I agree with the mercy ideas too.  We'll do -something- with it at some point, hopefully not too far away.  I liked @mansa 's idea of "Tell mother I'm dead", a sort of quasi-dead state where you can still roleplay via say/emote, but can't use the way or move.  You -will- die, but it gives you a few mins to finish out your death scene (or you can opt out with quit death).

It's really a coder bandwidth/priority issue more than anything.  We'll get there!

Yes and yes. 110% yes to the second paragraph.

Quote from: Krath on Today at 09:17:31 PMI like the new rules are written...However, if they implemented RoE, way overboard.

I tend to agree.

Heck, the game would be a tremendously better place if asshole A just stuck to trying to kill asshole B whom they actually have beef with. Instead of using the conflict as a lame reason to go kill that newbie crafter/newbie recruit who smiled to their enemy once in passing.

That and a hard change to mercy, full prevention of any sort of damage (including spell and poison) to hp beyond 0 from a player who has this toggled on.  Toggled on should be the default and should be reset to default after every login. Oddly I feel a change like this would promote much more conflict and violence in the game, while preventing death. Its win-win.

QuoteThe rules are great, for people who care about following the rules. While the abuser will be punished, the one who gets abused must simply grin and bear it. With no Rules of Engagement or anything codedly preventing anything, it will always end up with "oops sorry".

I'm not even talking about cheaters (though I found out later that most of them were).

Frankly the players that I found to be the most abusive were the ones that were permitted to be so with with explicit staff support.

I like the new rules are written...However, if they implemented RoE, way overboard.

Quote from: Master Color on Today at 08:37:37 PMI find it weak and disappointing.

There is no suggestion of RoE. There is no responsibility for powerful characters to avoid abuse.

I wrote mine in haste, but this has the spirit of what I wanted to get to.

The rules are great, for people who care about following the rules. While the abuser will be punished, the one who gets abused must simply grin and bear it. With no Rules of Engagement or anything codedly preventing anything, it will always end up with "oops sorry".

Whenever a PC dies, there is a bit of information logged at the time of death. I have seen players move incapacitated PC bodies to a different room just so the kill-room logs as something different. These are the people who "might lose a karma".



Frankly, with staff not playing their own PCs and hopefully spending more time monitoring and playing alongside, this won't be as much of an issue. Its still a wait and see, since most staff are 'new' (or old staff taking new names to cleanse the pallet)

I find it weak and disappointing.

There is no suggestion of RoE. There is no responsibility for powerful characters to avoid abuse.

Quote from: Agent_137 on Today at 06:27:32 PMI was hoping to see the possibility of a Rez for a ridiculously poor PK, but I understand that's going to lead to having to say no a lot. 

I was hoping for this as well. I get why such a decision would be rare if it was a possibility at all, but not making it even a possibility seems like an error. Pre-determining this lack of arbitration may backfire if or when a situation arises where this pre-determination does more harm than good. An example would be a PK that is somehow the result of a typo or mistarget. It's currently not grounds for a resurrection, but at the same time, I wouldn't say that letting such a death stand always shows respect to the storytelling process. It might make storytelling sense in a messy brawl, but not so much if a templar is trying to execute someone and forgets that both the criminal and the templar's aide have obsidian hair.

I'm also assuming/hoping that griefing, while rare, falls under player cheating, which the "help resurrection" file says is potentially grounds for a resurrection.

It's otherwise a great addition to the game's rules and roleplaying standards.

First step in the right direction. I know older players are going to have trouble adjusting but I honestly don't have much empathy for selfish players who'll kill other PCs just for the thrill of it, if this fucks them over then I'm honestly happy. That honest pettiness aside, It's a very good change, I know Armageddon was originally a hack and slash but everything that points towards more quality and focus on Roleplay is a good thing.

Quote from: Agent_137 on Today at 06:27:32 PMAny thoughts? Will this improve gameplay? Limit it too much? Change nothing? Is it far enough? Too far?

Its really a wait and see.

After all its not low karma indies randomly killing a PC's lover and friends. In the past, its often been sponsored(non-templar) roles, played by high karma players with the blessing and encouragement of staff just acting totally psychotic and going for the easy kills.

This problem has existed for a very long time and is rooted in Armageddon's community, its culture and even its code.

For example, it would be fairly possible for the combat code to be tweaked to promote coded conflict that is meaningful but not always deadly. For example, allowing more knockouts or  perhaps cause temporary injury if you were severely beaten.  Mercy does not have to be so damn bad and regening to full from certain fights doesn't have to be so instant with just sleep.