Lodgings, read before voting please

[spawnloser]

In more clans, one of the 'perks' almost always offered is free lodgings.  Now...this would be awesome, if it wasn't already free to quit out in a tavern.  Seriously, I know people in clans that offer this and they still quit out in the tavern all the time.  Personally, I find this wrong.  It isn't a perk to have free lodgings if public lodgings were already free and just as safe.

Personally, I have two ideas for a solution...

First, as many other MUDs I've seen have, have a charge for using public quit places that should charge...like any tavern/inn like location would normally.

Second, which would address any quit location, have there be a chance of losing items to theft while logged out due to your character being asleep and people having access to your unconscience person while your character is so.  Now, before people harp on the, 'your character isn't necessarily asleep when you're logged out,' thing, your character has to sleep some time...and if you're not going to have it sleep regularly while you're logged in, they have to make it up some time.  Possibilities within this include modifications to the class based on factors like race or certain skill or stat levels...even have the chance differ based on the exact quit location.

Of course, if anyone has an idea that I haven't listed, please vote other and elaborate.

[Krath]

I voted for Other, for the fact and reason being, Just because you are paying for a place to stay does not mean you are still not able to get stolen from. I think both should be implemented, but then you come to the constant issue which is brought up, Realism vs. Playability. Is it realistic? yes, however, if I lost my custom sword of uber death to tektolnes +5 +5 that I waited 5 ic years to get and lost it while I was logged off, you can bet your life I would be pissed. Is this realistic? Yes, but I think people without places to sleep safely, would stop ordering items from merchants, which could possible lead to a great decrease in playability for players of that class.

I dunno, it is a toss up, you decide for yourselves.

[Carnage]

No.

[Quirk]

I voted "other" because I don't happen to believe either "solution" is a good one. From an OOC perspective, frequently people's barracks or estate or apartment is on the very far side of town from the tavern they frequent. The sheer inconvenience of spending an extra five minutes journeying back across town, particularly in that long-roaded monstrosity that is Tuluk, would mean many players who did have accomodation would still log out in the taverns and suffer the consequences. Moreover it would drive up the demand for PC apartments, which is high at the best of times, impose a lot of stress on any poor Nenyuk PC having to deal with it and force the imms to build much more by the way of housing, particularly in the poorer areas of town. Paying sid isn't really an option, because then you cannot log out unless you have the money - leading to even more linkdead newbies. Having things stolen is more viable, but worsens the problem by far for those who have places to log off a long way away - the risk of doing what is OOCly needful is now undetermined.

In addition, you would now be penalising people who log in and out frequently over those who stay in the game all day. That's a lesser issue though, and could be worked around.

I vote the poll should have had a "neither" option.

Quirk

[cisalus]

I voted for other.. It may be a bit OOC over IC, but I think the reason that taverns/inns/etc don't cost anything are either because A) The player might need to quit his PC uber quick due to OOC murderers/bombs.. etc emergencies, or B) "Here.. pay us 5 'sid so you can lay your head down and have your tembo'b'gone flaming iron shortsword of water producing stolen by another commone"

Basic, but they make sense to me.

[X-D]

Other, IE, NO.

First, Quitting out is OOC, So, why should somebody need to pay IC money for an OOC convention?

Second, a High percentage of people that play play down to the wire, when you have to leave, you have to leave, at which point refer to the first point.

[Louten]

Sometime ago it was implemented, a couple years ago, that you had to pay some coins to quit out in the Sun King's Sanctuary. Don't remember if it was even implemented in the Firestorm Pub, or anywhere in Allanak, but everyone got super pissed and it was quickly removed. If the super pissed had to do with it being quickly removed, I don't know, but that's what I assumed at the time.

[Crestor]

As others have said, quitting is primarily an OOC thing.  Sometimes when you've gotta go, you've gotta go, heh.

And also - quitting out doesn't equate to your character going to sleep.  Sure, maybe it costing money to sleep in certain places could be conceivable...but your character isn't asleep the whole time you're offline.  Why charge an IC fee for an OOC change?

[JollyGreenGiant]

No one's mentioned this yet either, but consider the bad effect on characters that are not yet established, and even more so for new players.

[UnderSeven]

I voted for other because I think things are fine the way they are.  The fact is when a clan says 'lodgings' what they really mean is a free place to hold your extra stuff.  Yes, that is what you pay a nenyuk for, that is what you join a clan for.  You can carry stuff on your person and not have to worry about getting robbed, but without 'lodgings' you can't have extra stuff that doesn't fit in a pack or another.  It's pretty straight foward and doesn't need to change.

[My 2 sids]

First, let me say Kudos for you for bringing this idea up.  I think shelter is
often over looked when role playing.  I've tried to bribe people, saying I'd pay for their stay in a nicer tavern.  I've tried to recruit using the idea of having shelter.  Both have flopped because people take the OOC advantage of logging out anywhere, for granted.

However, I usually chulk paying for such things the same as paying for a song in the barrel.  They are "vnpc" coins, if you will.  Although I'd -love- for people to role-play more realisticly when it comes to shelter, I don't think it's a good idea to take from characters who are already loosing out on having free room and board.

[Angela Christine]

Next week half the new characters are rangers who run outside the gates to quit out.  

I can see some quit rooms charging a fee, but not all of them.

The Gaj - it's just a flop.  The don't charge to use their kitchen, so they probably aren't going to charge to pass out in the dorm.  It keeps people from sleeping in the main room or piling up right outside the doorway.  They make thier money on the ale and shit you bought before you passed out, and the hair of the dog you'll buy when you sober up.  From the room description it looks like they don't provide anything in the dorm that would cost them money, just a mottley collection of filthy blankets and sleeping mats.

The Barrel - this isn't even a sleeping area, it is strictly an OOC quit room.  Ok, you *could* sleep on one of the couches, but that obviously isn't thier intended purpose.  The Barrel is a tavern and casino, not an inn.

The Traders - The sleeping area here is limited, it is clean, and I believe the room description suggests private rooms are available.  I can definately see them charging something, but I'd prefer them to charge virtual money.  

Red Storm - I forget the name of the tavern.  Like the Gaj, this seems to be a flop room.  No perks, lots of vermin.  They make their money selling spiced ale and over-priced food in the common room, and the flop provides a place for spice hunters down on their luck to rest up for the next exciting encounter with a Silt Horror.  It also provides a relatively safe place for spiced up residents and newly arrived escaped slaves to calm down.  I wouldn't be surprised to find the Sand Lord's government owns or subsidizes this place.

The Firestorm Tavern - a public flop since the destruction of old Tuluk.  I can't see them starting to charge money now.

Bah, I'm getting tired.  My point is that there are only a few Inns that provide private sleeping rooms, and the ones with public sleeping rooms don't seem to spend much (anything) on maintenance.  Forget a mint on your pillow, these guys don't even air out the bedding (washing the sheets would be out of the question, for obvious reasons).  A few public quit rooms are not sleeping areas at all.  

What happens if you type "quit" and you don't have any money in your inventory?  Does your character have to just stand there linkdead until you, the player, has time to come back and make enough money to quit?  More linkdead zombies, yeah, that's attractive.

If they were going to charge, particularily for using unlocked public dormitories, it would make more sense to me to have a bouncer, doorman or innkeeper charge people to enter the sleeping area, rather than collecting when they quit out.  That way people wouldn't get surprised.  Something like the process for renting a private room or stabling a kank, where you would use a command to pay the fee and enter the sleeping area.

On the whole though, I don't think quitting should cost money.  Pay for your lodging with the virtual money you make doing virtual work durring the time you are logged off.  As an independant I have at times paid the 100 coins to rent a private room, not to quit but to sleep and heal from a bad injury without losing my pants.  I prefer for my virtual sleeping to be paid for with my virtual earnings.

AC

I voted other aka NO for a couple reasons.

There is no chance to track down the thief. Your stuff is just magickally gone. Ate up by the VNPS's. No chance to get it back. No way to complain about it.  

As for paying, I just assume its a custom of this culture for the taverns to offer free sleeping areas to attract customers who spend their sids in other ways in the tavern. Basically they just provide a room, unguarded so it doesnt cost them anything and they get people hanging around. Now it would seem that a really classy tavern wouldn't have a sleeping area. Rich foks should have their own tent/hut.

I think the issue here is playability.

Now if a tavern offered a room that had guards that would whack thieves, where you could sleep if you had too. Might be nice. Less pricey than a private room but more people using the services.

[Sanvean]

I'd rather not do either of these because of the difficulty it would pose for new players, who already sometimes have a hard time figuring out where to log out.  I don't want to throw the free/nonfree distinction in there to complicate matters.

[jmordetsky]

I think you should be able to quit anywhere. Like a ranger in the desert.

I don't see why quitting needs to be in a safe room. Techincally you're not 'going to sleep', you're life still carries on....

For example for me, I don't assume that because I'm not logged on all day that my char sleeps for most of the week yea?

To me it's a sort of 'Fade Out' where my char proceeds to go with his day to day, but as a vnpc.

Why not allow logout anywhere?

[__Torax__]

Well, I voted for other because there isn't an option of "HELL NO THIS IS REDUNDANT!"

[grog]

Why not allow logout anywhere?

I sometimes get annoyed when people log back on after a crash, so-and-so appears out of nowhere.  I realize that it's not their fault, and thus I'm able to forgive them.  I think it works great the way it is now.  

Though I'd love to have Rangers to have the ability to create, temporary, quit spots for other guilds. (only at places he could normally quit) Something that would last an IG hour at the most.  Of course I can see how that could be abused, but I still like the idea.


the dusky krath-eyed ranger says in sirihish
"This place should be perfectly safe, let's set up camp here."

the doe-eyed newbie exclaims in sirihish
"Oh thank you kind Ranger sir!"

the doe-eyed newbie departs from the world of Armageddon.

the dusty krath-eyed ranger thinks
"Now that he is sleeping, I'd best get out of here before the (insert violent beast here) that uses this cave returns.

the dusky krath-eyed ranger chuckles as he stealthly moves west.

the doe-eyed newbie enters the world of Armageddon

the doe-eyed newbie glances around, rubbing his eyes.

the doe-eyed newbie thinks
"Oh, that nice ranger fellow hasn't woken up yet, maybe I'll make some breakfast for him.

the doe-eyed newbie lights a bone torch

the doe-eyed newbie is torn into bloody pieces by (insert violent beast here)

[Socko]

I'd be opposed to the idea of charging for a quit-out.

I'd always seen the fact that there were shitty havens provided as a free perk in hopes to attract customers as an exotic concept-- it was something different, alien, and it just -fit-.

On the other end, what if you could actually rent rooms with beds in certain inns, such as the Trader's and Sanctuary? You'd get something real for your real 'sid.

[crymerci]

I voted 'other' aka 'no'.  Most of my reasoning has been discussed, primarily quitting out does not always equal sleep.

However, I'd also like to point out that the free lodging offered by clans is not just a free quit room.  More importantly, it is a place to store belongings, and to actually sleep more or less unmolested.  It's not so much of an OOC perk as an IC perk.  The quitting-out part isn't the perk, and in some cases, such as those already discussed, people don't even quit out there, nor should they feel obligated to.

[Anonymous]

For Allanak,  I think a charge for quitting out in the Trader's would be cool.  And the Barrel probably shouldn't have a quit room.  It's just a lounge from the looks of it.

Probably a charge in the Sanctuary too, but a freebie sleep down in the Firestorm's pit.

I've always felt weird quitting out in the Trader's.

[Krath]

yeo

[Lasakar]

I voted for other because I think things are fine the way they are.  The fact is when a clan says 'lodgings' what they really mean is a free place to hold your extra stuff.  Yes, that is what you pay a nenyuk for, that is what you join a clan for.  You can carry stuff on your person and not have to worry about getting robbed, but without 'lodgings' you can't have extra stuff that doesn't fit in a pack or another.  It's pretty straight foward and doesn't need to change.

He said all...

[sacac]

Ok.. if you did actually sleep in one of thsoe rooms, then there is a good chance that you got something stolen
Hell it would be like one of those credit card commercials.. So..
quit out= does not neccesarily mean that you are sleeping.. we don't really sleep most of our days except for a few daws where we are awake all the time.

[creeper386]

Other = No

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

Grog, post your idea in a seperate thread...You'll get few responces to it here. Incedentally, I like it.

To the original topic, no.

[Bogre]

Parents. Everyone with moms, dads.

Curfews/roommates.

Girlfriends/boyfriends/shaky internet.

Would all be sucked out of the fun of Arm because they would starve from needing to log out so much.

[Ueda]

No.

No.

[Lerl]

Innovative idea and I'm glad to hear such suggestions. Thanks. But...

No.

Who's to say an independant logging out in a tavern isn't paying for the room with virtual work (hunting or hawking, etc)?

Rick

[buzz]

Sometimes people are in a hurry and have to log out quickly, and can't hoof it all the way across the city to their proper resting place.  Besides, a lot of people emote specifically that they weren't "sleeping" when they quit out, I don't see why people quitting out in a tavern have to be "asleep" anyway.

[spawnloser]

Okay...everyone kept bringing up the 'but you're not necessarily sleeping' thing which I said at the beginning, don't bring up because your character does have to sleep sometime...maybe not now, but unless you're going to sleep while mudding, they'll have to make it up virtually when you're not.

Honestly, everyone's bitching that it is inconvenient and they may have to quit now doesn't phase me...if such is the case and you are not in a quit safe room, you still have to run there.  Why not run to one that is cheaper or just get out some more coins?

As far as the theft thing goes...I'm not saying make it a high chance, but a small one...and considering that if you're logged in in public, you have a chance of getting stolen from, why not virtually while not logged in?

[creeper386]

When your not online your character is only around virtually, so virtual things happen to virtual items and virtual coins, while my characters virtually wondering around, all done by virtual thieves and what not. If we are going to institute theft we better god damn institute dying while not logged in as well as all the other possible things that can happen while logged in. Hell, pickpockets and other sneakies should have a chance to log in and be in jail, since that can happen while they are logged in.

As to that as well, no again. Period. Virtual shit HAPPENS VIRTUALLY.

Paying while logging out... Well, is it going to account to people having their own places to sleep, but need to log out and don't have the time to get back home ... Already, it's a pain only being able to log out in certain places. Most the time I'll never leave too far from a quit room just to make sure I have one nearby even though ICily I'd go and do something. Lets not make quiting out such a pain in the ass and so rare in the city like it is out in the desert for a ranger. I'll continue letting my dirty 'rinthers sleeping in some hole someplace, and just log out in the Gaj even know I'm leaving there at the moment.


Creeper

[Trenidor]

I hate this idea HATE IT!! Things are fine as they are. :evil:

[EvilRoeSlade]

As far as the theft thing goes...I'm not saying make it a high chance, but a small one...and considering that if you're logged in in public, you have a chance of getting stolen from, why not virtually while not logged in?

That arguement is flawed.  You can't decide that one thing is allowed to occur to a player virtually, when they are logged off, and arbitrarily disclude all other events that could concievably take place.

That being said, I am in favor of the idea that people who log out in public should be forced to endure a chance of losing an item at random, or perhaps a handful of coins.  Of course nobody is going to be in favor of a code that makes bad things happen to their character, but guess what?  Bad things happen to good characters.  Right now the code of Armageddon is excrutiatingly and painfully unrealistic, all in the name of realism vs. playability.  But guess what?  We're at a point where we have too much playability and too little realism.  So drawing back to my point, while it isn't realistic to arbitrarily decide what occurs and what doesn't while a person is logged out, it IS realistic to bestow an advantage to people who sleep in guarded and secure areas as compared to people who sleep in unguarded flophouses.  Let me see if I can remember the concerns stated so far.

FIRST CONCERN:  This change will make me lose cool plot items, thus pissing me off.

Tough shit.  Write an E-mail to the MUD account explaining what you lost, so that they can be sure to load it up for someone else, that the plot may live on.  If you care about it enough, hide it away in a locked room.  If you can't find a way to protect it, you don't deserve to have it.  Realistic, no?

SECOND CONCERN:  People who log in and out of the game a lot will be disadvantaged.

To me, this seems like a stupid excuse that is waved in the face of the idea despite the fact that it describes few people.  I've never met somebody who logged in and out of the game at any ungodly rate, and I think I can safely say that any variations of the amount people log in and out are strictly superficial.  Furthermore, if there is someone who uses the quit command a disproportionate amount, then they can always either adjust their playing style so this is no longer true, or if that proves to be impossible, they can ensure that their characters are in a situation where it doesn't matter.

THIRD CONCERN:  If I'm stolen from by a vnpc, then I can't track the vnpc down and get revenge.

It seems odd to me that a person who has the resources to track down a thief needs to sleep in the Gaj, but I won't address that.  The point I would like to make is, if your friend is killed by an NPC when you aren't logged on, then you don't really have a chance to get revenge against that NPC.  On that logic, it should also be acceptable that if your item is stolen by a VNPC when you aren't logged on, then you don't really have a chance to get revenge against that VNPC.  The fact of the matter is, there are enough pickpockets in a city-state on Zalanthas that nobody can expect to win them all.  Things can disappear and never be heard from again, and it happens frequently.  Pickpockets are plentiful and contacts aren't imnipotent.  Life isn't fair.

Now, let me present a revised idea that encompasses most of what Spawnloser said.  It's still free to quit out in the Gaj and Barrel, but if you do so then there is a one in ten chance that either an item (only one that could be stolen in the first place) or an amount of coins will be stolen.  There's an NPC in the Trader's who must be paid 100 coins before you're allowed to enter the quit room.  Implimented in any other place, I wouldn't be in favor of this because of the potential inconvenience factor.  But its perfect for the Trader's:  If you don't have 100 coins to burn, what are you doing there in the first place?  This would also give independants a chance to avoid being stolen from while retaining their independance.

[Carnage]

It seems odd to me that a person who has the resources to track down a thief needs to sleep in the Gaj, but I won't address that.

Maybe you should.

Should a Borsail lieutenant have a valuable item lost because they quit out in the Gaj rather than head back to the safety of their 100k house or their compound? VNPC wise they could be going back to their compound, but they personally just didn't feel like walking all the way. Or something IRL came up.

Bad things happen to good characters. Right now the code of Armageddon is excrutiatingly and painfully unrealistic, all in the name of realism vs. playability. But guess what? We're at a point where we have too much playability and too little realism.

It's a fucking MUD where people can wield magickal or psionic powers and people live on an extremely hot desert planet with no metal. Of course it's not going to be 100% realistic.

[Callisto]

No.

[EvilRoeSlade]

Maybe you should.

Should a Borsail lieutenant have a valuable item lost because they quit out in the Gaj rather than head back to the safety of their 100k house or their compound? VNPC wise they could be going back to their compound, but they personally just didn't feel like walking all the way. Or something IRL came up.

Probably not, but that isn't reason enough in my mind to withold on the change.  If you don't feel like walking back to your compound and just decide to chance it, what is there to say about that?  You knew you were taking a risk, and if you pay for it, then thats how it goes down.  If a RL emergency comes up and you decide that you can't spare the time it would take to walk back to your compound, then that truly is a tragedy.  Even so, if you avoid doing it whenever possible, then the inherently low chance will probably minimize your loss.  Because of the nature of the game, there are already PLENTY of times when you want to quit out fast and there's just no way to do it.  You could be in the middle of the desert on a mission, or at somebody elses house having a conversation.  When you sit down to play Arm you have to resolve that you might end up in a situation where the only way to stop is to go LD.  This change wouldn't create a problem that doesn't already exist.  Furthermore, it offers a solution to its own inconvenience.  Sit in the Trader's.  If you have to quit out RIGHT NOW, and can't walk back to your compound, yet you have a valuable item that you can't afford to lose, then you just cough up the one-hundered coins and get the fuck out of Dodge.  If, when its time to leave, you have time to walk to your compound, then you do so.  This isn't a perfect solution, but it's sure as hell close enough for government work.

It's a fucking MUD where people can wield magickal or psionic powers and people live on an extremely hot desert planet with no metal. Of course it's not going to be 100% realistic.

Incidently, your definition of realism has nothing to do with my post.  In the way I use realisim, a setting can be complete and utter fantasy, and at the same time highly realistic.  There are two kinds of realism in my eyes.  Real-word realism, i.e. how similar is the fantasy world to the real world, and Cinematic realism, i.e. how much of it suspends my disbelief?  Can a person get stabbed in the chest ten times and still pull through to save the day?  I don't care about real-world realism, only cinematic realism.  And Armageddon scores very low in that area.  I didn't really think about this much until I began playing another MUD, and I noticed that you couldn't craft anything unless you had several necessary tools (nothing was assumed to be virtual), and if somebody engaged you in combat and stabbed you four or five times, then you're ass is grass.  Hell, even if they stab you a couple times and you get away you're still probably going to die unless you can get a medic to treat your wounds and save your ass.  So yes, I do think that Arm could stand to be more realistic, and changes to make it more realistic have absolutely nothing to do with psionics, magicks and manti.

[Carnage]

Okay. Where do you draw the line at cinematic fantasy? In Crouching Dragon, Hidden Tiger people could run across trees. In Kill Bill a single woman with a katana took out hundreds of fighters with wave after wave, followed by two highly-skilled people.

Randomly losing items isn't the way to incorporate "realism", as you deem it. If you want to make life harder for people, let's start incorporating muscle strain. After a long and hard day of sparring, your stun cap is low the next day as well and your MV points take a toll. And whenever you get a hard hit to the limb, there's a chance that it'll completely sever off. You can tell who the hardcore warriors are if they have no arms or legs. Hell, nobles might get cosmetic 'surgery' done of chopping off their limbs and saying they're hardcore because they took out hundreds of Tuluki soldiers. Wave after wave. Followed by two highly-skilled warriors as they ran across the top of trees.

I didn't really think about this much until I began playing another MUD, and I noticed that you couldn't craft anything unless you had several necessary tools (nothing was assumed to be virtual), and if somebody engaged you in combat and stabbed you four or five times, then you're ass is grass. Hell, even if they stab you a couple times and you get away you're still probably going to die unless you can get a medic to treat your wounds and save your ass.

If that MUD was so great, you'd convert to that instead of Arm.

[EvilRoeSlade]

The topic of realism started when I commented that at this time, the game needs to tip farther in the balance of realism, since the scale is currently in favor of playability.  Nobody came out and stated the realism vs. playability arguement, but I mentioned it anyway because I felt that the fact that we were discussing a change that would be harmful to characters weighed heavily on the minds of those who argued against it.  You can go ahead and deny it all you want people, but I still think thats what you're thinking.

Now, when Carnage compared cinematic realism to real-life realism, I felt the need to clarify my point.  But this isn't an arguement I'm interested in progressing down any further, since it now has nothing to do with the original topic.  I don't want a simulation of real life, and I understand that it isn't possible to make a game into a simulation of real life even if I did want it.  What I do want is to give realism a notch or two on the realism vs playability scale.  But that's irrelevant, since when it comes down to it, it has nothing to do with the idea of people losing items when they quit out.

A mechanism like this cannot be labelled as realistic or unrealistic.  The reason being is because it's implications rely on a completely OOC concept:  Quitting out.  The act of ceasing to be coded, and becoming virtual, which can't even be called unrealistic since it isn't an IC distinction.  You can't say that this idea is unrealistic any more than you can say quitting out is unrealistic.

[spawnloser]

Okay...I'm with ERS when he says that the reason people are arguing against this is because they don't want to lose their 733t gear.  In real life, if you want to keep all your shit, you do not bed down in a flop house...you go somewhere where people can watch your back or get a place of your own.  There is no incentive in the game for someone to get a place of their own besides to store their extra crap.  I find that really unrealistic by real-world standards and by the fantasy Zalanthan standards as well.  I'm not arguing for uber-warriors to do battle while running through trees and shooting fireballs out of their ass.  I'm saying that I think that if you want to bed down in a flop house...pay the possible price.

[Lasakar]

I'm saying that I think that if you want to bed down in a flop house...pay the possible price.

Good idea. Lets pay a fee at the taverns (or other rooms) to use their backrooms. For resting, sleeping, crafting,  mudsex, whatever. But quiting is for me a pure OOC action and I shouldn't be paying for it. I have seen it at other MUDs too and it was no fun to play that out! To be honest it even scares me off.

[UnderSeven]

I can't believe this thread is still going on, and what's worse is we're just repeating arguements.

1) When you quit you arn't nessicarily sleeping, you could be doing any number of things and maybe your char goes to sleep somewhere safe, maybe they do it in the middle of the desert, are we going to add random chance of death while offline?  This isn't about random theft, this is about playibility.  

2) As San already stated, people arn't going to like playing this game if their first experience consists of logging out and comming back to find their stuff gone.  You know what this reminds me of? A @#$@# Hack and Slash. We don't need features that hack and slash talk about, ooh saving equipment, maybe you lose some when you log out.. oh oh oh!  We have real lives, no one should be penalized for having to get off the damn game.

3) If you want consequences for sleeping in 'flop' houses they are easily gotten.  In the past I recall something about possibly getting coded fleas if you bedded in the wrong places.  That's a great idea? What ever happened to that?  Or maybe items might get dirty for poor sleeping conditions.  These are MUCH better ideas than a virtual thief taking your stuff.  

So people's arguement is they don't want to lose their l00t?  FINE! That's a perfectly reasonable arguement to me.  A lot of items some pcs get are done through a lot of hard work.  Sometimes not, but how would you like it if that really spiff halfling knife you got suddenly disapeared? That's actually power playing on the muds part too, it's forcing you to rp that you were careless with it, maybe your pc in real life would sleep with the damned thing in his hand with rope around his fingers so you couldn't possibly have it stolen from them without the thief waking you.  Maybe you quit out with a friend and rp the pair of you taking watch.  

This idea is awful!  There are a lot of perfectly reasonable ic and virtual ways to avoid getting robbed even sleeping in the bloody rinth, but if we made this poorly thought out coded idea into the game, we'd be forced to rp it a certain way.

[Forest Junkie]

This idea is awful!

Yay!!!

I won't say bad dirty nasty things about this idea, for I have many, but I will simply say this for the sake of pithyness: I don't like this idea, it's not good, no no no.

[spawnloser]

You're repeating arguements...and I keep having to repeat the fact that your biggest problems with the idea, I see as inconsequential.  Just to be clear, however...

1) You aren't necessarily sleeping when you're logged out?  Yes you are, because you have to sleep sometime, and if you aren't doing it when logged in, you're doing it when logged out.  I'm not saying that we should make it so realistic that playability is hurt.  I had considered damage or death when logged out, but realized that that was too much.

2) You don't want to lose loot?  Don't play.  You can lose your gear when logged in, and what I'm suggesting isn't a 10% chance of losing anything...I'm suggesting something that, by all rights, would have less a chance of you losing anything than when you're logged in, but there should be some chance, if you're not sleeping in some nice digs with decent security.  I'm also not suggesting penalizing someone for having to go.  I'm not suggesting a penalty for quitting at all.  I'm suggesting a penalty for hanging out in the bad part of town.

3) You want to suggest other ideas?  Go for it.  That's why I posted the thread in the first place.  Now...where is the real penalty in sleeping in bad places of getting your stuff dirty?  You can just clean it.  That's what I'm talking about...a real incentive for people to get off their asses and find a good place to stay...a place of their own, a job that provides shelter, etc...not a reason to buy soap.

On to your non-numbered points...

You went through such hard work to get an item...so go through the hard work of protecting it.  If it was expensive, get yourself a place to stay, since you can obviously afford an expensive item.  If it was roleplay, well, you didn't have to pay for the item...pay for a place to stay.  Seems simple enough to me.  If this idea was implemented, I wouldn't be so careless with my knife as to sleep in the Gaj with it sitting on my pillow beside me.  It would be in my pack, and the pack would be used as my pillow, straps wrapped about my wrist.  Only a god-awesome thief could get past that...and I'm not saying have the uber-thieves try to steal from you while you're virtual...just some punk that was desperate.  If you cared about the item, you would make sure it couldn't get stolen before logging out.

As far as the mud forcing you to RP that you were careless...well, you were if you left it able to be stolen and then hung out in the Gaj for a while.

Now...there are no ways to avoid getting stolen from, but there are ways to avoid having certain items stolen from you.  The items that are important, you can use those methods...and then, you shouldn't have a problem with the idea, as your phat l00t will be protected.

[UnderSeven]

Okay here is a new point.  Lets go into a little example. Noble goes into traders, quits upstairs.  They login without a ring? No, you'd probably agree such a place has rooms and you won't be robbed.  So what's my point? The result of this sort of code addition would be this: EVERYONE WOULD JUST QUIT OUT IN TRADERS.  If you had a chance of getting robbed in any one quit area, everyone would jsut avoid it.  If you had a chance of being robbed in any one kind of quit area, everyone would just avoid it.  You can't concievibly make it so all free quit areas get you robbed.  Are you going to give rangers the chance to be robbed? Like rinth thieves wander the desert?  The point is, people would find a way around this even oocly if they had to and the end result? It would hurt rp.  

There is a line about playabilitiy and realism, while this issue isn't as blatantly crossing the line as it would be to implement a chance of spontanous human combustion, I feel this one is a step past that line.

[spawnloser]

Yes, it has rooms...and YOU SHOULD PAY FOR THEM like I have said from the very beginning.  You shouldn't get to stay in the best inn in town for free.  And yes, you can make it so all free quit areas give you a chance of their being an attempt...let's say on a random item.  Have there be a skill level to the thief, and have the 'steal' code do its magic, with all the appropriate modifiers (like how the item is worn, eliminating a good majority of worn items)...and see what happens.  Hell, there could be attempts on your items without you ever knowing because you didn't lose a thing.

Of course people will want to avoid places that there is a chance of an attempted robbery...but wouldn't you in real life too?  Get your ass a place to live to store your stuff...get a job that provides it...just like you would in real life, because that's what people do.  They don't sleep in public because if they do, they'll wake up without half their stuff.  The only people willing to do that are the people that having nothing worth taking.

Oh, and yes, I would give a ranger quitting in the wild a chance of getting robbed...there may not be any 'rinthers out there, but there are elves and other sorts like raiders.

[UnderSeven]

Why not a chance of being killed in the wild then? It's clearly more likely that a ranger would die in the wild.  What about if it was a clans member in an inn that their clan owns? They'd be safe, would the code take THAT into account too?  What about light sleepers? What about people who actually sleep IC? Maybe they don't actually log out for more than a moment to change computers, come back and wow my pouch is gone.  What about crashes that revert you to the last save point?  Suddenly you have to experience the chance of getting robbed more than once?  

I will agree, this is more realistic in SOME ways.  Those ways being if you are sleeping in public you could be robbed.  But it's even LESS realistic in others. Because the game's code flat out can't tell you what you're doing when your offline, I don't care what you say.  Maybe you HAD to get offline because your house was on fire and you quit out in the gaj, but that doesn't mean your char is sleeping there, maybe your char has a really clever way of keeping stuff.  

We're clearly not going to agree. I'm just going to end up restating myself from this point on so in closing I will say this:  Code structure is a good thing and realism can be.  But they can also be horribly awful things.  Give bards coded skill for playing and you remove the creativity aspect of the player.  Code in general will take away from that.  So when suggesting we add new code for the sake of realism we need to ask ourselves this:
Are we making the game better..?

My answer? no, much worse.  The unavaliblilty of Nenyuk pcs, people having to suddenly depend on housing, the pcs who run it and having to deal with whatever the game deals them when they're logged out.  For christ sake, this is a game, it's not real life, we have lives and must logout, you can get robbed, killed or any number of thigns while in game, that's fine, we take that risk by logging in, but we shouldn't be taking that risk when loggout OUT.  

Okay, I'm done, unless some new angle comes up worth arguing I'mjust going to have to agree to disagree with you on this point.  And I do so whole heartedly.

[Forest Junkie]

Yay again for UnderSeven.

The entire notion that someone should pay for "quitting out" is erroneous, IMO. Tell you what, how about we implement code where throughout the day, you may "randomly" lose your loot, spawnloser. Hey, it's realistic, and there are tons of VNPC pickpockets who could be eyeing your uber ringer of nobility and shits! It's realistic! If you don't like it, don't play!

Basically, the point I and so many other people are trying to make is, WHERE DO YOU DRAW THE FUCKING LINE?

Granted, I do take note of your points. They are valid, and yes, they would make the game more realistic. But c'mon guys, this is a GAME. It's not REALITY. So why bother pissing off alot of people who may not have enough hours in the day to devote to their pc's, eh? I am POSITIVE that if this were ever implemented, two things would happen:

1) Alot of people would quit the game.
2) Everyone would be playing rangers for the simple fact that they can "cheat the system" by quitting out anywhere in the wilds.

Question: What is the POINT? Is it really WORTH the tiny bit of realism it would add?

[EvilRoeSlade]

Why not a chance of being killed in the wild then? It's clearly more likely that a ranger would die in the wild.

Because that's a really bad idea.  I can't fathom why you would want that.

What about if it was a clans member in an inn that their clan owns? They'd be safe, would the code take THAT into account too?

Maybe it would.  I'm not a coder.

What about light sleepers? What about people who actually sleep IC? Maybe they don't actually log out for more than a moment to change computers, come back and wow my pouch is gone.  What about crashes that revert you to the last save point?  Suddenly you have to experience the chance of getting robbed more than once?

Your concerns are minor and petty, since all that's being suggested is a minor chance of being stolen from.  If a crash reverts you to the last save point, and you now have a 2% chance of being stolen from instead of a 1% chance, is it really that big of a deal?  People who actually sleep IC sure as hell aren't doing it in the Gaj.  They obviously have a safe place to sleep/quit out, so no problem there.  Light sleepers?  You can RP being a light sleeper all you want, but it won't change the code as it is now.  If you RP being a light sleeper, go to sleep in the Gaj, and a thief walks in and steals your coins with nary an emote, I doubt you'd have much luck writing to the mud account protesting "But I'm a light sleeper!  He can't do that!"  The code determines what happens to your character, and the code never has and never will account for minor individual variations.  You can RP that your newbie warrior is ambidextrous, but it won't make him any better at dual wield.  You can also RP that your character is a light sleeper, but it won't make him any better at detecting steal attempts while they are asleep.

I will agree, this is more realistic in SOME ways.  Those ways being if you are sleeping in public you could be robbed.  But it's even LESS realistic in others. Because the game's code flat out can't tell you what you're doing when your offline, I don't care what you say.  Maybe you HAD to get offline because your house was on fire and you quit out in the gaj, but that doesn't mean your char is sleeping there, maybe your char has a really clever way of keeping stuff.

Oh no.  My house burnt down, thus I lost fifty sid!  My life is ruined!  But seriously, if you have a really clever way of keeping stuff, then actually use it in game and see if it can bypass the code.  It would be great if all clever ideas that should work did, but they don't, and the issue isn't with code like this.  If you have a clever idea to lead a group of five gith into a trap that will kill them all, but there is no coded way to build this trap, then your idea failed through no fault of your own.  It's just the way the game is.

We're clearly not going to agree. I'm just going to end up restating myself from this point on so in closing I will say this:  Code structure is a good thing and realism can be.  But they can also be horribly awful things.  Give bards coded skill for playing and you remove the creativity aspect of the player.  Code in general will take away from that.  So when suggesting we add new code for the sake of realism we need to ask ourselves this:
Are we making the game better..?

My answer? no, much worse.  The unavaliblilty of Nenyuk pcs, people having to suddenly depend on housing, the pcs who run it and having to deal with whatever the game deals them when they're logged out.  For christ sake, this is a game, it's not real life, we have lives and must logout, you can get robbed, killed or any number of thigns while in game, that's fine, we take that risk by logging in, but we shouldn't be taking that risk when loggout OUT.  

Okay, I'm done, unless some new angle comes up worth arguing I'mjust going to have to agree to disagree with you on this point.  And I do so whole heartedly.

Would this make the game better?  The coded difference would be next to nothing, since a very low chance to be stolen from when you quit out in the Gaj really doesn't change anything in a very dramatic way.  However, as this thread makes obvious, people have an irrational, blinding hatred of their characters being stolen from.  Many people would take steps to avoid sleeping in the Gaj, so Nenyuk would get more business, and more people would consider joining clans.  After all, when a clan promises a safe place to stay, they actually mean it.  If more people tried to join clans, then the recruiters of clans would be less agressive and more likely to turn down applicants.  So I think the change would do no harm, and quite a bit of good.

The point of a debate isn't to get your opponent to change their mind, since that will never happen.  Rather, the point is to flesh out your ideas and arguements, and perhaps cause people following the debate to decide they agree with you.

I think your missing the sarcasm EvilRoeSlade.

If having a chance to get killed in the wild is a bad idea. Then I would say I can't fathom how getting stole from when you are offline is so much different, other than degree or why you would want it.

[EvilRoeSlade]

If having a chance to get killed in the wild is a bad idea. Then I would say I can't fathom how getting stole from when you are offline is so much different, other than degree or why you would want it.

I feel that I can support one without supporting the other.  Its a good idea to have agressive NPCs in the desert, but it isn't a good idea to have 10 in every room.

[EvilRoeSlade]

Yay again for UnderSeven.

The entire notion that someone should pay for "quitting out" is erroneous, IMO. Tell you what, how about we implement code where throughout the day, you may "randomly" lose your loot, spawnloser. Hey, it's realistic, and there are tons of VNPC pickpockets who could be eyeing your uber ringer of nobility and shits! It's realistic! If you don't like it, don't play!

Basically, the point I and so many other people are trying to make is, WHERE DO YOU DRAW THE FUCKING LINE?

I have no problem with drawing the line at a vnpc with a mediocre ability to steal targetting one out of every one hundered PCs who quits out.  You can pretend that I'm in favor of something more ludicrous than that all you want in your posts, but that doesn't mean its true.

Granted, I do take note of your points. They are valid, and yes, they would make the game more realistic. But c'mon guys, this is a GAME. It's not REALITY. So why bother pissing off alot of people who may not have enough hours in the day to devote to their pc's, eh? I am POSITIVE that if this were ever implemented, two things would happen:

1) Alot of people would quit the game.
2) Everyone would be playing rangers for the simple fact that they can "cheat the system" by quitting out anywhere in the wilds.

Question: What is the POINT? Is it really WORTH the tiny bit of realism it would add?

You're proving my point that people have an irrational hatred of being stolen from.  That's the driving force behind the entire opposition arguement.  However, I disagree with your  theory.  I'd say that few if any people would leave the game for good.  A lot of people would realize that its not that big of a deal, and continue playing as usual.  Still others would decide that they don't want their characters to be stolen from, so they'd either make enough money to be able to quit out in the Trader's whenever they want, or choose the more economic solution of making enough money to rent a dirt cheap apartment that they don't even leave their belongings in, merely using it to quit out.  Still others would decide to join a clan.  And that's the true merit of the idea.  Suddenly, clans have something to offer their employees that isn't dependant on ludicrous amounts of pay.  Not only that, but because more people are coming to them, they don't have to step out of character by recruiting PCs when their characters wouldn't normally do so, or recruit dirty, smelly, crude PCs that probably didn't want to join up in the first place.  It's a win win situation for everyone in the recruitment scene.  And so that's why I think that the change is worth it.  That's why I think we should bother.

[Crestor]

This has all be rehashed several times already, but I'd also have to chime in for the "don't support the idea" party.

It's not because I don't want my character stolen from - hell, that's usually something that can promote a lot of roleplaying.  But as people said, if you're going to instigate one thing that happens virtually, you have to start considering if other virtual things should be instigated.

Virtual work, for example.  I'm willing to bet that on Zalanthas, where many people are struggling daily to get sid together, people are working long, long days.  They'll be working a lot while you're logged off.  They'll be earning sid while you're logged off.

Now, the chance of your character making sid while you're offline is most likely far greater than the chance of them being stolen from.  If you have a 1% chance, as you say, of losing an item worth, say, 100 sid...then that's 1 sid loss every time you log out, on average.  I don't know about you, but I'm hoping that my character is scraping together at least three or four sids virtually while I'm logged out.

So why, when I log back in, don't I find these extra sids in my character's pouch?  Because it's virtual work giving virtual sids.  Do I complain that this isn't realistic?  Or do I accept that virtual actions lead to virtual consequences?

By this code, characters without the money or means to log out in safe places would be a valid target for stealing e.g. in the Gaj.  But just because they're in the Gaj doesn't mean (a) they're not virtually sleeping ON TOP OF every item they have because they're aware it's risky and (b) sleeping with friends guarding them.  Yes, what if somebody quits out with a horde of people watching their every move, RPing how they set themselves up with their backs against the walls, guards arranging themselves around them, etc?  Codewise, there's no way to register that for this theft check.  A guy walking in and jumping down on the first free pallet he sees is as likely to be stolen from as the guy who RPs sleeping in the far corner, hiding all his valuable stuff under his blanket and curling up around it.

As UnderSeven said, it's far more 'realistic' for rangers to die in the desert virtually.  Don't state that this is simply a "bad idea" because it's too harsh, since you've already stated that your own theft idea is in the cause of realism.  This is realistic.  Being stolen from is harsh, as is dying in the desert.  The only difference is an OOC one in that people don't like dying, even more than they don't like being stolen from.  It's all a matter of where the line is drawn.

ERS, you claim that characters must be sleeping while players are logged off, if they don't RP it.  Fair enough.  But other people have brought up that they're not necessarily sleeping where they logged off.  If my character has a house with a bed, he's going to spend the night there - not in the desert where I logged off because my dinner set off the smoke alarm.  Virtually, he's safe.  But with this code, virtually he's getting stolen from.

I'd much rather see something that didn't affect logged-in actions so drastically (and yes, it's a highly drastic measure).  Something like the flea code already mentioned.  Or how about the odour of unclean bedding, since perfume code is already in place?  :twisted: Sure, make it be obvious that this character is spending time in places that aren't hygenic...but don't do anything that second-guesses the player.

Don't get me wrong, I can see why you came up with the idea and it's brought up some good points about why characters should avoid these places...but instituting code to penalise players in this manner without doing something to also benefit their characters according to how they would 'realistically' act will do nothing but make 1% of everyone's items vanish every real-time day.  And it will batter any newbies into utter submission.

...I've just read back over that and all I've done is add to the re-hashing of posts.  Oh well.  I think my 2 sids have made themselves fairly obvious in their allegiance.

[EvilRoeSlade]

Virtual work, for example.  I'm willing to bet that on Zalanthas, where many people are struggling daily to get sid together, people are working long, long days.  They'll be working a lot while you're logged off.  They'll be earning sid while you're logged off.

Now, the chance of your character making sid while you're offline is most likely far greater than the chance of them being stolen from.  If you have a 1% chance, as you say, of losing an item worth, say, 100 sid...then that's 1 sid loss every time you log out, on average.  I don't know about you, but I'm hoping that my character is scraping together at least three or four sids virtually while I'm logged out.

So why, when I log back in, don't I find these extra sids in my character's pouch?  Because it's virtual work giving virtual sids.  Do I complain that this isn't realistic?  Or do I accept that virtual actions lead to virtual consequences?

Alright, that's a fair arguement.  We can't take everything that happens to a character into account, so why take anything into account?  The point isn't to try to account for every second that a character spends offline, which would be impossible even if anybody did want it.  The point is to see to it that the advantage of sleeping in a safe place as opposed to sleeping in a crime-infested, unguarded place is accounted for.  The bottom line is that the person with less risk of being stolen from is going to come out ahead of the person sleeping in the Gaj, and a change such as this will ensure that that's what actually happens.

By this code, characters without the money or means to log out in safe places would be a valid target for stealing e.g. in the Gaj.  But just because they're in the Gaj doesn't mean (a) they're not virtually sleeping ON TOP OF every item they have because they're aware it's risky and (b) sleeping with friends guarding them.  Yes, what if somebody quits out with a horde of people watching their every move, RPing how they set themselves up with their backs against the walls, guards arranging themselves around them, etc?  Codewise, there's no way to register that for this theft check.  A guy walking in and jumping down on the first free pallet he sees is as likely to be stolen from as the guy who RPs sleeping in the far corner, hiding all his valuable stuff under his blanket and curling up around it.

This seems more ludicrous to me.  You can argue for all the illogical contingencies that you want, but it won't change the fact that most of them will never happen.  Getting a bunch of people to guard you is most likely a lot harder than getting a bunch of people to pool their coins for a crappy apartment to be roommates in.  When they guard you, it means that they're wasting eight hours that they could have spent either working, or sleeping.  So when you wake up, you're probably obliged to guard them while they sleep.  Now you and all your friends have only eight hours for livelihood/recreation instead of the sixteen you normally get.  Plenty of people may agree to do it if it's only going to happen virtually, thus without any harm to their precious characters, but if you asked somebody to guard you from dusk to dawn while you actually typed sleep, and offered to do the same thing for them from dawn to high sun while they actually typed sleep, then you can bet that they're not going to do it.  Likewise, you can sleep in any number of odd positions in order to prevent yourself from being stolen from.  But even if you can get to sleep in an unnatural position, smashed against your gear, then you're going to wake up feeling like shit.  More likely, you'll discover that you aren't even in the same position that you went to sleep in, considering how much people shift in their sleep.  And even if you don't shift out of your position when you're asleep (not likely), a thief can always shift your position for you.

As UnderSeven said, it's far more 'realistic' for rangers to die in the desert virtually.  Don't state that this is simply a "bad idea" because it's too harsh, since you've already stated that your own theft idea is in the cause of realism.  This is realistic.  Being stolen from is harsh, as is dying in the desert.  The only difference is an OOC one in that people don't like dying, even more than they don't like being stolen from.  It's all a matter of where the line is drawn.

So?  Just because it's more realistic doesn't mean it's better.  I can desire for combat to be more lethal, even if I don't want people to be instantly killed when they're hit once with a huge warhammer, which is what I would imagine would take place in real life.  By the same logic, I can wish for there to be a distinction between sleeping in a safe place and an unsafe one, without pressing for a code to kill players without even giving them a fair chance to survive.  The whole arguement seems to be:  Well, if you want this small, reasonable change, then you also have to be in favor of this massive, completely unfair change that can be reached by following the same path of logic!  So there!  You may as well say that since two = a number, and one = a number, that 2=1.

ERS, you claim that characters must be sleeping while players are logged off, if they don't RP it.  Fair enough.  But other people have brought up that they're not necessarily sleeping where they logged off.  If my character has a house with a bed, he's going to spend the night there - not in the desert where I logged off because my dinner set off the smoke alarm.  Virtually, he's safe.  But with this code, virtually he's getting stolen from.

I made certain to modify my arguement for a code that's effect is small enough so that when people have to log off in an emergency, it's most likely not going to affect them adversely.  It isn't perfect, but a lot of the code isn't perfect, but imperfection alone isn't grounds for elimination.

I'd much rather see something that didn't affect logged-in actions so drastically (and yes, it's a highly drastic measure).  Something like the flea code already mentioned.  Or how about the odour of unclean bedding, since perfume code is already in place?  :twisted: Sure, make it be obvious that this character is spending time in places that aren't hygenic...but don't do anything that second-guesses the player.

Your ideas are not bad ones.  However, I have seen the affects of players who had lice IG (yes, coded lice) and I would consider that a very drastic change.  The lice basically worked like poison.  Every time you got bitten, you would take a small amount of damage.  Unlike poison however, your ability to regen was not turned off, therefor the lice were not fatal unless you were severely wounded and couldn't sleep to regain your hitpoints.  Whenever the lice effected you, there would be a canned emote of you scratching yourself, thus ensuring that anybody with social sensibilities wouldn't be caught dead talking to you.  Giving lice to people who quit out in the Gaj would be far mor drastic in my opinion than having them lose an item every once in a while.  The only reason I didn't mention it is because I assumed it would get even an even more negative response.  I'm willing to go in that direction though.  Are you?

Comparatively, stealing is less drastic.  It's still drastic, but is drastic so bad?  About six or seven years ago, there was an incredibly drastic change.  They called it Karma.  You can bet there were a lot of people against it, but now its almost totally accepted.  Drastic changes are frequently good, and often necessary.

[Angela Christine]

What kind of items could be stolen?  Someone said just items that could be stolen anyway, but when you are sleeping anything can be stolen.  I hate having my pants stolen, having my pants stolen while I'm not logged in would be irksome.  If it is just items that could easily be stolen while awake, things in your inventory or on your belt, then that wouldn't be so bad.  Except that once people figured this out people would simply put everything on the belt and in their inventory into their pack before logging off, like the people who have learned to pick up their furnature before logging out in a cheap apartment.  In that case it would be just another pointless OOC ritual that has nothing to do with roleplay.

In character actions should have in character consequences.  Out of character actions should have out of character consequences.  Logging out is an OOC action, it should not have IC consequences.  

On the whole, most of my characters make more money than they lose.  Even accounting for theft, food, water, legal fines and other unavoidable expenses, I probably make at least 5-10 coins per hour logged in, on average.  If I am going to face IC risks like theft while logged out, shouldn't I also keep making money while logged out too?  That would be cool, If I didn't log in for a few weeks, when I finally did log in I'd have so much money I wouldn't be able to walk to the bank without stopping to rest every three steps.    Ok, that is extreem, but shouldn't I have an equal chance of logging in to find I've made money as logging in to find I've lost money?  If I was spending some of that time virtually sleeping, shouldn't I have virtually healed?  Shouldn't I be sober?  Shouldn't I have recovered from that bad spice hangover?  Surely if an IC week has gone by I would have burned the poison out of my blood, or died from it?

Why should people who don't quit in the gaj be safe from virtual theives?  In every single clan I've joined I have had things stolen from my character, it makes no difference if it was a Noble house, Merchant house, or dirty mercenary band.  I've also had things stolen from private apartments, maybe not from my body while in my apartment, but if someone could break in and steal the bed I'm virtually sleeping on surely they could have taken my purse at the same time?

Virtual activities have virtual consequences.  You don't heal, make money, lose money, get hungry, sober up, etc., while logged out.  You get older, that is it.  Virtual activities all balance out to leave you in the exact same condition when you log in that you were in when you logged out.

Would this proposal lead to more people joining clans?  I seriously doubt it.  Would it lead to more people hanging around "safe" lawful areas AFK or linkdead rather than logging out?  Yeah, probably.  If I plan to be gone for just a few minutes to walk the dog, right now I usually log out, that way I don't have to worry about my character.  But if my character was actually less likely to run into trouble if I parked her next to a solder and relied on her coded quick wits to protect her from non-virtual thieves while I walk the dog, then I'd probably stay logged in even though it would be annoying to other players who tried to interact with my zombiefied PC.  Play at home and at work/school?  Don't bother to log out, don't even break link, just leave the character standing there until you get to school, and when you log in from school your new connection will over-ride the old one.


Meh.  I don't think this would add anything significant.  I don't think it would doom the mud either, or cause huge numbers of people to abandon the game.  It would simply be a mild OOC irritation, especially to newbies.


AC

[creeper386]

There is one simple fact. Quiting out is OOC. When I want to quit out, or need to quit out, I quit out at the closest quit spot most the time. Rather that be the Gaj, my characters fancy personal home, or his clan quit room. Regardless if they acctually  have a place to sleep or anything else, I'll quit out where and when I need/want to quit out. I've quit out in the Gaj with characters that would NEVER go into the Gaj. Why? Because quiting out is an OOC thing. NO MATTER what you say, it's OOC.

I wouldn't mind being stolen from, but coded stealing, that you have not even the slightest chance to effect, or catch, or even know it happened to you is complete bullshit. Specially when it's based around an OOC concept as quiting out. You say you can't consider quiting our unrealistic. Well I DO consider it unrealistic, it can't be realistic if it's not part of the game world, therefor things based around it is unrealistic.

I'm not against NPC thieves, PC thieves, being stolen from for anything, but when I'm stolen from virtually I think it's complete bull. For the most part, I can't interact with the virtual population, the virtual population can't interact with me, why should thieves be the exception? I've seen another MUD that had areas where you were virtually stolen from. Is it 'realistic' perhaps, but the code does even a WORSE job of watching circumstances as PC thieves do. I pull out a pouch of coins to buy something, and all the sudden those coins are gone, right out of my hand. Well shit. Chalk it up to the code and there isn't a thing I can do about it. PC thieves can't steal from the virtual population, and just disapear into the crowd. If a PC thief gets caught, he gets in trouble. However, the code, these virtual thieves don't have to worry about it. They just have to worry about only suceeding a small time. It's more extreme then getting stolen from while quitting out, but it's all in the same boat, and it's still over all more unrealistic in it's bullshit.

At times, I may log in, several times a day. Due to my IP crashing, routers being down, Armageddon crashing or being rebooted and myself having to go do things, I could log in and quit out 10+ times a day. I'm sure some people have a less stable connection or schedule then I do, and they probably aren't exactly a tiny minority. All of this already leads to ALOT of bad IC consequences due to OOC problems. Now we want to add more difficulties and bullshit to being able to log out... Nope, I'm completely against it. As no matter how safe a place my character has to sleep, no matter how secure a place, when I need to log out I log out, I don't walk around the city back to that safe place. Logging out is OOC, no matter what. It already has enough effect on IC things. Lets not add more bullshit.

And yes, ERS. You disagree with me. If you want to, although I doubt you well, you can tear this apart and make it look like you and your opinion are far more superiour, but thats alright. Because as you said, you're not going to come even close to changing my mind, and I can go back and forth with mindless rambling as long as you can.


Creeper

[Crestor]

The point is to see to it that the advantage of sleeping in a safe place as opposed to sleeping in a crime-infested, unguarded place is accounted for.  The bottom line is that the person with less risk of being stolen from is going to come out ahead of the person sleeping in the Gaj, and a change such as this will ensure that that's what actually happens.

 I appreciate that you did accept my argument was at least valid - it shows that you're at least listening to both sides, which is quite refreshing.    I do also accept that sleeping in a safe place should be beneficial.  However, given that I don't fully accept your argument that logging out equates to sleeping (though I'm not going to bring it up again), I could point out that while you are logged in, it does.

 While I'm thinking of it - does the code actually act as if you're sleeping when you're logged out?  Stamina restored, etc?  Because if not, your point of sleeping occurring virtually is more or less moot.

 And I was glad to see AC pointed out the virtual-money-making point as well - as you can see, a major problem is why only emulate bad virtual things?  This isn't just a "sleeping in bad places should be made bad" argument.  You're effectively breaking down a barrier between coded and virtual actions - a barrier that can't easily be defined.

You can argue for all the illogical contingencies that you want, but it won't change the fact that most of them will never happen.

 Likewise, I could argue that being stolen from while sleeping in the Gaj won't happen 1% of the time for everyone.  I could argue that my character takes naps every half an hour, reducing the chance of being surprised and stolen from.  I can argue that I'm RPing various different methods of theft-evasion.  This proposed code does not handle any of them.  I don't think it's right to basically steam-roller several RP possibilities by claiming that "most of them will never happen".  By that logic, it should be impossible to do anything that is not highly probable.

Getting a bunch of people to guard you is most likely a lot harder than getting a bunch of people to pool their coins for a crappy apartment to be roommates in.  When they guard you, it means that they're wasting eight hours that they could have spent either working, or sleeping.  So when you wake up, you're probably obliged to guard them while they sleep.  Now you and all your friends have only eight hours for livelihood/recreation instead of the sixteen you normally get.

 Yes, I'll concede that point - my example was grossly unlikely.  But I'm sure there are other possibilities that could be RPed out - a single friend watching your back in shifts, for example - that this code would deny.

Plenty of people may agree to do it if it's only going to happen virtually, thus without any harm to their precious characters, but if you asked somebody to guard you from dusk to dawn while you actually typed sleep, and offered to do the same thing for them from dawn to high sun while they actually typed sleep, then you can bet that they're not going to do it.

 And therefore I would readily accept being stolen from WHILE IN GAME if they slacked off during this.  But that is an OOC problem.  ICly, it might make sense for their characters to guard my back in shifts.  OOCly they probably wouldn't, but that's due to the player being utterly bored, not due to the character being incompetant.  It still doesn't give an opening for this code.

Likewise, you can sleep in any number of odd positions in order to prevent yourself from being stolen from.  But even if you can get to sleep in an unnatural position, smashed against your gear, then you're going to wake up feeling like shit.  More likely, you'll discover that you aren't even in the same position that you went to sleep in, considering how much people shift in their sleep.  And even if you don't shift out of your position when you're asleep (not likely), a thief can always shift your position for you.

 And it's also likely that doing so will wake up some characters, resulting in them catching the thief.  One of my characters a while back actually received a reward for catching an (obviously) elven thief and turning the hapless soul over to a templar that followed shortly afterwards.  The character might feel like shit, but they were much richer.  Could the code simulate that?  Most likely not.

Just because it's more realistic doesn't mean it's better.

 I think that's the point a lot of other people have been trying to make.

The whole arguement seems to be:  Well, if you want this small, reasonable change, then you also have to be in favor of this massive, completely unfair change that can be reached by following the same path of logic!  So there!  You may as well say that since two = a number, and one = a number, that 2=1.

 No, but it does seem that you're in favour of this fairly substantial change without considering that it could do a lot of harm and minimal good.  Let's change tack for a moment and actually consider the benefits of this code:
 

• A player can 'wake up' (which I still dispute) and think "Oh no, somebody stole item X while I was asleep/walking around fully alert!  What can I do!?  Uh...well, get another one, I guess..."
   
• It means that thieves appear more prevalent in unsafe areas.
   
• People who can do so will seek out safer areas...which, if their characters were motivated, should have done so anyway.  If their characters weren't, they shouldn't do now.  Ideally, this code should have little to no effect on RP since it should be happening anyway!
   
• I'm sure there are more, but it's late here.

 The drawbacks:
 

• Newbies get pissed and leave.
   
• People congregate in 'safe' areas despite the fact that ICly they shouldn't be.
   
• People lose sid despite the fact that virtually they should be breaking even or possibly making a profit.
   
• You lose an item that a PC or NPC thief could have stolen, making for slightly more rewarding RP (though I accept this is a minimal point).
   
• People can get stolen from in the city, but rangers can't die in the desert.  This causes an imbalance in the code-simulated realism of the game (which at the moment just leaves both possibilities to RP and virtual actions).
   
• Likewise, I'm sure there are more, but it's late.

I made certain to modify my arguement for a code that's effect is small enough so that when people have to log off in an emergency, it's most likely not going to affect them adversely.  It isn't perfect, but a lot of the code isn't perfect, but imperfection alone isn't grounds for elimination.

"Most likely" is a large imperfection when you consider why you're instigating the code - to simulate theft while sleeping.  If I log out for thirty seconds real time, my character sure as hell isn't getting a few moments of shut-eye.  This comes back to the 'where to draw the line' argument...and your sleeping-while-logged-off statement.

Your ideas are not bad ones.  However, I have seen the affects of players who had lice IG (yes, coded lice) and I would consider that a very drastic change.  The lice basically worked like poison...(description of lice mechanics).  Giving lice to people who quit out in the Gaj would be far mor drastic in my opinion than having them lose an item every once in a while.  The only reason I didn't mention it is because I assumed it would get even an even more negative response.  I'm willing to go in that direction though.  Are you?

I didn't suggest lice, I suggested fleas.  I didn't suggest people would lose hit points, lose stun or any such thing.  I actually suggested fleas and odours.  I suggested that they be given an odour or a condition that people could RP around, rather than something that affected coded values.  The fleas I suggested need not act in the same way as the already present lice (which, by the way, I was unaware of, my fault).  I was throwing ideas out there, not making any solid suggestions.  Code actions should not be affected by virtual actions which the players have little to no say in.

Comparatively, stealing is less drastic.  It's still drastic, but is drastic so bad?  About six or seven years ago, there was an incredibly drastic change.  They called it Karma.  You can bet there were a lot of people against it, but now its almost totally accepted.  Drastic changes are frequently good, and often necessary.

Karma is an OOC change, not an IC one.  I know that's not your point.  But there is a difference between drastic changes required to avoid non-RPers from gaining powerful races/classes/whatever and changes suggested to codedly enforce something that is a virtual matter relying on OOC difficulties.

I'll repeat that I like the idea, and I like the fact that you are modifying your argument to accept criticisms, but I still don't like code affecting virtual matters.  :?

Edit: jeez, that was a long post, sorry!

[sacac]

Hmm.. the one major problem I'd see is that Thieves don't want stuff with specific house symbol on it, And it would be hell trying to explain it.

"They" say to you, in sirihish: Where are your pants, "You"? They had our house marking on them! Thieves don't want shit they can't sell! Stop lieing to me you piece of kank shit!

"They" Smacks you upside the head with a chair, yelling.

[spawnloser]

Okay...I have to go to work, so I just skimmed the last couple posts.  I just want to say one thing quick...

There are things that are taken into account virtually while others are not.  Why is adding one more thing such a huge problem?  I find the argument that we can't add this because we'd have to add death while logged out too retarded.

Sorry for the language.  I'm not saying anyone is retarded.  I just find the arguement without merit.

[Anonymous]

I think for upscale joints like the Sanctuary and Trader's it would be great.

But it adds to much undo duress on new players who have a hard enough time as it is not starving to death because they can't eat their sword.

[EvilRoeSlade]

And yes, ERS. You disagree with me. If you want to, although I doubt you well, you can tear this apart and make it look like you and your opinion are far more superiour, but thats alright. Because as you said, you're not going to come even close to changing my mind, and I can go back and forth with mindless rambling as long as you can.

No, I do not desire to have a contest over who can defecate mindless rambling for the longest.  Because honestly, you have the monopoly in that area.  I shall prematurely concede that I cannot compete with you.

I appreciate that you did accept my argument was at least valid - it shows that you're at least listening to both sides, which is quite refreshing.  ;)  I do also accept that sleeping in a safe place should be beneficial.  However, given that I don't fully accept your argument that logging out equates to sleeping (though I'm not going to bring it up again), I could point out that while you are logged in, it does.

 While I'm thinking of it - does the code actually act as if you're sleeping when you're logged out?  Stamina restored, etc?  Because if not, your point of sleeping occurring virtually is more or less moot.

Most characters never go to sleep while they're logged in.  Why not make a code that assumes they do it while they're logged out?  If people were ICly going to sleep in the Gaj, and making up plans to protect themselves for thieves then there wouldn't be any need for this discussion.  But they aren't, and unless you can think of a way to change that, then this is the next best thing.

And I was glad to see AC pointed out the virtual-money-making point as well - as you can see, a major problem is why only emulate bad virtual things?  This isn't just a "sleeping in bad places should be made bad" argument.  You're effectively breaking down a barrier between coded and virtual actions - a barrier that can't easily be defined.

I justify breaking down that barrier for the reasons stated above.  You make money while you're IG, you don't make any when you log out.  You die while you're IG, you don't die while you're logged out.  If you're like the majority, however, then you don't sleep while you're IG.  So don't we then have to assume that you sleep while you're logged out?

Likewise, I could argue that being stolen from while sleeping in the Gaj won't happen 1% of the time for everyone.  I could argue that my character takes naps every half an hour, reducing the chance of being surprised and stolen from.  I can argue that I'm RPing various different methods of theft-evasion.  This proposed code does not handle any of them.  I don't think it's right to basically steam-roller several RP possibilities by claiming that "most of them will never happen".  By that logic, it should be impossible to do anything that is not highly probable.

Again, two does not equal one.  The code cannot support you if you try to create an avalanche to destroy a raiding party of gith.  Does that mean there should be no gith?  Just because a code idea doesn't take EVERYTHING into account doesn't mean it should be qualified.  Because nothing can take everything into account.

And therefore I would readily accept being stolen from WHILE IN GAME if they slacked off during this.  But that is an OOC problem.  ICly, it might make sense for their characters to guard my back in shifts.  OOCly they probably wouldn't, but that's due to the player being utterly bored, not due to the character being incompetant.  It still doesn't give an opening for this code.

Tell me with a straight face that your last character who didn't have access to any place to sleep other than public dormitories actually worked out an arrangement like this and used the coded sleep command.  That just isn't the way things really happen.

And it's also likely that doing so will wake up some characters, resulting in them catching the thief.  One of my characters a while back actually received a reward for catching an (obviously) elven thief and turning the hapless soul over to a templar that followed shortly afterwards.  The character might feel like shit, but they were much richer.  Could the code simulate that?  Most likely not.

This also goes back to my earlier point.  Just because the code can't be created to deal with every contingency, doesn't by itself invalidate the code in question.

Newbies get pissed and leave.

Because of this, the actual effect proposed was intentionally kept minimal.

People congregate in 'safe' areas despite the fact that ICly they shouldn't be.

I don't understand.  Alright, maybe you mean that they can go to the Trader's and pay one-hundered coins.  Well, if they can afford that then more power to them.

People lose sid despite the fact that virtually they should be breaking even or possibly making a profit.

The difference wouldn't even be enough to break a character.  They'd still make a profit assuming they were making one before.  But like I said, any profit they are making, they are making it while their characters never sleep.  I propose to correct this.

You lose an item that a PC or NPC thief could have stolen, making for slightly more rewarding RP (though I accept this is a minimal point).

A minimal point.  Agreed.

People can get stolen from in the city, but rangers can't die in the desert.  This causes an imbalance in the code-simulated realism of the game (which at the moment just leaves both possibilities to RP and virtual actions).

Would you like the idea better if I argued that rangers SHOULD die in the deserts?  That simply wouldn't be fair.  It should be possible for rangers to be stolen from while in the desert, but killing PCs while they are logged off is too much.  A ranger can be killed while they are logged on.  But most likely, they won't fall asleep and be stolen from while they're logged on.  But that doesn't mean there shouldn't be a chance of it happening.

I made certain to modify my arguement for a code that's effect is small enough so that when people have to log off in an emergency, it's most likely not going to affect them adversely.  It isn't perfect, but a lot of the code isn't perfect, but imperfection alone isn't grounds for elimination.

"Most likely" is a large imperfection when you consider why you're instigating the code - to simulate theft while sleeping.  If I log out for thirty seconds real time, my character sure as hell isn't getting a few moments of shut-eye.  This comes back to the 'where to draw the line' argument...and your sleeping-while-logged-off statement.

Oh, come now.  You're making it into more than it is.  If you logged out for two RL years, the chance would be no different from logging out for thirty seconds.  It all most likely balances out.

Would this proposal lead to more people joining clans?  I seriously doubt it.  Would it lead to more people hanging around "safe" lawful areas AFK or linkdead rather than logging out?  Yeah, probably.  If I plan to be gone for just a few minutes to walk the dog, right now I usually log out, that way I don't have to worry about my character.  But if my character was actually less likely to run into trouble if I parked her next to a solder and relied on her coded quick wits to protect her from non-virtual thieves while I walk the dog, then I'd probably stay logged in even though it would be annoying to other players who tried to interact with my zombiefied PC.  Play at home and at work/school?  Don't bother to log out, don't even break link, just leave the character standing there until you get to school, and when you log in from school your new connection will over-ride the old one.

Ah-hah!  Finally a flaw that I can think of no way to overcome.  You're right of course, there isn't any reason to impliment a code that requires players to act responsibly for it to function.  And thus, it is pointless to advocate code that won't function if players do not act responsibly.  I raise the white flag in surrender.

Good day to you all.

Hell why can't I have a chance to find something while I was sleeping. Maybe I was doing something or some virtual work on the side and wow I find a few coins when I wake up. Shouldn't thieves at least have a chance to steal an item when they are logged out? Wouldn't the same arguments for losing stuff apply to finding shit?

I think so. That's why I still say no.

[EvilRoeSlade]

Hell why can't I have a chance to find something while I was sleeping. Maybe I was doing something or some virtual work on the side and wow I find a few coins when I wake up. Shouldn't thieves at least have a chance to steal an item when they are logged out? Wouldn't the same arguments for losing stuff apply to finding shit?

I think so. That's why I still say no.

I no longer officially support this idea (see my last post), but I'll humor you anyway.  Old habits die hard.

You can steal, find coins, and do work on the side all IG.  You can also sleep IG and be stolen from, I concede.  However, you don't HAVE to if you don't want to, and as it turns out, the overwhelming majority chooses not to be stolen from (big suprise).  Therefore, I submit that since it doesn't happen IG, its logical for it to take place virtually.

[Quirk]

Look, this is a stupid stupid argument.

Game-world wise, there are tons of cheap houses in poor areas that most characters probably should be able to get their hands on. Most of the VNPC population isn't sleeping in tavern dormitories.

Code-wise, houses take effort to build and rent out. Two of the main reasons more people don't have houses are that there are a limited number available at any time, and Nenyuk PCs are hard to find. The demand is never an issue. Quitting out in taverns is an OOC convenience that deals with the fact that there isn't enough housing and lets people spend most of their RP time in a place where there's others to RP with even if they have to go at any moment. Because it is an OOC convenience to save the imms from a lot of room-building and extra work keeping tabs on vastly more houses, penalising people for it is beyond idiotic.

Oh, and Sanvean already spoke on this, so there's little point arguing it.

Quirk

[Medena]

I voted for  -- Costing money to quit in places that (by all rights) should.  

The Gaj is not a place that should charge, but the Barrel and Trader's are.  Pretty much ever since I started on Arm I have wondered why characters who I knew had both a clan -and- rented a house would logout in the Barrel.  It's sheer laziness.

I have counters to two arguments that have been brought up already.

1) "When you logout you are not necessarily sleeping".

Okay then, you are going to conduct business, do some crafting, etc, etc.  You can still pay the price to do so in a private room rented out by the inn, OR go to a place provided by your clan OR go to the Gaj to do your business.

2) "Logging out is OOC"

Agreed.  But right up to the second you log off you should act in-character.  It's not in character for a 'rinth rat to go upstairs in the Trader's or for a wealthy merchant to go do whatever in the alcove of the Barrel (unless they pay to do so).

In the four or five years I've been Mudding, I can remember maybe two times when I did not have the time to make the two or three minute walk to my safe logout spot.

--Medena

I no longer officially support this idea (see my last post), but I'll humor you anyway.  Old habits die hard.

You can steal, find coins, and do work on the side all IG.  You can also sleep IG and be stolen from, I concede.  However, you don't HAVE to if you don't want to, and as it turns out, the overwhelming majority chooses not to be stolen from (big suprise).  Therefore, I submit that since it doesn't happen IG, its logical for it to take place virtually.

This is because of other OOC stuff. For example, fairly wealthy people can't even have a hut to sleep in. So they RP that they are going home but instead they go to the nearest tavern? Why don't they have a hut or a room. Because they are artificially rare. If this problem was fixed then maybe I might think about agreeing.  Otherwise, there is little the player can do except have someone watch their back, which can be tedious when your partner is in virtual land.

I suhmit that since the overwhelming majority of players choose not to take a shit. That they be deducted a fee for using the virtual shit houses while offline .

[SwanSwanHummingbird]

I would like to comment on the coded lice issue that was raised.  I've had a character who's had coded lice before, and I have to say that it's a really cool idea, but that it's also incredibly annoying.  It needs to be changed, really, for the love of Tek.  I have a hard time believing that a lice infestation can kill you, but maybe I'm not taking into account the crazy mutant strain of lice that inhabits Zalanthas.  The damage needs to be reduced to almost nothing, imo.  Maybe set it right at 0, and just make it a social forced-emote thing.

If the damage were reduced, I'd love to see there be a random chance of lice infestation if you quit out in the Gaj.  I agree with EvilRoeSlade that this is far harsher a punishment as it is currently coded than item loss.

But, as far as the original idea goes (i.e. item loss or rent for quitting out) I hate it, you have to think of playability.

[Crestor]

And therefore I would readily accept being stolen from WHILE IN GAME if they slacked off during this.  But that is an OOC problem.  ICly, it might make sense for their characters to guard my back in shifts.  OOCly they probably wouldn't, but that's due to the player being utterly bored, not due to the character being incompetant.  It still doesn't give an opening for this code.

Tell me with a straight face that your last character who didn't have access to any place to sleep other than public dormitories actually worked out an arrangement like this and used the coded sleep command.  That just isn't the way things really happen.

I'll just address that point you made for now, since I'm still mulling over the rest of what you said - but without getting too IC I have most definitely been in at least one situation where my character was being guarded by a friend while it slept.  I had to log out, having RPed my character going to sleep and their friend having RPed watching over them.  So yes, it does happen.

But as I said, I'm still thinking about the rest of your post.  :wink:

Edit: also, I'd note that I did actually use the coded sleep command for some portion of that, but due to OOC concerns I had to log out after a period of time.  Due to OOC concerns.

[Cenghiz]

I couldn't rent an apartment for three day's time. (three days IRL.) I couldn't even find a clue.. There are rumours claiming that I won't rent an apartment for long. So... Let NOONE touch my smoked scrab meat when I log out in Gaj.
.....
But little-hurting lice wouldn't be too punishing of course...

[Trenidor]

This discussion has been going on too long!

:arrow: 1. They already have a pay per visit system established in taverns. It's under the rent command. I'm sure someone will break into one of those occationally

:arrow: 2. the reason for Quitting out isn't that you are sleeping; Some of my recent characters would be huge sleepers if that were true. If you aren't sleeping, then what are you doing? I'll tell you: You're moving around outside with your hands in your pockets covering your belongings.

:arrow: 3. If I wanted to RP not having an item, I'd hand it over to an NPC in the tavern and go around loooking for my stuff.

:arrow: 4. Arm is an RP game, I'd rather be around to not notice someone stealing from me, then to not be around and to not find out it's stolen till I'm ten blocks away from the crime and I notice I don't have my backpack on me.

:arrow: 5.  It'll ruin society. If this was implemented, we'd all learn to steal from each other and eventually everyone would start on some stealling sprees to get their belongings back.

:arrow: 6. Look at the poll results. Apparently no one wants this to happen or there'd be more people that voted on it. It appears that only theives want this.

:arrow: 7. If quitout was banned, only theives would quit out. This is like one of those gun vs. anti-gun control things. If everyone that didn't belong to a house couldn't quit out, then theives would be rich and wouldn't need to steal. Everyone else on the other hand, would be poor.

:arrow:  Go around the code: If you really want this then by all means how about you go LD for a day or two and see how much stuff you have left on you.

I may be exagurating a little, but it's best to expect the worst when dealling with worse; that way things will turn out positive when you know that worst is comming and can take action for it.

[spawnloser]

Trenidor,

1 'Rent' is not for quitting out.

2 I said in my FIRST post, and obviously you missed it, if you are not sleeping enough when logged in you are obviously sleeping SOME of the time while logged out.

3 Very few people WANT to RP losing an item...that's the point.

4 What the heck does that mean?  Really.  You want to notice...something.  Okay, good for you.

5 Uh...doubtful.

6 Other doesn't mean no, but some people used that as such.

7 We're not suggesting banning quitting...someone suggested it as a way to get around this suggested idea.  If they want to go LD for all the thieves to steal from them, though, that is their problem.  I'd rather deal with the crappy virtual thief than the good PC ones, though, myself.

Heheh...no thanks.  I'm talking about an idea that has a LOW chance of item loss...going LD is not a LOW chance of item loss.

Yes, you were exaggerating...and I personally think that you plan for the worst, hope for the best.  Following this, however, you could plan for the worst through this idea, so I don't see what your problem is.