Recent posts

#1
General Discussion / Re: Closure vs unsupported
Last post by Dresan - Today at 01:53:36 PM
Quote from: Lizzie on Today at 08:43:43 AMContracting out the death of someone is not only a viable way to kill a PC, it also ADDs to the shared story by bringing someone else into it, and turning a single PC-single PC "shared story" into an actual plotline. ESPECIALLY when the target of the contract is the antagonist - someone who's been pilfering, burglarizing, and then taunting the person hiring the contractor, because that person isn't a crafter-type, who is physically incapable of standing up for themselves.

Does it suck to be the target of a kill? Yup. Should SOME people maybe consider that, next time they antagonize other people? Yup.

If assholes were targeting assholes then I doubt we would be discussing it right now. But that isn't what happens and it isn't what is being referred to here.

Instead, when a player cannot kill another player, and often vise versa, they sometimes use that as an excuse to target anyone involved or related with their 'enemy'. The two reason for this happening being rather common in this game.

1. 'IC Consequences' - if the target of your ire is a sponsored role, special role, or high karma role you have historically taken the risk of a staffer getting involved and reviewing you motives, methods, reports and everything else to see if it was warranted. Then making a decision how the world reacts, and whether or not you deserve to keep some of your karma. The outcome often depend on who is on the staffer's friend list, you or the person you killed. You would have an easier time killing their lover, someone working for them on the side, perhaps a low level clan member they flirt with where IC consequences have been historically much less enforced.

2. 'Strong class combo' - whether they got there through staff boosting, special app, high karma role or just good old fashion powergaming, the time honored art of guild sniffing has not gone away, and decisions are made based upon how strong the character is and likely to retaliate. If sponsored role A thinks you are playing hidden sorcerer, shit slides off them like it were petals of roses until they find out you have a mundane class. Again against skilled character people tend to just target everyone around them.

This is a crappy situation, and its been allowed for the longest time because it happens in RL, stories and movies. This is what ruthless people just do so it, they target those around you, so should be allowed in game. However, the game cannot support this type of mentality. Its not enough to kiss the assess of sponsored roles, but I guess you can't do business or smile with X,Y or Z since that will also give people reason to pay thousands to butcher you mercilessly.

And to tie all this back to my original point but this is just one of the risk of this type of setting. When its a fraction vs fraction setting, the primary enemies for these sponsored roles will all fall under category number 1. At that point these bored people often find excuses to flex their virtual muscle on just about everyone else who doesn't fit into one of the categories above, with the flimsiest 'you ain't with me, so you must be against me' excuses. I've been playing on and off since Luirs was destroyed by the mantis invasion, and in that time I've been involved in 2 pks, one was as part of a military order by a templar to kill a captured criminal in a group and the second time was by accident, using blunt weapons when I forgot to put mercy on. I rarely found reason to murder anyone, yet I've been murdered repeatedly over the years and when I became to hard to kill, those around me begin disappearing, so they aren't just killing my character, they are just killing the reasons i log in at all.

I have nothing again Pk, especially someone just trying to PK just -my- character, but it can get utter ridiculous the lengths people can to go to destroy someone's enjoyment. I  sincerely believe there is a group of people involved in this game who get their jollies by finding excuses to destroy the efforts of others....X has been living Y long, cool, lets kill them/their friends, X is trying to accomplish Y, lets kill/stop them, A is about to achieve B, lets kill/prevent them. They can play high karma roles or sponsored roles, or sometimes they might even be on staff but they do nothing but maintain the status quo and destroy anything standing out that doesn't have protection from another staff member. This problem has been around a long time and is often supported and encouraged by staff. In my opinion, this setting makes the problem more prevalent, with less places to escape or avoid ongoing disputes, and more so because this game's smaller population can no longer afford to entertain staff's bored friends by letting them destroy other people effort for no reason at all.

At the end though, this just food for thought for the upcoming season.
#2
General Discussion / Re: Closure vs unsupported
Last post by Kavrick - Today at 09:05:01 AM
Quote from: Lizzie on Today at 08:43:43 AMKilling a PC because they were rude to you in the Gaj is a shitty way to treat the shared story. UNLESS you are playing a noble or templar, and gave them warnings to stop, and they were "victim-hobos" who thrive on submitting player complaints to whine about how they were killed for no good reason. That happens, almost as often as PCs get killed in the Gaj for being rude.

I can agree with this, it basically just comes down to 'fuck around and find out', but I also think templars/nobles can do something more interesting than merely 'killing' with their power. I have also personally contracted someone to kill someone else, but this was 100% just a last-resort sort of scenario.
#3
General Discussion / Re: Closure vs unsupported
Last post by Lizzie - Today at 08:43:43 AM
Quote from: Riev on May 11, 2024, 07:26:46 PMWhile it is still off topic, I just wanted to mention:

Killing a player character is totally fine and a viable way to resolve conflict.
Killing a player character because they "were rude to you in the Gaj" is a viable way to resolve the conflict, but is a shitty way to treat the shared story.
Contracting out a death of someone you don't like is a viable way to resolve the conflict and is still a shitty way to treat the shared story.
...
Player Character murder just happens too much as the first and only solution (Dare I say... the final solution)

Killing a PC because they were rude to you in the Gaj is a shitty way to treat the shared story. UNLESS you are playing a noble or templar, and gave them warnings to stop, and they were "victim-hobos" who thrive on submitting player complaints to whine about how they were killed for no good reason. That happens, almost as often as PCs get killed in the Gaj for being rude.

Contracting out the death of someone is not only a viable way to kill a PC, it also ADDs to the shared story by bringing someone else into it, and turning a single PC-single PC "shared story" into an actual plotline. ESPECIALLY when the target of the contract is the antagonist - someone who's been pilfering, burglarizing, and then taunting the person hiring the contractor, because that person isn't a crafter-type, who is physically incapable of standing up for themselves.

Does it suck to be the target of a kill? Yup. Should SOME people maybe consider that, next time they antagonize other people? Yup.
#4
General Discussion / Re: Closure vs unsupported
Last post by Patuk - May 11, 2024, 10:49:19 PM
Quote from: Riev on May 11, 2024, 06:30:48 PMJust saying. Sometimes stuff sucks.

What is that meant to contribute exactly?
#5
General Discussion / Re: Closure vs unsupported
Last post by Kavrick - May 11, 2024, 07:55:30 PM
Quote from: Riev on May 11, 2024, 07:26:46 PMMurder hobo doesn't really happen so much, in my opinion. Player Character murder just happens too much as the first and only solution (Dare I say... the final solution)

I also don't think murder hobos are common, as I mentioned before, in my year of playing I encountered around 5-6. I do think players that's backstories are just 'I'm a psychopath and want to kill people' should probably be rejected though. Otherwise I do agree that murder is a viable answer to resolve a conflict, but I also do think other things should be tried first.

A big thing in the other roleplay communities that I play inside is basically just 'proper escalation', and it's PvP RP 101 to be honest. It's a lot better roleplay to go from for example, throwing insults > shoving and pushing > throwing fists > a weapon gets drawn, that sort of thing. Actually roleplay out tensions rising rather than just doing 'draw mace;kill elf'. No only is resorting to murder straight away an incredibly boring thing, especially for the victim, but doing the opposite and creating rivalries and tension add a lot to the game's atmospheres and dynamics imo.
#6
General Discussion / Re: Closure vs unsupported
Last post by Riev - May 11, 2024, 07:26:46 PM
While it is still off topic, I just wanted to mention:

Killing a player character is totally fine and a viable way to resolve conflict.
Killing a player character because they "were rude to you in the Gaj" is a viable way to resolve the conflict, but is a shitty way to treat the shared story.
Contracting out a death of someone you don't like is a viable way to resolve the conflict and is still a shitty way to treat the shared story.


The issue of murder hobo has always been one of the following:
  • two handed bludgeoning dwarves that cost 0 karma and have enough endurance to tank the soldiers after they kill you at the Gaj
  • Killing someone in the 'rinth because "they were clearly a PC and the 'rinth is a murder zone"
  • pretending to engage in relationship roleplay so you can apartment-kill someone you don't like

Still not against PK. Just FOR alternative ways to engage in conflict. Break a finger. Hire a breed to piss on them. Hire an elf to steal their favorite spice pipe. Hire a 'rinthi burglar to steal their latest Hunter's Haul in their apartment.

Murder hobo doesn't really happen so much, in my opinion. Player Character murder just happens too much as the first and only solution (Dare I say... the final solution)
#7
General Discussion / Re: Closure vs unsupported
Last post by Dresan - May 11, 2024, 06:45:21 PM
I want to believe troll Pk characters are rare and should be easily dealt with by staff. I want to believe but perhaps this is misplaced faith given some of the posts. As for bandits, I consider them semi-intelligent hostile NPC mobs, they target new players, but if you travel in groups or get back to crim-supported zone they usually leave you alone.

The thing that a clan vs clan setting supports the most and what is harder to detect is when a person has a shitty reason to go after someone, and I truly mean horrible almost non-reasons to seek PK. In the past there have been any number of bored people willing to go after an easy mark when an opportunity rises. Someone contracting you to kill someone is pretty good reason to pk in the eyes of this game. There could be RP leading to the kill as well but ultimately the entire reason is very likely flimsy at best. There other thing of course, as has been mentioned, is that 'IC consequences' only applies to sponsored roles or people staff like so its always the same types of people getting murdered in this game. And again back to my original point, it may be harder to escape if you get targeted by a bored sponsored role or high karma class murderhobo. I hope your class supports strong stealth(something people keep wanting to nerf) or I guess you can always live in a cave. 

Your milage may vary if you are in a clan, assuming of course that you are not considered fodder or just find clans dreadfully boring but that's probably another thread. Also just hoping with Tuluk/Morins practically or literally closed, more effort can be made to keep the areas remaining somewhat more autonomous, its a tough ask with factional warfare I think though, we'll just have to see.  :-\
#8
General Discussion / Re: Closure vs unsupported
Last post by Riev - May 11, 2024, 06:30:48 PM
So long as we have players and staff of the belief that you "should kill your enemies because otherwise they will come back to bother you", this is going to be an issue.

On topic, however, is that Tuluk as a city can't be "unsupported" and still let players have full access. It is a massive sprawling city with political and templarate issues that the players cannot access while it is "unsupported".

The city isn't CLOSED as in no access, but due to the lack of support it will be receiving there is a massive amount of restricted access.

Does it suck? Sure it does.
Does it suck that the sorceror role changes every time a player sorc gets popular? Sure it does.
Does it suck that a player can OOCly assume someone is a mindworm and make shit up, killing off a maximum karma role + special app so they could "win"? Sure it does.
Does it suck that an elf only really needs to hit you for 1 damage to poison your long-lived character and end your story? Sure it does.

Just saying. Sometimes stuff sucks.
#9
General Discussion / Re: Closure vs unsupported
Last post by Kavrick - May 11, 2024, 03:31:33 PM
Quote from: Roon on May 11, 2024, 03:07:45 PMOn the other hand, I've found that staff rarely even acknowledge that it's shitty roleplay to just walk into a room and murderhobo a total stranger for no real reason. I've sent player complaints about that a number of times, and by and large, the staff response has been something along the lines of "there's nothing wrong with that, you have no grounds for complaint, and the player who did it is in the clear." With these new karma standards and the request for better roleplay that was implicit in the announcement, I would hope that being a total asshole towards other players can become something that staff care more about and take into account when judging players, even without an actual rule against flagrant murderhoboing.
I agree with this pretty wholesale, it's even worse when the murder-hobo is clearly playing a high-karma role like a gick too. Like, high karma is supposed to represent the quality of the roleplay and how responsible the player acts, but it's fine for them to just murder hobo without rp?
A big problem I have with arm pvp is that the game simply isn't made for good pvp. Combat is rocket-tag, and if someone wants to min-max and grind out a murder-hobo, it's fairly easy to do so, especially when you look at elves and stealth.

I agree that it'd be hard to put in a hard-coded 'no murder-hobo' rule, but if you murder-hobo, it should 100% be taken into account when your karma is reviewed. Should we really be giving mul/drovian access to players who are just going to use it for the pure purpose of killing other players? And to be clear, when I say 'murder-hobo', I don't mean an antagonist that has the potential to kill other players, I mean people who are looking for a reason to kill other players. I view it in same way as I view killing my players when I'm Game-Mastering in a tabletop RPG- I'm never looking for a reason to kill my players, but killing them is certainly on the table if they provoke it or are stupid, I feel as if antags should approach the topic of PKing in the same way.
#10
General Discussion / Re: Closure vs unsupported
Last post by Roon - May 11, 2024, 03:07:45 PM
Quote from: Kavrick on May 11, 2024, 12:45:40 PM
Quote from: Dresan on May 11, 2024, 11:07:35 AMYou can't really go targeting sponsored roles without 'IC consequences' so it leads to basically everyone else who happens to be playing an easy target being butchered. For example, you can't really kill the sponsored noble, but what about the aide they just hired, you can't kill the staff boosted sergeant but what about that unclanned PC they seem to be having fun flirting with, you can't really kill X,Y,Z but lets send powergaming mul assassin to kill the newbie crafter they are living with, the crafter isn't contributing to staff run plots after all. Again, all done with staff approval and encouragement.

This is actually more a problem with Armageddon's piss-poor standards for pking. You can roll up a bandit or a murderer and just kill people with next to no roleplay. I've seen it happen, I've talked to staff in requests about it, you're not expected to roleplay or provide any content for the people you're killing, and it's the only roleplay game I've ever played with such low standards, even out of roleplay games that don't have permadeath.

I think the principle that leads to this situation is: this is a game that facilitates frequent unplanned PvP (whether or not there actually is frequent unplanned PvP, the game is set up to accommodate it) and it would be a nightmare to enforce any standards that can't be hardcoded. If a set of "rules of engagement" was implemented, the winner is usually the guy who ignores them, so those rules would get broken all the time and staff would have to investigate PvP encounters constantly. With no rules, at least you don't lose your character just because you weren't cheating.

On the other hand, I've found that staff rarely even acknowledge that it's shitty roleplay to just walk into a room and murderhobo a total stranger for no real reason. I've sent player complaints about that a number of times, and by and large, the staff response has been something along the lines of "there's nothing wrong with that, you have no grounds for complaint, and the player who did it is in the clear." With these new karma standards and the request for better roleplay that was implicit in the announcement, I would hope that being a total asshole towards other players can become something that staff care more about and take into account when judging players, even without an actual rule against flagrant murderhoboing.