Lodgings, read before voting please

[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.