Of players criticizing or some times condemning certain styles of player they see or purportedly observe through posts made here in the GDB. For instance, in the thread talking about the analyze skill, some mock others for caring about the skill's level on their list. But, that's the most current of many observations.
This trend relates back a bit to the post I made regarding the state of Armageddon, in that, there's a diverse number of player styles out there, most of which are fairly complicated but not inherently against the concept of an RPI. That is, our world, reality, is filled with diverse personalities and driving purposes in people. So, why is it bad to have this represented in the player base for Armageddon?
I suspect that styles which do not match are antagonizing to their roughly opposing player types, and that's the source of the 'sniping' observed (it goes many ways: tavern sitters are bad, skill interested players are bad, players just out to cause others trouble are bad, etc).
So, how close am I? Do certain styles of player annoy you? Do you think they are more 'right' or 'wrong' in the context of an RPI? Or, do you think that perhaps it is the melting pot that's necessary to bring the world to life?
For me its: Yes, some styles annoy me. No: I've come to recognize/believe that they have value in the model and application of a game, especially RPI's. Though it took a lot of first hand experience as a player and staff member on games, research, and discussion to come to see just how much so.
Like, what are the different styles even? Someone likes warriors? Someone likes merchants? Combat-centric or social-centric or isolated or what? I need what we're talking about to be specified.
Quote from: MeTekillot on April 19, 2014, 09:00:03 AM
Like, what are the different styles even? Someone likes warriors? Someone likes merchants? Combat-centric or social-centric or isolated or what? I need what we're talking about to be specified.
Devil's in the details. I tried to keep what encompasses a style of play rather abstract, as both a vote of confidence to anyone who wanted to reply understading there are probably variances in them, and to avoid a rabbit hole, if you're familiar with the term.
Codifying the details of style is something PHD's are made of, literally, and worthy of its own topic. I'm making the assumption varying styles exist, though, based on the fact a wide number of people with said credentialing believe they do, and my own observations over time. Going to stand on the shoulders of giants here, and leave it at that, if its reasonable to do so.
The detail that matters, though, is we are talking about player styles, not character styles. How the people behind the PC behave/are motivated.
(http://i.cubeupload.com/dTBDQB.jpg)
I guess I don't like people who don't focus on their spelling, punctuation, have a lack of emotes, and use a lot of the canned socials?
Hyper-successful indies with no connections too.
Quote from: Kryos on April 19, 2014, 09:07:43 AM
Quote from: MeTekillot on April 19, 2014, 09:00:03 AM
Like, what are the different styles even? Someone likes warriors? Someone likes merchants? Combat-centric or social-centric or isolated or what? I need what we're talking about to be specified.
Devil's in the details. I tried to keep what encompasses a style of play rather abstract, as both a vote of confidence to anyone who wanted to reply understading there are probably variances in them, and to avoid a rabbit hole, if you're familiar with the term.
I don't think specifying "types" of players for this would be constructive anyways. The designations for player types exists in the criticizer's mind and uses their value set and perceptive model, not some external objective one. If you want a genuine and accurate description of what categories annoy people, letting them define those categories themselves will give you better raw data.
when people play bad i get sad
Quote from: Narf on April 19, 2014, 09:23:15 AM
I don't think specifying "types" of players for this would be constructive anyways. The designations for player types exists in the criticizer's mind and uses their value set and perceptive model, not some external objective one. If you want a genuine and accurate description of what categories annoy people, letting them define those categories themselves will give you better raw data.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-328hhpF3Uns/UiVMlccOVLI/AAAAAAAABv0/9VQeQgtG7OA/s1600/Fonz+Ayyy!.jpg)
Not really usable data, just more a discussion that is of interest to me. Perspectivism is another of those dangerous rabbit holes though, so I'll hop right the heck over that one. Probably true though.
Quote from: MeTekillot on April 19, 2014, 09:26:25 AM
when people play bad i get sad
Amusing as it may be, its pointing to a worthy note: there are players who don't fit well into an RPI out there. RPI is about immersion and character (development/death), and thus probably highly linked to immersion factor. Things that break immersion might then be said to be detrimental to an RPI. My take from that, anyway, in the context.
Quote from: Kryos on April 19, 2014, 08:57:56 AM
Of players criticizing or some times condemning certain styles of player they see or purportedly observe through posts made here in the GDB. For instance, in the thread talking about the analyze skill, some mock others for caring about the skill's level on their list. But, that's the most current of many observations.
This trend relates back a bit to the post I made regarding the state of Armageddon, in that, there's a diverse number of player styles out there, most of which are fairly complicated but not inherently against the concept of an RPI. That is, our world, reality, is filled with diverse personalities and driving purposes in people. So, why is it bad to have this represented in the player base for Armageddon?
I suspect that styles which do not match are antagonizing to their roughly opposing player types, and that's the source of the 'sniping' observed (it goes many ways: tavern sitters are bad, skill interested players are bad, players just out to cause others trouble are bad, etc).
So, how close am I? Do certain styles of player annoy you? Do you think they are more 'right' or 'wrong' in the context of an RPI? Or, do you think that perhaps it is the melting pot that's necessary to bring the world to life?
For me its: Yes, some styles annoy me. No: I've come to recognize/believe that they have value in the model and application of a game, especially RPI's. Though it took a lot of first hand experience as a player and staff member on games, research, and discussion to come to see just how much so.
I'm sorry... I thought Armageddon frowned on people who focused on their skills more than their role playing. I must have been mistaken all these years. Thank you for clearing up my confusion. I want to apologize for criticizing those that care about a novice skill that can't be improved upon on your skill list. It was wrong of me to do that. Armageddon should be open and friendly to all people even those who care more about skills than role playing.
It is completely illogical to be against a valid style of play (valid being acceptable for an RPI: adherence to documentation and so on) because the focus of the game is on good roleplay, not good roleplay of a certain type. People target "styles" because it is against the rules to complain specifically about other PCs on the GDB, so they elect instead to passive-aggressively target all players who do X when really, they only have something against one player playing one character doing X.
That phenomenon encapsulates the entirety of the "Hate Cycle" in all its patheticness (patheticalness? whatever).
Quote from: slvrmoontiger on April 19, 2014, 09:52:06 AM
I'm sorry... I thought Armageddon frowned on people who focused on their skills more than their role playing. I must have been mistaken all these years. Thank you for clearing up my confusion. I want to apologize for criticizing those that care about a novice skill that can't be improved upon on your skill list. It was wrong of me to do that. Armageddon should be open and friendly to all people even those who care more about skills than role playing.
Believe it or not, this isn't anything to do with your post in the thread referenced more than it was the latest thing I read regarding this type of behavior. Part of a trend. I happened to read that thread this morning and was chewing on it a bit for writing the thread. My apologies if it was found to be an offensive use of an example.
However, its a common behavior, and that's why I spooled up the line of questioning for volunteers to participate in if they desired.
As for the meat of what your saying after that, to play devil's advocate, don't skills have a tremendous link to role playing, especially in Armageddon? They literally define what your character is capable of in a coded sense. If you never have the Track skill, for instance, you'll never be able to codedly follow someone through terrain to stalk them from a distance using the game's engine for that behavior. So to play a character who is good at stalking and behaves as such, you need not only the skill but some measure of it.
As a unskilled tracker, you get to play out the frustrations of your failures and lose your target, etc, passing over disturbed rocks or broken plant stems. As a master you can shadow someone across the Known and play to the fact you pick up every minutia from the environment with your keen focus.
More than, probably not. Quite valuable, probably. But that's my point of view and mentioned.
You're saying then, that those focused on skills do agitate you and aren't a useful contribution?
Quote from: Cutthroat on April 19, 2014, 09:54:56 AM
It is completely illogical to be against a valid style of play (valid being acceptable for an RPI: adherence to documentation and so on) because the focus of the game is on good roleplay, not good roleplay of a certain type. People target "styles" because it is against the rules to complain specifically about other PCs on the GDB, so they elect instead to passive-aggressively target all players who do X when really, they only have something against one player playing one character doing X.
That phenomenon encapsulates the entirety of the "Hate Cycle" in all its patheticness (patheticalness? whatever).
We agree a lot on this topic from what I'm taking from this. However, its more a notion of perhaps some people don't consider some styles/motivations to be valid or contributing, is what I'm digging at and thinking on.
Quote from: MeTekillot on April 19, 2014, 09:18:30 AM
I guess I don't like people who don't try to focus on their spelling, punctuation, have a lack of emotes, and use a lot of the canned socials?
Hyper-successful indies with no connections too.
bold, underlined italics added to express my opinion on the subject.
I never really think about other players in terms of rp v skill. I like people who's characters are fleshed out and interesting. Some of them do this with a real efficiency of style, nothing flashy or verbose. Some are poets. Some of them can't sit in a tavern for a moment. Some spend all their playtimes on the social game. But in the end, there's something alive and compelling about their characters. There's something there worth experiencing. I'm trying to evaluate this preference through the prism of gamer typology, but for me, and of course I'm not the arbiter of what is valid, it doesn't seem to apply.
Someone has to be the RP police and nothing works better than sarcasm and passive aggressive comments on the GDB. Maybe I should apply...
I can be a great rper and still enjoy twinking up my coded skills. If doing both didn't give me great joy I'd either be playing a MUSH or one of the top 10 Iron Realms muds out there.
Quote from: Malken on April 19, 2014, 01:15:23 PM
I can be a great rper and still enjoy twinking up my coded skills. If doing both didn't give me great joy I'd either be playing a MUSH or one of the top 10 Iron Realms muds out there.
Kiss me?
I feel a lot of the stuff like this on the board is an attempt to say "I care more about the roleplay then you do." There are so many different types of players and play-styles that suit this game so well. I learn something new all the time, how to interpret an aspect of the world, or how to make an emote do a certain thing I haven't thought of before. More diversity equates to a more enjoyable world to me.
I wish more people would use hemotes and phemotes and watch. I also wish people would use () []. The one thing I love about arm is the detailed targeting emotes. In the other RPI's you have to basically keep using the sdesc, so it looks very stiff and awkward. Here's what I use for those weird emote symbols. Also, I found that mudsexin actually helped me to learn them better, for whatever that's worth.
Symbol Reference Target Sees
------ --------- -----------
~ (sdesc) you
! him/her you
% (sdesc)'s your
^ his/her your
# he/she you
& himself/herself yourself
= (sdesc)'s yours
+ his/hers yours
Also...just because...
(https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/1622272768/hC6422DF7/)
I have been a vocal critic of gdb criticism for a long while. Passive aggression in gdb posts begets self doubt and shame as vaguely worded comments feel applicable to far more players than the poster intends inevitably. These feelings don't encourage change at all only promote disinterest. The game should feel safe to rp in without it feeling personal.
Make change ICly. If someones rp isn't up to your standards you have four options in order from most to least preferred and helpful.
1. Stay IC and try to RP an appropriate reaction and also demonstrate the qualities you like, knowing it may not seem like you accomplished anything but maybe it will sink in someday for them.
2. File a player complaint if the offense is so bad it can't be corrected by #1 (appropriate but should be a very rare scenario)
3. Break the scenr with ooc (only if it is a real minor issue that can be fixed easily. For example, "ooc Please try to use appropriate punctuation." or "ooc The only language used in this mud for now is English, please refer to help blah"
4. Lastly, post on gdb. If you're going to do this be thorough, specific, polite, AND offer suggestions. Should be last resort.
Posted w a phone.
If my post seemed snarky and sarcastic in that thread, I was making fun of myself, honestly. Something about having skill levels of an equal number of letters is oddly satisfying, a condition I quite quickly wreck as I begin playing, alas.
Quote from: armacc on April 19, 2014, 02:38:54 PM
I wish more people would use hemotes and phemotes and watch. I also wish people would use () []. The one thing I love about arm is the detailed targeting emotes. In the other RPI's you have to basically keep using the sdesc, so it looks very stiff and awkward. Here's what I use for those weird emote symbols. Also, I found that mudsexin actually helped me to learn them better, for whatever that's worth.
Symbol Reference Target Sees
------ --------- -----------
~ (sdesc) you
! him/her you
% (sdesc)'s your
^ his/her your
# he/she you
& himself/herself yourself
= (sdesc)'s yours
+ his/hers yours
Also...just because...
(https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/1622272768/hC6422DF7/)
Nothing, NOTHING more mood killing (read: the scene is broken now ooc'ly for me) than a beautifully written emote.... that ends in hers, she instead of yours/you.
Use the damn symbols.
That and the capitalization are really the only things that I feel critical of when it comes to players styles.
I'm slightly guilty in the symbols regard. Not that I don't use them, I use them any time I should. But I constantly forget the ones that appear as 'yours' rather than 'your' to the target, and I feel so awful.
I don't even refer to myself in emotes. I just type 'his flaccid penis' instead of '+zoan flaccid penis'.
I've been working at using the special characters more frequently. Sometimes I need to stop and think, ok, how can I word this so it makes sense to all parties involved. I should likely practice using the characters for things like ^me or #me or something, but I've got a bad habit of just typing his, him, etc. for my PCs.
Why exactly is typing his rather than ^me or whatever bad? Surely the only person to notice is the one doing the typing?
Quote from: Patuk on April 19, 2014, 05:18:57 PM
Why exactly is typing his rather than ^me or whatever bad? Surely the only person to notice is the one doing the typing?
It's not necessarily bad, I don't think, it's just each time is me missing an opportunity to familiarize myself with the options available to me.
Quote from: Patuk on April 19, 2014, 05:18:57 PM
Why exactly is typing his rather than ^me or whatever bad? Surely the only person to notice is the one doing the typing?
Before I played a noble I used to use her/she/blah/blah/blah for my own character, feels different now that I use the right symbols. I can't tell if someone is using his/her for their own character, it's the hers/his when it should be directed at YOU that I really dislike.
Quote from: Patuk on April 19, 2014, 05:18:57 PM
Why exactly is typing his rather than ^me or whatever bad? Surely the only person to notice is the one doing the typing?
Surely not necessarily.
This is just K's gentle way of saying, 'Quit being assholes!'.
He's not so wrong. Maybe just a bit too polite for his point to come across!
;)
Stop being polite, asshole! What are we? Canadians?
The nerve of all that politeness.
A little box on the ears wouldn't be so bad, but, it is a bit more than that. I really do suspect there's a natural antagonism between styles of play, and wanted to get folk's opinion on what's good/bad/annoying. And, if its true that there's natural antagonism it leads to interesting questions, if, like me, you suspect a wide breadth of styles are what makes a good cast of players.
I really don't let little things bother me anymore. Gross misinterpretations of docs bug me, but I try hard to curb this behavior in game; whores are okay, you shouldn't gossip about them, so, my character will ask the offender what exactly is wrong with earning a living, that sorta thing.
We're all here to have fun. Things might grate on us, but if we don't let little things go, we might as well just play with our frigging selves.
Quote from: boog on April 20, 2014, 10:19:49 AM
I really don't let little things bother me anymore. Gross misinterpretations of docs bug me, but I try hard to curb this behavior in game; whores are okay, you shouldn't gossip about them, so, my character will ask the offender what exactly is wrong with earning a living, that sorta thing.
We're all here to have fun. Things might grate on us, but if we don't let little things go, we might as well just play with our frigging selves.
boog bugs me.
That is all.
Also, since I've been accused of being polite and unamerican . . .
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7311/13884972074_85358c83b8_o.jpg)
/end derail
Wait. Wait. Wait.
He's Captain Puerto Rico, not Captain Alberta!
Also it looks weird. 'The tall, muscular man holds your candle in one hand.'
Quote from: Kryos on April 20, 2014, 10:42:21 AM
Also, since I've been accused of being polite and unamerican . . .
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7311/13884972074_85358c83b8_o.jpg)
/end derail
CAPTAIN CANADA!!!
You were born July 4, 1920?
90 years old and playing Armageddon.
Wewt. :D
Can I have your autograph?
Fucking breeds. Nobody lives that long.
Captain Canadia is already a thing, a guy on this board actually. He's kind of cool, lets no go replacing him for a younger, more hip (if that's even possible) version. But you we could have like an evil version that's just as nice because he's Canadian.
Nono Eldritch, Captain Canadia was frozen in ice so he could fight the modern-day Quebec-Hydra - he's still the same age.
oh damn it you got me (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_america#1940s)
these are just a couple of things that annoy me I'm not sure if there a style or not.
One thing is that they have a beautiful outward seeming pc, yet there's no depth to them. Single word replies, no emotes, and makes it hard for me to rp with them, or to keep up rp'ing with them.
People always hunting, or going out to raise skills, mudsex, and yet not seeking to get to know more about your pc, his likes, dislikes. Why he is the way he/she is, wtf does that tattoo mean if at all anything. yadda yadda.
and yeah people want to slap me for my spelling, grammar an some other things I'm sure. (staff at the top of that list) I'm sorry I'm working on improving I am!
Also there's those that put up a ton of things in emotes, that make some feel overwhelmed, least from what I've been told at times.
Not sure if this is what your wanting but hey, it's what I took it as.
yeah beautiful PCs... Forget those, find an ugly one, those are the best.
ugly ones will never leave you!
I haven't found any one "playstyle" I find to be annoying really.
Even if I dislike someone, or my character dislikes them, so long as they are playing the role "well", I totally appreciate what they are doing. People who antagonize my characters, even if it makes their life hard, are a major reason I play this game. Keep giving my grief. Having enemies is one of the major draws to Armageddon.
With that being said, I guess the only thing I hate to see is people intentionally using "coded" language in their IC conversations.
I can see why it is done sometimes. Especially in situations with newbies when you are trying to teach them without going "OOC, use the assist command.".
It still really annoys me though. I know it is a necessary evil. But so annoying.
I did see one guy actually say something like this once, "You should fail a few times and then wait a few hours and try again. You will learn better.", or something so obviously geared towards twinking the coded system for skill advancement I wanted to rip my eyeballs out.
There is a difference between trying to help newbies and teaching them poor roleplay habits. This is a poor roleplay habit.
Also, please stop using words like, "Sup", "Cool", "Dude", "For reals", and "Uber" in game. You aren't surfers, hip hop artists, or The Fresh Prince of Balaire. Stop talking like it in Armageddon.
I've been guilty of using cool several times (which I've stopped) and using dude (yeehaw cowboys).
I've noticed a trend of older arm players, using the term loosely on suspecting twinkery over things that make sense, may be part of something else, or just what someone thinks. Then coming to the gdb to say something about it.
Quote from: Desertman on April 22, 2014, 11:57:33 AM
I did see one guy actually say something like this once, "You should fail a few times and then wait a few hours and try again. You will learn better.", or something so obviously geared towards twinking the coded system for skill advancement I wanted to rip my eyeballs out.
There is a difference between trying to help newbies and teaching them poor roleplay habits. This is a poor roleplay habit.
Using this as just one example. Say something like 'you should fail a few times and then wait a few hours and try again, you will learn better' Was it obviously geared towards twinking? Have you never just had to stop what you kept messing up, to think about what you where doing wrong to get it right? Never had to think for an hour go over what all you done, before a little lightbulb popped up over your head, and your like shit I did this instead of doing that. So you try again, get it a bit closer, and come to the point where you need to step back and say 'Fuck, I need to think about this again.' Each time you stop and think, go over what you did, and find out what you did wrong, and improve it you got better. This could quite easily have been what they where talking about. Maybe they don't use whatever skill every rl day, or where working with the person they said that to help give them more reason to use thinks, hemotes, phemotes, or even emotes. Maybe they got tired of watching spam crafting fails and where hinting at the person to knock it the fuck off, and quit wasting materials so willy nilly.
Just because people may say or do something once or twice, a rl day, or even week one person walks in on it and jumps up to ask if it's twinking. There are a lot more variables behind what others do then just to abuse some game skill set, when the end result is usually the same, the mantis head. As players even those that have been here since the Mantis first crept on screen to tell welcome you to Arm, until it crept up on scream laughing cause you got killed, can't see that it shouldn't show up here on the GDB as twinkery, but if you believe it as some form of abuse should be sent to staff so they can watch, pull up a background and look to see if something like that is mentioned. Then talked over between staff and the player, instead of putting it up here on the GDB.
This is perhaps one of my main pet peeves about the ARM community, and why I very nearly didn't return on my last haitus. I don't feel every single action ONE other player walks in on should warrant an 'older' considering it poor roleplay, the FIRST time they walk in on it. It is though a piss poor showing of arm players that they believe so negatively about other players, that one thing that can be abused, and may not be being abused, is so readily jumped upon. When it is those very same players that spar for weeks, and days on end with no signs of strains, go out and take on massive creatures that should be able to kill them with one hit but don't, go back to which ever tavern and drink all night to rinse and repeat the cycle. and don't believe they may in fact be doing some twinking, or bad roleplay themselves.
modified to add cause comp decided to be a douchie bag: I've seen a lot of great rp, and rp'ers on arm, very rarely do I actually voice my opinion on the gdb, because I don't know the background of a player, and it's not for me to judge off of just one, or two incidents, especially when I don't know the other character. No I'm not just jumping down Desertman for this one comment it's been many comments, and thanks to an annoying ass irl I don't have the time right now to look up each and everyone. Now I'm going to hop of my soap box, throw my hat on the wind vane and get off here.
Quote from: Clavis on April 21, 2014, 09:49:30 PM
People always hunting, or going out to raise skills, mudsex, and yet not seeking to get to know more about your pc, his likes, dislikes. Why he is the way he/she is, wtf does that tattoo mean if at all anything. yadda yadda.
Not to be an asshole, but maybe it's not their fault.
Quote from: spicemustflow on April 22, 2014, 05:35:39 PM
Quote from: Clavis on April 21, 2014, 09:49:30 PM
People always hunting, or going out to raise skills, mudsex, and yet not seeking to get to know more about your pc, his likes, dislikes. Why he is the way he/she is, wtf does that tattoo mean if at all anything. yadda yadda.
Not to be an asshole, but maybe it's not their fault.
grrr what what! How dare you say it's not their fault what do they have a frigging life or something outside of arm! *pants heavily* /k
yeah, I know I suck at rp'ing but I am trying. Still for me it's about learning about other characters, their stories, wants and likes, and also about developing my own, and sharing it. That to me is roleplaying, not just going out to smash a four hundred and ninetieth gortok, or whatever. It's about how everything effects your pc, how they grow, if they become attached to someone else, if they grow to hate another. Yet I see a lot of damn she's hooooot, kank kank kank kank, pant pant uuuuugggggg, aaaaand done. That grow into 'matings' I've always just considered that kanking. How are you to mate with someone, anyone without knowing if they are going to stab you while your sleeping one night or not. Zalanthians are about survival, that just seems odd that you claim a complete stranger as a mate? Cause in reality that's what they are a complete, utterly delectable, and ooooh so kankable stranger. imo
can I have your boots please mwister?
Quote from: Desertman on April 22, 2014, 11:57:33 AM
I did see one guy actually say something like this once, "You should fail a few times and then wait a few hours and try again. You will learn better.", or something so obviously geared towards twinking the coded system for skill advancement I wanted to rip my eyeballs out.
I've had to say this a few times. Generally, you will get some players who want their skill to go up so bad that they will spam the hell out of it. This is likely a bit of carry-over from games without a skill timer. Does it seem twinkish to go into a long speech about how "Mistakes are life's greatest teachers. You can only learn so much in a day, however. When you have made a few mistakes, it's time to go off and do something else, and think about what you've learned, makes sense, right?". I find it encourages this particular kind of player to flesh out their PC in other ways, rather than simply making use of the code, while teaching them an effective means of actually learning things.
It's either this or watch them skill-spam forever, in some cases. I'd rather go with the lesser of two evils.
Don't feel that you "have to" say that to anyone, ICly. I've been on the receiving end of that - and it was very unpleasant. They assumed I was a noob because I wasn't complying with the "most efficient use of the code." The fact of the matter was, I wasn't trying to make efficient use of the code. I wasn't trying to branch, or gain skill. I was trying to make a particular thing, and I had failed a few times, and had plenty of raw material available to try again til I succeeded. I would've stopped once I a) made this thing I wanted to make, or b) attempted for long enough that it would make sense to take a break (like a game-hour).
I was interrupted by someone instructing her to only try until she failed, and then not try anymore for another day. And when I told them ICly that I was fine, I just really wanted to make this thing - they actually went OOC to explain the code to me, because clearly I didn't "get" the IC "hint."
I've also been instructed to use a tool that I avoid using, even though codedly it does what it needs to do, because it makes no IC sense to use it for certain things. For instance (hypothetically) - a hedge-clipper to cut a silk gown. Yes, it's a scissors. And yes, it can be used to cut stuff. But it makes no sense for someone who wants to learn how to sew a silk gown to use a hedge-clipper to cut the silk. So don't tell me I need a hedge-clipper, just because codedly it gives a boost to cutting stuff. The actual situation was similar to that.
I'd probably have sent a player complaint if -anyone- ever went OOC to start explaining "how the code works" to me like that, and just added a note that I would like staff to inform them that going OOC to explain game mechanics like that is probably detrimental to fostering a good RP environment. Or just plain bad form.
EDIT: Don't feed the trolls.
I've never been able to figure out how to tell people not to go through an entire warehouse full materials on day one. Sorry, I know that's phrased inelegantly. You all see what I mean though, right?
Quote from: Barzalene on April 23, 2014, 08:19:05 AM
I've never been able to figure out how to tell people not to go through an entire warehouse full materials on day one. Sorry, I know that's phrased inelegantly. You all see what I mean though, right?
If they are ic'ly wasting a ton of materials at no gain they should be ic'ly punished for it.
That seems perfectly in character with no need to figure out a way to explain to them how to most efficiently use the code.
"Why are you costing us so much sid with your stupidity? Be less stupid or get the boot."
Quote from: Desertman on April 23, 2014, 09:18:33 AM
Quote from: Barzalene on April 23, 2014, 08:19:05 AM
I've never been able to figure out how to tell people not to go through an entire warehouse full materials on day one. Sorry, I know that's phrased inelegantly. You all see what I mean though, right?
If they are ic'ly wasting a ton of materials at no gain they should be ic'ly punished for it.
That seems perfectly in character with no need to figure out a way to explain to them how to most efficiently use the code.
"Why are you costing us so much sid with your stupidity? Be less stupid or get the boot."
True, but it's a little hard to come up with an IC way to explain that it's not okay to waste all the materials in the warehouse in a single day, but if they want to gradually waste all of the materials in the warehouse over the course of a few weeks, that'd be kosher.
I suppose you could just order them to do it and tell them not to ask questions, but your character should at least be thinking something that makes sense to your when you do it.
It's a matter of supply/demand and common sense economics. Don't use up more than we can replenish in a reasonable amount of time.
Yes, we have 100 shards of obsidian. But our employees can only bring back 50 per RL day.
So if you use 60 every RL day, we'll have none for you to work on before the RL week is over.
This isn't even something that -should- need to be explained ICly - but if you're dealing with a spam-crafter, just tell them - simply - don't use up more than we can replenish in a reasonable amount of time.
If they aren't getting it, or if they're not caring that you just instructed them this - then either toss them out of the clan for insubordination, or send a player complaint. Or both if it's combined with other twinkish behavior.
"Look buddy, those materials are for everyone to use. If you keep tearing through them at that rate, nobody else will have a chance to go at them. Pace yourself and give other crafters the opportunity to have a go at the stockpile. Don't use more than ___________ a day, alright?"
Quote from: Quell on April 23, 2014, 10:45:43 AM
Quote from: Desertman on April 23, 2014, 09:18:33 AM
Quote from: Barzalene on April 23, 2014, 08:19:05 AM
I've never been able to figure out how to tell people not to go through an entire warehouse full materials on day one. Sorry, I know that's phrased inelegantly. You all see what I mean though, right?
If they are ic'ly wasting a ton of materials at no gain they should be ic'ly punished for it.
That seems perfectly in character with no need to figure out a way to explain to them how to most efficiently use the code.
"Why are you costing us so much sid with your stupidity? Be less stupid or get the boot."
True, but it's a little hard to come up with an IC way to explain that it's not okay to waste all the materials in the warehouse in a single day, but if they want to gradually waste all of the materials in the warehouse over the course of a few weeks, that'd be kosher.
I suppose you could just order them to do it and tell them not to ask questions, but your character should at least be thinking something that makes sense to your when you do it.
"You are out pacing our hunter's ability to pull in materials, and you aren't producing anything. Slow down what you are working on. You are working too fast and not carefully enough and it is costing the House sid."
"Furthermore, laying down on a cot to do your crafting, without using any tools at all, shows me that you're not really interested in producing anything for the House. You have one day to get your ass in gear, or get your ass out."
"Henceforth, I shall call you, "Slappy McWorthlessFingers", until you do something to show me you are worthy of a less insulting moniker."
Crafting isn't the only thing this can be done with. There are other skills too, some it's not so easy to explain to people why they shouldn't simply be spamming the skill. Nudging someone and saying "You know, there's more to this game than skill gains." in some IC form or fashion seems fine to me.
Hahah. Don't use OOC for that dude.
Quote from: OOC Documentation
Think before you use ooc. It is not intended for conveying IC information, nor for discussions of the game mechanics, nor for extended roleplaying debates, nor for getting around language barriers.
Try to use the ooc command as little as possible, preferably never. Imagine what a movie would be like if the actors and actresses kept breaking out of their roles all the time--the movie would be awful. Never ever use the ooc command to convey IC information. This is looked upon very poorly by staff members.
OOCing me to criticize my play is liable to get you told to go fuck yourself.
I hate seeing people spamming certain combat skills, eight hundred failed attempts at rescueing! wtf really! Get your ass in the fight and worry about killing this thing, person, or place, and hope he/she is smart enough to run. The same goes for kick, and the other skills.
*hangs head* I do it when I'm not thinking about it but still, it annoys me to be pressured into it by someone. Yes I know we should be practicing the techniques of saving one of our comrades, but seeing a scroooooll of failed rescues, kicks, bashes, tralalalala's, broken bones, cracked stones, etc.... just irks me to no end.
Okay so maybe sometimes I should take of my little girl dress, and put on my big boy pants, but I don't want to! I like the pink flowers, and baby blue silk of my dress!
Quote from: ShaLeah on April 19, 2014, 05:32:13 PM
Quote from: Patuk on April 19, 2014, 05:18:57 PM
Why exactly is typing his rather than ^me or whatever bad? Surely the only person to notice is the one doing the typing?
Before I played a noble I used to use her/she/blah/blah/blah for my own character, feels different now that I use the right symbols. I can't tell if someone is using his/her for their own character, it's the hers/his when it should be directed at YOU that I really dislike.
Just wanted to touch on this as it DOES make a big difference when there's more than one other person in the room.
If I type "emote takes ^bob hand and smacks !amos ass with it"
bob will see you've used his hand to smack amos' ass
and amos will be able to tell too
but if I type "emote takes your hand and smacks his ass with it"
they will both get the same message and think that you've used their hand to slap the other one... which will confuse the hell out of the situation.
Anyway just thought I'd bring that up, the glorious code is there for us to use. USE IT
But how does ^me factor into that?
Quote from: perfecto on April 28, 2014, 11:43:45 PM
If I type "emote takes ^bob hand and smacks !amos ass with it"
bob will see you've used his hand to smack amos' ass
and amos will be able to tell too
Actually no, Bob will see:
The yellow man takes your hand and smacks him ass with it.
Amos will see:
The yellow man takes his hand and smacks you ass with it.
You (Malik) will see:
The tall hooded figure takes his hand and smacks him ass with it.
To make it make sense you'd do:
emote takes %bob hand and smacks %amos ass with it.
Of course it has nothing to do with the current subject, which is the use of first-person possessive - %me #me !me ^me.
There is no difference in what anyone sees, *except* for the person typing it out, between using %me and using his/her (depending on the person's gender).
And, when you use "his" or "her" instead of %me, it actually makes more sense. To wit:
emote takes his hand and smacks %amos ass with it.
Malik sees:
The yellow man takes his hand and smacks the blue-eyed man's ass with it.
if you use the ^me - emote takes ^me hand and smacks %amos ass with it.
The yellow man takes your hand and smacks the blue-eyed man's ass with it.
(after a good long chuckle)
Well I'm glad somebody cleared that up.. I was totally confusing myself
Do as I say! Not as I do! (he screams to himself)
To get back to the OP
I really enjoy a player that starts a character with a certain theme and sticks with it their whole life through. It can be easy to switch sides or turn tail when you realize something isn't going your way, or that the masses are against you. Those certain PC's that have the gumption to carry out their plans regardless of the outcome are my favorites. Regardless of play style, if you stick with what you're going for, it makes more sense to me than being a wishy-washy character. I guess those ones are my pet peeves. That being said I know this game is all about corruption and betrayal.. and murder.. but it's not all about that. Anyone who's played more than five RL days knows that's not the be-all, end-all of this game. There's so much more to it, and those who keep true to their characters are my heroes.
Alright I'll shut up now, lets talk about something else.
QuoteThis trend relates back a bit to the post I made regarding the state of Armageddon, in that, there's a diverse number of player styles out there, most of which are fairly complicated but not inherently against the concept of an RPI.
I will confess. I did not read most of the thread, because I wanted to reply immediately when I read the above line, due to...irony? It may be an improper use of the word.
I say this because as I recall, your thread about the different types of players was very heavily leaned -against- one type of player, even down to the name of the archtype: The Griefer. You essentially asserted that most of those who involved themselves in PvP aspects of the game did so out of enjoyment of removing another player's progress, like there was diabolical laughter every time a player killed another player.
While I do not think the above does -not- exist, I also think you were running along a trend all it's own, which is that calloused players do not belong in an RPI. This trend has gone so far as to have a large portion of the playerbase assert that killing another player was wasteful and plot ending, as if each player did -not- have their own plots, and as if deaths of characters did not start other plots anew.
I, quite frankly, think that player deaths are a necessary, and even essential, part of this game. Even if that player is a leader, or a major player in some clan plot or another, deaths are what keep the cycle turning in the game. New plots spring out of them. Characters that were close to the recently deceased have a sudden catalyst for change. The plot of the one who did the killing is advanced, even if that plot seems more meaningless to you, the deceased. So on and so forth. The idea of appealing to a player's humanity in a game that is strongly leaned against such behavior is counterproductive to me...and I found myself somewhat recently disenchanted by the fact that I could no longer engage in such behavior without a pang of guilt due to such discussions and knowing others took such offense to the action.
That is a trend I saw, much as you saw this one. I just thought it was...worth pointing out. Particularly since I am now without games in my summer job and have nothing to do but crawl along the GDB in my spare time. XD
Quote from: Armaddict on May 07, 2014, 02:51:04 AM
QuoteThis trend relates back a bit to the post I made regarding the state of Armageddon, in that, there's a diverse number of player styles out there, most of which are fairly complicated but not inherently against the concept of an RPI.
I will confess. I did not read most of the thread, because I wanted to reply immediately when I read the above line, due to...irony? It may be an improper use of the word.
I say this because as I recall, your thread about the different types of players was very heavily leaned -against- one type of player, even down to the name of the archtype: The Griefer. You essentially asserted that most of those who involved themselves in PvP aspects of the game did so out of enjoyment of removing another player's progress, like there was diabolical laughter every time a player killed another player.
While I do not think the above does -not- exist, I also think you were running along a trend all it's own, which is that calloused players do not belong in an RPI. This trend has gone so far as to have a large portion of the playerbase assert that killing another player was wasteful and plot ending, as if each player did -not- have their own plots, and as if deaths of characters did not start other plots anew.
I, quite frankly, think that player deaths are a necessary, and even essential, part of this game. Even if that player is a leader, or a major player in some clan plot or another, deaths are what keep the cycle turning in the game. New plots spring out of them. Characters that were close to the recently deceased have a sudden catalyst for change. The plot of the one who did the killing is advanced, even if that plot seems more meaningless to you, the deceased. So on and so forth. The idea of appealing to a player's humanity in a game that is strongly leaned against such behavior is counterproductive to me...and I found myself somewhat recently disenchanted by the fact that I could no longer engage in such behavior without a pang of guilt due to such discussions and knowing others took such offense to the action.
That is a trend I saw, much as you saw this one. I just thought it was...worth pointing out. Particularly since I am now without games in my summer job and have nothing to do but crawl along the GDB in my spare time. XD
Like so many things in life, both things can be true at once. Sometimes someone has to die. Sometimes people die in a way devoid of rp and in a way that makes no sense.
I'm rushed and on my way and hopefully this will make sense:
My pc walks into a bar, looks at a the people seated (lets say for the sake of argument not spam looks but regular old, looking to see who's there) and some asshole gets up from where he's been having a happy conversation pulls a knife kills my pc. Gets arrested and says Yeah, uh... she looked at me. It's just stupid.
While lets say same thing, only this time the killer guy is sitting there seething. He's been pissed on, pissed off and he's decided he's had enough. He kills my pc, he gets arrested and goes to jail and says: I'd had enough. Someone had to die.
My pc is still dead. I don't know the difference. But for the sake of the game there is a difference.
A further difference is if the player of the someone had to die guy plays that guy all the time. I don't think we should look for reasons to or not to kill. I think that there should be deaths and they should be organic to the story line.
Sorry. I hope that made sense. I'm a half hour late for work and a slow typist.
Zalanthas is a harsh place and murder is very much a (common) part of it. In some places of the world it is rather public and it isn't even the worse crime that you can commit, depending on who you kill and your social status versus theirs. An elf kills an elf? Good, one less elf...hardly worth a Templar's time. A human kills an elf? Here is a free ale for saving the militia the trouble.
This is a place where people will slit your throat for a drink of water, snap your neck for a handful of 'sid, or poison you to get ahead in their house. There is no reason too minor to kill someone for.
You should not allow OOC reasons to influence if your PC will kill someone or not. Sure, it might suck to end someone's long-lived character and you might not like the idea because you, the player, are a nice guy/gal but chances are your character won't give two turds. Your PC also shouldn't kill someone just because you, the player, wants to. It has to go both ways.
QuoteStuff about killing dudes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jg_uoixTsbY
When you combine homosexuality being as common as heterosexuality, the high mortality of infants, and murder/execution/assassination being so common place... how the fuck does the world stay populated?
Quote from: FantasyWriter on May 07, 2014, 09:36:09 PM
When you combine homosexuality being as common as heterosexuality, the high mortality of infants, and murder/execution/assassination being so common place... how the fuck does the world stay populated?
That seems pretty straightforward to me; Lots of people are doing both.
Haven't you noticed that every pregnant person has triplets? Duh.
Quote from: MeTekillot on May 07, 2014, 09:46:16 PM
Haven't you noticed that every pregnant person has triplets? Duh.
Haw, nice one!
I wonder - does that mean Zalanthans have litters of children? Is this why there's so many dirty goddamn elves?
Even though the whole multiple births thing is something that is PC pushed, I've always figured it made sense since the issues I mentioned above would lead to at least a slow dwindling of population in the cities.
Quote from: FantasyWriter on May 07, 2014, 09:36:09 PM
When you combine homosexuality being as common as heterosexuality,
Is it "as common"? I thought it just didn't have any prejudice against it.
I do think that yes, Zalanthans having litters makes sense.
Quote from: FantasyWriter on May 07, 2014, 09:36:09 PM
When you combine homosexuality being as common as heterosexuality, the high mortality of infants, and murder/execution/assassination being so common place... how the fuck does the world stay populated?
You've just described pre-black plague over populated medieval Europe.
Humans like to fuck. A lot.
Quote from: BadSkeelz on May 08, 2014, 12:12:17 AM
Quote from: FantasyWriter on May 07, 2014, 09:36:09 PM
When you combine homosexuality being as common as heterosexuality,
Is it "as common"? I thought it just didn't have any prejudice against it.
That's how I generally interpret the docs as well, but the GDB seems to lean more toward the statement of mine that you quoted.
Who's this GDB fella whom you speak of?
ain't nothing day about getting your dick sucked
Quote from: MeTekillot on May 08, 2014, 12:34:29 AM
ain't nothing day about getting your gick sucked
You're welcome.
Quote from: FantasyWriter on May 07, 2014, 09:36:09 PM
When you combine homosexuality being as common as heterosexuality, the high mortality of infants, and murder/execution/assassination being so common place... how the fuck does the world stay populated?
Don't forget newbies that walk out into the desert and die.
Yeah, stupidity should definitely have been added to the list. ;)
I don't think the virtual population is nearly as reckless and stupid as the PC population :)
I think there are quite a few things that need to be considered when criticizing someone for their spelling, proper grammar, and or use of the emoting system correctly.
1. English is quite possibly not their first language.
2. They could be new to our wonderful world and not totally comfortable with using the emoting system (it can be pretty daunting).
3. They could be a younger player and not have a great mastery of the the language either. Texting is ruining RP MUDs! (lolz, k thx bye, gtg, etc.)
On the last note. I think it is always best to follow the rule of - treat others like you want to be treated. When you were first starting out on Armageddon, would you like it someone said, OOC: "Hey man. Learn how to spell if you want to play this game."
If I see someone abruptly breaking a scene to correct a persons RP via OOC and it's in an abrasive tone - I'll report you. From reading this thread it seems like quite a few folks have forgotten what it was like to first start this mud and are really refusing to give anyone the benefit of the doubt.
Quote from: manonfire on May 10, 2014, 12:16:03 PM
I don't think the virtual population is nearly as reckless and stupid as the PC population :)
The poor dorf population is already so low. Take care of your dorfs, people, they are precious. :P