That's hilarious

I think it's a way to stop combat in some situation, not all.

Subdue: Immobilizes the victim and generally stops them from doing pretty much anything.
Threaten: Immobilizes the victim and generally stops them from pretty much doing anything unless they want to get insta-attacked like most of the aggro NPCs in the game work.

OMG! THESE TWO ABILITIES ARE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ALIKE! HOW COULD I POSSIBLY BE SO FUCKING STUPID AND THINK THEY WERE?! CRW, YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT AND I SEE THE LIGHT NOW! HALLE FUCKING LUJAH!

OMG your not listening to anything thats been posted are you!
Do you still think their the same? Halle fucking lujah?

I have to say:

I think this 'Threaten" command is the best idea that I have heard in a fucking long time. Anyone who doesn't like it probably has not really thought about it. Of course we don't need it, but it will help the game, and to say that it would not help is to say that you are having a kneejerk action, most likely the same that you would have with the addition of any new combat skill addition.

The more & more I think about it the more I'm comming to like the idea.

[Rindan]

I once had a relatively bad ass warrior wandering the desert outside of Allanak.  Like always, he was riding with one weapon in hand.  Two elves and a human jumped out and attacked him.  These three were a new raiding clan that had sprung up.  I was thrown from my kank, got up, pulled out my other weapon, and proceeded to hand out some ass kickings.  I eventually had to flee because I was low on stun from the fall off my kank.

If this had been with threaten, I would have wandered in and they would have all typed threaten instead of kill.  They would have made their demands, I would have dismount my kank, drawn my second weapon starting combat, deflected most of their initial attacks with ease, and probably would have killed them all due to the fact that threaten allowed me to dismount instead of take a nasty spill.  Even if I did not feel in the mood to negotiate, threaten would have helped my situation as it would have been a free dismount instead of sitting on my ass for a few seconds with only one weapon.

If all three of them had typed subdue and they had managed to subdue me, I would have been fucked.  Once subdued you do not have someone offering the threat of attack, you can't defend yourself at all even a scrawny little pick pocket elf can kill you.  Threaten is in now way equivalent to subdue.  Once subdued, the game is over and you are at their mercy.  If while subdued they decide they really meant to kill you, you will die.

On the other hand, threaten is no guaranteed death.  Threaten means they will all type kill if you move.  Who cares?  If you think you can get away or kill them, then go ahead and type something.  There is no need to be paralyzed by it.  I sure as hell would not let someone paralyze me if I thought I could win through violence.

If two groups meet, say a group of raiders a noble man being escorted, if subdues are attempted, the confrontation is going to end with violence.  A successful subdue is death to the person who is at the loosing end.  I would take combat over a subdue any day of the week.  In the case of escorting someone, someone trying to pull of a subdue would be someone I would instantly go into combat with, no RP, no nothing.  On the other hand, if someone was to threaten me while I was escorting someone, I would likely let the scene be played out.  I have not lost any advantage.  I still am guarding the target and can stop any attacks sent his way.  I still have my weapons, and I can still defend any attacks that come my way.  The raiders have my attention, but not my automatic compliance, which subdue forces.  I could very well judge that my guard's best chances would be in a fight and initiate combat.  In other words, threaten has only frozen the moment.  As the defender I do not feel that I am in at any more of a disadvantage then if they had typed kill.  If anything, I am probably better off because now I have my wits about me, I am dismounted, and I have my finger hovering over the button to draw my other weapon.

As to various scenarios where threaten could be bugged out, they are all a simple matter of logic as CRW says.  Should threaten initiate combat if the victim is attacked by someone else?  No.  Have threaten break.  If the threatener wants to initiate combat then type kill.  Problem solved.  I don't really have the overwhelming desire to sift through all the various logic issues brought up, but it is relatively easy to solve them, just error on the side of the victim.  If that means that there is a loop hole to get out of a threaten, fine.  If someone uses an obvious exploit, just drop the account an e-mail.  I know an exploit to destroy Allanak with mekillots and a desert elf, that does not me that the movement commands should be removed for desert elves.

[number13]

I don't understand the resistance to this idea.   Seems cool to me.

[Vendyra]

To clear some things up, I just tested this: a PC failing a subdue on a PC does not initialize combat, even if their nosave is off.  It changes with NPCs.

[Carnage]

I think it's pretty obvious that I'm done with this discussion when people completely stop listening to reason. In short, this idea is most likely not going in. The first time around it didn't and was heavily supported. The second time now there's a growing opposition and obvious flaws in it. You want to be a raider? Then start using your imagination and work with either a partner or a group. Since I have to repeat the same things I say over and over again, I'll say that most raiders/muggers usually work one or more people and the ones that don't don't last long.

I said it's not a perfect idea, it is still in it's inception stage. And unless Carnage is an alias for a staffmember, I do not think you are in a position to determine what would or would not be a bitch to code. And, like me, in only a lesser position to determine whether or not it would be worth the investment.

Then, ironically enough, you're in no position to say how the code can be implemented and fixed, as you did here: "And a flaw is not a reason to dismiss it out of hand, especially if those flaws can be addressed. Say through the magick of if/then/else statements"

Nobody is immobilized by threaten. Run and you'll be attacked. But you can run, attempt to arm yourself, all sorts of things that you can't do while being subdued.

When you're subdued, you can try to flee and break out of it to do all that.

I still do not see how this chain of events:

Attacker enters room
Attacker types 'threaten man'
Attacker and Target interact via emotes and/or says
Combat ensues
Target flees or is killed

is not preferrable yet ultimately the same coded result as this chain of events:

Attacker enters room
Attacker types 'kill man'
Combat ensues

What's the problem with throwing out the emotes in the middle of combat or, gasp, sucking it up and dealing with the idea that while many players have an adrenaline rush and are concerned with their PCs living they're not going to be hurling emotes out left and right?

Really? I need to send a few emails to the mud then.

Here's a quick and easy technique that'll prove my point. Walk into a sparring circle with a buddy and try to subdue them. Oh, what's that? Does your buddy auto-attack you in reaction? Do you auto-attack them? No, you do not. Therefore, subdue does not intialize combat. It's really that simple.

In a city, the net result is you get attacked. It's a valid use of this command to allow a more target-friendly interrogation without the risk of killing the target because they outmuscle a soldier who attempts to subdue them.

tell elf (Grunting as he advances on !elf) You're coming with me!
(One onethousand, two onethousand, three onethousand, four onethousand...)
subdue elf

There. Your target had the option of coming freely and decided not to. Now a bunch of NPC soldiers are going to attempt to subdue them. If these fail, then they're auto attacked and possibly dead. Seems fair enough to me.

And unless Carnage is an alias for a staffmember

It is. In 1942, I was created after a great war between the staff members over a stupid command that the Elders advocated. It became a battle of the highlords and overlords vs. the storytellers, along with several players mixed into the warring factions. The storytellers had numbers but the overlords had numbers. The storytellers had no chance. Vendyra, with her final dying breath, manages to destroy Nessalin. His essence is scattered across the land. From there, Sanvean attempts to further rebuild him ala the Six Million Dollar Man. Pieces of Kurano, Mekeda, Raesanos, and Tlaloc get mixed in however and I was formed portions pieces of their souls. Oh, and I've got a bit of Halaster in my left ankle.

How about the people that want to try and avoid combat, because I really do believe when you fail your subdue its wha? Yes, thats right auto combat.

Stop, you sound like an idiot. SUBDUE DOES NOT INTIALIZE COMBAT! Against NPCs it can start an aggro reaction, but against any PCs it will not.

I would like to quote the big lewboski on this... "What on gods green earth are you babbling about?"

Of course combat would break threaten

& you yourself shoulden't be talking about other people needing to read your posts when you don't even read the first one.

Cool, so then there's another exploit that allows an easy way out of threaten. Have a ranger or someone hiding along with you. When that mean ol' uber bandit stops you, your friend or anyone else can just instantly attack you and bam, you're free with absolutely no risk. I <3 exploits in unnecessary code.

No it's not a stationary version of subdue tell me how you draw a weapon with subdue, I would really like to know.

They have the choose to Flee.

UberRanger_01 or UberAssassin_01 has their weapons out and you threatened. Unless you want to be uber dead, you're not going anywhere. It's pretty common sense. So these characters get the ability to basically put you under your control due to their combat skill: you can choose to do any of the actions listed and get killed (an option that I very, very highly doubt anyone is going to take) or you can be immobilized by them. They can pretty much keep you standing there until you end up dying of starvation or thirst if they want!

It has a skill check, as soon as they do something that starts combat.

Subdue would break any Threaten on someone.

Wow, great, a skill check. This completely and utterly balances this skill, despite the fact that every single clan will be training it just as often as they train subdue or guarding.

I don't think that.

Now a supporter is saying that threaten isn't kill with a delay. Exactly, 100% and clearly stated, what is it then?

A successful subdue is death to the person who is at the loosing end. I would take combat over a subdue any day of the week. In the case of escorting someone, someone trying to pull of a subdue would be someone I would instantly go into combat with, no RP, no nothing. On the other hand, if someone was to threaten me while I was escorting someone, I would likely let the scene be played out. I have not lost any advantage. I still am guarding the target and can stop any attacks sent his way. I still have my weapons, and I can still defend any attacks that come my way. The raiders have my attention, but not my automatic compliance, which subdue forces.

Why should you be able to guard when someone has a knife at your throat?

If all three of them had typed subdue and they had managed to subdue me, I would have been fucked. Once subdued you do not have someone offering the threat of attack, you can't defend yourself at all even a scrawny little pick pocket elf can kill you. Threaten is in now way equivalent to subdue. Once subdued, the game is over and you are at their mercy. If while subdued they decide they really meant to kill you, you will die.

So, let me get this straight: when someone has their arms wrapped around you, you're at their mercy. But when they've got the tip of their sword right at your neck, you're not? Shouldn't a scrawny little pick pocket elf be able to kill you too with a knife at your throat? There's not too many ways to fuck it up.

None the less, I've laid out my points and I keep ending up having to rehash them over and over again. I'm done here. Now that Vendyra actually posed about subdue NOT intializing combat, maybe some people will actually fucking acknowledge it.

[da mitey warrior]

Carnage wrote

And third, I haven't seen any solutions yet for the flaws that I've brought up for it. I suppose I'll save you the exercise and sum it up: I don't like it for the reasons I listed and unless every one of them comes up with a good solution, every single flaw is covered, and this becomes a much better option than for the reason I listed, I'm not going to support it and you're not going to change my mind.

I'm afraid I can't find a list, so I'll try to address what I can.  Forgive me if I miss a couple of your points.

The victim being attacked by a third party:  You shouldn't be able to threaten someone already in combat, but if a third person attacks the person you are threatening I think the best way to handle it would be for nothing to happen.  You'd still be threatening the person, and if they flee then combat would start.  Altough it's a tough call to decide which of thr three possibilities would happen (nothing, combat or breaking the threat).

UberRanger_01 or UberAssassin_01 has their weapons out and you threatened. Unless you want to be uber dead, you're not going anywhere. It's pretty common sense. So these characters get the ability to basically put you under your control due to their combat skill: you can choose to do any of the actions listed and get killed (an option that I very, very highly doubt anyone is going to take) or you can be immobilized by them. They can pretty much keep you standing there until you end up dying of starvation or thirst if they want!

Well, unless they can kill you in one or two rounds of combat (some can) then you can run away.  If not, you'd better do what they say.  I'm not sure how this is bad, since they could just type 'kill' instead of threaten and you'd be dead all the same.

The difference between subdue and threaten.  Threaten is a step down from subdue in that you arn't physically holding them down.  It it easier to escape from, since you simply have to survive one or two rounds of combat in order to escape.  With subdue you have to break free and then get out of the room before getting re-subdued or attacked.  Subdue is also kinda buggy and illogical, and IMO threatening a person would be a better way of interrogating or raiding.  Subduing an armed person on a kank is kinda dumb, and I don't see why every time someone in the militia wants to talk to an elf it has to be in a locked room or with the elf held by his feet upside down by a half-giant.

Anyways, I for one do think this conversation is interesting.  I'm not sure why some people are getting so bent out of shape over a hypothetical discussion.  I doubt there is much risk of this command ever getting implimented but I do think there is a need for something like threaten to fill the gap in conflict RP.  Maybe someone can come up with a better idea?

[Galdun]

While this "Threaten" business could improve the rp during the moment of conflict, it leaves acres of room for abuse in terms of Role playing the initial approach.  Insta Killing will be replaced by Insta "Threatening".  I think the idea could bring a certain level of intensity to dire moments, just before combat breaks out, however I guarantee it will be used just as poorly as the kill command in the following scenario...

Wilderness zones are supposed to be rather large in scale in comparison with city zones.  That ominous cloaked figure rides in from his adjacent zone, riding towards you.  You are mounted atop a reliable kank, who is itching to ride away as you grip the reigns tightly.  Much to your surprise, this cloaked figure manages to stop you dead in your tracks...although he is still a considerable distance away.  You aren't cornered, you aren't immediately held at blade point(If you think you don't need to roleplay/emote approaching someone with your blade drawn before you "threaten", then you certainly won't argue that the victim  needs to roleplay the fact that he would instinctively RIDE AWAY or at least prevent the raider from getting close enough to attack), you aren't exactly the type to stay and chat with desert roaming strangers...so why the HELL can't you move?

And if this poor character in this scenario flees...He is attacked regardless, with no idea how he was approached or assailed, ...he was merely stopped in his tracks the moment the "threaten" command was used.  That will happen frequently and in my opinion constitutes poor Role Play.

If that problem could somehow be solved I wouldn't mind a threaten code at all.
If I am completely mislead or forgetting something here, please do not hesitate to correct me.

[Delirium]

Maybe we could use 'approach' and 'retreat' code put in, then. Want to attack someone? Approach them. Want to approach them unseen? Better be sneaking and hope that you succeeded your roll check.

And typing 'stop' during combat could prompt the other player with the opportunity to type 'stop' as well, and break off the battle without having to flee into the other room.

So and so attempts to withdraw from combat.
>stop

You break off the fight.


The threaten idea I like merely because it has the possibility of slowing down the 'instacombat', 'icantypefasterthanyou' approach to PvP conflict.

[Anonymous]

Galdun, I agree with you completely that insta-threaten upon entering the room would be ignoring the vast size of those rooms.

It's not that I love the idea of threaten on it's own.  If there was some coded way to account for your location inside of a room in relation to someone who just entered, that would probably be the best way to handle it.

If we were dealing with a graphical game, none of this would be an issue.  You'd see RadierD00d enter your screen and you'd be off like a prom dress before he could cross the distance to you.

In the end, though, threaten ends up being better than e;kill man in my mind because there is no downside to interaction for the attacker, a common comment made when explaining why some people don't bother with adding any flavor to the conflict.

[LoD]

Threaten, as I would understand it discussed here, is just like a delayed kill command that can be stopped if the attacker so desires.

I do think that this would be a nice command to have in the game, to create those stalled scenes prior to the combat taking place.  I further believe that there is no 'insta-attack' gained because you've already indicated that you are going to attack them, and it is just giving them a chance to maybe talk their way out of the situation.

I also would make the following changes/additions:

-Only one person can threaten a PC at a time.  

Other PC's should still need to assist, or take up other positions, like guarding the exits if they want to get in an attack.  I believe this would cut away a whole lot of the anti-threaten abuse examples.

This command would open up a lot of opportunities to RP where there is a current void.  You can argue all you want that people will just RP out the scene, or that you should just hope they will respond favorably, but experience in over 50 raiding encounters has shown me that simply isn't the case 9 times out of 10.

People just flee, period.  They start taking damage, want to save their character, and just immediately run away.  SOME of you do not, but that is not enough of you to make a difference or we wouldn't be sitting here discussing this thread in the first place.

The command actually benefits the victim more than the attacker, because they have lost the element of surprise that is achieved by the KILL command.  They would likely still be able to do the following:

-Contact someone via the Way to let them know what's going on.
-Stall for time.
-Talk their way out of the situation.
-Prepare for the attack, by getting their commands ready.
-Look at their attacker.
-Try to give up.

The threaten command, to me, would just be part of the kill command.  It would be the exact same thing, except that you can retract your attack if things go as planned.

There is no extra attack, there are no bonuses to combat, there is no surprise bonus, there is only the 'possibility' of extended RP and commands while not taking damage, as compared to using kill.

I really don't think that this command would be abused, or bring about anything other than increased RP in pre-combat situations where the PC's would rather have a good scene over plain PK and attacking.  It may also promote general RP all-around to players that would normally have auto-fled from the situation.

-LoD

[Rindan]

So, let me get this straight: when someone has their arms wrapped around you, you're at their mercy. But when they've got the tip of their sword right at your neck, you're not? Shouldn't a scrawny little pick pocket elf be able to kill you too with a knife at your throat? There's not too many ways to fuck it up.

What exactly threaten is, is up to the situation.  If you threaten a guy with a weapon out I would probably RP as them having your blade within striking distance and held ready such that you are going to bring their blade down before they could do something like run or draw another sword.  In other words, they will have to deal with an incoming blade before doing anything else.  It would not be reasonable to RP putting your blade to someone's throat when they themselves have a weapon out.  Clearly, unless you are super secret assassin, they are not going to let a blade get that close to their throat.  This is a reasonable interpretation.  Even if someone ignores this interpretation the code is not going to play along.  If an elven pick pocket threatens my warrior while he has his weapons out I am going to smirk, then beat the shit out of the pick pocket.

I am not going to loose any sleep over anyone RPing poorly with the threaten command.  They can RP whatever the want, but it will never under any circumstance be more effective then kill.

As to issues of distance, if someone could use threaten, they could use kill.  Kill also applies the same warped sense of distance where a guy can run across the desert and kill you.  Clearly, if someone is beating you with their clubs they are closer then a guy pointing a weapon at you in a readied striking position.  So, is it still an issue?  Sure.  Is that any different from how it is now?  Not at all.  That is a fundamental problem with the combat code and an entirely different beast.

Finally, you people (and I am not just talking about Carnage) need to calm way the hell down.  It is a proposed idea and nothing more.  Love it or hate it, getting emotional over it is ridiculous.  Just because someone disagrees with your point does not mean they are intentionally being pig headed just to piss you off.  Nothing wrecks a debate more then everyone getting hyper emotional over it, and that is all this is, a debate.  Getting emotional over and idea, regardless if it is for or against, is silly, and more then that it doesn't help your point.

[gfair]

People just flee, period.  They start taking damage, want to save their character, and just immediately run away.  SOME of you do not, but that is not enough of you to make a difference or we wouldn't be sitting here discussing this thread in the first place.

To be fair, we should all abandon this notion that anytime someone insta-flees they are doing it for OOC reasons, namely that they want to save their character.

There are many reasons to flee, even real world armies of tremendous might have done so, can we deny that a player attacked in the desert would flee for IC reasons?  I can think of the two clinchers:

- Life in Zalanthas is highly prized by all.

- If your attacker significantly wounds you, or you see that the attacker is hitting you more than you hit her/him, why are you going to stay around?

Threaten/Retreat may change things, but I think we are looking at this from the perspective of getting the targeted PCs to stay longer, when there are so many legitimate IC circumstances or reasons that justify their fleeing the instant anyone pauses near enough to be dangerous.

Are we getting to the point where we need the Staff to weigh in with opinions?

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

Are we getting to the point where we need the Staff to weigh in with opinions?

Absolutely.

[ashjpd]

hehe, Thats what I was thinking, that is all we need now.

[Lasakar]

You could hit me all, but I just use CONSIDER <player> (besides emotes!).

For the most players it is allready a threat! And more I don't need to make my intention clear...  :twisted:

[Dan]

The addition of threaten... well, lets just say that I would definately make a thug character.

Picture this...

The seedy thug threatens you with his heavy wooden crossbow!

The seedy thug says, in sirihish, "Don't move now, or I'll shoot! Just drop your belt and keep along, there'll be no trouble!"

You attempt to draw your sword but the seedy thug attacks first!
The seedy thug shoots you with a heavy wooden crossbow in the head!
You draw a bone saber.

assess me
You are bleeding profusely.
You do not look tired.

think Damn it!


Something like this.

I wouldn't mind seeing threaten allow someone to level their bow/crossbow at you and let the arrow/bolt fly before you do anything in self defense.

Thoughts?

[ashjpd]

That sounds a lot better to threaten with a long-ranged weapon. Because,
in real life you would be able to hold someone back with a bow more likely then a sword. This would also give the attacker a disadvantage, not having a close up weapon drawn and such, so it might even things out a little. Maybe it could be a skill and if you are more skilled, then maybe you could do it with close up weapons, such as a sword.

When you try to threaten with an axe or something, it might say.

That is not a ranged weapon.

Or.

You are not skilled enough yet.

Maybe something of that sort.

Thugs and asssasins might be able to start out with the skill or maybe be able to branch it later.

Shrug*

I just think this type of thing would be something that a skilled person would now. For example, a raider that has been raiding for years.

Shrug*

Maybe even some of the tribes would have their chars. start out with the skill, which wuld bring more players to play them I think.

[lukie]

Threatening with ranged weapons sounds cool to me. It also makes sense that you could threaten using one from far away.

[jmordetsky]

I honestly think this is a fantastic idea. I didn't at first, but now that you've explained it.

Yes. Yes definately

As for range vs melee, I'm not convinced you need a range weapon to threaten.

For example, you are in the same room with me, or street, or section of the dessert.

I shout at you, from a good number of cords away, swaying a nasty looking hammer, "Hey you. Don't move!"

You move, I chase after you. If we're in the same "square", I should get a shot at you, maybe not a good shot. Then your flee roll determines if you do escape.

[ashjpd]

Now can an immortal say something on the subject?

[Lerl]

I like the idea except for one thing.  The initial attack should have similar success rate as rescue.  "You leap at the blue-eyed merchant but aren't quick enough! The blue-eyed merchant draws his weapon.  You hit the blue-eyed merchant grievously in the head."  If a bunch of newb raiders are gathering all around me while I don't have a weapon out and mounted, I would ALWAYS draw and dismount hoping they all don't get in and threatening in time.  Otherwise we'll see raiding groups that have exactly the number of swords to near instant kill someone before and when they dismount.  Also, immortals might to make sure to add plenty of "delay" after the initial attack.  A "delay" before the threaten takes effect (as the raiders are approaching) would be good too.
Rick

[Xygax]

Alright, so I've had some time to mull this over, and I'm thinking some of the coded features that already exist could be enhanced to provide equivalent functionality, without creating what feels to me like a somewhat artificial system.

First, let me say why I think this feels a little artificial:  The act of threatening someone is an intangible, roleplayed act.  It's one of those things we -want- you to work out ICly with shout, say, tell, psi, etc., and so adding a command that essentially creates an OOC bond between the two players involved in the conflict feels a little forced.  If the participants involved aren't proving themselves to be trustworthy players (spam-fleeing, fleeing to logout, etc.), the situation is better handled by the staff than by a coded system that cannot possibly understand all the IC nuances of the situation.  Also, I think the full consequences of a system like this aren't entirely clear, and in some sense I don't like it simply because it makes my spider-senses tingle and I can't totally express why.  Finally, it isn't trivially easy to code, as it's likely to touch a number of systems, combat, spells, and even what we call "specials", and so could leave a lot of breaks and loopholes when first implemented (this is the least of arguments, but still worth mentioning.  We're not afraid to tackle large projects, but things that are likely to leave exploitable loopholes always bother me).

Alternatives:

I haven't thought on this a great deal, but currently my favorite alternative to a system like this is to consider some enhancements to "guard," to make it a potentially more aggressive ability.

In particular, I like something I'm calling "guard stances" for lack of a better term, which means that you can choose what you'd like your character to -try- to do, when someone sneaks/runs/flees toward the exit you're guarding:

Block:  The default, this guard-stance does precisely what guard does now.

Subdue:  If your target is not in combat, and they flee toward an exit you're guarding, you may test your guard skill.  If it succeeds, you may then test your subdue skill to see if you can grab them before they slip past.  If you succeed in both, your target is subdued.  If they are in combat, then this behaves just like the "block" stance, or perhaps disengages them and their attackers while you grab them.

Kill:  If your target is in combat and they flee toward and exit you're guarding, perhaps a guard check and a weapon-skill check allows you a free shot at them as they go by, or allows you to engage them afresh (preventing them from leaving AND placing them in-combat with you as their primary target).

There are probably some other "stances" that make sense, but I haven't thought through the whole thing terribly thoroughly.

Another enhancement would be to increase the change of guarding a given exit, if more than one person are guarding it.  I once saw a sneaky bastard run past 3 or 4 half-giant soldiers guarding the exit of a room (the room only had the one exit), and the player still managed to flee past simply by spamming "n;n;n;n;n;n".

Yet another enhancement/change might be to put a longer delay (I'm not actually sure there's -any- delay, currently), on people who get blocked going through an exit (the delay should probably be slightly longer than that imposed by a regular, successful move).

Another still would be to make it cost some additional stamina to try to flee through a guarded doorway (and more still if you fail).

Now, I'm not running off to code any ofl these changes this very second, I'm just throwing out some ideas that I think are more elegant solutions than this "threaten" concept.

-- X

[Bestatte]

Xygax, I love the ideas! My only comment, is that all your "guard" stuff seems exclusive to guarding exits. What about if you're guarding a person? Obviously, in most cities unless you're a militia member, trying to kill someone who goes after the merchant you're guarding will result in a crimflag on you, but it would be great if "guard-subdue" allowed you to grab the sneaky thief/backstabber/whatever by the scruff of his neck if he fails to get past your guard. Without any crim-flag against the guard person for doing his job.

[Xygax]

Well, certainly if someone attacks your ward, trying to subdue instead of intervening could be possible, but it seems likely to be pretty dangerous (since you'll be in combat with the attacker if you fail, and he probably has his weapons out).  I'm not sure this is the behavior you want when you catch someone trying to -steal- from your ward, though.  Needs more thought.

-- X

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

If someone attacks you or your charge in the city, you get no crim flag. I have to second Xygax's suggestions and say that they do actually sound pretty good. I still like the threaten skill, but apparently that is not the solution best suited to this. In that case, these new ideas you speak of are great.

Another question would be this one. Is there a way that we can bind characters? That would be useful and should exist, and I'd think the way that one might prevent this from being too encumbering on the PC bound is to make the escape based on flee.

Example:

Code Select Expand

>The massive mul subdues you, despite your struggles.

>The massive mul fights to bound you, but fails.

>The massive mul fights to bound you, but fails.

>You struggle to escape the massive mul, but fail.

>The massive mul fights to bound you, and succeeds.

>The massive mul releases you, allowing you to fall to your back.

>You struggle against your bindings.

>You struggle against your bindings, but feel helpless.

The latter struggle is like saying that you failed fleeing a subdue. The first is saying that you just loosened the bindings a bit. Binding objects would have ratings, and for, say, vine rope, you'd need three good flees to break free, while iron chains might need four hundred, and so forth.

So?

[creeper386]

One thing that would be a big benefit to ALOT of these situations, but I don't know how it'd work. Is to be able to guard an entrance BEFORE/AS you enter. So as you go through you'd be guarding the exit already. As by the time you get the movement lag done most the time it's common someone will just walk off. Even right through the door you just entered.

The main problem comes in huge rooms, but you're already allowed to guard exits in large rooms so I don't see much difference. It'd just show that you'll trying to cut off the escape of any one.

Wouldn't help much for one person in the desert, but it'd allow someone to go into a room or dead end and block the exit.

Along with having bonuses for multiple people guarding exits... It'd probably at least allow people to do what they want to do.


The only problem I see is, it seems any ideas to come up with all say that it's the people being attacked/mugged/whatnot that are doing the poor RPing or not paying attention to IC circumstances. The only thing I can think of here that would help is most likely some way to at least somewhat avoid combat. And it goes back to certain "combat stances." Being able to run from someone attacking you. Depending on speed and such would be useful. Not anything extremely powerful, but something that could create some time. As I don't think every time it's the person who runs away who isn't paying attention to IC situations.


Creeper

[grog]

Another question would be this one. Is there a way that we can bind characters? That would be useful and should exist, and I'd think the way that one might prevent this from being too encumbering on the PC bound is to make the escape based on flee.

The young krath-burned gith jumps on you, hogtying you expertly
The young, krath-burned gith throws his ten gallon hat in the air, letting out a loud cheer

The feral-eyed halfling ties you up
The feral-eyed halfling places a blue fruit in your mouth
The feral-eyed halfling licks his lips, placing a lei around his neck

Etc.

I think I like it.

[Callisto]

One thing that would be a big benefit to ALOT of these situations, but I don't know how it'd work. Is to be able to guard an entrance BEFORE/AS you enter.

If you're going to walk south and guard the north exit in that room, type guard north before you walk in. I'm pretty sure that will work.

[theebie]

The latter struggle is like saying that you failed fleeing a subdue. The first is saying that you just loosened the bindings a bit. Binding objects would have ratings, and for, say, vine rope, you'd need three good flees to break free, while iron chains might need four hundred, and so forth.

So?

Iron chains ? I wouldnt try to break 'em, I would RUN with them :)