Lodgings, read before voting please

[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.