I really wish we could get a re-work of the bar brawl code.
I miss the days when you could just emote out your fights. I guess that caused some abuse problems, though I can't say I ever recall seeing them directly.
At the very least I wish the current code caused actual stun damage/a lot more stun damage so people took getting knocked in the head a lot more seriously. I have seen so many who act like they aren't hurt at all just because codedly they know they are safe. I wish it actually knocked you out, and then if the person kept beating you, they would get crimmed for attempted murder.
I have also seen a lot of very "brave" people who are only brave because they know codedly they are safe due to the brawl code being so very underwhelming.
I also wish the brawl code took into account the fact you are fighting five people instead of treating it like you are fighting five separate 1 on 1 fights. I have seen people brag in game about "Beating three of them at once in a brawl.", not realizing the code treated it like three separate 1 on 1 fights. Sadly, there is no IC way to inform them that what they have done really isn't as impressive as they think it is.
I also wish we could do away with the whole, "You have to get them to stand up to brawl them.", crap, at least for places like The Gaj.
The Gaj and maybe even The Tooth are the sorts of taverns where people should get smacked across the teeth with a chair by someone that hates them in a blindsided moment of fury if they are expecting it or not.
Other taverns that are only slightly "higher class" but still commoner taverns might take exception to two people throwing down when one isn't a willing participant.
Mainly, I just want to do away with people talking constant lines of crap because they know they are protected by the fact the code won't let them get beat down if they just keep sitting on their barstool.
All of that aside....
I also wish we could put in our own emotes for the way we are fighting instead of depending on the somewhat comical and kind of goofy "stock" brawl code emotes we are forced to use now.
(Interestingly enough, I've never actually had anyone do this to one of my characters. But I've been a third party witness to it happening over and over and over again. Nobody is afraid of getting into a bar fight because really....it is laughably safe.)
I nevered like that there are room echo's about people getting stabbed at the bar but if you were to say, stab a one eye breed in the face for talking shit. The entire cities NPC militia would come out the wood work to WTFPWN you.
I feel the bar should be more dangerous, and that talking shit might just get you stabbed, because your a low class breed commoner... Who would really give a fuck?
If you find someone willing to play along, you can certainly emote it out. I'd totally let someone non-fatally stab me if I thought it would be an interesting scene. Don't be surprised if everyone reacts like it's attempted murder, though.
Wanna make playing a breed hardcore. No crimcode flag for the people that attack you anywhere...
Welcome to Armageddon, you disgusting mixblood piece of shit. ;D
Quote from: Majikal on March 31, 2015, 12:37:29 PM
Wanna make playing a breed hardcore. No crimcode flag for the people that attack you anywhere...
Welcome to Armageddon, you disgusting mixblood piece of shit. ;D
I understand the stuff ICly but OOCly I think breeds are fucking adorable.
Quote from: racurtne on March 31, 2015, 12:36:16 PM
If you find someone willing to play along, you can certainly emote it out. I'd totally let someone non-fatally stab me if I thought it would be an interesting scene. Don't be surprised if everyone reacts like it's attempted murder, though.
Sometimes that's half the issue with crime as well.
People don't like to "lose" and will come out to murder you if you dare nick 10 sid bone dagger off their belt. Suddenly half the city is against you, because you tried to take that breed's crappy leather working knife and now there is a 3 large bounty on your head that every militia man, bynner, bounty hunter, and templar are looking to collect. (Exaggeration I know, but that's how it can feel).
Poor examples. Look at Aaron Hernandez aka millionaire killing a no one over basically a ten sid knife. People escalate stuff all the time. Traffic stops end in death especially if you are the wrong color. Unless everyone is saying Zalanthas is more reasonable than earth.
Also I don't care about breed or knife, just looking for excuse to kill you.
Quote from: KankWhisperer on March 31, 2015, 01:07:49 PM
Poor examples. Look at Aaron Hernandez aka millionaire killing a no one over basically a ten sid knife. People escalate stuff all the time. Traffic stops end in death especially if you are the wrong color. Unless everyone is saying Zalanthas is more reasonable than earth.
Your listing exceptional examples from real life, no every dies because they cut some off in traffic, or stole a dollar off your desk, nor should every pick pocket who's ever had the misfortune of getting caught have the ENTIRETY of a city state come down upon their head. In a world rife with strife, thievery, and general unpleasantness it doesn't seem be a very realistic response, that so many people would care about some one else's dagger. It's a reaction entirely out of OOC boredom, not by any sense of realistic role play.
Quote from: KankWhisperer on March 31, 2015, 01:07:49 PM
Also I don't care about breed or knife, just looking for excuse to kill you
Cause wanton PK'ing for whatever loose reason you can find is great rp. ::)
QuoteI also wish we could do away with the whole, "You have to get them to stand up to brawl them.", crap, at least for places like The Gaj.
Used to make people stand up for the brawl, when they were sitting, so that you could continue.
Got completely out of control.
Personally...I'd rather remove the brawl code, rather than accentuate it. It pretty much turns players into morons. "ABUSE ABUSE, HE WON'T STAND UP WHEN I WANT TO BEAT HIM UP." Meanwhile, that someone is in the middle of something else distracting them from the game, and they don't -feel- like playing out your need to engage in literally meaningless pseudo combat because you're trying to appear tough and gritty, or to -really- show them that you don't like 'em!
Brawling is stupid, and I've gotten to the point with it that if someone starts looking like they're about to do it, I -feel- like sitting down out of general principle.
The wording of the messages, however, makes me think that the sitting thing was intentional. "If you'd like to brawl them, you'll need to stand" gives the general impression that it's not intended as a way for one character to impose their will over another one, but a mutual experience. I.e. Someone beating the shit out of someone who isn't fighting back? Still a crime. That's how I view it. Definitely don't view it as something that people need to be able to do more of...like I said. I feel like people get pretty stupid with it already.
change the "hit" command to automatically teleport you and your target to the arena and ring city bell
Not getting crimflagged for attacking elves might be a good interesting change.
Quote from: CodeMaster on March 31, 2015, 01:51:24 PM
Not getting crimflagged for attacking elves might be a good change.
+1
Quote from: hopeandsorrow on March 31, 2015, 01:29:36 PM
... nor should every pick pocket who's ever had the misfortune of getting caught have the ENTIRETY of a city state come down upon their head. In a world rife with strife, thievery, and general unpleasantness it doesn't seem be a very realistic response, that so many people would care about some one else's dagger. It's a reaction entirely out of OOC boredom, not by any sense of realistic role play.
I sort of agree with you, but there's one piece that's missing. Any crime, in either city, that's done without protection from the authorities is going to be cracked down on with extreme prejudice. The crime of stealing a 10 sid knife is minor, and no one cares. The crime of stealing that 10 sid knife, and not having bribed/dealt with the proper authorities is significantly worse. Why? Because by not letting the important people get their cut, you're effectively stealing from them in their eyes, not that nobody grebber.
Actually, if brawling is going anywhere new, the American Gladiators scripting/code is probably it.
edit to add: same for sparring. At least, we were discussing that at the time we developed the scripting for Descending Sun
Quote from: Armaddict on March 31, 2015, 01:46:46 PMThe wording of the messages, however, makes me think that the sitting thing was intentional. "If you'd like to brawl them, you'll need to stand" gives the general impression that it's not intended as a way for one character to impose their will over another one, but a mutual experience. I.e. Someone beating the shit out of someone who isn't fighting back? Still a crime. That's how I view it. Definitely don't view it as something that people need to be able to do more of...like I said. I feel like people get pretty stupid with it already.
This. Brawling implies some level of IC consent. Without that consent, it's an attack and a crime. I believe staff have stated as much on the GDB.
Quote from: hopeandsorrow on March 31, 2015, 01:52:20 PM
Quote from: CodeMaster on March 31, 2015, 01:51:24 PM
Not getting crimflagged for attacking elves might be a good change.
+1
Why would you want to see this added to the game?
Quote from: wizturbo on March 31, 2015, 01:53:06 PM
Quote from: hopeandsorrow on March 31, 2015, 01:29:36 PM
... nor should every pick pocket who's ever had the misfortune of getting caught have the ENTIRETY of a city state come down upon their head. In a world rife with strife, thievery, and general unpleasantness it doesn't seem be a very realistic response, that so many people would care about some one else's dagger. It's a reaction entirely out of OOC boredom, not by any sense of realistic role play.
I sort of agree with you, but there's one piece that's missing. Any crime, in either city, that's done without protection from the authorities is going to be cracked down on with extreme prejudice. The crime of stealing a 10 sid knife is minor, and no one cares. The crime of stealing that 10 sid knife, and not having bribed/dealt with the proper authorities is significantly worse. Why? Because by not letting the important people get their cut, you're effectively stealing from them in their eyes, not that nobody grebber.
Understand able, but I sometimes wonder where the safety or property of lowly commoner is every much of the concern of the templars or Militia? A serial, accomplish terror of a pick pocket, I understand people wanting a cut. But I've seen several occasions an off handed incident has lead to witch hunts, extreme punishments with out little recourse for bribery. Just seems players are too quick to slaughter a pick pocket or burglar where he stands as oppose to accepting that it's a fact of Life in the over crowded and desperate cities.
It's one thing to go after some one who personally wronged you.
But your clan shouldn't give a shit about some stolen personal property of little value.
It makes entire sense for the templars wanting to get to an accomplished thief.
It makes no sense to lead a city wide hunt because this one thief stole this half-breed's bone dagger, and it wasn't a very nice thing to do.
I understand some of its born out of... OOC boredom and desire for conflict, but a big reason conflict is so rare is because people are entirely too quick to give a shit and turn the city upside down at the slightest provocation.
Criminal's are difficult to play because of this, because if you're caught even once, you deal with an OOC stigma and every douche or white knight having an arrow with your name on it. It's silly and jarring for a world that has people regularly dying of starvation on the streets.
This leads to either criminals waiting till stealth skills master, and thus never or rarely getting caught just to pull off the role.
Or getting killed, because you're the only damn criminal they can catch.
Quote from: Patuk on March 31, 2015, 01:59:22 PM
Quote from: hopeandsorrow on March 31, 2015, 01:52:20 PM
Quote from: CodeMaster on March 31, 2015, 01:51:24 PM
Not getting crimflagged for attacking elves might be a good change.
+1
Why would you want to see this added to the game?
I think it's just a jab at elves. Even elves hate elves.
Quote from: hopeandsorrow on March 31, 2015, 02:06:35 PM
Quote from: Patuk on March 31, 2015, 01:59:22 PM
Quote from: hopeandsorrow on March 31, 2015, 01:52:20 PM
Quote from: CodeMaster on March 31, 2015, 01:51:24 PM
Not getting crimflagged for attacking elves might be a good change.
+1
Why would you want to see this added to the game?
I think it's just a jab at elves. Even elves hate elves.
I actually think it would be a cool racial addition. It would change how they are played and how they're played around. Maybe they could start with a high flee skill or something to compensate. Just a random thought. :)
...so basically, you want to kill elves.
But you don't want to have to go to the alleys to do it, because you'd have people attacking you there, too. You just want it to be so that they're essentially free game in the place where you can't be attacked. Because it would somehow add to the game.
Wat?
Modify: Agreed that this is a 'need for conflict' type thing. Problem is people want to promote conflict without increasing risk, which makes serious problems logistically and with the reasoning behind it. Unless you're saying you want elves to be uninvolved in crimcode altogether, like they can also attack you for no reason and not have soldiers after them. Which I'm pretty sure is not the case. The problem with elf-hate, is that even moreso than the logic behind why people choose not to hate mages (they might curse me in response), is elves are a very prevalent part of the populace. They aren't just here and there, they're everywhere. Trying to make something like this is the equivalent of promoting a genocide in game. Is that...what you're going for?
If all c-elves started in chargen with a silver longsword and iron platemail and dual guild choices.....
They'd still not receive play, cause c-elves suck.
Quote from: Armaddict on March 31, 2015, 01:46:46 PM
QuoteI also wish we could do away with the whole, "You have to get them to stand up to brawl them.", crap, at least for places like The Gaj.
Used to make people stand up for the brawl, when they were sitting, so that you could continue.
Got completely out of control.
Personally...I'd rather remove the brawl code, rather than accentuate it. It pretty much turns players into morons. "ABUSE ABUSE, HE WON'T STAND UP WHEN I WANT TO BEAT HIM UP." Meanwhile, that someone is in the middle of something else distracting them from the game, and they don't -feel- like playing out your need to engage in literally meaningless pseudo combat because you're trying to appear tough and gritty, or to -really- show them that you don't like 'em!
Brawling is stupid, and I've gotten to the point with it that if someone starts looking like they're about to do it, I -feel- like sitting down out of general principle.
The wording of the messages, however, makes me think that the sitting thing was intentional. "If you'd like to brawl them, you'll need to stand" gives the general impression that it's not intended as a way for one character to impose their will over another one, but a mutual experience. I.e. Someone beating the shit out of someone who isn't fighting back? Still a crime. That's how I view it. Definitely don't view it as something that people need to be able to do more of...like I said. I feel like people get pretty stupid with it already.
I completely agree with your sentiment if The Gaj or The Tooth were the local Irish Pub in real life. But it isn't, it's a Zalanthan tavern FULL of fighting and people stomping other people over basically nothing constantly.
The people who don't want to be part of that sort of atmosphere actually have taverns in game that offer a less gritty environment. They should go to those taverns instead of dumbing down the brawl code to the point it is for a bunch of wimps.
I was wondering if there was more to it, but nope. It's a dumb idea, Armaddict explains why.
Quote from: Patuk on March 31, 2015, 02:24:07 PM
I was wondering if there was more to it, but nope. It's a dumb idea, Armaddict explains why.
Because people are mean to you and hurt your feelings by beating you up in a rough and tumble tavern?
I think the whole no crim code for shanking elves thing is a suggestion is based on the fact that we are needy for SOME kind of violence that can happen openly in the streets without an immediate NPC half-giant army smackdown. Elves are among the lowest of the low, so people are suggesting that that's perhaps a place we can start. We're looking for a kind of crime no one will care about for the soldiers and templars to turn a blind eye to so we can bring more grit and danger into the streets. Is that about right?
Quote from: Desertman on March 31, 2015, 02:25:41 PM
Quote from: Patuk on March 31, 2015, 02:24:07 PM
I was wondering if there was more to it, but nope. It's a dumb idea, Armaddict explains why.
Because people are mean to you and hurt your feelings by beating you up in a rough and tumble tavern?
I referred to the elf crimcode thing, I don't feel particularly strongly about brawl code.
Quote from: Desertman on March 31, 2015, 02:25:41 PM
Quote from: Patuk on March 31, 2015, 02:24:07 PM
I was wondering if there was more to it, but nope. It's a dumb idea, Armaddict explains why.
Because people are mean to you and hurt your feelings by beating you up in a rough and tumble tavern?
I think he was talking about the genocide of elves, not the brawl code.
As far as the brawl code, tell me then, why it hasn't been expanded to where there isn't crimcode for attacking people with bare-hands? Yes, the world is rough and tumble, but it's also measured against outright physical violence for the sake of general peace. These rough taverns aren't an arena where a guy can go and pick someone at random and start beating the snot out of them. Brawling is exactly that...drunken brawls between people picking fights with each other. But in the case that a yielding person gets chosen 'at random', it becomes a crime...that guy isn't brawling, he's getting assaulted, which is where it turns into a crime. That's not bar behavior, that's crime behavior.
Likewise, brawling isn't meant as a means of retribution, but entertainment. Using brawling as a way to beat someone up without having to use combat is, frankly, ridiculous. But that's what it's turned into...it went from a neat little realization of improving the atmosphere to whining about how you can't do it to anyone you want to and it doesn't do enough damage. -Really-?
Quote from: Armaddict on March 31, 2015, 02:14:21 PM
...so basically, you want to kill elves.
Yes, but -
Quote
But you don't want to have to go to the alleys to do it, because you'd have people attacking you there, too. You just want it to be so that they're essentially free game in the place where you can't be attacked. Because it would somehow add to the game.
Wat?
So here's my thought process:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-qjnzqnqKM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-qjnzqnqKM)
I was just thinking to myself how it would be kind of silly to spec app a rat. No languages, miniscule wisdom, a couple of stealth skills.
Then I thought it would be interesting to have to find food players left around, mostly shriveled masses of burned meat.
Then I thought it would be interesting that people would basically be able to attack me and even kill me on a whim. I'd really have to play like a Zalanthan rat to survive long -- stay away from people, sneak and hide, and watch out for anyone looking at me crosseyed.
I figured it would be cool if there were another rat playing in the same area; we could raid food together.
Then I thought HEY! They should add that as a novelty race.
Then I remembered there are city elves, and what if ... :)
Quote
Modify: Agreed that this is a 'need for conflict' type thing. Problem is people want to promote conflict without increasing risk, which makes serious problems logistically and with the reasoning behind it. Unless you're saying you want elves to be uninvolved in crimcode altogether, like they can also attack you for no reason and not have soldiers after them. Which I'm pretty sure is not the case. The problem with elf-hate, is that even moreso than the logic behind why people choose not to hate mages (they might curse me in response), is elves are a very prevalent part of the populace. They aren't just here and there, they're everywhere. Trying to make something like this is the equivalent of promoting a genocide in game. Is that...what you're going for?
Kind of, yeah. Like it would be cool if there were at least settlements where certain races weren't even protected by the law, much in the way that rats aren't. Or if at least in certain
sectors of Allanak, elves or maybe half-elves and maybe even dwarves weren't crimflag protected.
Quote from: Armaddict on March 31, 2015, 02:31:34 PM
Quote from: Desertman on March 31, 2015, 02:25:41 PM
Quote from: Patuk on March 31, 2015, 02:24:07 PM
I was wondering if there was more to it, but nope. It's a dumb idea, Armaddict explains why.
Because people are mean to you and hurt your feelings by beating you up in a rough and tumble tavern?
I think he was talking about the genocide of elves, not the brawl code.
As far as the brawl code, tell me then, why it hasn't been expanded to where there isn't crimcode for attacking people with bare-hands? Yes, the world is rough and tumble, but it's also measured against outright physical violence for the sake of general peace. These rough taverns aren't an arena where a guy can go and pick someone at random and start beating the snot out of them. Brawling is exactly that...drunken brawls between people picking fights with each other. But in the case that a yielding person gets chosen 'at random', it becomes a crime...that guy isn't brawling, he's getting assaulted, which is where it turns into a crime. That's not bar behavior, that's crime behavior.
Likewise, brawling isn't meant as a means of retribution, but entertainment. Using brawling as a way to beat someone up without having to use combat is, frankly, ridiculous. But that's what it's turned into...it went from a neat little realization of improving the atmosphere to whining about how you can't do it to anyone you want to and it doesn't do enough damage. -Really-?
I wish the rough bars were coded so that you could engage someone in unarmed combat without the crim-code kicking in. That would be perfect in my opinion. Then if you continued to hit them after they were knocked out, if they didn't run, you would then be "charged with attempted murder", instead of just punching a guy you don't like in a tavern.
Your interpretation of Zalanthan brawls is two guys having a mutual boxing match where both parties have agreed to a semi-friendly round of fisticuffs.
I agree, that is what it is with the current code.
I just don't agree that it should be that way.
In my opinion people should have the option to randomly shit-kick someone in a rough Zalanthan tavern for no other reason than they dislike the way they look/smell/speak/they are just having a rotten day.
Rough taverns should be for rough people. Not people who want the option to bow out of getting their ass kicked because they "don't feel like it today". After all, they do have that option regardless. They can just leave the tavern.
Quote from: CodeMaster on March 31, 2015, 02:34:32 PM
Kind of, yeah. Like it would be cool if there were at least settlements where certain races weren't even protected by the law, much in the way that rats aren't. Or if at least in certain sectors of Allanak, elves or maybe half-elves and maybe even dwarves weren't crimflag protected.
I think most of your post/idea is kind of meh, but you do raise an interesting point here. For example in Allanak, around the Red's Retreat area...the Commoner's Plaza, let's say...crimes against elves not being crimflagged. Not necessarily because "it's not against the law to smack an elf" but more like "Nobody in this part of town is going to enforce the law on behalf of an elf, because elves aren't welcome." -- I mean, elves are definitely not welcome in that area of town. I think that could be neat.
But it might be a little nightmarish code-wise.
Right now we are told that our dirty unclanned commoner PCs are unimportant losers that the powers that be would sooner use as human/elven footstools than waste a single neuron learning the names of, but the moment someone uses the "kick" command on an elf or a breed the entire NPC soldier population seems to see it as a critical threat to city-state security. A unit of half-giants curb-stomps the offenders! Templars rush in, brandishing their medallions and invoking their god-king-given powers! Holy columns of flame rain down from the Highlord's tower, demolishing entire city blocks!
I'm exaggerating, but you see the point. I don't agree that the crimcode shouldn't apply to elves. Elves are citizens, if grudgingly. But I see why people are suggesting that as a simple solution to the crimcode being ridiculously overbearing for crimes against people we are constantly told are completely unimportant--people whose scuffles and disagreements most people wouldn't even consider interesting gossip.
Quote from: Beethoven on March 31, 2015, 02:40:01 PM
I'm exaggerating, but you see the point. I don't agree that the crimcode shouldn't apply to elves. Elves are citizens, if grudgingly. But I see why people are suggesting that as a simple solution to the crimcode being ridiculously overbearing for crimes against people we are constantly told are completely unimportant--people whose scuffles and disagreements most people wouldn't even consider interesting gossip.
This is good, too. And I think we might get a stronger taste of "Armageddon" if this were the case. It would make everything more risky and such.
Quote from: Beethoven on March 31, 2015, 02:40:01 PM
Right now we are told that our dirty unclanned commoner PCs are unimportant losers that the powers that be would sooner use as human/elven footstools than waste a single neuron learning the names of, but the moment someone uses the "kick" command on an elf or a breed the entire NPC soldier population seems to see it as a critical threat to city-state security. A unit of half-giants curb-stomps the offenders! Templars rush in, brandishing their medallions and invoking their god-king-given powers! Holy columns of flame rain down from the Highlord's tower, demolishing entire city blocks!
I'm exaggerating, but you see the point. I don't agree that the crimcode shouldn't apply to elves. Elves are citizens, if grudgingly. But I see why people are suggesting that as a simple solution to the crimcode being ridiculously overbearing for crimes against people we are constantly told are completely unimportant--people whose scuffles and disagreements most people wouldn't even consider interesting gossip.
I think the issue is, by the same logic, crime code shouldn't apply to rinthi's. Free man laborers, breeds, dorfs or immigrants. At what rate we do we say "Fuck the crime code" do with all together? Since any one of value has NPC guards.
Are elves less valued then Breeds? Documentation states other wise. Reviled perhaps more.
If you want hard mode, just role a new pick pocket and start trying to steal from folks right out the gate. You'll make it about one RL week before you have people trying to hire the Byn to make incursions into the Rinthi just to come after you.
I don't agree with it for that very reason, hopeandsorrow. "Elves" is kind of an arbitrary undesirable to pick. It's the crimcode that needs to be made more robust, really--you shouldn't just pick "elves" and decide to make a free-for-all out of them. But I think that's where the idea comes from.
Quote from: Beethoven on March 31, 2015, 02:51:11 PM
I don't agree with it for that very reason, hopeandsorrow. "Elves" is kind of an arbitrary undesirable to pick. It's the crimcode that needs to be made more robust, really--you shouldn't just pick "elves" and decide to make a free-for-all out of them. But I think that's where the idea comes from.
Derp I mis-read your post
Quote from: Jeax on March 31, 2015, 02:43:27 PM
Quote from: Beethoven on March 31, 2015, 02:40:01 PM
I'm exaggerating, but you see the point. I don't agree that the crimcode shouldn't apply to elves. Elves are citizens, if grudgingly. But I see why people are suggesting that as a simple solution to the crimcode being ridiculously overbearing for crimes against people we are constantly told are completely unimportant--people whose scuffles and disagreements most people wouldn't even consider interesting gossip.
This is good, too. And I think we might get a stronger taste of "Armageddon" if this were the case. It would make everything more risky and such.
...so do the crime, then explain it to a templar when you get dragged there. You'll pay less than an elf in the same position. In this way, that accuracy is maintained...the idea you guys keep getting at, is that you want more with less risk. Risk is always there, though. If you don't want to take the risk, you won't get to do the thing.
Along those same lines...elves being free game around places like the retreat. You're treating the Retreat like it's a mecca of racial purity, when it's -clearly- not. That would be places like the Arboretum or the Academy. The Retreat is smack dab in the middle of the commoner's quarter, with an elven shopkeeper in it, and constant npc traffic past it...yes, including elves. The problem is that people have the desire to be public, but are trying to put this new spin on the place by their roleplay. Now...a noble sitting in said place says they want someone removed. THAT is normal, and at that point, anyone ignoring the fact that there's npc soldiers around who would do that bidding is being blatant about their...well, it's basically trolling, to be honest. However, in the absence of a noble or templar? It's not the highbrow establishment that the Trader's was. It's got no doorman. It's not as clean or as nice. There isn't the constant npc presence of nobility to show just what kind of patronage is always there. Insisting otherwise IC is, really, just a marked attempt at imposition of will or a petty power display based off of factors that do not exist.
QuoteIn my opinion people should have the option to randomly shit-kick someone in a rough Zalanthan tavern for no other reason than they dislike the way they look/smell/speak/they are just having a rotten day.
The city-state's orders are maintained with iron fists. That's the running theme of templars, sorcerer-kings, and the zalanthan cities. The one place you don't want to be is on the wrong side of the law, because then...a -templar- having a rotten day can do exactly what you're looking for. With that in mind, this rough and tumble atmosphere that you're describing makes a lot less sense. A bunch of people just going around shitkicking everyone they want to, because...hey! It's the Gaj! Like I said, it's not an arena. It -is- a bar. Fights -do- happen it, but not straight up criminal assaults. The difference is between the pair of people that a barkeep today would say 'Take it outside!', and the one where the barkeep sees what's happening and immediately calls the police. That's what exists...a legitimate tolerance, but an intolerance for things to get too far out of hand.
If you want to do a hit, a roughing up, a pushing over, of a target...the local bar, via brawl code, is -not- the way to do it. Brawl code is, again, an entertainment, atmospheric addition to the game, not a way to circumvent the true conflict of the game.
Quote from: Patuk on March 30, 2015, 11:26:56 AM
I wonder if playing in Tuluk comes easily to Americans.
One is a society with obvious social classes that shuns everyone not patriotic enough with a strict preference for domestically produced art that has a government spying on everyone and suppressing those on the bottom of society, the other is called Tuluk.
Tuluk is very South Indian if we had to draw a modern parallel. The caste system is supposed to be abolished, but it actually isn't. It's still very much a part of the country's psyche and proliferates the culture.
India was also occupied by the British and struggled for their independence and freedom, which is a huge touchstone of Tuluk's own past.
Tuluki patriotism is also more nuanced. They don't just say they are proud, but genuinely believe they are superior. In that sense they're very.... Canadian. Because of the 'acceptance' of tribals.
Quote from: Armaddict on March 31, 2015, 02:55:57 PM
...so do the crime, then explain it to a templar when you get dragged there. You'll pay less than an elf in the same position. In this way, that accuracy is maintained...the idea you guys keep getting at, is that you want more with less risk. Risk is always there, though. If you don't want to take the risk, you won't get to do the thing.
Incorrect. Removing risk from petty (or not so petty, area depending) crime actually creates additional risk to everything except petty crime. The point is that it would create a more realistic environment, that Templars and soldiers wouldn't trouble themselves over every little thing, and it certainly wouldn't be a huge dogpile with pillars of fire.
Quote from: Jeax on March 31, 2015, 03:00:04 PM
Quote from: Armaddict on March 31, 2015, 02:55:57 PM
...so do the crime, then explain it to a templar when you get dragged there. You'll pay less than an elf in the same position. In this way, that accuracy is maintained...the idea you guys keep getting at, is that you want more with less risk. Risk is always there, though. If you don't want to take the risk, you won't get to do the thing.
Incorrect. Removing risk from petty (or not so petty, area depending) crime actually creates additional risk to everything except petty crime. The point is that it would create a more realistic environment, that Templars and soldiers wouldn't trouble themselves over every little thing, and it certainly wouldn't be a huge dogpile with pillars of fire.
I think you need what that response is responding to. It has nothing to do with petty crime, it's about protection through crimcode for 'the wrong people'.
Quote from: Armaddict on March 31, 2015, 02:55:57 PM
QuoteIn my opinion people should have the option to randomly shit-kick someone in a rough Zalanthan tavern for no other reason than they dislike the way they look/smell/speak/they are just having a rotten day.
The city-state's orders are maintained with iron fists. That's the running theme of templars, sorcerer-kings, and the zalanthan cities. The one place you don't want to be is on the wrong side of the law, because then...a -templar- having a rotten day can do exactly what you're looking for. With that in mind, this rough and tumble atmosphere that you're describing makes a lot less sense. A bunch of people just going around shitkicking everyone they want to, because...hey! It's the Gaj! Like I said, it's not an arena. It -is- a bar. Fights -do- happen it, but not straight up criminal assaults. The difference is between the pair of people that a barkeep today would say 'Take it outside!', and the one where the barkeep sees what's happening and immediately calls the police. That's what exists...a legitimate tolerance, but an intolerance for things to get too far out of hand.
If you want to do a hit, a roughing up, a pushing over, of a target...the local bar, via brawl code, is -not- the way to do it. Brawl code is, again, an entertainment, atmospheric addition to the game, not a way to circumvent the true conflict of the game.
I disagree with your interpretation of the Gaj atmosphere. I think it is absolutely the sort of place where things like that happen constantly and with absolutely nobody caring one way or another if it is a vicious beating or a mutual agreement to have a boxing match.
So long as you aren't yanking a blade, everyone is fair game to get beat down. If you aren't strong enough to be part of that crowd, get out, because nobody wants to hear you crying and nobody cares if you lose every tooth in your head. (Not you as the player obviously, I am talking in "The Gaj" first person.)
Except that, historically speaking, in a drunken atmosphere...
No deaths? Really?
Quote from: Armaddict on March 31, 2015, 03:05:25 PM
Except that, historically speaking, in a drunken atmosphere...
No deaths? Really?
I'm not sure what you are asking here.
My issue with the brawl code has always been the lack of malevolence.
Even if people die in a Gaj brawl, they're probably not of the right socioeconomic strata for the Templarate to give an active shit. They're commoners. Every moment spent scrapping amongst themselves is one less moment where they could be posing a challenge to authority.
Quote from: Desertman on March 31, 2015, 03:06:11 PM
Quote from: Armaddict on March 31, 2015, 03:05:25 PM
Except that, historically speaking, in a drunken atmosphere...
No deaths? Really?
I'm not sure what you are asking here.
You're using the atmosphere put into the game to come to the conclusion that the Gaj is beyond-wild-west, using room echoes, the room description, and so forth. However, it's clear via soldier presence and those same atmospheric givens that -excessive- violence isn't exactly permitted. I.e. There are no bodies being taken out, referred to and so on. There is no 'atmospheric given' to base your assumption that it's completely unwatched and unregulated. Likewise...I say beyond-wild-west, because even in wild-west, brawls that went too far resulted in drunk tanks. You're implanting this smack dab into an ordered, despotic, military-police style society in order to assert that in this one place, there is no protection.
What it comes down to is that these -are- boxing matches. Not with a ring, but with two people standing up and going at each other until either one draws a weapon, or one wins the fight. I'm asserting that such makes sense, but that the idea that the Gaj somehow becomes the 'street justice' hub of the city is inaccurate. Just like -everywhere else- in the city, you can't just walk in, drag someone out of their seat, and have vicious violence ensue. Otherwise, it would be the number one place for criminal business to be done.
In the end...I remain right where I stood before, completely unconvinced, and completely disenchanted with code that -was- good for atmosphere, but has been twisted into something it's not. If you are trying to do something -more- than brawl, you use the code already in place...which is combat code.
Quote from: Barzalene on March 31, 2015, 03:06:28 PM
My issue with the brawl code has always been the lack of malevolence.
What do you mean by that? That you agree that it should cause more harm? That it's used frivolously as entertainment? That people aren't mean enough with it?
Quote from: Armaddict on March 31, 2015, 03:17:29 PM
Quote from: Desertman on March 31, 2015, 03:06:11 PM
Quote from: Armaddict on March 31, 2015, 03:05:25 PM
Except that, historically speaking, in a drunken atmosphere...
No deaths? Really?
I'm not sure what you are asking here.
You're using the atmosphere put into the game to come to the conclusion that the Gaj is beyond-wild-west, using room echoes, the room description, and so forth. However, it's clear via soldier presence and those same atmospheric givens that -excessive- violence isn't exactly permitted. I.e. There are no bodies being taken out, referred to and so on. There is no 'atmospheric given' to base your assumption that it's completely unwatched and unregulated. Likewise...I say beyond-wild-west, because even in wild-west, brawls that went too far resulted in drunk tanks. You're implanting this smack dab into an ordered, despotic, military-police style society in order to assert that in this one place, there is no protection.
What it comes down to is that these -are- boxing matches. Not with a ring, but with two people standing up and going at each other until either one draws a weapon, or one wins the fight. I'm asserting that such makes sense, but that the idea that the Gaj somehow becomes the 'street justice' hub of the city is inaccurate. Just like -everywhere else- in the city, you can't just walk in, drag someone out of their seat, and have vicious violence ensue. Otherwise, it would be the number one place for criminal business to be done.
In the end...I remain right where I stood before, completely unconvinced, and completely disenchanted with code that -was- good for atmosphere, but has been twisted into something it's not. If you are trying to do something -more- than brawl, you use the code already in place...which is combat code.
I am taking the atmosphere of the game, using rooms echoes, and room descriptions to come to my conclusions.
Your stance is that because soldiers are present at times that means that brawls should be mutual agreements to have a boxing match.
I disagree. I think the soldiers are only there to keep people from stabbing each other and openly trying to kill each other beyond just beating each other senseless.
I also remain exactly where I was, and remain enchanted with the idea of a brawl code that reflects the aforementioned atmosphere of the game, room echoes, and room descriptions.
Quote from: Armaddict on March 31, 2015, 03:34:52 PM
QuoteThe brawl code represents a very specific kind of non-lethal combat. It requires willing participants who all understand that they're not trying to seriously injure the other guy.
If your proposed partner fails to enter into this "tavern-time agreement" with you, you still have other, more lethal options at your disposal.
From this thread, awhile ago, about the same issue.http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,30923.0.html (http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,30923.0.html)
As I said...people are trying to use it for what it's not. If you're looking to assert dominance on someone who has no interest in fighting, you'll need to use combat code, and the local, crowded bar with soldiers in it isn't the place.
(Yanked over to this thread for Armaddict since it wasn't snagged in the split.)
I absolutely agree that is the current state of the brawl code. No disagreement at all on that front. In fact, I think I stated that is what I don't like about it and what I want to change about it.
Quote from: Armaddict on March 31, 2015, 03:21:35 PM
Quote from: Barzalene on March 31, 2015, 03:06:28 PM
My issue with the brawl code has always been the lack of malevolence.
What do you mean by that? That you agree that it should cause more harm? That it's used frivolously as entertainment? That people aren't mean enough with it?
Mostly that it is used frivolously, and people aren't mean enough. I can't say if that is because of the lack of harm or not.
Quote from: Barzalene on March 31, 2015, 03:39:35 PM
Quote from: Armaddict on March 31, 2015, 03:21:35 PM
Quote from: Barzalene on March 31, 2015, 03:06:28 PM
My issue with the brawl code has always been the lack of malevolence.
What do you mean by that? That you agree that it should cause more harm? That it's used frivolously as entertainment? That people aren't mean enough with it?
Mostly that it is used frivolously, and people aren't mean enough. I can't say if that is because of the lack of harm or not.
If it caused more harm I believe people would be less likely to use it as frivolously.
From echoes, animations, and docs... I have come to the conclusion that off duty soldiers don't give any fucks.
Crim code isn't an easy fix, however.
I feel brawl code would be better if you can push it to "pass out" point. last time I brawled I kept getting the echo of not having enough stun to continue.
I was losing but... I rather get knocked out cold, then my character wimp out caught stun reached a threshold. It was unlike my character, my character would of risked life/limb/coins to prove his point, but he couldn't because "You are too winded!" (I think thats the echo). It was dumb.
"At the very least I wish the current code caused actual stun damage/a lot more stun damage so people took getting knocked in the head a lot more seriously. I have seen so many who act like they aren't hurt at all just because codedly they know they are safe...."
To this, I say.
Ever brawl a half-giant?
Quote from: Desertman on March 31, 2015, 03:46:06 PM
Quote from: Barzalene on March 31, 2015, 03:39:35 PM
Quote from: Armaddict on March 31, 2015, 03:21:35 PM
Quote from: Barzalene on March 31, 2015, 03:06:28 PM
My issue with the brawl code has always been the lack of malevolence.
What do you mean by that? That you agree that it should cause more harm? That it's used frivolously as entertainment? That people aren't mean enough with it?
Mostly that it is used frivolously, and people aren't mean enough. I can't say if that is because of the lack of harm or not.
If it caused more harm I believe people would be less likely to use it as frivolously.
The first rendition of it had it so that you could engage unwilling people, but I think it was only in Red Storm at that time. What -I- remember about it was it resulted in bored people making it so that no one else could enjoy their time in a tavern, the social hotspot of the playerbase. More harm only leads to it being used exactly like how I don't want it to be used...as violence without a risk. If your character has a grudge on someone, use violence. If that person said something that pissed you off, use violence. If you're bored and feel like being violent as per your character, find someone to brawl.
Ever since it went in, people have tried to use it as a substitute to actually having to break the law, but still wanting to beat someone up, when as noted, it was coded as an atmospheric addition to rougher taverns, not as a way for the common man to dole out his own justice. The latter requires the same measures that it has always required, throughout existence of the game, and I don't think a cool atmospheric code addition needs to be tweaked to make it perform more than what its actual intention is.
Brawling in taverns has always seemed unrealistic and kind of power gamey to me. It is easy to abuse and have seen it abused. In real life, rough taverns usually have even rougher bouncers who can and will move a fight outside. No tavern owner want's their place trashed by drunks in a fight. If you bust up someone's bar then you will at least find that you are not welcome back next time, or that you get arrested.
I think that instead of the brawl code, just allow hit or kick in taverns, but with punishment. You get crim-flagged, but not immediately, so you can still beat someone up if you want to bad enough.
Then..you get hauled off to jail for a while, or if you actually killed someone..the arena.
Oh and I -still- think we need stocks on caravan road or in the Commons. Instead of jail..stocks. Move the jail closer to the criminals.
Quote from: Is Friday on March 31, 2015, 03:47:48 PM
From echoes, animations, and docs... I have come to the conclusion that off duty soldiers don't give any fucks.
Crim code isn't an easy fix, however.
One of the annoying things about being a soldier is that people suddenly become afraid to brawl you. I'm not quite sure if it's wholly fear of "Brawl code with crimflag me," either. A lot of it seemed to be IC "If I punch this shoulder he will flip his shit and murder me."
Quote from: hopeandsorrow on March 31, 2015, 03:50:02 PM
I feel brawl code would be better if you can push it to "pass out" point. last time I brawled I kept getting the echo of not having enough stun to continue.
I was losing but... I rather get knocked out cold, then my character wimp out caught stun reached a threshold. It was unlike my character, my character would of risked life/limb/coins to prove his point, but he couldn't because "You are too winded!" (I think thats the echo). It was dumb.
Use contact to knock yourself out.
Problem with making it go until passing out is that suddenly you can't even briefly go afk in taverns, because people who train their combat skills just became the most talented tavern-pickpockets in the known.
Edit: In reading other brawl threads, there are other staff insinuations that brawl -is- to be used in other ways...vaguely. They may have been prior to the 'you must be standing' change. But -I- get a chapped ass when someone who's bored starts imposing this particular bit of code to break up things happening around them. "I'm bored, so I'm going to have fun at your expense...and you can go...afk in some place without people, as a result." Which is inevitable. Keeping it to willing participants ensures enjoyment, and keeping it from doing too much coded affect keeps it from being abusable aside from the 'I'm not sure how good that guy is at combat, I'll brawl him to find out.'
Quote from: Armaddict on March 31, 2015, 04:02:46 PM
Quote from: hopeandsorrow on March 31, 2015, 03:50:02 PM
I feel brawl code would be better if you can push it to "pass out" point. last time I brawled I kept getting the echo of not having enough stun to continue.
I was losing but... I rather get knocked out cold, then my character wimp out caught stun reached a threshold. It was unlike my character, my character would of risked life/limb/coins to prove his point, but he couldn't because "You are too winded!" (I think thats the echo). It was dumb.
Use contact to knock yourself out.
Problem with making it go until passing out is that suddenly you can't even briefly go afk in taverns, because people who train their combat skills just became the most talented tavern-pickpockets in the known.
There is a special place in hell for players who abuse other players are clearly link dead/gone.
Fair. Although I've never witnessed the abuse that people are stating. Knowing how some the players act, though I don't doubt it in a instant.
Wouldn't be so bad to be crim'ed flag sometimes, if in the wrong circumstances didn't result in character death so easily and indefensibly.
I just wish there could be an realistic escalation of violence along with a realistic world response. Sadly I'd say, trust players, but we already know it takes one person to abuse a privilege before it becomes an epidemic of unrealistic "le harsh" role play that no one is happy with.
Sad, it makes criminal characters so exceedingly difficult to pull off.
People who random-brawl you with no RP while you are obviously AFK would need to be reported, and justly so.
If we didn't change anything or put anything into the game because, "Someone might abuse it someday someway.", we wouldn't ever add anything to the game.
I can see how someone randomly brawling you for seemingly no reason and causing actual damage to your PC might really chap your ass. But....
If you feel someone was mean to you in Armageddon, you are probably right.
Quote from: Armaddict on March 31, 2015, 04:02:46 PM
Quote from: hopeandsorrow on March 31, 2015, 03:50:02 PM
I feel brawl code would be better if you can push it to "pass out" point. last time I brawled I kept getting the echo of not having enough stun to continue.
I was losing but... I rather get knocked out cold, then my character wimp out caught stun reached a threshold. It was unlike my character, my character would of risked life/limb/coins to prove his point, but he couldn't because "You are too winded!" (I think thats the echo). It was dumb.
Use contact to knock yourself out.
Problem with making it go until passing out is that suddenly you can't even briefly go afk in taverns, because people who train their combat skills just became the most talented tavern-pickpockets in the known.
Edit: In reading other brawl threads, there are other staff insinuations that brawl -is- to be used in other ways...vaguely. They may have been prior to the 'you must be standing' change. But -I- get a chapped ass when someone who's bored starts imposing this particular bit of code to break up things happening around them. "I'm bored, so I'm going to have fun at your expense...and you can go...afk in some place without people, as a result." Which is inevitable. Keeping it to willing participants ensures enjoyment, and keeping it from doing too much coded affect keeps it from being abusable aside from the 'I'm not sure how good that guy is at combat, I'll brawl him to find out.'
You keep treating it like enacting violence on someone without nuclear-soldier-killsquad recourse is a bad thing. This is Zalanthas, the weak will be bent to the will of the strong. The fact is if they don't want the violence enacted upon them they have options to leave, options to become better brawlers, options to pay someone to fight for them, options to not be little piss-ant breed who steal your stool at the bar and starts mouthing off in the very first place.
right now our only options are to hope he agree to a friendly brawl, or to murderate the guy in a dark alley. There should be something in between.
>mercy on
>mercy off
Quote from: Marauder Moe on March 31, 2015, 01:53:50 PM
Quote from: Armaddict on March 31, 2015, 01:46:46 PMThe wording of the messages, however, makes me think that the sitting thing was intentional. "If you'd like to brawl them, you'll need to stand" gives the general impression that it's not intended as a way for one character to impose their will over another one, but a mutual experience. I.e. Someone beating the shit out of someone who isn't fighting back? Still a crime. That's how I view it. Definitely don't view it as something that people need to be able to do more of...like I said. I feel like people get pretty stupid with it already.
This. Brawling implies some level of IC consent. Without that consent, it's an attack and a crime. I believe staff have stated as much on the GDB.
I wish I hadn't missed this information. A while back I was in a situation where my character was forced to brawl (Not going to say anything more as it would be giving out IC information). People my PC talked to including the PC's boss indicated that this was acceptable. So either a lot of people missed this or you mus understood something. A link would be helpful, Moe.
I don't like it when people assume that 'winning' the brawl gives them a free pass to emote doing whatever they like to my PC.
Quote from: Armaddict on March 31, 2015, 01:46:46 PM
QuoteI also wish we could do away with the whole, "You have to get them to stand up to brawl them.", crap, at least for places like The Gaj.
Used to make people stand up for the brawl, when they were sitting, so that you could continue.
Got completely out of control.
Personally...I'd rather remove the brawl code, rather than accentuate it. It pretty much turns players into morons. "ABUSE ABUSE, HE WON'T STAND UP WHEN I WANT TO BEAT HIM UP." Meanwhile, that someone is in the middle of something else distracting them from the game, and they don't -feel- like playing out your need to engage in literally meaningless pseudo combat because you're trying to appear tough and gritty, or to -really- show them that you don't like 'em!
Brawling is stupid, and I've gotten to the point with it that if someone starts looking like they're about to do it, I -feel- like sitting down out of general principle.
The wording of the messages, however, makes me think that the sitting thing was intentional. "If you'd like to brawl them, you'll need to stand" gives the general impression that it's not intended as a way for one character to impose their will over another one, but a mutual experience. I.e. Someone beating the shit out of someone who isn't fighting back? Still a crime. That's how I view it. Definitely don't view it as something that people need to be able to do more of...like I said. I feel like people get pretty stupid with it already.
I don't think the requirement to have some form of "consent" to brawling should be done away with. If it is and someone is brawled that just doesn't want to be the person hitting them should be crim-flagged. Regardless of the rough and tumble nature of places like the Gaj and the Tooth people still have a right to choose if they want to participate in a bar fight or not. There are many characters out there that do not believe in fighting to force someone to do this or just get beat up is immature and stupid.
Quote from: Nyr on March 31, 2015, 01:53:31 PM
Actually, if brawling is going anywhere new, the American Gladiators scripting/code is probably it.
edit to add: same for sparring. At least, we were discussing that at the time we developed the scripting for Descending Sun
I like this a lot! +1 Nyr
Quote from: slvrmoontiger on March 31, 2015, 06:59:19 PM
Quote from: Armaddict on March 31, 2015, 01:46:46 PM
QuoteI also wish we could do away with the whole, "You have to get them to stand up to brawl them.", crap, at least for places like The Gaj.
Used to make people stand up for the brawl, when they were sitting, so that you could continue.
Got completely out of control.
Personally...I'd rather remove the brawl code, rather than accentuate it. It pretty much turns players into morons. "ABUSE ABUSE, HE WON'T STAND UP WHEN I WANT TO BEAT HIM UP." Meanwhile, that someone is in the middle of something else distracting them from the game, and they don't -feel- like playing out your need to engage in literally meaningless pseudo combat because you're trying to appear tough and gritty, or to -really- show them that you don't like 'em!
Brawling is stupid, and I've gotten to the point with it that if someone starts looking like they're about to do it, I -feel- like sitting down out of general principle.
The wording of the messages, however, makes me think that the sitting thing was intentional. "If you'd like to brawl them, you'll need to stand" gives the general impression that it's not intended as a way for one character to impose their will over another one, but a mutual experience. I.e. Someone beating the shit out of someone who isn't fighting back? Still a crime. That's how I view it. Definitely don't view it as something that people need to be able to do more of...like I said. I feel like people get pretty stupid with it already.
I don't think the requirement to have some form of "consent" to brawling should be done away with. If it is and someone is brawled that just doesn't want to be the person hitting them should be crim-flagged. Regardless of the rough and tumble nature of places like the Gaj and the Tooth people still have a right to choose if they want to participate in a bar fight or not. There are many characters out there that do not believe in fighting to force someone to do this or just get beat up is immature and stupid.
I disagree. If you don't want to go to rough places, go other places. Or make powerful friends. Or be charming. Or be dangerous.
I like the smell of fried erdlu.
It's the equivalent of chicken, right? Yeah... yeah.
Edit: Huh. That's weird. It said this was the RAT thread, and I seem to have posted without looking. Sorry?
QuoteYou keep treating it like enacting violence on someone without nuclear-soldier-killsquad recourse is a bad thing. This is Zalanthas, the weak will be bent to the will of the strong. The fact is if they don't want the violence enacted upon them they have options to leave, options to become better brawlers, options to pay someone to fight for them, options to not be little piss-ant breed who steal your stool at the bar and starts mouthing off in the very first place.
The wording of your post puts you at odds with the described intent of the code in the first place. As already stated, it's not a way for you to circumvent crimcode to deliver an asskicking. It's there as a sporting affair, minus as many rules, between people engaged in a mutual agreement of physical combat. It's not there for a combat-heavy pc to flex their combat skills against people who do not generally fight. It's not there so that a guy and his friends can make this tavern off-limits to a PC they don't like. It's not there so that there's this one place in the city where you can wrestle and shove and punch via code without suffering consequences. It isn't a criminal affair, which is what you're repeatedly talking about making it into.
Option to leave="You can't be in the social hub, because I'm stronger than you."
Option to become a better brawler="Start training your combat skills or you aren't allowed here, because I do train my combat skills and I feel like it."
Option to pay someone else to fight them="You can pay someone else, but I'm still gonna ignore them and hit you since you can't really opt out of it" (and herein lies one of the many reasons for the sitting bit to be understood and remain in place)
Options to not be a pissant breed who steals your stool and starts mouthing off? This one is completely ridiculous considering most of the time, it's someone who baits a response, then wants to teach said breed a lesson for -having- a response.
It's all just a play on someone wanting to be able to tell someone else to respect their authoritah, like Eric Cartman. Which you definitely can. But not with other people protecting you. If you want to truly beat someone up, be realistic about it, and realize you're -actually trying to beat the snot out of someone and are drawing attention to that fact-. That is no longer under the jurisdiction of an every day tavern brawl, that is where authorities get called because there's a dude here raging out and getting scary because this breed said he could sit here if he wanted to.
The weak is the populace, the strong is the city state. The city state makes it pretty clear about what is and isn't acceptable, and outright, brutalizing violence isn't acceptable. That's why you have to pay soldiers to do it. Brawling is fine, having actual intent to beat the snot out of someone is not, and this is accurately portrayed by the need to use combat code.
If you just want to beat the snot out of someone, you can attack them with no weapons. Let's say you did this out in the street...I'd pull out my weapon, if I was an unwilling participant, to defend myself. What happens, with the brawl code, if someone pulls out a weapon? As far as I know, nothing...which means that now continuing to brawl against someone who clearly doesn't want to and will avidly defend themselves is the new 'abuser', not the person who tried to remain sitting. So...if someone comes at me with brawl code, and there's no way for me to say 'No, I'm not fighting that fight' aside from straight up leaving, what exactly does this really add to the game? So then we could make it so you can't brawl people with weapons out, or it jumps straight to combat code. Is that better, or worse? And is the change even worth it?
As far as soldier presence...you say 'Off duty soldiers don't give a shit' (which it remains to be said...I don't think npc soldiers stationed in that place are necessarily always off duty, at least the non-patrolling ones), and yet that line of reasoning would never stand under interrogation as to how this outright, -true- violence was allowed in their presence. "This aide went in to look for recruits for me and got beaten the fuck up. You sat there watching." "I was off duty." That soldier would be toast. So...soldiers are clearly not just there just for flavor, and this gives credence to the idea that brawling -is- with that noticeable agreement. These two guys are gonna go at it, but it's not a danger for anyone else to be concerned about...because if other people would have to be concerned about it, it's a crime. So...again...in the case of trying to make brawling some sort of personal justice, I will hold that it's not a good method for code -or- the understanding of the game world. You'll have to be a little more wily about doling out badassery than dragging a guy out of his stool in plain sight of everyone and kicking the shit out of him, just because.
QuoteI disagree. If you don't want to go to rough places, go other places. Or make powerful friends. Or be charming. Or be dangerous.
Being charming or dangerous or having powerful friends does not prevent the code (the same code people are asking to be made stronger and have more of an affect on your character) from coming into play. If your intent is increased to criminal harm, it ceases to be a brawl, and this is accurately portrayed.
Basically every staff opinion I've read in reviewing threads is that this is 'working as intended', which I'm pretty pleased with. Just players misinterpreting that intention, as far as I'm concerned.
I think everyone understands it is "Working as intended".
The whole point is we want to change what it is intended for.
You do not want to change what it is intended for. Fair enough. I understand your point of view.
I think our major disconnect is your belief that tavern brawls should be semi-friendly always or they are a crime in the eyes of the city based on the atmosphere of the tavern and the world. (The code absolutely agrees with you and this point of view. I do not argue that. The code backs you up 100%, but that is what we want to change.)
That I disagree with completely. The Gaj and possibly The Tooth, in my opinion, are the sorts of places where they mop the blood up (or don't even bother to) off the floor every night. The kind of place where you walk in knowing there's a pretty good chance you are going to witness a few fights. A lot of bullying of under-class races and undesirables. In general, the sort of place where the weak wouldn't even think of going because there is no protection for the weak there. On that point you and I will have to agree to disagree and I am fine with that.
Maybe a silly idea. Suspend crimcode in room outside tavern.
Quote from: Barzalene on April 01, 2015, 10:29:31 AM
Maybe a silly idea. Suspend crimcode in room outside tavern.
To what end?
A place for the hostilities to go and flourish.
An opportunity to say, "oh yeah? Let's step outside, Buddy."
Quote from: Barzalene on April 01, 2015, 10:33:02 AM
An opportunity to say, "oh yeah? Let's step outside, Buddy."
But then if you did something illegal, you would still be a wanted person, so just releasing the crimcode there does not make sense.
Quote from: Barzalene on April 01, 2015, 10:33:02 AM
An opportunity to say, "oh yeah? Let's step outside, Buddy."
This is fundamentally the same thing as telling them to get off their "Safe Zone" stool. They can choose not to.
K. Just a thought.
That would be a stupid idea because then some asshole could stand outsdie the gaj hurling knives into it and not get crimcoded.
Right?
What I think D-man wants is to turn the low-class taverns into the...
(http://s3.amazonaws.com/FratMusic-Site-Images/assets/cover/1416530385-18fz1zxxbtovqjpg.jpg)
https://youtu.be/yK0P1Bk8Cx4 (https://youtu.be/yK0P1Bk8Cx4)
A way to inflict some sort of coded violence on unwilling participants would be interesting. I don't really know of a good way to do that without it being prone to abuse AND avoid messing with the crim-code, though.
Modifying the brawl code seems like the easiest way, and I wouldn't be opposed to it.
(http://i.imgur.com/TqIEnYB.gif)
I'd be up for Dman's idea. The post above mine makes me wish there was a damn like button.
I think the crimcode outside taverns is there for a reason, just saying. ;)
Thanks. Just to clarify, I also do not want people running into taverns randomly attacking people because they can do more damage to them now for no reason.
I only want a system where when two people have a dispute, or one person decides for good IC reasons to pick on someone else in this harsh world...both sides take it seriously because it is a more serious event.
I have seen so many times where people just keep talking a mean game because they know they are on their "Safe Zone" stool and can't be forced to stand. The only reason they aren't shutting up, is because codedly they know they have a "Stool Forcefield".
I have seen so many times where people get the crap beat out of them, to the point that they can't continue with the current code, and roleplay the entire time they aren't really hurt at all because codedly...they aren't. They are a tough hardass to the end and beyond because they know they are codedly not being damaged in any meaningful way.
I have seen so many times where people use the brawling code as a fun pastime instead of treating it like an actual bareknuckle fight because codedly they know it won't actually hurt them in any meaningful way. This one can probably also be contributed to the somewhat comical and goofy forced emotes you get from the brawl code, so people don't take it seriously.
I just want to put a stop to that.
If people do abuse a more harmful brawling code system repeatedly in some way...of course I would also want it fixed/toned down/taken care of.
I don't want a way to abuse people or their characters. I just want a system where the rough and tumble nature of the rough and tumble taverns are taken much more seriously than they currently are.
Right now it's a joke and is often used as exactly that. A joking laughing little pillow fight scenario, more or less.
Hear hear.
I hate people not being able to wail on dickheads who talk so much shit even though they aren't clanned. It happens in RL dodgy bars why not in Zalanthas which is infinitely more dangerous. People get shot and stabbed in bars on Earth, why not make brawl code slightly more robust?
Sigh. Got it. I guess I'm an optimist with a high opinion of you people. Newbies may not know better, but I kind of trust all of you not to do all those things.
I'm not arguing. Just explain it myself.
The echoes should be adjusted, IMO. Hitting someone in the head with a mug is, while funny the first time, eye-roll-inducing the fifth and sixth.
Quote from: Delirium on April 01, 2015, 03:53:41 PM
The echoes should be adjusted, IMO. Hitting someone in the head with a mug is, while funny the first time, eye-roll-inducing the fifth and sixth.
+1
There is the other side of the coin as well, mouthy people who only want to brawl because they know that A: The brawl code is as smart as a brain dead ant and does not take much into account...Like race or size for instance.
B: Win or lose, nothing is actually going to happen to them.
I am not sure which of those is more important, But I have seen plenty the breed, elf, etc pick a brawl fight with a Mul or HG Or Really old krathi, Things they could never actually beat in a real fight, simply because they know that brawl code is so dumb it would allow a breed to pick up a HG...And even if they lose, so what?
I long ago stopped brawling with any of my PCs, simply because the code itself is too simplistic.
Now, You want to make me happy, Get rid of the "brawl code" Make it so "hit" ONLY works if unarmed, Make it real combat though with automatic mercy at 50% HP, and still allow KO.
You can even make it so that it still only works in the same places current brawl code does.
I bet you that then you would see FAR fewer stupid fights.
People would not be able to RP not being messed up if they really were, and if they did it would then be complaint worthy.
But long as we have brawl code even somewhat like it is now then I am quite happy with the stool forcefield.
Lastly, I would also make it so that most damage spells still count as unarmed as long as the gemmer did not start the brawl.
So Amos got hit by a fireball, Well, Amos should have known better then to punch a mage.
Quote from: X-D on April 01, 2015, 04:16:31 PM
Now, You want to make me happy, Get rid of the "brawl code" Make it so "hit" ONLY works if unarmed, Make it real combat though with automatic mercy at 50% HP, and still allow KO.
You can even make it so that it still only works in the same places current brawl code does.
I bet you that then you would see FAR fewer stupid fights.
People would not be able to RP not being messed up if they really were, and if they did it would then be complaint worthy.
100% + over 9,000
Quote from: X-D on April 01, 2015, 04:16:31 PM
But long as we have brawl code even somewhat like it is now then I am quite happy with the stool forcefield.
This is probably the only good reason I have seen for people who refuse to stand up. They simply don't want to be part of the goofy code.
Quote from: X-D on April 01, 2015, 04:16:31 PM
Lastly, I would also make it so that most damage spells still count as unarmed as long as the gemmer did not start the brawl.
So Amos got hit by a fireball, Well, Amos should have known better then to punch a mage.
This is the only part I do not agree with. But I am also a backer of the idea that gemmers should stay out of rough and tumble taverns with commoners to begin with in the first place. But, I will agree to disagree on that front since I do not want to derail the thread.
"Working as intended" was meant as it functions the way the state of the game is wanted to be. Still no outright assault in taverns.
I used other examples, but this is the important one that I want an answer to.
So you walk into a bar. You had a bad day. There's a mouthy breed at the bar. You decide you want to fuck him up, you start to initiate the brawl, and he pulls a weapon and says he will defend himself if assaulted. How is this handled? With current brawl code, crimcode is already left out, automatically, because of that unspoken agreement. However, once you assert that you can do it to anyone, even the unwilling, that agreement is no longer a given, which means you're hitting the grey area of criminality.
The way it's talked about, you still talk about it as if you want this mutual agreement of non-harm. Which is how it is. However, as I stated earlier, if someone comes at me for a fist fight, and I have weapons and do not want to fight, yes, I will warn that I will defend myself as necessary. In this case, does the brawl elevate to crimcode status if the brawler attempts to continue? Who does it go against? "I just wanted to fuck him up. That fucker wouldn't agree to let me fuck him up, and pulled a weapon." Does brawl code no longer work, i.e. do we trade a stool forcefield for a drawn weapon forcefield? Does this cause people to freak out more because now people are completely willing to draw a weapon at the slightest hint of aggression? In essence, this line of argument for the change says that the fulfillment of the ideal it promotes is: Player A starts brawling. Player B is unwilling, and draws a weapon to defend himself. Player A draws weapons, <and you want player B to be crimflagged for elevating it beyond, even though it was self defense, because the ideal is that they learn their lesson in this rough tavern where violence is acceptable>. This...is not a good platform. Of course, that's just following the premise presented for the 'reason' it should change.
This is one of many scenarios that drastically changes what impacts are made by this suggestion. These are places where coded 'overflow' will filter into other parts of the game, and how the game world is affected. -I'm- saying the fulfillment of the brawl code has already been reached, and you're saying that the behavior around crimcode that's been prevalent for all sixteen years of my play needs a circumvention to allow you to assert dominance over someone who, in the end...is -talking shit-. For me, this has never been an issue, but apparently this assertion of dominance is much more important to some, which means IC talk is crawling under people's skin on what is, in my mind, an OOC level. IC...people know there's shit talking, but that open violence in response is not accepted (unless you can devise a way to get away with it). That's why the payoffs of soldiers, of templars, of other people, has been so dominant.
Quote from: Armaddict on April 01, 2015, 04:35:15 PM
"Working as intended" was meant as it functions the way the state of the game is wanted to be. Still no outright assault in taverns.
I used other examples, but this is the important one that I want an answer to.
So you walk into a bar. You had a bad day. There's a mouthy breed at the bar. You decide you want to fuck him up, you start to initiate the brawl, and he pulls a weapon and says he will defend himself if assaulted. How is this handled? With current brawl code, crimcode is already left out, automatically, because of that unspoken agreement. However, once you assert that you can do it to anyone, even the unwilling, that agreement is no longer a given, which means you're hitting the grey area of criminality.
He is too well armed! Arm yourself if you want to fight!(easy fix is easy)
I have personally drawn weapons in game before to prevent people from brawling me with the current code. They always stopped brawling me. *shrug*
Seems like a non-issue.
Yes well, not like they have anyplace else to go.
And really, one would not be picking fight with mages...It goes right along with one of my two biggest complaints to brawl code. That being, no consequence.
Course, I'd be happy if you simply cannot codedly start a brawl with a gemmed mage.
Have it give an echo like if a non-HG tries to subdue a resisting HG.
I do not remember it exactly, but the echo you get is something like "Don't be silly, that is a half-giant."
Just be an echo like "The bartender stops you and says, "Are you an idiot, I don't want my place blown up!"
I mean, it stands to reason that Vennet Might not mind some broken mugs and blood on the floor, But something blowing the roof off his place might be a bit annoying.
Challenge that piece of shit to an arena fight and settle it like a real man. If he's too much of pansy to fight you in the arena, slander the shit out of him.
If you have to, bribe a Templar to -throw- him into the arena with you.
Quote from: X-D on April 01, 2015, 04:40:21 PM
Just be an echo like "The bartender stops you and says, "Are you an idiot, I don't want my place blown up!"
I mean, it stands to reason that Vennet Might not mind some broken mugs and blood on the floor, But something blowing the roof off his place might be a bit annoying.
Vennant might not want someone in his tavern that could blow it up to begin with.....
But, it is really an OOC issue. IC'ly, of course nobody would want them in The Gaj. That is a given. The problem is it would OOC'ly make playing them a huge pain in the ass....so we look past it.
I am biased as well because I do not play magickers, so the isolation issues would never affect me OOC'ly and I realize and admit that.
I would like it a lot more if you could just command emote your brawls, while still letting the code handle whether it goes through. And with some guidelines and examples in the helpfile.
Quote from: valeria on April 01, 2015, 04:46:04 PM
I would like it a lot more if you could just command emote your brawls, while still letting the code handle whether it goes through. And with some guidelines and examples in the helpfile.
I like this too.
QuoteHe is too well armed! Arm yourself if you want to fight!
(easy fix is easy)
I have personally drawn weapons in game before to prevent people from brawling me with the current code. They always stopped brawling me. *shrug*
Seems like a non-issue.
The easier answer is "Yes. I want to trade a stool forcefield for a weapon forcefield." By your wording...in which case...I'm not certain what the change accomplishes in the first place.
Quote from: Armaddict on April 01, 2015, 04:54:07 PM
QuoteHe is too well armed! Arm yourself if you want to fight!
(easy fix is easy)
I have personally drawn weapons in game before to prevent people from brawling me with the current code. They always stopped brawling me. *shrug*
Seems like a non-issue.
The easier answer is "Yes. I want to trade a stool forcefield for a weapon forcefield." By your wording...in which case...I'm not certain what the change accomplishes in the first place.
One makes perfect sense and the other is goofy.
"I refuse to stand so a fight can't happen in this tavern." is a lot different from, "I'm drawing an edge, you best step off or draw one yourself!".
If you don't see the fundamental difference for the scene, then I lack the ability to explain it any further.
Of course I see the 'fundamental difference', but I also see all the overlap and the demand for time spent here rather than elsewhere for what is, in effect, the entire thing that I've been talking about: The result is the same, the benefit is pretty much nil, and the 'atmosphere' remains the same...the only difference is in one case, you let it go one step further. In terms of what the argumentation to this point has been, it even...demeans what has been discussed as the boon. "I wasn't willing to take it to blades." vs "Pussy wouldn't agree to a fight."
In the end, it comes down to players accepting that brawl code requires willing participants. This was a main point in wanting the change, and so I discussed it, and now you're accusing me of not seeing a difference.
Edited to add: I'm okay with this additional step. However, I'm not going to be one who pushes for it without verification that it's not a pain in the ass. Coding is weird, and sometimes things that look simple are actually kind of a bitch due to how it's integrated. I can't say, since I don't know Armageddon's code, and I'd rather not push for something that is, in the end, a minimal contributor to anything 'real', when we have plenty of 'real' things we'd rather see.
Quote from: Armaddict on April 01, 2015, 05:09:31 PM
The result is the same, the benefit is pretty much nil, and the 'atmosphere' remains the same...the only difference is in one case, you let it go one step further.
I can think of four times I have drawn blades to stop a brawl. All four times it ended up with me fighting them on the sand after a challenge. One time it ended with me using their body as pillow with Gage Gritshaw. (Which was hilarious.)
Another time it resulted with me killing them with a bow with Jaster Sandeye. (Sorry dude I killed. I wasn't going to fight fair no matter what you did.)
Another time with Jaxon I fought them but only after seeing them using spice in the distance to try and "cheat". It was a close fight. We went on to become good friends after.
The other time is too recent to mention.
The result is far from the same.
I can't remember the number of times I have seen, "Refuse to standers", and it never resulted in anything awesome. Just a painful to watch awkward unrealistic scene.
The result is not the same. At least, it has never been for me a single time.
Quote from: Armaddict on April 01, 2015, 05:09:31 PM
In terms of what the argumentation to this point has been, it even...demeans what has been discussed as the boon. "I wasn't willing to take it to blades." vs "Pussy wouldn't agree to a fight."
See above for details.
Quote from: Armaddict on April 01, 2015, 05:09:31 PM
In the end, it comes down to players accepting that brawl code requires willing participants. This was a main point in wanting the change, and so I discussed it, and now you're accusing me of not seeing a difference.
I didn't say you didn't see the difference. I said -if- you didn't, since I didn't see why you would bring it up if you did. But now I see what your reasoning was.
I'm not accusing you of being a dumb dumb. I just meant I didn't know how to explain the basics of that scenario.
QuoteI can think of four times I have drawn blades to stop a brawl. All four times it ended up with me fighting them on the sand after a challenge. One time it ended with me using their body as pillow with Gage Gritshaw. (Which was hilarious.)
The result is far from the same.
I can't remember the number of times I have seen, "Refuse to standers", and it never resulted in anything awesome. Just a painful to watch awkward unrealistic scene.
The difference is that in those cases, those blades were drawn as an invitation for escalation, not merely to prevent the brawling. If the forcefield is changed, so will the occurrence of drawn weapons...only with the effect of 'No, I'm not challenging you, but I'm going to sit in my seat, dammit.' Because that's where we'd pushed it to.
I'd argue that the refuse to stander is indeed awkward and unrealistic...but it's just as much the fault of the instigator for making the assumption that if they stood up and used hit, the other guy would just hop up and agree to do it, because that's what -they- want to happen. Again...the point I'm trying to make is that brawl code is a pretty simple bit of code, not meant to allow doling of justice in a rough bar, but to allow non-lethal combat between willing people. Changing the willing part results in complications, including the change in non-lethal, which the results are more evident and clear.
The acknowledgement of the playerbase that they can try to brawl, but may be turned down, is very needed. I'd suggest, instead:
say (jerking to his feet after %breed statement) You wanna fucking go?!
If (breed stands and/or attempts brawl)
brawl
else
emote surges forward angrily, but is stopped by passersby/friends/an off-duty soldier.
say (scowling) Fucking lucky, you little twat. Talk all you want, but you aren't willing to back it up.
In other words, instead of treating it like a given, test the water for the scene progression, rather than trying to yank the reins.
Quote from: Armaddict on April 01, 2015, 05:23:14 PM
QuoteI can think of four times I have drawn blades to stop a brawl. All four times it ended up with me fighting them on the sand after a challenge. One time it ended with me using their body as pillow with Gage Gritshaw. (Which was hilarious.)
The result is far from the same.
I can't remember the number of times I have seen, "Refuse to standers", and it never resulted in anything awesome. Just a painful to watch awkward unrealistic scene.
The difference is that in those cases, those blades were drawn as an invitation for escalation, not merely to prevent the brawling. If the forcefield is changed, so will the occurrence of drawn weapons...only with the effect of 'No, I'm not challenging you, but I'm going to sit in my seat, dammit.' Because that's where we'd pushed it to.
I'd argue that the refuse to stander is indeed awkward and unrealistic...but it's just as much the fault of the instigator for making the assumption that if they stood up and used hit, the other guy would just hop up and agree to do it, because that's what -they- want to happen. Again...the point I'm trying to make is that brawl code is a pretty simple bit of code, not meant to allow doling of justice in a rough bar, but to allow non-lethal combat between willing people. Changing the willing part results in complications, including the change in non-lethal, which the results are more evident and clear.
The acknowledgement of the playerbase that they can try to brawl, but may be turned down, is very needed. I'd suggest, instead:
say (jerking to his feet after %breed statement) You wanna fucking go?!
If (breed stands and/or attempts brawl)
brawl
else
emote surges forward angrily, but is stopped by passersby/friends/an off-duty soldier.
say (scowling) Fucking lucky, you little twat. Talk all you want, but you aren't willing to back it up.
In other words, instead of treating it like a given, test the water for the scene progression, rather than trying to yank the reins.
It's just a matter of taste then and neither of us will change our minds.
I prefer the option to yank the reins. Some people do not. I agree to disagree with you on the grounds of personal preference.
Seriously just challenge the asshole and call them a bitch if they won't stand up. If they won't fight you, slander their fucking name. Just because you can't brawledly (codedly, brawledly, get it?) beat somebodies ass does not mean we need to complain about it here. If it's that much of a problem, player complaint, else slander their fucking name for being a coward.
We are presenting useful ideas for changes to the brawl code to make for more desirable scenes in this thread. One issue mentioned was the unrealistic and awkward scenario that comes up from time to time with people who refuse to stand to simply avoid the rough and tumble nature of the tavern.
Slandering their name is a great option with our current system.
Why would you player complaint something that could be handled IC?
And is, no doubt.
There is always room for improvement in the code. As robust as the Arm code is (pretty darn good overall).
I'm just saying if people take a huge issue with situations playing out unrealistically, they can take it to the complaints in the request tool. If someone refuses to brawl you, actively call the guy a bitch and ruin his name for being too scared to put up his dukes with you.
Here is the main problem with drawing a weapon.
It is Illegal in just about every place that has the brawl code.
Sitting on a stool on the other hand is not.
Do what I do and buy beers and bottles and emote pouring them all over the dude who has decided to sit in a stationary spot to avoid fighting you.
Which is power emoting...and against the rules...Not to mention just plain bad RP.
That and, Many of you are thinking of this the wrong way...Oh sure, it is called "brawl code" But in reality it is more like mutual combat. The powers that be, Be they In game or out, have decided that if people have decided to fight without weapons and without intent to kill, in certain areas, they will let it happen.
If somebody is unwilling to engage in this mutual combat, You can still force the issue, just be prepared to pay the price.
Now, like I said before, I do not brawl with my PC's any more because the code is too simplistic, It only checks on 2 things, and those things are not armor, size, race or stats.
So, with the current brawl code...Well, let me give an example which I really did see.
You have two bynners, One HG warrior wearing really nice heavy armor, the other a celf warrior, the celf is a long time trooper, the HG is far newer.
The elf decides he wants to box the HG, So they do. Now it was amusing to watch, The elf was landing every single punch and was punching like 7-1 verses the HG, But not a single landed punch did any damage or stun. This goes on for around 8 RL minutes then the HG finally lands a single body shot and the elf was KO.
Now, a few game days go by, byn goes to the gaj, Elf starts brawl with HG and suddenly He is a GOD...Doubling a heavily armored HG over with a punch, throwing 2000lbs of HG along with likely around 500lbs of armor into walls, etc etc etc.
It was actually nearly game breaking to watch.
So yes, I will keep to my stool and file player complaints if you power emote.
Well, I mean, it's not really power emoting if it's exactly what's going to happen. If I pour a bottle of Red Sun on your stool, and you are sitting on that stool, logic dictates that I am going to pour Red Sun on you unless you rise from your stool.
Unless you emote doing that thing where you grab under the seat of your stool and like, gyrate and rock away from the stream of Red Sun or something.
Or something, that is the point, Power emote is when you emote doing something and it happens without the other person being able to do anything about it.
So...Power emote, Amos dumps a bottle of red sun on Maliks head.
Not power emote, Amos raises a bottle of red sun over Maliks head and starts pouring.
With the second one Malik can respond.
Power emote, As Amos begins pouring, Malik punches him in the nuts.
Non power emote...As amos begins pouring malik aims a punch to his nuts.
Again, it allows a response, and amos has the choice, pour and take the cock knock or stop and dodge away.
In other words, unless you are staff or maybe a HG with max subdue skill subduing a dwarf...then YOU do not get to say that is going to happen, that is the VERY definition of a power emote.
Edit
Heh, I just thought about that scene...
And A blood encrusted dirty sweaty commoner in the gaj would likely laugh that you just paid to bathe him in red sun...Thanks Amos, I have not had a bath in 12 years ...You spent money on that, yea, you my bitch baby.
Rough taverns in Zalanthas are absolutely the sort of place where people get popped in the mouth without expecting it on a regular basis. Undesirables probably get beat up for no other reason than being undesirable and in the presence of very mean spiteful drunks. The weak probably get pushed and smack around constantly if they show up and aren't properly prepared.
I do not believe all bar fights in Zalanthas are between two willing and mutually understanding and rational combatants.
That is my point of view.
To be fair to our awesome playerbase, I've seen far more characters stand up and take a beating (or run away) than I've seen sit in their stool-shield-bubble and keep mouthing off.
I don't think it's a good idea to change the thresholds for brawl/crim code until both systems have been upgraded to be more nuanced.
But I do think that brawl code as-is, but with different echoes, could be expanded to a lot more places. Southside alleys, maybe smaller streets, the street just outside the Gaj, and every room in the Byn compounds.
Quote from: Marauder Moe on April 02, 2015, 10:09:43 AM
To be fair to our awesome playerbase, I've seen far more characters stand up and take a beating (or run away) than I've seen sit in their stool-shield-bubble and keep mouthing off.
Agreed.
I will backtrack and say my issues with brawl are not code based. I just dislike all the cheeriness. Not that all happiness is bad. I just think there should always be an edge of danger, hovering in the background no matter where you are in the game. I'm not crying g poor RP. I'm not even going to say my vision of what the game should be is better than someone else's. I will say, that the way things are it strays into the land of silly. I'd like some scary to balance that.
I agree with Barzalene. Instead of doing ::) when I see a brawl, I want to be doing this :o.
Edited: Danger zone
Quote from: racurtne on April 02, 2015, 10:32:55 AM
I agree with Barzalene. Instead of doing ::) when I see a brawl, I want to be doing this :o.
+1
I just want them to be a little more edgy than watching someone skin a scrab.
Somehow Dman, I don't think you have ever actually been to a rough tavern/bar IRL...because that is EXACTLY where you expect some idiot to try and pop you...and if you do go to those places, you stay on your toes.
By all means though, if you are sure you are hidden and manage to sneak up on the guy, feel free to power emote all you want.
BUT, if you are not, then act in a realistic manner and expect others to be doing the same...IE, They know they are in a rough bar.
Also, we are not talking about "ALL" bar fights, we are talking about brawl code. When two or more people Agree to get up and fight it out with no weapons other then tables and beer mugs.
Anybody is quite welcome to try any other method of popping somebody, It is not against the game rules, and in some places not against any rules at all...But if it is, as I said before, be ready to pay the piper.
I feel so safe at my lumpy dragon table, as long as I refuse to stand the mean bynner's can't get me.
Yes, refusal stand, ultimate defense.
Quote from: X-D on April 02, 2015, 11:50:41 AM
Somehow Dman, I don't think you have ever actually been to a rough tavern/bar IRL...because that is EXACTLY where you expect some idiot to try and pop you...and if you do go to those places, you stay on your toes.
By all means though, if you are sure you are hidden and manage to sneak up on the guy, feel free to power emote all you want.
BUT, if you are not, then act in a realistic manner and expect others to be doing the same...IE, They know they are in a rough bar.
I get popped in the mouth enough regularly already. I don't need to go hang out with goofy man-child-drunks to get that. :D
I don't want to power-emote anything. I want the brawl code changed to allow other options. Please see the rest of the thread. (I don't know where that came from.)
I believe it is entirely realistic in Zalanthas that people would get attacked by drunks in Zalanthan taverns while not expecting it/not seeing it coming for no other reason than....angry Zalanthan drunks.
If you disagree, I am fine with that.
Hope has not even read or understood the thread...sad.
Quote from: hopeandsorrow on April 02, 2015, 11:52:51 AM
I feel so safe at my lumpy dragon table, as long as I refuse to stand the mean bynner's can't get me.
Yes, refusal stand, ultimate defense.
Pretty much.
Dman, the only point I actually disagree with is the "not expecting" Part...If you are not expecting it then you really should not be in that bar to begin with.
Fact is, IF you do, knowingly go into a rough place you EXPECT EVERYTHING. Now, it is possible that even being paranoid and on your toes that somebody might manage to surprise you with a beer mug to the back of the head, but you cannot say you were not expecting that possibility.
And again, In game, If you are capable of catching somebody by surprise that way code wise, then more power to you.
But Brawl code is not that, Combat is its own code. Brawl code IS agreed on up front combat...by the very nature of the code itself. And that is that.
Of course we actually do agree I think that brawl code is feeble at best, and the game would be better served with a mutation of combat code replacing it...as I suggested several pages back.
Edit,
And it is no defense, there is nothing to defend against, You are simply NOT agreeing to brawl....Sitting at your stool will not stop somebody from attacking you, in fact, it will help them.
Quote from: X-D on April 02, 2015, 11:59:06 AM
Dman, the only point I actually disagree with is the "not expecting" Part...If you are not expecting it then you really should not be in that bar to begin with.
Fact is, IF you do, knowingly go into a rough place you EXPECT EVERYTHING. Now, it is possible that even being paranoid and on your toes that somebody might manage to surprise you with a beer mug to the back of the head, but you cannot say you were not expecting that possibility.
And again, In game, If you are capable of catching somebody by surprise that way code wise, then more power to you.
But Brawl code is not that, Combat is its own code. Brawl code IS agreed on up front combat...by the very nature of the code itself. And that is that.
Of course we actually do agree I think that brawl code is feeble at best, and the game would be better served with a mutation of combat code replacing it...as I suggested several pages back.
I understand what Brawl code is.
I have said that repeatedly. I absolutely agree with you on what the brawl code currently is and does.
My idea is to change it. My interest in debating what it currently is, doesn't exist, because I agree with you on that.
I also agree completely with your idea on replacing it with an iteration of the unarmed combat code. I think I even said that after your last post.
I would love that.
I think we are in extreme agreement with each other. :)
Quote from: Desertman on April 01, 2015, 04:27:49 PM
Quote from: X-D on April 01, 2015, 04:16:31 PM
Now, You want to make me happy, Get rid of the "brawl code" Make it so "hit" ONLY works if unarmed, Make it real combat though with automatic mercy at 50% HP, and still allow KO.
You can even make it so that it still only works in the same places current brawl code does.
I bet you that then you would see FAR fewer stupid fights.
People would not be able to RP not being messed up if they really were, and if they did it would then be complaint worthy.
100% + over 9,000
Quote from: X-D on April 02, 2015, 08:01:45 AM
Heh, I just thought about that scene...
And A blood encrusted dirty sweaty commoner in the gaj would likely laugh that you just paid to bathe him in red sun...Thanks Amos, I have not had a bath in 12 years ...You spent money on that, yea, you my bitch baby.
> em angrily pours ~bottle out above %man head
The misshappen old man angrily pours his bottle marked "Red Sun" out above the dusky, dark-eyed man's head.
The dusky, dark-eyed man chuckles and tilts his head back, opening his mouth and drinking liberally.
> ooc shitmugged
I will say, I think brawling should do more damage, even if it's stun damage.
The problem with stun damage is simple. If you KO a guy, you now have carte blanche to drag him off wherever the fuck you want. Lack of resistance of subdue ignores crimcode.
So, if you want the ability to pwn somebodies face in a brawl and KO them, THAT has to be removed or changed.
Quote from: Saellyn on April 02, 2015, 12:05:25 PM
I will say, I think brawling should do more damage, even if it's stun damage.
The problem with stun damage is simple. If you KO a guy, you now have carte blanche to drag him off wherever the fuck you want. Lack of resistance of subdue ignores crimcode.
So, if you want the ability to pwn somebodies face in a brawl and KO them, THAT has to be removed or changed.
This is a good point.
I think we could change the code around no-save subdue to take this into account.
Giving someone the old "Subdue", even if they are passed out, could still incriminate you if they do not have "No-Save Subdue" active.
Dragging off someone you don't know who is knocked out should still raise some eyebrows.
This would make kidnapping people a bit more difficult for other scenarios I suppose. I'm sure someone has sapped someone to kidnap them in the past. This would make that kind of wonky.
Interesting thought though. Thanks for pointing that out.
I think we are as well.
Just not so sure on defining brawl as it currently stands.....I mean, It is mutual agreed combat, anybody could ask the staff on that point.
I also understand and agree with some that think this should be replaced, at least in certain places.
But being that it is mutual agreed combat, I take exception with all these people talking about pouring shit or that staying seated is a defense against a fight, It is not, If you want to fight, either wield a weapon and type kill or hit or no weapon and type kill. Being seated will not protect them from that, they need not agree to it either.
But "brawl code" As it currently stands is a structured fight, therefore agreed on rules...And so, mutual agreed combat...Essentually a boxing match or MMA fight or whatever, But in any of these cases, somebody can go...Um, No, I do not want to enter the ring "Staying seated".
Eh, it should not be too hard to add the subdue caveat to brawl coded rooms.
Quote from: X-D on April 02, 2015, 12:10:07 PM
I think we are as well.
Just not so sure on defining brawl as it currently stands.....I mean, It is mutual agreed combat, anybody could ask the staff on that point.
It absolutely currently is and that is exactly what I hate about it and want to change.
If you change this one aspect, suddenly people won't resort to power emoting dumping drinks on people and crap, because.....they can just pop them in the mouth (or attempt to anyways).
The power-emoting you see is a result of the "Stool Forcefield" coming into play. Someone refuses to stand to fight you. How do you work around that? Realistically, you would still just pop them in the mouth, but they have this awkward unrealistic "Stool Forcefield". So what do you do? That is where people start in with all of the power-emoting crap. (I don't like it either.)
You may think that pouring red sun on someone is akin to a bath.
I think having any kind of alcohol poured onto you is bad.
Quote from: Saellyn on April 02, 2015, 12:05:25 PM
I will say, I think brawling should do more damage, even if it's stun damage.
The problem with stun damage is simple. If you KO a guy, you now have carte blanche to drag him off wherever the fuck you want. Lack of resistance of subdue ignores crimcode.
So, if you want the ability to pwn somebodies face in a brawl and KO them, THAT has to be removed or changed.
I feel like you are all seeing something I don't. Cause I feel like - so if I'm losing and I have no friends to watch my back, I can run or diengage or beg for mercy or I might get knocked out and then really bad shit happens.
That's scary. That's a win. My PC could die! They could lose all their stuff! I don't even have to leave the gates! Awesome.
Quote from: X-D on April 02, 2015, 11:54:32 AM
Hope has not even read or understood the thread...sad.
Understand it just find, In fact I like the brawl code thread.
Your thinly veiled insult really added to the discussion as well!
Quote from: Barzalene on April 02, 2015, 12:26:48 PM
Quote from: Saellyn on April 02, 2015, 12:05:25 PM
I will say, I think brawling should do more damage, even if it's stun damage.
The problem with stun damage is simple. If you KO a guy, you now have carte blanche to drag him off wherever the fuck you want. Lack of resistance of subdue ignores crimcode.
So, if you want the ability to pwn somebodies face in a brawl and KO them, THAT has to be removed or changed.
I feel like you are all seeing something I don't. Cause I feel like - so if I'm losing and I have no friends to watch my back, I can run or diengage or beg for mercy or I might get knocked out and then really bad shit happens.
That's scary. That's a win. My PC could die! They could lose all their stuff! I don't even have to leave the gates! Awesome.
I personally like this idea too, but, you have to consider that the current "Carebear" system of having to agree to be part of "mutual combat" before it can happen probably only exists because a lot of people hate the idea of having to deal with bad things happening to their characters.
The only reason it's as "soft" as it is now, most likely, is because it would create a lot of butthurt to have it the way you have stated above. (I personally love it, but I understand a lot of people wouldn't.)
I understand that, and while I don't like it, I am open to finding a good middle ground to work around it.
Not really Hope.
But the point I am trying to get across...to pretty much everybody but Dman it seems is that The STOOL IS NOT PROTECTING YOU FROM A FIGHT.
The stool is simply the coded way of saying, I do not agree to step into the ring.
It does not Protect you from the big scary bynner or anybody else. If that Bynner want to hit you, HE CAN.
In fact, I would argue that The stool and brawl code actually protect that blowhard not so scary bynner more then anything. Which is why I actually agree that the entire deal should be reworked.
Still, I will try this one more time. Fighting in a tavern or the city is ILLEGAL.
Brawling, when all parties agree is NOT illegal.
NOTHING is stopping you from punching that guy sitting on the stool, nothing at all.
If someone refused to stand up from their stool, I would honestly just emote attempting to punch them in the back of the head. That is not a power emote, because it gives them an opportunity to dodge. A sane person will probably stand up after that. Is that bad form? It doesn't seem like it would be. I don't think the soldiers would realistically be expected to go nuts because I just took a swing at a person in a seated position.
Quote from: Beethoven on April 02, 2015, 12:39:41 PM
If someone refused to stand up from their stool, I would honestly just emote attempting to punch them in the back of the head. That is not a power emote, because it gives them an opportunity to dodge. A sane person will probably stand up after that. Is that bad form? It doesn't seem like it would be. I don't think the soldiers would realistically be expected to go nuts because I just took a swing at a person in a seated position.
Yeah.
OK, well, I'll just do it anyway and let it be bad form, because having to ineptly flail around and beg some idiot to stand up while they primly sip their ale and chat about current events is stupid. Or maybe I'll try to grab them by their collar and attempt to pull them up. There is literally no reason why I should not realistically be able to do either of those things in the Gaj.
Quote from: Barzalene on April 02, 2015, 12:26:48 PM
Quote from: Saellyn on April 02, 2015, 12:05:25 PM
I will say, I think brawling should do more damage, even if it's stun damage.
The problem with stun damage is simple. If you KO a guy, you now have carte blanche to drag him off wherever the fuck you want. Lack of resistance of subdue ignores crimcode.
So, if you want the ability to pwn somebodies face in a brawl and KO them, THAT has to be removed or changed.
I feel like you are all seeing something I don't. Cause I feel like - so if I'm losing and I have no friends to watch my back, I can run or diengage or beg for mercy or I might get knocked out and then really bad shit happens.
That's scary. That's a win. My PC could die! They could lose all their stuff! I don't even have to leave the gates! Awesome.
No. You're not seeing it.
At the point of knockout, every guard ever ignores the fact that you exist when you are subdued and summarily dragged out the gates to be murdered, or dragged to a dark corner. From a bar. Where everyone is there to witness.
That is retarded.
Quote from: Beethoven on April 02, 2015, 12:44:24 PM
OK, well, I'll just do it anyway and let it be bad form, because having to ineptly flail around and beg some idiot to stand up while they primly sip their ale and chat about current events is stupid. Or maybe I'll try to grab them by their collar and attempt to pull them up. There is literally no reason why I should not realistically be able to do either of those things in the Gaj.
I'll emote trying to bounce your snobby, prim, ale-sipping face off the bar instead of punch you. That's MUCH more effective!
Quote from: Saellyn on April 02, 2015, 12:46:57 PM
Quote from: Barzalene on April 02, 2015, 12:26:48 PM
Quote from: Saellyn on April 02, 2015, 12:05:25 PM
I will say, I think brawling should do more damage, even if it's stun damage.
The problem with stun damage is simple. If you KO a guy, you now have carte blanche to drag him off wherever the fuck you want. Lack of resistance of subdue ignores crimcode.
So, if you want the ability to pwn somebodies face in a brawl and KO them, THAT has to be removed or changed.
I feel like you are all seeing something I don't. Cause I feel like - so if I'm losing and I have no friends to watch my back, I can run or diengage or beg for mercy or I might get knocked out and then really bad shit happens.
That's scary. That's a win. My PC could die! They could lose all their stuff! I don't even have to leave the gates! Awesome.
No. You're not seeing it.
At the point of knockout, every guard ever ignores the fact that you exist when you are subdued and summarily dragged out the gates to be murdered, or dragged to a dark corner. From a bar. Where everyone is there to witness.
That is retarded.
I'm retarded. I'm ok with that
No. You are not retarded. That is not what I'm saying.
I'm saying that the idea someone can KO you and drag you out of a bar is retarded. At THAT point you're criminally kidnapping somebody.
I agree, and it's also dumb that if you try to actually sleep in the tavern dorms, like people are supposed to be virtually doing all the time, you'll frequently wake up naked and broke. But that is another story and will be told another time.
If you're trying to fight someone who is unwilling to fight, use the actual "kill" command. Armed or unarmed is up to you.
I do see your point. I both agree and disagree. More on that after work.
QuoteOK, well, I'll just do it anyway and let it be bad form, because having to ineptly flail around and beg some idiot to stand up while they primly sip their ale and chat about current events is stupid. Or maybe I'll try to grab them by their collar and attempt to pull them up. There is literally no reason why I should not realistically be able to do either of those things in the Gaj.
This type of thing would be funny if it was not so sad.....Oh Wait, I get it now.
It is not the guy on the stool that is the wimp/snot/douchebag/coward It is the guy who is to big a pussy to go punch him that wants the brawl code protection.
Sorry, my mistake, carry on.
EDIT
(not speaking to Dman or Delirium here since they get it.)
Quote from: X-D on April 02, 2015, 01:05:27 PM
QuoteOK, well, I'll just do it anyway and let it be bad form, because having to ineptly flail around and beg some idiot to stand up while they primly sip their ale and chat about current events is stupid. Or maybe I'll try to grab them by their collar and attempt to pull them up. There is literally no reason why I should not realistically be able to do either of those things in the Gaj.
This type of thing would be funny if it was not so sad.....Oh Wait, I get it now.
It is not the guy on the stool that is the wimp/snot/douchebag/coward It is the guy who is to big a pussy to go punch him that wants the brawl code protection.
Sorry, my mistake, carry on.
EDIT
(not speaking to Dman or Delirium here since they get it.)
Bee isn't replying to you.
Eh, never said he was, Which is why I said "this type of thing".
I simply used it as an example.
Right. Misread. Sorry. You were referring to the guys who said brawl code is protecting the brawl starter <_<
The guy in the stool is only a coward if he is acting as if he is safe from your punches because he knows his assailant will likely be wtfpwned by waves of soldiers if she uses the kill command, while she is codedly unable to use the hit command, just because his ass is currently planted on a stool.
I think she should probably get the brawl code protection, because it's a rough place where fights happen all the time. And why shouldn't you be able to at least try to pull that person up by the collar or kick their stool out from under them? Why is that suddenly worthy of soldier intervention?
Quote from: Desertman on April 02, 2015, 12:34:00 PM
Quote from: Barzalene on April 02, 2015, 12:26:48 PM
Quote from: Saellyn on April 02, 2015, 12:05:25 PM
I will say, I think brawling should do more damage, even if it's stun damage.
The problem with stun damage is simple. If you KO a guy, you now have carte blanche to drag him off wherever the fuck you want. Lack of resistance of subdue ignores crimcode.
So, if you want the ability to pwn somebodies face in a brawl and KO them, THAT has to be removed or changed.
I feel like you are all seeing something I don't. Cause I feel like - so if I'm losing and I have no friends to watch my back, I can run or diengage or beg for mercy or I might get knocked out and then really bad shit happens.
That's scary. That's a win. My PC could die! They could lose all their stuff! I don't even have to leave the gates! Awesome.
I personally like this idea too, but, you have to consider that the current "Carebear" system of having to agree to be part of "mutual combat" before it can happen probably only exists because a lot of people hate the idea of having to deal with bad things happening to their characters.
The only reason it's as "soft" as it is now, most likely, is because it would create a lot of butthurt to have it the way you have stated above. (I personally love it, but I understand a lot of people wouldn't.)
I understand that, and while I don't like it, I am open to finding a good middle ground to work around it.
Oh please. The code in this case is not implemented for the purpose you want, you want it retooled, but utterly confuse 'bad things happening to my character' with 'players in this game abuse things'.
I have pointed out, time and time again, that the ENTIRE REASON FOR THIS THREAD is because people have ALREADY twisted the purpose of existing code to try and make it into something else. Now I'm saying don't change it into that something else, because people will keep on twisting it as far as it will go. You inherently trust players, I on the other hand do not. This is in the middle of a tavern. You say 'player complaint', I say the thing that results in a player complaint still cost someone their perhaps long lived, long loved character to an utterly bullshit use of this changed code, and since it is automatically in a public place, there is no chance they will get it back. Having an abuser punished never makes up for the feeling of loss at the hands of abuse.
But. People like me just want it soft because we don't like bad things happening. It's not like I've lost 30 and 40 day characters through roleplaying forgetfulness under pressure, even though I had the command aliased. It's not like I've intentionally given my character away because circumstances of the game demanded it. Little off-handed insults like this? They make you seem like a giant baby who's upset because you have to do things the old fashioned way: Pretend that the templarate has a monopoly on justice in the city.
Get the mutual agreement, or it's not a brawl. It's a fight. Go ahead and make fights, but make plans to get soldiers out of the equation. Try being smart about it, instead of insisting that because this is armageddon, mindless ability to cause harm to anyone you want is pretty much the way it has to be to be accurate.
I disagree with you Armaddict. I disagree with you in spite of you're being one of my favorite players. (Still remember some of your PCs from years and years ago.) I don't think you are soft or a baby or wrong to have another opinion.
Where I disagree with you is that i n the seedier places some risk seems appreciate.
I'll be more careful...
You'll be dead!
QuoteWhere I disagree with you is that i n the seedier places some risk seems appreciate.
I think you're probably on a phone and that means appropriate. I hate GDBing from phones.
However. This is the issue that I've been speaking of. This isn't about -generating- risk, it's about -removing- risk. This is removing risk from people who have far worse intentions. You're saying 'There should be risk to mouthing off to someone at the bar.' I'm saying 'There should be risk to taking that mouthing off, and escalating it to outright assault.' This is about people wanting a way to circumvent criminal code to punish people for what will, in the end, be very minor things. This will take those places that are already described as seedy, already have the atmosphere of seedy, already have the option for physical violence for people who are bored together and want to do it, and make it so that despite it being what is usually the -prime- social scene anyway, and the -only- one for certain races and classes, it can now be removed as an option for play by anyone who feels like it.
You guys have a genuine trust in other players to do it right. You feel the player complaint tool is going to make it all better. I, however, see past experiences, past mentalities -of my own-, and -current use (attempted and succeeded)of brawl code as is-, as a painfully red warning flag that this will result in one player's boredom resulting in willy nilly removal of another's roleplay. They will not pick fights with NPC's of those same types. They won't acknowledge vnpc population. They will straight up decide that every time they see this PC there, because they said this thing, and because they are not a combat-oriented character, they will be knocked out every time they enter.
You can call that 'real to the game world', but in the end it comes down to player-centered circumvention of the criminal code that -every other person- is subject to in -every other place-. If you can't knock a person out in an alleyway if a soldier patrols by, WHY should you be able to do it in the middle of a bar? If you can't get into fistfights out in -front- of the building, why should you be able to -inside- of the building? By taking that uniformity and putting an exception in, that exception will be utilized in the worst of possible ways. Now I've already acceded that the 'stool forcefield' could be changed to at least where if one party draws their weapons to defend themselves, the brawl ceases. That at least allows you to steal stools, but it doesn't change the fact that willing combatants are a present -need- for the code to be accurate, well-identified in purpose and use, and well-weighted with the rest of the existing game world. However, going past that is a serious coded risk, with far lesser benefit than people are trying to make it sound. In the end, it basically lets a Byn Sergeant run the seedy bar of each city. That's...such a huge boon, right?
Edited to add:
Besides, in the case of the Gaj...you keep trying to make it sound like it's a fight club in there. It's literally the commoner's waterhole of most of the city. If you really think that every commoner who goes in makes a conscious contract that they might get their ass kicked by getting an ale and looking wrong at someone, I think you've got it wrong. That's because that contract doesn't exist...unlike the unwritten agreement of the brawl code.
I think if you go back through my post history, you'll have a very hard time finding posts where I'm against conflict, against killing PC's, or against violence. I want more of it. But this isn't codedly -allowed-, this is codedly -protected-. This isn't 'fights happen', this is 'commoner arena'.
And on a further note...I'm against this mentality, that for there to be more accurate portrayal we need to remove risk from the instigator. Or that violence needs 'safe havens'. When I played combat heavy characters, I attacked people in the Gaj and got my ass dragged to jail often, but apparently that's just...too severe for the combat badasses of today. HOWEVER...it has also just occurred to me that if this change were made in favor of what you're proposing, but you -still- put in that bit about the 'drawn weapons forcefield'...there's not as much to complain about. Though as was discussed on page 3 or whatever, that essentially means the new code doesn't change a thing. Except for juggling barstools.
EDITED AGAIN TO ADD:
Story time!
I once had a dwarven bynner who got on bad terms with an elf. Brawl code wasn't in place, so I couldn't do anything about the verbal argument. Some instance happened where I was at the gates of the city, that elf approached and got all mouthy again, and I turned to leave...but he'd planted spice on me. Guards grab me, I'm all struggling and swearing vengeance. On the way to the jail, I break free long enough to drop my weapon on the side street before they resubdued me. I did my time. I came out. I got my weapon. I marched right into the Gaj and knocked that neck right the fuck out. I went to jail again, got a minor fine by a templar this time, got my weapons back, and went on my way. And that necker didn't talk to me again. Soooo...if it's IC for your character to do it, why wouldn't you do it like this, as is? As I said...this is about people wanting to be protected by code, it's not about making things more real. The means to achieve the ends talked about are already in place.
I definitely get what you're saying. Your way, we give up some adrenaline rush. My way the seedy bar less accessible to a lot of PCs.
I don't think its right or wrong, but this or that.
Quote from: Armaddict on April 02, 2015, 02:55:45 PM
Oh please. The code in this case is not implemented for the purpose you want, you want it retooled, but utterly confuse 'bad things happening to my character' with 'players in this game abuse things'.
I have pointed out, time and time again, that the ENTIRE REASON FOR THIS THREAD is because people have ALREADY twisted the purpose of existing code to try and make it into something else. Now I'm saying don't change it into that something else, because people will keep on twisting it as far as it will go. You inherently trust players, I on the other hand do not. This is in the middle of a tavern. You say 'player complaint', I say the thing that results in a player complaint still cost someone their perhaps long lived, long loved character to an utterly bullshit use of this changed code, and since it is automatically in a public place, there is no chance they will get it back. Having an abuser punished never makes up for the feeling of loss at the hands of abuse.
But. People like me just want it soft because we don't like bad things happening. It's not like I've lost 30 and 40 day characters through roleplaying forgetfulness under pressure, even though I had the command aliased. It's not like I've intentionally given my character away because circumstances of the game demanded it. Little off-handed insults like this? They make you seem like a giant baby who's upset because you have to do things the old fashioned way: Pretend that the templarate has a monopoly on justice in the city.
Get the mutual agreement, or it's not a brawl. It's a fight. Go ahead and make fights, but make plans to get soldiers out of the equation. Try being smart about it, instead of insisting that because this is armageddon, mindless ability to cause harm to anyone you want is pretty much the way it has to be to be accurate.
I said put in the complaint if people felt like the issue was really as severe as they're making it out to be.
Also I put in suggestions to deal with barsitters. To include slandering and challenging to an arena fight.
Quote from: Armaddict on April 02, 2015, 03:30:25 PM
Besides, in the case of the Gaj...you keep trying to make it sound like it's a fight club in there. It's literally the commoner's waterhole of most of the city. If you really think that every commoner who goes in makes a conscious contract that they might get their ass kicked by getting an ale and looking wrong at someone, I think you've got it wrong. That's because that contract doesn't exist...unlike the unwritten agreement of the brawl code.
I think this is where some of the confusion might come into being. I don't think the Gaj is the "commoner's waterhole of most of the city". I'd bet it's much more akin to the Cantina in Mos Eisley.
Most commoners don't set foot in the place. Mercenaries and rugged grebbers spend time in the Gaj. They mind they're own business. Even so, sit for one IC day in the Gaj and see how many brawls and stabbings you witness without any PC involvement. No echoes of guards dragging the responsible parties away.. just sudden situation normal to bloodshed to situation normal. Just like that, the Gaj is back to business.
No. Most commoners go to the Gaj because the other option is hoity-toitying it up with nobles. Most commoners in Allanak fear nobles. Avoiding them is a good thing. Everyone from your grebber to your hard as balls merc goes to the Gaj
To allude to something touched on before...is the policy really that the brawl code implies IC consent? Because I have been in multiple "brawls" during which my PC was basically being smacked around and beaten up against his will in the bar. No soldiers were called in, no player complaints were made to my knowledge, and it wasn't treated like any sort of shocking event. My PC may have made some inept swings back at his assailant, but for the most part, it was a very one-sided beatdown. I didn't feel that anything was wrong with that, but was there? Or was my PC giving implicit consent by not suddenly sitting down in the middle of the floor?
The "consent" deal means, ICly if you -want- to take thoseh its, you stand up. Regardless of asskicking or not, you stand and take it. As soon as oyu sit down, you are immune to brawl code.
That doesn't make any sense to me, though. My PC didn't want to take those hits, ICly. He didn't know anything about "the brawl code." Yes, he would have been "immune" if he had sat down, but what does have to do with anything? People are saying that brawling is more of a "let's get into a fight and settle this dispute" sort of thing, and anything else should be considered illegal, which is why it doesn't work to force someone into it--or that's what I thought people were saying, anyway.
The Gaj is definitely a commoner's watering hole. It's where they go to hear the arena matches announced. "The Gladiator and Gaj".
It'd be neat if there were scripts to reflect this.
It's a rough and tumble place, yes, but if you go too far, you're still going to get smacked down. In absence of a more granular crime code, that's simply the reality.
Quote from: Saellyn on April 02, 2015, 03:51:15 PM
No. Most commoners go to the Gaj because the other option is hoity-toitying it up with nobles. Most commoners in Allanak fear nobles. Avoiding them is a good thing. Everyone from your grebber to your hard as balls merc goes to the Gaj
Most commoners probably don't have the sid to rub together to go to the Gaj. They stay home. Leisure time is not real for "most commoners" in an era of such oppression and hard times as Zalanthas reflects.
QuoteMost commoners don't set foot in the place.
Inaccurate, particularly from the PC standpoint, but also in terms of past discussion.
Quote from: Beethoven on April 02, 2015, 03:51:23 PM
To allude to something touched on before...is the policy really that the brawl code implies IC consent? Because I have been in multiple "brawls" during which my PC was basically being smacked around and beaten up against his will in the bar. No soldiers were called in, no player complaints were made to my knowledge, and it wasn't treated like any sort of shocking event. My PC may have made some inept swings back at his assailant, but for the most part, it was a very one-sided beatdown. I didn't feel that anything was wrong with that, but was there? Or was my PC giving implicit consent by not suddenly sitting down in the middle of the floor?
The brawl code is implemented as 'combat between willing participants who will not push it to too far'. In its current state, if it's done against someone who is unwilling to enter the engagement, it falls under the realm of assault instead of brawling. Think of it as allowing the 'take it outside fellas' to happen inside. If someone says 'take it outside', and both people go and do their posturing and the fight ensues...they were both willing to enter the fray with each other. Meanwhile, if one guy said 'I don't want to fight', but then one party was allowed to pull them off their stool and drag them outside to that fight, that would get cops called. Likewise in game, but without the taking it outside.
Quote from: Beethoven on April 02, 2015, 03:54:16 PM
That doesn't make any sense to me, though. My PC didn't want to take those hits, ICly. He didn't know anything about "the brawl code." Yes, he would have been "immune" if he had sat down, but what does have to do with anything? People are saying that brawling is more of a "let's get into a fight and settle this dispute" sort of thing, and anything else should be considered illegal, which is why it doesn't work to force someone into it--or that's what I thought people were saying, anyway.
The 'sitting' thing is a coded solution to the need for implied consent. As has been discussed, this could be changed to the drawing of weapons to show you were not willing to fistfight, and just wanted to be left alone and would defend yourself, but in the end, it is a signified 'end' of the jurisdiction of brawl code, and the 'beginning' of jurisdiction for the combat code.
What about some sort of nosave brawl that would allow the person sitting down to still take a beating, for those who are open to it, but still protect those who are not? Would that be difficult to implement? Nosave arrest is pretty useful.
Quote from: Armaddict on April 02, 2015, 02:55:45 PM
Quote from: Desertman on April 02, 2015, 12:34:00 PM
Quote from: Barzalene on April 02, 2015, 12:26:48 PM
Quote from: Saellyn on April 02, 2015, 12:05:25 PM
I will say, I think brawling should do more damage, even if it's stun damage.
The problem with stun damage is simple. If you KO a guy, you now have carte blanche to drag him off wherever the fuck you want. Lack of resistance of subdue ignores crimcode.
So, if you want the ability to pwn somebodies face in a brawl and KO them, THAT has to be removed or changed.
I feel like you are all seeing something I don't. Cause I feel like - so if I'm losing and I have no friends to watch my back, I can run or diengage or beg for mercy or I might get knocked out and then really bad shit happens.
That's scary. That's a win. My PC could die! They could lose all their stuff! I don't even have to leave the gates! Awesome.
I personally like this idea too, but, you have to consider that the current "Carebear" system of having to agree to be part of "mutual combat" before it can happen probably only exists because a lot of people hate the idea of having to deal with bad things happening to their characters.
The only reason it's as "soft" as it is now, most likely, is because it would create a lot of butthurt to have it the way you have stated above. (I personally love it, but I understand a lot of people wouldn't.)
I understand that, and while I don't like it, I am open to finding a good middle ground to work around it.
Oh please. The code in this case is not implemented for the purpose you want, you want it retooled, but utterly confuse 'bad things happening to my character' with 'players in this game abuse things'.
I have pointed out, time and time again, that the ENTIRE REASON FOR THIS THREAD is because people have ALREADY twisted the purpose of existing code to try and make it into something else. Now I'm saying don't change it into that something else, because people will keep on twisting it as far as it will go. You inherently trust players, I on the other hand do not. This is in the middle of a tavern. You say 'player complaint', I say the thing that results in a player complaint still cost someone their perhaps long lived, long loved character to an utterly bullshit use of this changed code, and since it is automatically in a public place, there is no chance they will get it back. Having an abuser punished never makes up for the feeling of loss at the hands of abuse.
But. People like me just want it soft because we don't like bad things happening. It's not like I've lost 30 and 40 day characters through roleplaying forgetfulness under pressure, even though I had the command aliased. It's not like I've intentionally given my character away because circumstances of the game demanded it. Little off-handed insults like this? They make you seem like a giant baby who's upset because you have to do things the old fashioned way: Pretend that the templarate has a monopoly on justice in the city.
Get the mutual agreement, or it's not a brawl. It's a fight. Go ahead and make fights, but make plans to get soldiers out of the equation. Try being smart about it, instead of insisting that because this is armageddon, mindless ability to cause harm to anyone you want is pretty much the way it has to be to be accurate.
I disagree with your opinion and your entire interpretation of the game world, the taverns, and my post. You disagree with mine. I'm fine with that.
I didn't mean to insult anyone. I feel the code does exist in its current format (having to ask for consent to brawl basically) so that people don't have to get beaten on in rough taverns if they don't feel like getting beat up. In my opinion that is soft and weak and "carebear" and not a good fit for the world of Zalanthas. I understand you don't feel that way. That's fine. Feel how you want.
I thought this world was supposed to be violent and scary, with no sense of equality for the masses, just whoever gets over the next guy however they can. It's not supposed to be "fair". As someone already pointed out, just sit in the Gaj alone for an hour, and tell me how many bloody fights have broken out. I'd personally like to see the brawl code even more fleshed out as Desertman suggests. I don't think it should be removed. I think if ... IRL, you can run your mouth, and then get popped for running your mouth, and the cops don't give a shit other than breaking it up (seen it, recently) ... then Zalanthas should be everything short of murder allowed and maybe that AoD soldier is even amused and starts betting on the brawl.
More conflict, please! Less whining!
edited for intense sarcasm
Quote from: Kismetic on April 02, 2015, 05:49:52 PM
I thought this world was supposed to be violent and scary, with no sense of equality for the masses, just whoever gets over the next guy however they can. It's not supposed to be "fair". As someone already pointed out, just sit in the Gaj alone for an hour, and tell me how many bloody fights have broken out. I'd personally like to see the brawl code even more fleshed out as Desertman suggests. I don't think it should be removed. I think if ... IRL, you can run your mouth, and then get popped for running your mouth, and the cops don't give a shit other than breaking it up (seen it, recently) ... then Zalanthas should be everything short of murder allowed and maybe that AoD soldier is even amused and starts betting on the brawl.
More conflict, please! Less whining!
edited for intense sarcasm
+1 - Would read again.
I'm not sure where/how this is being misinterpreted.
This is not about fair/just treatment IC. This is about maintaining the integrity of code on an OOC level. Your problems being addressed are not with the brawl code, they are with the crimcode. I am saying that the attempt to revamp the brawl code to fit into that paradigm is a faulty, patched code concession that brings about more issues than the one you want to solve.
You can change the brawl code, and make it more affecting. You can change the 'edge' of it. But that 'edge' needs to exist to account for what is assault, and what is brawling. There isn't a vague grey area in the middle. As I've said, changing that edge from 'sitting' to 'drawn weapons' effectively changes that border, but doesn't change the overall complaint (hence why it's been said that I'm fine with it).
If you want in effect a more violent atmosphere that includes beatdowns outside of the current 'bordered' brawling, then there needs to be significant changes elsewhere as well. However, a blanket 'You can knock this guy the fuck out just because he's here' exception to crimcode will lead elsewhere than I think you are imagining it going.
I'd appreciate if the accusation that I'm anti-violence or 'carebearing' or 'whining about IC conflicts' because I'm trying to thoroughly analyze full implications of the code beyond just the desired effect was dropped, because that's now...three or four times in this thread that this has been asserted, either directly or vaguely. I am -far- from anti-conflict, I am -far- from whiny about player versus player interactions, but I -do- believe in keeping the code integrity intact so that all of its purposes and rules remain balanced and intact. You're talking to someone who has lost a good, sponsored role due to being 'rented' into a bar's backroom and knocked out, and a guy who has had someone specifically wait until I was linkdead to attack--do I think the majority of players would abuse changes in code that make them abusable? No. Do I believe that properly safeguarding prevents the 'one time', when it happens to affect you? Yes. If an accessible, unguarded way of circumventing code that shows 'the way things are' is put in, people will use it.
QuoteZalanthas should be everything short of murder allowed and maybe that AoD soldier is even amused and starts betting on the brawl.
I think this is being overplayed. They aren't lazy, they're corrupt. They have their ass to cover if something goes bad on their watch, and even a soldier doesn't want to be on the wrong end of a templar asking how the fuck something happened when they were supposed to be watching for it. I've had soldiers exiled. I've had soldiers executed. I've had soldiers enslaved. Soldiers are looking out for themselves, and oftentimes, that means trying to be -real damn good- at their job to ensure that they have a good defense if something happens to catch a templar's attention, because if it -does- catch a templar's attention and they don't have a good defense (and even if they do), it isn't often going to be a simple slap on the wrist. This is why it's generally safer to pay a soldier to -do- the thing rather than pay a soldier to turn their head.
So yet again. Go ahead and change it to do more. Go ahead and change where the border of brawling exists. But that border can't be moved too far into the realm of assault or else it becomes blatantly usable in a way 'other than intended or directed', where you are drastically impacting things far more than just the ability to make a good brawling scene or set up a rough atmosphere. Hell. An easier fix to this would be to remove npc soldiers from bars more often. But if you're trying to promote a rough atmosphere, or a harsh eat or be eaten world, there are far more constructive ways of doing it than making it so that a warrior in a training clan can go to a bar and knock out anyone he wants to.
I'm still wondering why, exactly, the same message keeps getting typed up when I thought this was covered back when there was discussion about drawn weapons. Drawn weapons would be the new line, but if you don't like that line, -what- is the recourse for if someone who's being assaulted in a brawl draws their weapons to defend themselves?
I think a brawl is going to break out in this thread any second.
(If Desertman ever gets his ass off that stool, anyway.)
A soldier shouldn't give two fucks if two commoners people are killing eachother. Let alone a brawl or one-sided fight. They should care even less if it's some nobody breed being ganged up on by a group of Bynners.
Current brawl code doesn't represent the game world well at all.
Quote from: RogueGunslinger on April 02, 2015, 07:05:38 PM
A soldier shouldn't give two fucks if two commoners people are killing eachother. Let alone a brawl or one-sided fight. They should care even less if it's some nobody breed being ganged up on by a group of Bynners.
Current brawl code doesn't represent the game world well at all.
Where do you see this represented in the game world?
Quote from: Armaddict on April 02, 2015, 07:07:25 PM
Quote from: RogueGunslinger on April 02, 2015, 07:05:38 PM
A soldier shouldn't give two fucks if two commoners people are killing eachother. Let alone a brawl or one-sided fight. They should care even less if it's some nobody breed being ganged up on by a group of Bynners.
Current brawl code doesn't represent the game world well at all.
Where do you see this represented in the game world?
I'd say the room emotes where you see brawls breaking out. You don't see anyone arrested. They just calm down after a bit.
Armaddict, I just think your version of Arm is really boring, and I also think most people who play this game are gonna agree with me. Sorry if you wanted to argue.
Quote from: Jihelu on April 02, 2015, 07:08:40 PM
Quote from: Armaddict on April 02, 2015, 07:07:25 PM
Quote from: RogueGunslinger on April 02, 2015, 07:05:38 PM
A soldier shouldn't give two fucks if two commoners people are killing eachother. Let alone a brawl or one-sided fight. They should care even less if it's some nobody breed being ganged up on by a group of Bynners.
Current brawl code doesn't represent the game world well at all.
Where do you see this represented in the game world?
I'd say the room emotes where you see brawls breaking out. You don't see anyone arrested. They just calm down after a bit.
That still happens with the current brawl code in place. The 'calm down after a bit' in particular.
Quote from: Kismetic on April 02, 2015, 07:20:33 PM
Armaddict, I just think your version of Arm is really boring, and I also think most people who play this game are gonna agree with me. Sorry if you wanted to argue.
That's a pretty shitty thing to say, considering that I heavily heavily endorse raiding, crime, killing each other, having plots based on grudges, wars between city states, wars between noble houses, dangerous wilds, 'rinth wars, and increased need to protect assets from cutthroat business practices. In particular, raiding. You're literally making that statement off of one thread where I'm saying 'Whoa, whoa, whoa! This is not a favorable condition for code involved'. I endorse risk taking, I endorse risks being present, but I do not endorse implementation of code that makes any of that risk free. You're taking my lack of endorsement for making brawl code more invasive as an overall arching 'THERE SHALL NOT BE VIOLENCE IN THIS GAME.' Pretty shallow statement, to be honest.
Why is it that when I say 'You can accomplish this, but you must take risks', it turns it into a 'You're a softy?' I'm a little appalled, considering I'm the guy in threads who people have, in the past, accused of being obsessed with pkilling because I don't think it's plot ending, I think it's plot advancement, just for someone else.
Edited to add: I find it ironic, these statements, considering I am often looking for people IC to commit violence for me, almost always find no one willing, and end up doing it myself despite a couple year trend of non-combat oriented PC's (with one exception, who was a raider who successfully raided once, I think, before having an entire army of PC's riding out to find him every time he was sighted). It really reinforces the belief that it's not me being anti-violence, as is the assertion, but other people being anti-risk, where I am pro-risk.
I see your point, but the "risk" in attacking someone without the brawl code is much, much greater than it realistically should be. Also if you think all those teeth-knocking-out fights in the Gaj are the same as Brawl code I just can't agree. The fights are describes as brutal, and violent, not mutual.
Edit to add: I should point out that I've tried to murder multiple people with crimcode active. Even succeeded in them. And in those instances it felt right and appropriate that my character should be attacked by soldiers. However we're not talking about a situation where one want to murder soemone else, or even really hurt them that bad. They just want to put a mouthy breed in their place without them able to ignore you atop a stool. That should not take the same amount of effort and preparedness that assassinating someone should.
@Armaddict
Heh, mmk. I can't say as I recall ever reading your opinion on the game before now.
Quote from: RogueGunslinger on April 02, 2015, 07:32:18 PM
I see your point, but the "risk" in attacking someone without the brawl code is much, much greater than it realistically should be. Also if you think all those teeth-knocking-out fights in the Gaj are the same as Brawl code I just can't agree. The fights are describes as brutal, and violent, not mutual.
Those fights are emotes, the same as the ones used in brawl code. The brawling blows are not exactly gentle either. But in no way do those echoes provoke anything other than those two guys both wanted to fight each other, but as far as teeth getting knocked out...that has, traditionally, been left to the players to decide, rather than making it a given (the same thing as consent for maiming). As noted, yet again, which still has not received feedback:
-Move 'sitting' border to 'drawn weapons' border. As noted by D-man, this at least removes the awkward 'I can't get him off his stool' situation, though I believe the original idea persists, albeit realistically in my opinion. That fight is no longer something without concern.
-Smaller NPC soldier presence in taverns, or at least make them more animated in there being 'shifts'. This has already been done (I remember when there were four static guards at the Gaj, two of which were half-giants outside. That was reduced).
QuoteHeh, mmk. I can't say as I recall ever reading your opinion on the game before now.
You're right. I have 3700 posts of 'lol'.
I have 6000
Fuck this.
hit armaddict
If Armaddicts version of Arm is boring, then you think Arm is boring. Which it isn't.
Get over yourselves. Use the code you have available to you or make a suggestion instead of ganging up on Armaddict.
Can we please stop trying to make things personal. Nobody is "ganging up" on anyone.
You guys are funneh.
Let's just stop making things personal.
That's what these GDB gripe posts are, essentially player complaints aired out in a public medium. Take from that what you will.
I feel like we're arguing two things at once. Maybe it's more productive to pull them apart.
1. Some of us don't like that the bar brawls get really silly. More like kids wrestling than grown people in bars escalating to violence.
2. Some of us want more opportunities for violence within the city.
Everyone can skip the following, where I just repeat myself. I am physically incapable of stopping. I have a really low pk count. I like plotting against people, far more than ganking them. I'm more likely to fall victim to this than benefit from it as a killer. But I still miss that scary feeling in my stomach I had the first year I played. I don't want total lawlessness and murder and mayhem in the streets. I want a difference between Nak and the Rinth. But I don't want to feel so safe that I can walk into a bar and smack someone with impunity and say haha.
Truth is you can't even do that in the 'rinth bars because the NPC's will jump you. Also that other thing they do where they'll jump into a fight and help the person who just attacked you. That sucks.
I disagree with Armaddict, but man I love the fact he is so into this.
We need more players like him, even if I disagree with him. :)
If people didn't disagree with you, you would never be able to see the holes in your ideas. A few have been pointed out already in this thread that I didn't think of and a few good solutions have come up due to that.
The man is spirited. I like spirited.
Quote from: RogueGunslinger on April 02, 2015, 08:24:14 PM
Truth is you can't even do that in the 'rinth bars because the NPC's will jump you. Also that other thing they do where they'll jump into a fight and help the person who just attacked you. That sucks.
I mean using the brawl code.
I think it would be cool if Vennant would occasionally say "Hey, you've been hitting too many of my customers, chill out a bit." And you have to wait out some kind of nuisance meter, maybe pay higher for drinks. But, you know, only if the people getting beaten up are actually spending money.
Quote from: Kismetic on April 02, 2015, 07:58:30 PM
Fuck this.
hit armaddict
*clings to his computer chair* HELLLOOOOOOO?! MODERATORS?! I AM BEING ASSAULTED. I DID NOT INVITE CONF-- Shit. I did, didn't I?
*sighs. Stands.*
mercy off
kill armaddict
disarm
bash
kick
get post from corpse
snort post
skin corpse
put skin in rucksack
put gland in rucksack
Quote from: Armaddict on April 02, 2015, 08:36:51 PM
Quote from: Kismetic on April 02, 2015, 07:58:30 PM
Fuck this.
hit armaddict
*clings to his computer chair* HELLLOOOOOOO?! MODERATORS?! I AM BEING ASSAULTED. I DID NOT INVITE CONF-- Shit. I did, didn't I?
*sighs. Stands.*
The buff, white knight walks in from the north.
The buff, white knight says in sirihish,
"Fear not! I shall save you!"
The buff, white knight lands a hard cross to Armaddicts cheek.
The buff, white knight says apologetically, in sirihish,
".... Sorry."
This thread has run its course.
Ganging up on someone on the GDB is unfair. Everyone knows you take massive hits to defense after the third person.
To me, the brawl code appears to be a stop gap measure that doesn't fully address the issue of over-compensated criminal code response.
It allows PC's to interact with one another via combat means. It seems to take code into effect -- And even guild/subguild choices, and stats. One can 'test their mettle' against each other, without intending to kill one another, and reach a point of conclusion.
To be honest, Zalanthas has never been as brutal as it appeared to be by advertisement, except in Red Storm. The first few characters I played were played in Red Storm, and it seemed a dangerous fucking place, because if you entered the wrong alley and decided to try and mug that Mul, you'd get fucking killed. And you don't respawn anywhere -- You're dead as hell.
I think if there were more opportunities for that sort of 'insta gank' or even 'insta mug' sort of scenario to happen, even if by NPCs within the cities, it would provide an equivalency to the environment I believe ArmageddonMUD is trying to portray.
If people have to congregate in Bars at night, because wandering the streets alone isn't exactly safe alone == Great.
If people have to maybe walk each other home, because they're afraid of being mugged or fucked with == Great.
If people have to think and get into character, because their environment is more interactive than static == Great.
---
Along the same lines, as Barzalene mentioned, if violence (even brutal violence) is allowed in certain areas/bars (Even the Labyrinth bars, this is discouraged), then we move even closer towards the environment I believe ArmageddonMUD its dying to portray.
If you are a 40-50 day+ warrior or actually anything, and you can't stave off some newblet trying to pick a fight with you, and need to rely on the omnipresent criminal code to save your ass...Sorry, but i'm not sorry.
I've recently been playing Morrowind, and it isn't exactly perm-death (You can save/load and so on) but god damn, does it feel like a dangerous hellish place, because you have no idea when you'll turn a corner, haven't saved recently, and you're totally fucked.
I'd like more of those scenarios, in ArmageddonMUD, please.
Autosave in Arm works fine. I just can't seem to get the prompt to load my last save game to pop up.