Threaten, fleshed out

[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?