It seems really silly to me, point blank, that only rangers can quit in the wilderness for ooc reasons. That I have to potentially wait six extra hours for these hellish ig storms to clear, for four days for my slow stamina bar to fill up, before I can pause and go through the desert, cause I have to go to school in five hours.
When we're talking about quitting, it's an ooc thing right? We accept it no matter what in clans, ig, ic, but we can't allow it outside of designated zones? Seriously what's up with that?
quit
You are not in safe room.
...whatever
I think this feature is really to encourage those wheo don't play rangers to understand that they are not playing rangers. Rangers are a select breed who have generally spent more time outside the cities than in them, and thus can bunk in the dunes far better than any non-traveller.
That said, Iwouldn't mind seeing anyone following a ranger be able to take advantage of this feature.
Alright that's dandy, but what of the ooc aspect of it? Why not just put a camp system in, and boom 10 minutes for said class, 2.5 seconds for ranger. It's rediculous taking this sort of thing ic. When I want to quit, I'm not held in a plot, or running from pk, I should be able to -quit- bottom line.
And encourage people to be rangers, that's the last thing we need, they're already twinked.
I'd really have to agree. Quitting is an OOC thing so the whole 'camp' deal with it is really just bringing IC holds into OOC. I do like that rangers have an advantage in that way, but they have advantages in other ways and I have had to choose more than once to either go link-dead and die (possibly) or stay on and get in trouble for not doing something.
I like the fact only rangers can quit anywhere outside for a number of reason, even though I have been in FAR more than one frustrating unquitable sandstorm of madness.
The reason I like it is because it makes the wilderness far more hostile. If you're not a ranger, you simply have no idea how to survive out there for a long period of time. If you're not a ranger, you shouldn't travel far from a city without good reason, or a without a guide.
This keep people inside cities, and creates the illusion that they are far safer. Also, it provides employment for rangers, which I don't see enough of. Loner rangers are great, but since the storm code was changed they really should be treated as gold dust for merchants etc.
Brought up camp, before for one, I know if any person had the chance to just quit out anywhere, it'd be abused, with a camp, or delayed action, you can still quit out when you want, or relitively sooner than waiting six hours for global typhoon sandstorm of hell to pass. And get some sleep for the night. Face it, quitting is ooc, restriction on quitting is bringing ooc ic, which is bad. We need to make changes. (and delete all rangers)
Oh and just for another note ic my character is not going to wait sixteen days and die in the desert, or let some braxat eat him, because I had to leave him idle in the desert to go to work.
Quote from: "Spoon"I like the fact only rangers can quit anywhere outside for a number of reason, even though I have been in FAR more than one frustrating unquitable sandstorm of madness.
The reason I like it is because it makes the wilderness far more hostile. If you're not a ranger, you simply have no idea how to survive out there for a long period of time. If you're not a ranger, you shouldn't travel far from a city without good reason, or a without a guide.
This keep people inside cities, and creates the illusion that they are far safer. Also, it provides employment for rangers, which I don't see enough of. Loner rangers are great, but since the storm code was changed they really should be treated as gold dust for merchants etc.
It's bullshit, not justification. With or without a ranger, a character wound not idle in the wilderness for six days standing in place, and die of starvation. A character would not sit and let a wild beat eat him while he was working, because his player was offline. Quitting -period- is complete ooc it should be treated as such, and for some reason it is not.
It's like wow, rangers are the only people who have the ability to rift time and space, creating a break between ooc and ic of arm allowing them to quit. Not it's silly. If a ranger should be able to quit, I should be able to quit. There is no bearing on ooc with ic abilities, I see -no- reason why it should even be an issue.
First of all, chill.
Second of all, if you want to be able to quit, don't go into the wilderness.
I know this isn't the answer you want, and it certainly isn't the perfect answer, but this has been discussed a zillion times before and never gets anywhere because people refuse to acknowledge how the mud has to work. I see this almost as fundamental as permadeath.
Arm isn't a drop in game, and it never will be.
Warriors, merchants and whatnot have less IC knowledge of how to survive in the wilds when compared to rangers. Thus, it's easier for them either to stay inside a walls or trust on services of a ranger. *shrugs*
And I think there are saferooms scattered out there in the wilderness (I've accidentally found out some, but it's something you should find out IC).
...and hostility takes you nowhere here, FightClub. Please behave.
I'd suggest playing when you know you can play without much disturbance.
*faceplam*
Still no explanation of why ooc situation is ruling ic. Still no explanation of why we're forcing everyone who wants to play in the wilderness to be a ranger. Like I said it's not justification, these are pathetic excuses.
Quote from: "FightClub"*faceplam*
Still no explanation of why ooc situation is ruling ic. Still no explanation of why we're forcing everyone who wants to play in the wilderness to be a ranger. Like I said it's not justification, these are pathetic excuses.
It simply shows the difference of lifestyles between rangers and other classes. If you want to play in wilderness, you can be a ranger, OR find sufficent time in real life.
Please calm down, too.
Quote from: "MossOwl"Warriors, merchants and whatnot have less IC knowledge of how to survive in the wilds when compared to rangers. Thus, it's easier for them either to stay inside a walls or trust on services of a ranger. *shrugs*
And I think there are saferooms scattered out there in the wilderness (I've accidentally found out some, but it's something you should find out IC).
...and hostility takes you nowhere here, FightClub. Please behave.
I'd suggest playing when you know you can play without much disturbance.
Alright, but catch this! Me going to work, wouldn't stop my character from going back to the city once a storm stops. But if I go to work, he's going to sit there, and sit there, and sit there, and possibly die. Where is this ic nature in this? What baring does ability to survive have to do with me being able to input an ooc command?
A helpful hint, but there are usually quitsafe rooms scattered about, usually within walking distance of a road. It is not impossible for a non-ranger to live completely in the wilderness, I've done it multiple times. It is just far more difficult as a non-ranger, and it should be.
Furthermore, quitting out is not purely OOC. In the case of being outside the gates, that is the price you pay for not being prepared (I.E. a ranger). Now, if it is an emergency, you may try wishing up and resolving that somehow. However, in my opinion, things are perfect the way they are with rangers quit prowess.
I agree with you FightClub, although your tone is a bit off :)
To other posters: this is my interpretation of it, so correct and punish me if I'm wrong. But what FightClub wants is not for non-ranger characters to suddenly gain ranger abilities, but to be able to quit because he has to leave the game to go to work, and that his only option is to go linkdead which is not only highly dangerous but also generally frowned upon. I've personally never set foot outside of a city state's walls, so I can't contribute with knowledge other than what I've heard and know from helpfiles. But quitting is not an IC thing, as he said, and a game should never ever ever ever prevent the player from leaving when he/she wants to, except for short periods of time such as the no-quit period after combat, which prevents people from twink-abusing left and right.
The ability of quitting in wilderness is a ranger ability because it would seem ranger-ish to do so, but my suggestion would be to let anyone quit in the wilderness, possibly with some preparation time, say 5-10 minutes to set up a camp or something similar to prevent people from cheating away from angry giths and such, and let rangers do it without that delay. And maybe give rangers an IC thing, like the ability to set up a camp with a shelter and let people in that camp regain stamina a little faster. Something along those lines, so that rangers still have something special in the wilderness aside from tracking and whatever else rangers have.
Quote from: "Cegar"A helpful hint, but there are usually quitsafe rooms scattered about, usually within walking distance of a road. It is not impossible for a non-ranger to live completely in the wilderness, I've done it multiple times. It is just far more difficult as a non-ranger, and it should be.
Furthermore, quitting out is not purely OOC. In the case of being outside the gates, that is the price you pay for not being prepared (I.E. a ranger). Now, if it is an emergency, you may try wishing up and resolving that somehow. However, in my opinion, things are perfect the way they are with rangers quit prowess.
Quit prowess? Not purely OOC? Right, what does my characters adeptness have to do with what time I have to be at work? Nothing? Oh, wrong, my "quit prowess" isn't high enough. I'm sorry I don't have a complete "OOC" zone listing of quit rooms, as you, or you, or you do. But frankly, I don't see what quit zones, quit prowess, or anything has to do with me having to leave the game. Period. Round it all you want, quit is an ooc command, we quit to leave the game, not to camp for the night ig, we do that ig, so when we quit it is ooc, for ooc means, and for ooc use, period. It should be treated that way. It's just silly to think how people defend this unholy ooc power rangers hold, warriors, merchants, or anyone are fully capable of surviving in the wild, if they weren't tribals wouldn't have them, period. No this is purely ooc, it has no bearing ic.
Quote from: "Hymwen"I agree with you FightClub, although your tone is a bit off :)
To other posters: this is my interpretation of it, so correct and punish me if I'm wrong. But what FightClub wants is not for non-ranger characters to suddenly gain ranger abilities, but to be able to quit because he has to leave the game to go to work, and that his only option is to go linkdead which is not only highly dangerous but also generally frowned upon. I've personally never set foot outside of a city state's walls, so I can't contribute with knowledge other than what I've heard and know from helpfiles. But quitting is not an IC thing, as he said, and a game should never ever ever ever prevent the player from leaving when he/she wants to, except for short periods of time such as the no-quit period after combat, which prevents people from twink-abusing left and right.
The ability of quitting in wilderness is a ranger ability because it would seem ranger-ish to do so, but my suggestion would be to let anyone quit in the wilderness, possibly with some preparation time, say 5-10 minutes to set up a camp or something similar to prevent people from cheating away from angry giths and such, and let rangers do it without that delay. And maybe give rangers an IC thing, like the ability to set up a camp with a shelter and let people in that camp regain stamina a little faster. Something along those lines, so that rangers still have something special in the wilderness aside from tracking and whatever else rangers have.
*takes in a deep breath*
Exactly -- *ends rant*
I'll let some sympathizers pick it up now.
Quote from: "FightClub"Still no explanation of why we're forcing everyone who wants to play in the wilderness to be a ranger.
You want to play in the ocean, you've got to be a fish.
Spoon's right. I feel like a Liberal on the O'Reily Factor. I wash my hands of this. Have fun arguing.
Quote from: "Spoon"Quote from: "FightClub"FightClub wrote:
Still no explanation of why we're forcing everyone who wants to play in the wilderness to be a ranger.
You want to play in the ocean, you've got to be a fish.
Besides, it's quite obvious you're not looking for an answer. I suppose this is my fault for taking notice of the word 'Discussion' at the top of the page..
Ah closest thing to a flame I could find.
Yeah sorry, I edited that bit out because I thought this turned into a discussion....
But I'll edit it back in. FightClub, you aren't taking notice of anyone's answers. I think you're pissed off about a recent occurrence and you'll get over it.
I'd really like to get some IMM opinion in on this too.
Nah I'm pushing for a change here, as I do with all similar threads. Maybe we could get a staff member to forward it to code?
But yeah I'm off to bed, feel free to carry on.
Then use the ask the staff forum. You won't get anyone else answering in there. Or you could dig up one of the other kajillion threads and find an answer there.
If you're quitting, your character is staying outside for a long period of time - sure, anyone can do that, but not in the open plain. Your character would have to stay there, eat, drink, and msot important sleep somewhere - int he middle of the desert heat with no shelter when you've got no particular knowledge about how to do this (cause that'S what a non-ranger really is)?
I agree, a 10 minute delay or soemthing for iother classes wouldn't be too bad - but that would amke every fucking merchant be able to survive whereever? Bleh. warriors are for fighting, not to stay outside forever.
And it's not too hard to play a warrior as an outside char - I played one as a delf, and if you apply some common sense you can easily find thsoe quit safe rooms. Where would your average warrior be able to sleep without dehydrating too much and without any extra shelter?
Check caves, groves, huts, ruins, anything where there's a lot of trees (groves or an oasis), or animal dens. They're all over the palce and usually far within range of getting there using only a fraction of the movement your delf or your kank got.
Here's my take on it: rangers can survive in the wilderness indefinately. Therefore, it makes sense that rangers could survive indefinitely in the wilderness in a virtual state (quitting). The other guilds cannot.
Quitting (an OOC action) is being influenced by in game situations (IC restrictions), not the other way around, fightclub. If it was an OOC affecting IC, yes, this would be bad...but this situation is IC affecting the OOC. If your character doesn't go outside (IC action) then you can quit much easier (OOC problem).
QuoteI agree, a 10 minute delay or soemthing for iother classes wouldn't be too bad - but that would amke every fucking merchant be able to survive whereever? Bleh. warriors are for fighting, not to stay outside forever
Quitting in wilderness (edit: for non-rangers) should, of course, be emergency behavior. But FightClub is not the first, and will not be the last person who due to an unlucky sandstorm or something similar, ends up spending too long in the wilderness and at some point
has to log out due to OOC things. Since there are coded environmental effects (read: sandstorms or darkness) that prevent you from doing basically anything for quite lengthy periods of time, there should IMO be a way to leave the game if you must. They could implement a wish-like command where you state your reason for quitting in the desert if you're not a ranger, like "quitmsg Sorry, I have to go, my house is on fire, so I quit in the desert even though I'm a merchant", and have consequences for people who abuse this and quit without giving a reason. Players in this game have a responsibility that goes beyond the coded rules, and we should trust players not to do something unrealistic outside of an emergency, but as I said before, I consider it nearly a breach of human rights to force someone to stay in the game or face dire consequences if they choose to let their chracter idle/linkdead somewhere for completely OOC reasons.
Possibly allow non-rangers only a certain amount of "wilderness quits" per RL day/week.
Quote from: "FightClub"When we're talking about quitting, it's an ooc thing right?
Wrong.
Your character is ICly going on with his life. While you're not logged in, your character ICly goes about doing things. He eats, he drinks, he sleeps, he does work for his clan, maybe he earns virtual money and spends it on virtual ale and whores. When rangers quit, they hunt and forage for food and water. Other classes don't know how to do that, so it doesn't make sense for them to enter this virtual mode out in the wilderness.
Quote from: "Marauder Moe"Quote from: "FightClub"When we're talking about quitting, it's an ooc thing right?
Wrong.
Your character is ICly going on with his life. While you're not logged in, your character ICly goes about doing things. He eats, he drinks, he sleeps, he does work for his clan, maybe he earns virtual money and spends it on virtual ale and whores. When rangers quit, they hunt and forage for food and water. Other classes don't know how to do that, so it doesn't make sense for them to enter this virtual mode out in the wilderness.
Then why isn't my character icly walking back to his village while I'm linkdead?
I've played many characters in the wilderness that aren't rangers.
To address the "must go" situation - this situation exists in cities as well and people need to get to a quit-safe location or drop link. Personally, when I play in the wilderness I tend to stay near my character's home (ie, quit area). Therefore, if something does come up, then I just scurry home (aka, head to a tavern) and quit out.
If, for some reason, my character was traveling to some other location and something comes up - I drop link and take my chances.
Now, why do rangers get quit anywhere and no one else? I think people are starting to hit this one on the nose. Survival in the wastes is a specialized ability that takes a lifetime to achieve. A warrior can fight off the nasties but will still fall prone to the traps of the wastes. A ranger's quit anywhere ability reflects this survivability trait.
I, personally, would not like to see any other class than ranger get quit anywhere. I feel that limiting this ability keeps the ranger class what it should be and encourages people to gather around the quit-safe locations that exist throughout the known world.
The wilds are dangerous to be in and if everyone could quit anywhere I think this danger would be reduced significantly.
Is this an OOC thing? I'm not convinced that it is. We can't quit anywhere inside a city so I'm not sure why we should be able to outside a city. In cities our characters quit out in locations that they can live / sleep in. In the wilderness it is the same way.
QuoteIs this an OOC thing? I'm not convinced that it is. We can't quit anywhere inside a city so I'm not sure why we should be able to outside a city. In cities our characters quit out in locations that they can live / sleep in. In the wilderness it is the same way.
QuoteNow, why do rangers get quit anywhere and no one else? I think people are starting to hit this one on the nose. Survival in the wastes is a specialized ability that takes a lifetime to achieve. A warrior can fight off the nasties but will still fall prone to the traps of the wastes. A ranger's quit anywhere ability reflects this survivability trait.
Yes, but in a city, you should be able to find a place to quit in a matter of minutes. My (and probably FightClub's) point is that people should,
in an emergency, be allowed to leave the game when they
absolutely have to. Not play their merchant like they're a ranger, not pretend that they can survive in the wilds, but for the same reasons that we can OOCly correct people that make huge mistakes that impact the game world around them, or wish up to be let out of a locked apartment that we lost link in last night, because sometimes something unforeseen happens that it wouldn't be fair to lose a character to, or something similar.
QuoteSince there are coded environmental effects (read: sandstorms or darkness) that prevent you from doing basically anything for quite lengthy periods of time, there should IMO be a way to leave the game if you must.
I agree, actually. I love rangers to death, and I like that they can do some wicked rad stuff that no other classes can do. But storms can be unceasing at times, and, due to the way storm/darkness code works, someone can become stuck in one room for RL hours. It would be nice if there was something out there to help poor suckers who get trapped, thinking they have a good hour left before they have to go to bed/work or whatever. Someone once suggested making it coded so there was always a break in the storms, 1 day for every 2 storming ones, after which it would go back to being hell if it so chose. That'd be pretty nice, though it might make rangers less of a commodity for travel. Having one or two emergency wilderness quits for non-rangers would be nice, too.
Personally, however, I like the camp idea the best. It could take time to set up, during which it could be interupted by being mauled by an animal or attacked by a PC. Also, it could do some damage to a non-ranger's equipment, as well, just to round things off a bit and remind people that living out in the wilderness is harsh for those who don't know what they're doing. I think people would be hesitant to over-use a camp command if they came back to having all of their equipment at 'used' and having to deal with getting it repaired, but the option would still be there for someone who was horribly stranded and unable to get immortal assistance.
I agree with marko. I would also like to add that if you think about it, quit issues should really make a merchant or warrior WANT to take a ranger out with them - somebody who knows where the camp sites are or can lead people back to safety when weather or whatever else have you gets bad.
The lack of external quit sites should also force non ranger guilds to stay close to their beloved cities or camps because they simply are not suited for dealing with the wastes like a ranger is.
As for tribals living in the wastes - notice the tribals have camps that most of the people, including their guards, live in? It's the rangers that are sent out to guide hunters to the big prey, and bring the party home safe.
It's a team effort.
Quote from: "FightClub"Quote from: "Marauder Moe"Quote from: "FightClub"When we're talking about quitting, it's an ooc thing right?
Wrong.
Your character is ICly going on with his life. While you're not logged in, your character ICly goes about doing things. He eats, he drinks, he sleeps, he does work for his clan, maybe he earns virtual money and spends it on virtual ale and whores. When rangers quit, they hunt and forage for food and water. Other classes don't know how to do that, so it doesn't make sense for them to enter this virtual mode out in the wilderness.
Then why isn't my character icly walking back to his village while I'm linkdead?
Because traveling isn't a casual activity that you do every day... unless you're a ranger.
If I remember right, this topic has sprung up before (..really..what topic hasn't?) and the conclusion that everyone seemed to agree with most was to either add the wilderness-quit ability to the nomad sub-guild, or add it to the D-elves as a race, and create a human-tribal racial option that has the ability as well.
I might be remembering this wrong, and I'm too lazy to go back through the archives to look for the original post.
And since we don't see either of these innovations currently in the game, you can make a pretty accurate guess as to what the Imms think of this whole topic. :D
I skimmed the thread, but didn't read in detail. Sorry if my points have been made or remade, but I'm just going to throw out my own thoughts on the whole deal.
I prefer ranger-quit to stay a ranger-only skill. If you're a merchant or pickpocket, you probably shouldn't be running wild in the Red Desert. If you feel you absolutely -must- go forage for salt/rocks in an unfamiliar place: HIRE A RANGER.
Now that the inevitable comment is out of the way, I'll elaborate. If your guide is worth his salt, he's going to know the area he's taking you through. This means that he ought to know: Dangers in the area, possible water and food sources, landmarks, known animal threats, and, above all, places to run to if shit gets too hot. If your ranger guide knows the zone your in, a minor-emergency log-out shouldn't take more than a few extra minutes and, if it's not an emergency, then it's your own fault for being stuck out in BFE with no place to quit.
You know when you have to go to work. You know when it's time to sleep. You know when your wife/husband is making supper, and you know when it's time for Church. Make arrangements. If nothing else, do a quick OOC before you start, saying 'OOC: Sorry to break scene, but I'm going to have to log out for Church in about forty-five minutes, no matter what... If getting me to a quit-room in is going to be a problem, I'll just stay in the city..." RL omes first, and I seriously doubt anyone is going to mind if you take 1 moment OOC to eliminate the hassle, later on.
Now, if you have a true emergency, like your house on fire or your child impaled in the front yard, you shouldn't be worried about quitting anyway.
Leave ranger quit alone. For non-rangers: Hire a guide. There are plenty around, and I'll bet there is one just waiting to lead you into a nightmare, quit-safe, of course.
-WP
If you are having troubles getting to a quit safe room with your non-ranger pc in the wilds, perhaps you should rethink your pc being that far out without a ranger along?
If you aren't a ranger, you aren't as adept at surviving, travelling or just all around dealing with being in the wilds as a ranger.
QuoteMy (and probably FightClub's) point is that people should, in an emergency, be allowed to leave the game when they absolutely have to.
And you can. If you absolutely have to you can drop link and take your chances. If you can't get to a quit room then you shouldn't be out there with your pc.
It's your own problem for putting your pc into that situation. You -know- that your pc can't quit out anywhere in the wilds, so why'd you take them somewhere that they couldn't deal with anyway? ICly your pc would know that they aren't adept at surviving in the wilds, why would they go too far away from some sort of shelter when travelling?
It's like saying: "There's a situation that I put my warrior into and right now he needs to be able to <insert another guild's specialty here>, it's not fair!! This is a problem with the game and needs to be fixed!!!"
It makes sense the way it is and I don't see any change as necessary. Rangers aren't "twinked" either. They get alot of decent skills, but they are all mostly focused in one area: surviving in the wilds.
No different from the warrior and their mastery of combat, the pick-pocket and their mastery of theft, the merchant and their mastery of crafting/bartering. That's just the way it works.
In reply to all the "emergency" complaints:
Anyone ever heard of wish? Or 'objective' (thin hope for if you've already gone, but oh well)? O.o
Also, I've always been under the impression that when you drop link, the timers stop. So you really shouldn't starve/thirst to death?
Quote from: "marko"A warrior can fight off the nasties but will still fall prone to the traps of the wastes. A ranger's quit anywhere ability reflects this survivability trait.
Agreed, but still. It's so unplayable sometimes. I had a stormer who was a merchant guild and professional sifter. One day, I accidently spam keyed an extra n and ended up in one of Red Storm "bad moods".
I was litterally logged in for an entire day, I had to keep a terminal open and check that some Silt Horror hadn't molested me with one of it's tentacles every 5 minutes or so for fear of losing my beloved character.
I really dislike the ranger quit anywhere skill, but no one else can. It's up there with saturday downtime (which hopefully is gone!!!! YES!)
I would really like to see all guilds able to quit in the desert, but with a 1/2 reduction in health, stamina, and stun and hunger and thirst levels upped . So if you do, it reflects your inability to survive out in the desert.
So, if Joe Warrior quits out:
70/80 40/80 80/80> quit
You are in the wilderness, quitting here will have a strong physical effect on your character. Are you sure you want to quit? [y/n]
70/80 80/80 80/80> Y
Survial in the harsh desert causes you to suffer.
35/80 40/80 40/80>
Come Back Soon!
This would make the game SO much more playable for non-rangers. When I hear people answer newer players that fustrated with this with "deal with it only rangers can survive in the desert" it irritates me so much.
Quote from: "Vesperas"
Also, I've always been under the impression that when you drop link, the timers stop. So you really shouldn't starve/thirst to death?
After a time I think. And that still doesn't protect you from roving baddies. Or angry n00bs.
Also an emergency should be just that, an emergency. Not a common place thing.
In regards to getting stuck in the wilds and you end up having to go back to work or whatever, You should take into account, -before you start-, the amount of time you can spend IG. If there is an RPT you don't get into it knowing you have to go back to work in 30 minuites. I know even when I have a ranger, I don't get into any potentially bad situations on my lunch hour. I may log in, craft a bit, talk in a tavern, but I don't go exploring the canyons, -even though I could quit at any time-. A little forethought goes a long way.
If you do try to plan ahead, go out and get caught in the elements, then something happens where you need to quit you have a couple of choices. One, wish up for help. The IMMs are reasonable with resonable requests. Two, as was stated before by others, drop link. The timers stop, but hey, you could get eaten while you were away, but hell...you are not a ranger, trained and experienced in wilderness survival, what do you expect?
Quote from: "FightClub"
Then why isn't my character icly walking back to his village while I'm linkdead?
Cause he's all exhausted cause you used up the movement?
If you've still got the movement to get back somewhere safe - use them and walk back, it only takes a few minutes.
You -know- that you'll have to go to work or school or lunch or whatever soon, so you could do a bit of planning and manage to get back in time. If you don't have the movement to get back, then it doesn't really matter whether you have to leave or not - your character would be stuck outside either way - when you're down to half your movement without shelter in sight, that should be a signal for you to turn around and walk back to where you came from, unless you -know- you've got the time for resting.
If it's an absolute emergency that comes up when you thought you had the time, just wish up about being logged out, the imms are pretty good about that.
Quote from: "amoeba"Also an emergency should be just that, an emergency. Not a common place thing.
In regards to getting stuck in the wilds and you end up having to go back to work or whatever, You should take into account, -before you start-, the amount of time you can spend IG. If there is an RPT you don't get into it knowing you have to go back to work in 30 minuites. I know even when I have a ranger, I don't get into any potentially bad situations on my lunch hour. I may log in, craft a bit, talk in a tavern, but I don't go exploring the canyons, -even though I could quit at any time-. A little forethought goes a long way.
If you do try to plan ahead, go out and get caught in the elements, then something happens where you need to quit you have a couple of choices. One, wish up for help. The IMMs are reasonable with resonable requests. Two, as was stated before by others, drop link. The timers stop, but hey, you could get eaten while you were away, but hell...you are not a ranger, trained and experienced in wilderness survival, what do you expect?
See, thats so inaccurate. You never know how long RPTs take.
You think you do, but you don't. Everyone has been on that RPT Byn mission that is supposed to be and hour and 30 minutes and ALWAYS starts 40 minutes late, and ends at 5am instead of 12.
Thats not even taking into account getting caught in a storm, someone getting ganked by a spider and needing to sleep it off etc. The fact is, Arm takes a LONG time to play. And you get stuck, sometime in the middle of a conversation, sometime on a wagon to tuluk, and yes, sometimes in a storm.
I just don't get how people are os adament about this. It drives me up the wall. This is the only game I've ever played where I've said to myself "Fuck, I have to get out of here and go pick my brother up at the train station, how the hell do I get to a quit spot."
I bothers me so much, knowing that draining a sizable amount of health off would accurately reflect the same thing and allow me to go one with my life.
Maddness. I feel the pain.
Quote from: "jmordetsky"See, thats so inaccurate. You never know how long RPTs take.
You think you do, but you don't. Everyone has been on that RPT Byn mission that is supposed to be and hour and 30 minutes and ALWAYS starts 40 minutes late, and ends at 5am instead of 12.
No, you don't. That is why you don't go into potentialy or known lengthy situations when you don't have the time to play it out. Would you start participating in an RPT when you know you have to pick up your brother in an hour?
My point here is people go, I'll just run down to Luirs, I "know" it only takes 10 Min., I have a half-hour, I should be fine. Boom, stuff happens along the way. A little forethought goes a long way. You should take into account the possiblity of "getting caught in a storm, someone getting ganked by a spider and needing to sleep it off etc."
This is not just about quiting in the wilds. You wouldn't start that negotiation with the templar of doom, then in the middle ooc stating you have to go to work. At least I hope not.
Quote from: "jmordetsky"I just don't get how people are os adament about this. It drives me up the wall.
The converse is true as well as you seem quite adament of your viewpoint. Non ranger, wild oriented characters are trickier to play, but that is some of the appeal at well.
Quote from: "jmordetsky"I bothers me so much, knowing that draining a sizable amount of health off would accurately reflect the same thing
I do not agree with this statement.
Quote from: "jmordetsky"I just don't get how people are os adament about this. It drives me up the wall.
Because alot of us have dealt with it the way it is and it has become something that can be easily worked around. If you aren't a ranger, don't take yourself too far away from a quit safe room. If you might have limited time to play, don't get yourself involved in anything that could potentially take a while.
It really is just that simple.
Amoeba hit alot of my thoughts on it all pretty well.
Quote from: "amoeba"
Quote from: "jmordetsky"I bothers me so much, knowing that draining a sizable amount of health off would accurately reflect the same thing
I do not agree with this statement.
I am jmordetsky incredible sense curiousity. Why don't you agree with it?
Lets take the "you should have planned better" mindset out of it, I see what you are getting at, but we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one, because....well...I just don't agree. But that's okay, we've agreed on other stuff. ;)
The remaining questions I have is:
In the event that there is an emergency of some kind, and I end up having to go link dead in the wilderness. Why is it better for me to be linkdead for the duration of my emergency, then it is for me to quit out with a significant penalty to my characters well being?
Lets assume the code is easy. Which is a big assumption, but theoretically if Hal or Gax said tomorrow, dude I can code this in a minute, what would be your continued opposition?
EDIT:
I just realized I should probably give my oppinion since I asked for yours....
The reason I like the an allowed quit with a signficant penalty is because it allows me to slip away from the computer with peace of mind if I need to, while discouraging the action because when I log in again, I'm going to be severely fucked. The otherside of this, doesn't really allow me to leave at all. If I do really need to go out, I have to pray either an Imm is on and isn't too busy. (for people in the euro timezone or people like me that sometimes only play at 2am pst, this is a pain), find a remote spot to drop link or just drop link in the storm i'm in and pray that I don't become silt horror bait.
For me, linkdead is like 50/50. There is a 50% chance that I come back with 0 penalty, or a 50% chance that I'm dead when I get back. With a penalty, I know I'm not going to die while I'm away, but I'm rolling the dice on my own time (rather then linkdead time) because my health and stam have been diminished by so much, which is what would happen if I dropped you out in the wilds. If a bear came along you would sit there link dead for him to eat you. You'd run.
I feel this better reflects the "virtual" life of your character. Virtually, I'm getting fucked up trying to survice in the desert, rather then sitting there with a "scrab bait" sign tattoed on my forehead.
As stated, if you have a real emmergency, you sholdn't care about a piece of code. *shrugs*
I have to be very practical about quitting out because I have a child who doesn't appreciate the finer art of Arm. :-) I can't go into a wilderness area at all when I can't commit to 45 minutes (at least) to playing. more often than not I decide it's not worth it and won't log in.
Why not put some strategically located quit rooms here and there along the map? It could be a group of tribal humans or just a mis-match of various bands who've gotten together and made a sleeping area (for a fee of course) for travelers going to and from. This seems like an excellent opportunity to utilize the iso clans for some of this. It would also help consolidate desert wanderers, providing a place to meet.
Just a thought.
- HK
If you have an RL emergency, wish up. It's not hard for us to boot you out of the game safely (for your character, ICly), and we're usually receptive to this sort of thing if it's an emergency and you've asked nicely.
Otherwise, if you don't or can't plan your time well: play a ranger PC, or avoid wandering into the desert.
-- X
I sympathize fully with the plight of warriors who think they're good at hunting. When such a character is stuck in a situation like this, then I think that repeating the following word to themselves will be of immense help:
PARD*
*Play A Ranger, Dumbass
Quote from: "Xygax"If you have an RL emergency, wish up. It's not hard for us to boot you out of the game safely (for your character, ICly), and we're usually receptive to this sort of thing if it's an emergency and you've asked nicely.
Otherwise, if you don't or can't plan your time well: play a ranger PC, or avoid wandering into the desert.
-- X
Good to know. Thanks.
- HK
Different arguments, and why I disagree. Take it for what it's worth.
f you don't like it, play a ranger. Anyone ever get sick of playing rangers? Anyone? No? Then I guess this really is the perfect solution!
If you're a very busy Arm player, like me, some one who can only play an hour or two a night, tops, then congratulations, you'll be playing rangers for your entire Arm career.
Sucks to be you, doesn't it?
You can't quit out in the wild because your character can't survive in the wild. Okay. I quit out in a cave once, and didn't log back in for a RL month. There is absolutely no justifiable IC reason why my character would've survived in what was, essentially, the wilderness for that long. Does that mean if I don't store him, I'm a bad RPer?
People log out and claim they were someplace else IC because it's the only explanation that makes sense. When you haven't logged in for a month, and people asked where you were, you usually say something like "oh, they stationed me at a different outpost" or "oh, my aunt was sick and I had to take care of her for a while." You don't say, "oh, I've been sitting in the sleeping area of the Gaj for the last four years. What, you didn't see me?"
Why shouldn't it be any different for quitting out in the wilds? Why can't you quit out on the North Road, and just pretend you walked to the nearest town, cave, or city-state and slept in the gutter? Assuming that the character has been in the same spot for your entire logged-out time is ludicrous.
Rangers can quit in all wilderness areas, because that's just their niche. Okay. Then should all city-based characters be able to quit anywhere in the city?
There are already quit-safe areas in the wilderness that anybody can use. Anyone can use them, assuming they know about them. Wilderness quit-safe areas are one of those annoying, elitist, esoteric things you'll never learn unless you're willing to chuck five or six characters into the all-devouring wilderness.
The perfect solution, in my mind, would be to basically quadruple the number of quit-safe wilderness areas. Those areas are already highly valued, simply because they give you the mystical ability to blink out of existence and quit out. Pretty much any quit-safe locale in the wilderness will be guarded by some d-elves or some magicker or some raider. These little holes in the sand are being treated as way more valuable than they actually are, and simply adding more of them would do wonders for both playability and realism.
If you don't like it, bring a ranger. Yeah, because as master archers, master trackers, master riders, and one-man sandstorm-busters, they don't have enough employment opportunities already.
Quote from: "EvilRoeSlade"I sympathize fully with the plight of warriors who think they're good at hunting.
There are plenty of reasons to go into the wilderness that don't involve hunting. There are also plenty of reasons for non-rangers to go hunting.
It makes complete sense that a ranger can quit out in the wilderness while nobody else can. I think the problem most have with this is that there is very little grey area. I was trying to suggest one that wouldn't take away too much from a ranger's ability.
- HK
Quote from: "FiveDisgruntledMonkeysWit"If you're a very busy Arm player, like me, some one who can only play an hour or two a night, tops, then congratulations, you'll be playing rangers for your entire Arm career.
How do you figure this? Looking back at the various classes (not IC professions) I have played, I could well have gotten by with playing my pickpockets, my assassin, my warrior and my merchant for an hour or two a day.
Rangers are not twinks by the way. They are adapt at living outside and why they may have the potential to become really fighters sometimes they start off so damned week that they have trouble even hunting. It takes a lot of time and money and balance to play a ranger well and not go broke or end up eaten.
My non-ranger characters since they are usually not adept at going outside, don't go off when I wouldn't have time to play. Or they don't go outside at all. There are also quit areas speckled around outside. And an IMM will boot you like Xygax said, if it's an emergency.
Your character is not a ranger apparently so don't play them like they are wondering into the wilderness without a guide and then get upset when you get in a sticky situation.
Quote from: "Pale Horse"If I remember right, this topic has sprung up before (..really..what topic hasn't?) and the conclusion that everyone seemed to agree with most was to either add the wilderness-quit ability to the nomad sub-guild, or add it to the D-elves as a race, and create a human-tribal racial option that has the ability as well.
Not everyone. I think that is the worst idea ever. Worst. Idea. Ever.
Those nomads that are adept at "camping out" alone in wilderness are the rangers of the tribe. The merchants, warriors, and shamen of the tribe live in the main camp and rarely make more long trips away from the tribe than city dwellers make trips away from their city. If the "nomad" subclass got wilderness quit, I bet you'd suddenly get many more mages and other loners with nomadic backgrounds.
I mainly play rangers, but it wouldn't bother me at all to have wilderness quit extended to all classes and races. If I were going to restrict it anywhere but "ranger only" I'd make it "everybody but burglars, pickpockets and assassins" because they really do have very little reason to leave the city, most of the time, so encouraging them to stay home might be a good idea. But I think it would be a better idea to open up wildernses quit for everyone. I used to like the ranger perk, since I usually play rangers, but it is a little silly. The bad weather navigation problem is more than enough wilderness perk for rangers. Not to mention that sexy "forage food" skill.
A couple of examples of travellers:
Traders need to travel. Currently it is a whole lot easier to be a trader as Ranger with a subguild that has some Merchant skills than it is as a Merchant. Merchants are supposed to travel with caravans, but There Are No Caravans, or at least no non-virtual caravans. Hiring the Byn or private guards to escort your merchant around sucks all the profit out of the trip.
Many mages need to travel. Some, like many rukkians, have a sort of druidish vibe going on and they want to commune with nature. Or a mage might accidently teleport themselves to some remote location, and not be entirely sure how to get home or to the nearest wilderness quit room -- sure, ICly they are screwed, but they should be able to quit out, and then log back in tommorow still screwed. Some are forced to try to hide out in the wilderness because the wrong person learned their secret, but even if they find a source of water (or watery fruit) they can't really "live in the wilderness" unless they can find one of the few wilderness quit rooms that is Not frequently occupied. You can find a lovely secluded cave to live in, but unless it is also a quit room you can't really live there.
Half-giants. Ok, wandering half-giants aren't all that common. But they are doubly penalized because they don't even fit into half of the current wilderness quit rooms. (Kanks have much the same problem).
Creating 4-10 times as many quit rooms would be good too. Currently people do camp on quit rooms, and act all shocked and surprised when other people come in and out to use them. I once encountered a virtual tribe (created by using drop descriptions) camped on a sweet quit room, as a way for the PCs of that tribe to try to reserve the room for their own private space. Hermits also sometimes take over a quit room, especially if it is also an item saving room, and are naturally unhappy when random travellers try to move in. A cave that is a quit room is 100X as valuable as a cave that is not a quit room to PCs, and that is silly.
The only advice I have for the original poster and others in his situation: Get a tent. With a tent you can rest up those stamina points even in bad weather. Your kank can't though, so if you need to get to town (or other quit point) in under half an hour you may need to ditch the kank, or possibly you walk and carry all the gear, he may recover enough stamina while you are in the tent to walk a few spaces if he is unencumbered. Move a few spaces, set up your tent and rest, move a few more spaces, set up your tent again and rest, etc. Even with the disorienting affect of storms, you should be able to make it within half an hour or so with this method. If you get totally trapped by a blinding sandstorm, so that productive movement is basically impossible, your tent may still save your PCs life. If you must go linkdead, you will dehydrate much more slowly inside a tent than you would outside exposed to the elements. Eat and drink as much as you can, go into the tent, rest, drop link, and hope for the best. A tent is your friend. Your very expensive, very heavy friend who doesn't like kanks, but still your friend.
Angela Christine
Quote from: "Bebop"Rangers are not twinks by the way.
I agree, I just read that further up the in the thread. I'm personally fine with the abilities of every class. This is about quitting when you need to.
I'm glad the option openly exists to wish up to be booted. In the olden days we'd avoid wishing up like the plague, even if an obvious bug came up we'd continue playing and log it and send it into the mud account later (which I personally think should still be the case if possible).
Quote from: "Bebob"My non-ranger characters since they are usually not adept at going outside, don't go off when I wouldn't have time to play.
Well, that's the rub, isn't it. If you know you won't have time to play long, you won't go far. I've been trying to train my child to warn me before I log in that he's about to smear poo all over our new wallpaper. I'm convinced he'll be more courteous, it'll just take a few more times of asking. Until then, there are times I log in convinced I'm going to have a good 2 hours to play and then have that perception proven wrong at the most inopportune time. Thankfully the poo thing only happened once, it just sticks out in my mind for some reason. :-) There are many reasons to leave suddenly, especially when you're a parent.
Admittedly it might've been smarter for me to choose a ranger class in my situation, I don't disagree with that sentiment. I'm just sick of the ranger class as I've played it before, often. I admit I must take responsibility for that decision in that I might have to leave my keyboard and kill off my character to deal with real-life and this I also accept. I was just trying to come up with ways of alleviating this, if only a little. I'm not trying to take anything away from the ranger class.
Quote from: "Bebop"Your character is not a ranger apparently so don't play them like they are wondering into the wilderness without a guide and then get upset when you get in a sticky situation.
Every situation is different. My personal situation is that I'm usually following someone who knows what they're doing and where they're going. If we had the option of quitting when with a ranger that would be extra cool for me personally, although I don't know how you'd deal with the person when they woke back up. Days later would they be in bed with the ranger, magickally appearing after they log back in? heh ... Would they be back in the wilderness, same place they logged off? I don't really like either option so admittedly I don't see a good alternative, except the one I already mentioned - putting a few more quit safes in strategic locations and making them obvious.
Anyway, my take.
- HK
How about making ALL caves and dens quitsafe?
That might help a little. Few caves are truly "safe" but they are safer than being out in the open, and thus it makes general sense to be able to camp in one and take your chances. So, shelter would be as close as the nearest cave - you still need to explore and know the area, and actually get to the cave, but it might help.
Quote from: "EvilRoeSlade"I sympathize fully with the plight of warriors who think they're good at hunting. When such a character is stuck in a situation like this, then I think that repeating the following word to themselves will be of immense help:
PARD*
*Play A Ranger, Dumbass
Ha ha ha.
Quote from: "Delirium"How about making ALL caves and dens quitsafe?
That might help a little. Few caves are truly "safe" but they are safer than being out in the open, and thus it makes general sense to be able to camp in one and take your chances. So, shelter would be as close as the nearest cave - you still need to explore and know the area, and actually get to the cave, but it might help.
Agreed.
Quote from: "Delirium"How about making ALL caves and dens quitsafe?
I'm trying to think of a cave that isn't a quit room and I can't. I'm not saying I know all the caves, but all that I remember being in are. Plus a gob number of other spots that are not caves. I will say, there are considerably more places up north than down south, at least from my experience.
Quote from: "FightClub"It seems really silly to me, point blank, that only rangers can quit in the wilderness for ooc reasons. That I have to potentially wait six extra hours for these hellish ig storms to clear, for four days for my slow stamina bar to fill up, before I can pause and go through the desert, cause I have to go to school in five hours.
When we're talking about quitting, it's an ooc thing right? We accept it no matter what in clans, ig, ic, but we can't allow it outside of designated zones? Seriously what's up with that?
quit
You are not in safe room.
...whatever
Quiting symbolizes continued living virtually. A city char cannot live in the desert or in the Grey for more than a few days. You could quit out in the desert and zone back in three months from now, and to say he's been living out there that whole time isn't very IC of a merchant or house guard type character.
Quote from: "FiveDisgruntledMonkeysWit"Different arguments, and why I disagree. Take it for what it's worth.
f you don't like it, play a ranger. Anyone ever get sick of playing rangers? Anyone? No? Then I guess this really is the perfect solution!
If you're a very busy Arm player, like me, some one who can only play an hour or two a night, tops, then congratulations, you'll be playing rangers for your entire Arm career.
Sucks to be you, doesn't it?
You can't quit out in the wild because your character can't survive in the wild. Okay. I quit out in a cave once, and didn't log back in for a RL month. There is absolutely no justifiable IC reason why my character would've survived in what was, essentially, the wilderness for that long. Does that mean if I don't store him, I'm a bad RPer?
People log out and claim they were someplace else IC because it's the only explanation that makes sense. When you haven't logged in for a month, and people asked where you were, you usually say something like "oh, they stationed me at a different outpost" or "oh, my aunt was sick and I had to take care of her for a while." You don't say, "oh, I've been sitting in the sleeping area of the Gaj for the last four years. What, you didn't see me?"
Why shouldn't it be any different for quitting out in the wilds? Why can't you quit out on the North Road, and just pretend you walked to the nearest town, cave, or city-state and slept in the gutter? Assuming that the character has been in the same spot for your entire logged-out time is ludicrous.
Rangers can quit in all wilderness areas, because that's just their niche. Okay. Then should all city-based characters be able to quit anywhere in the city?
There are already quit-safe areas in the wilderness that anybody can use. Anyone can use them, assuming they know about them. Wilderness quit-safe areas are one of those annoying, elitist, esoteric things you'll never learn unless you're willing to chuck five or six characters into the all-devouring wilderness.
The perfect solution, in my mind, would be to basically quadruple the number of quit-safe wilderness areas. Those areas are already highly valued, simply because they give you the mystical ability to blink out of existence and quit out. Pretty much any quit-safe locale in the wilderness will be guarded by some d-elves or some magicker or some raider. These little holes in the sand are being treated as way more valuable than they actually are, and simply adding more of them would do wonders for both playability and realism.
If you don't like it, bring a ranger. Yeah, because as master archers, master trackers, master riders, and one-man sandstorm-busters, they don't have enough employment opportunities already.
Yup.
Just to clarify, all the "PARD" people think that every logger, miner, silt sifter, salt collector should be a ranger? Because they are playing in the wilds? Or am I missing something?
Like Tiernan said in Ask the Staff, I'd rather see the ability removed entirely than given to everyone.
Quote from: "jmordetsky"Just to clarify, all the "PARD" people think that every logger, miner, silt sifter, salt collector should be a ranger? Because they are playing in the wilds? Or am I missing something?
I can do -every- single one of those things and be close enough to a quit safe room to quit out at a moment's notice. Honestly, it appears that instead of figuring out how to do so yourselves some of you want it handed to you.
Quotejmordetsky wrote:
Just to clarify, all the "PARD" people think that every logger, miner, silt sifter, salt collector should be a ranger? Because they are playing in the wilds? Or am I missing something?
Quotejhunter wrote:
I can do -every- single one of those things and be close enough to a quit safe room to quit out at a moment's notice. Honestly, it appears that instead of figuring out how to do so yourselves some of you want it handed to you.
Or you could play that profession and deal with having to pay someone or find a partner who can guide you through the wastes while you chop your trees or mine your obsidian.
Quote from: "jmordetsky"Just to clarify, all the "PARD" people think that every logger, miner, silt sifter, salt collector should be a ranger? Because they are playing in the wilds? Or am I missing something?
I've played non-ranger loggers, non-ranger miners, non-ranger silt-sifters, and non-ranger salt-collectors. Many of them have lived relatively long lives. A cautious non-ranger can make brief excursions into the sands with relative confidence, if they plan carefully and pay attention to the conditions around them.
None of that has -anything- to do with being able to quit out in the wilderness, which is by no means a requisite for any of the professions you mentioned.
-- X
Seriously, if pay close attention to the weather in the room you're in and the weather in the adjoining rooms, you can easily navigate most storms.
It's simple really, if you're not a Ranger...find someplace to quit in the wilderness...die trying...or don't stray too far from the city/post/camp you live in if you don't have the time to play the entire journey.
Alright, so here we are, saying that a delf, warrior, can't survive in the wilderness? ...alright, lets consider this, an elf, who has survived their entire life in this specific zone, cannot outmanuever a ranger southlander in their own territory. They can survive better than me, never having truely known the land, and because rangers are uber 1337 they get special quit skills, which are entirely ooc.
You all need to get off the meat train of believing quitting is ic, IT IS NOT, quitting is completely ooc, your character persist while you are gone, IT IS NOT, your characters fault you have to go take a dump, or walk the dog, or go to work -- why should he suffer?
It has absolutely nothing to do with adeptness in the environment, it has to do with a person having to quit the game for ooc reasons, and needing transport immediatly. No this isn't call for preplan your trips, only pick city characters, that's crap, we're placing ooc conditions in ic once more, and these people call themselves roleplayers? Obviously we cannot make out the difference between ooc and ic, the most basic of things in rp, so I'm just going to let it end here.
There's not point in debating it really. You all can shoot crap at me all day about survival statistics, all of that crap, a tribal warrior survives for 20 years in game, he navigates sand storms over and over, he shouldn't be killed of dehydration, and starvation, from idling through seven passing storms. No, he'd wait for a storm to pass, and go get food and water. But instead, since the warriors player cannot quit, he is forced to do so, hence killing all ic nature of this, and bringing ooc into game.
Just as emotions shouldn't have an effect on how you play your character. OOC aspects such as work, sickness, walking the dog, taking a dump, getting some food, should not either. Then why do the majority of you insist it do?
I propose all or nothing, give the ability to quit in the wilderness to everyone, or take it from everyone. There is no ic justification for giving a person an ooc command. You want to make it rp, make them able to camp anywhere in game, making a camp out of nearby materials, building shelter for a passing storm. That's IC ranger's ability to survive, me hitting quit is OOC, it has no reflection on your ranger whatsoever.
Quote from: "FightClub"
There's not point in debating it really. You all can shoot crap at me all day about survival statistics, all of that crap, a tribal warrior survives for 20 years in game, he navigates sand storms over and over, he shouldn't be killed of dehydration, and starvation, from idling through seven passing storms. No, he'd wait for a storm to pass, and go get food and water. But instead, since the warriors player cannot quit, he is forced to do so, hence killing all ic nature of this, and bringing ooc into game.
Anyone in their right mind wouldn't want to go into those storms. Instead of going out to hunt and maim, try teaching your Pc a social skill, like Drum_playing. There are relatively few really bad storms in the place most inhabited by D-elves. That is why all my bynners have trained there by killing skinnies.
QuoteJust as emotions shouldn't have an effect on how you play your character. OOC aspects such as work, sickness, walking the dog, taking a dump, getting some food, should not either. Then why do the majority of you insist it do?
Well, what can I tell you. I agree with you but read on. Main guilds are treated like professions in my eye. You can do anything you want to, unless you didn't want to start out that way.
QuoteI propose all or nothing, give the ability to quit in the wilderness to everyone, or take it from everyone. There is no ic justification for giving a person an ooc command. You want to make it rp, make them able to camp anywhere in game, making a camp out of nearby materials, building shelter for a passing storm. That's IC ranger's ability to survive, me hitting quit is OOC, it has no reflection on your ranger whatsoever.
I propose we add a new subguild. They need to evolve with the rest of the game.
Subguild_Survivor
Survivors do exactly what the name says, they survive. They can find food when they are desperate, they can get through storms half the time, and they can even climb when they fall into holes. They can do all these things, but not very well, which is why they are a survivor.
That is just a sketch, I can go into more detail if an imm wants to.
I have many ideas for new subguilds.
All those caves/grottos/broken wagons, some of them can't fit a mount. So if you quit inside, you have a high risk of losing your kank. Just something to keep in mind.
I would love to see a way for someone to quit out or in on a mobile command post or their commander for all of those really long RPT's. I believe Rindan posted an idea like this awhile ago.
You frustratingly continue to argue against strawmen, FightClub, which either means you're trolling or you simply aren't Getting It. We have chosen not to give EVERYONE the ability to quit out in the wilderness because it functions as a significant IC (and yes, coincidentally, OOC) advantage to being a ranger.
Quote from: "FightClub"Alright, so here we are, saying that a delf, warrior, can't survive in the wilderness? ...alright, lets consider this, an elf, who has survived their entire life in this specific zone, cannot outmanuever a ranger southlander in their own territory. They can survive better than me, never having truely known the land, and because rangers are uber 1337 they get special quit skills, which are entirely ooc.
Yes, that is precisely what we're saying. Rangers (human and otherwise) are better at surviving in the wilderness than warriors (even desert-elf warriors). This is categorically the case: desert-elf warriors have spent their young lives focusing on hand-to-hand combat, NOT on finding difficult-to-locate food and water sources, shelter from storms, or safe places to hide from worms, scrabs, anakore, mekillots, etc., in the desert.
Quote from: "FightClub"You all need to get off the meat train of believing quitting is ic, IT IS NOT, quitting is completely ooc, your character persist while you are gone, IT IS NOT, your characters fault you have to go take a dump, or walk the dog, or go to work -- why should he suffer?
No. As has been said previously on this thread, quitting out in the desert is a very important IC ability. It enables rangers to venture much further from cities than non-rangers by allowing them to "sit-out" storms offline (not suffering from dehydration or starvation, and not being attacked by baddies they cannot see). That strikes me as a very IC benefit. Furthermore, your character suffers in endless other ways when you're away from your keyboard, and we have no intention of fixing those either. You will continue to age, time will roll away on your apartment rental, and other PCs that you knew and loved will die while you're offline (or AFK), and yet the game goes on without you, regardless of whether you've "quit" out or are sitting idle.
Quote from: "FightClub"It has absolutely nothing to do with adeptness in the environment, it has to do with a person having to quit the game for ooc reasons, and needing transport immediatly. No this isn't call for preplan your trips, only pick city characters, that's crap, we're placing ooc conditions in ic once more, and these people call themselves roleplayers? Obviously we cannot make out the difference between ooc and ic, the most basic of things in rp, so I'm just going to let it end here.
We as the staff feel that the benefits with respect to game balance outweigh your (and by "you" in this context, I mean,
you FightClub and the few people who are arguing this point) inability to plan your time online. If you consider this a significant barrier to your play, then I invite you to find a less restrictive environment elsewhere. Your tone on this thread has become increasingly belligerent, and you strayed from constructive feedback a long time ago.
Quote from: "FightClub"There's not point in debating it really. You all can shoot crap at me all day about survival statistics, all of that crap, a tribal warrior survives for 20 years in game, he navigates sand storms over and over, he shouldn't be killed of dehydration, and starvation, from idling through seven passing storms. No, he'd wait for a storm to pass, and go get food and water. But instead, since the warriors player cannot quit, he is forced to do so, hence killing all ic nature of this, and bringing ooc into game.
Yes. There is no point in debating it. This has been discussed dozens of times before and the staff position on the matter has never wavered. If you can come up with a creative solution to the problem of suddenly needing to logout of the game for OOC reasons that
doesn't equate to "let my warrior logout in the wilderness", I'd be interested in hearing it. What I'm not interested in hearing is, "a tribal warrior... should not be killed by idling through seven passing storms" because it doesn't make sense -- in fact, it's downright laughable.... The ridiculous assumption that anyone but the hardiest of individuals should be able to "idle through" any Zalanthan storm isn't really even worth addressing. Beyond that, rangers have any number of other survival skills (as a result of a life of hardship, study and training in the wilds). Are you suggesting that a tribal warrior should be able to forage for food or water in the sands? That's another ability we reserve solely for rangers. As you suggesting that a tribal warrior should have the same ability at skinning game as a ranger? Or sneaking up on it? Or hiding from predators? You question
our roleplay in your remarks above, but are you even thinking about the differences between the life of a tribal warrior and the life of a human hunter? I hope that if you do stop to think about it, you'll realize that they're bound to be drastically different ones.
Quote from: "FightClub"Just as emotions shouldn't have an effect on how you play your character. OOC aspects such as work, sickness, walking the dog, taking a dump, getting some food, should not either. Then why do the majority of you insist it do?
As I said above, this is more an IC mechanic than it is an OOC restriction. If you think that you might be interrupted by sickness, walking the dog, taking a dump, or getting some food, then
don't leave the city walls. Even tribal warriors are, in most cases, provided with safe sanctuaries from storms, in the form of tribal villages and outposts. You should think of these provisions as a very good sign that living in the wilderness is not considered the norm for anyone but rangers. This is a very viable/playable situation, and I am entirely comfortable with telling you (same
you, again) that if you can't reliably control your bowels, you should probably play a city-bound merchant.
Quote from: "FightClub"I propose all or nothing, give the ability to quit in the wilderness to everyone, or take it from everyone. There is no ic justification for giving a person an ooc command. You want to make it rp, make them able to camp anywhere in game, making a camp out of nearby materials, building shelter for a passing storm. That's IC ranger's ability to survive, me hitting quit is OOC, it has no reflection on your ranger whatsoever.
Fortunately, it isn't an all-or-nothing choice. Unless some HL/OL has a drastic change of heart, the system will remain as is: wedged in the lovely greys of Zalanthas, and not conforming to any drastic all-or-nothing, black-or-white requirement. :)
-- X
I ready the entire thing Xygrax, and thanks for paying attention to -everything- I said. Most of the people here, myself included spot pick, and pound. It was nice to see you address everything. I'll continue to search for a resolution, maybe one more befitting, and until then I pass the sceptre, gonna let someone else have their turn. But just so you know.
I wasn't argueing that warriors should be able to pass through long term storms. The arguement was solely that it should not have to wait through several passings of storms, where he would have taken the first chance, and left.
Like here's a rough scenario of what happened, so that you might understand.
Warrior A is on a hunt, he's still in his territory, but the territory he chooses to hunt this day is particularly bad. So he ventures in, clear day. is hunting, travels into a new area... well apparently this new area is engulfed in freak storms, which aren't happening top-side. Well once warrior a is at the bottom, he cannot move up, because he cannot seem to find his way, even having a steady focal point and line of vision, he just bounces into walls. SO -eventually- warrior a by chance, after waiting for several days, makes it to a cliff face, and bounces his way up to the surface, where -behold- it is beautiful, and skips back home merrily, and covered in twenty pounds of sand.
Warriors player however was suppost to be asleep after the first storm, as the planned hunt was suppost to be quick, and precise, Warrior A's player, couldn't fathom a storm brewing a room below in this region, as typically the bottom of a hill doesn't get pounded by storms that often, if the top of the hill is not. So after waiting several hours disgruntled wishes he could have just logged out there, and picked up tommorow, rping logging off in nearby outpost, which is where Warrior A would've been after storm would've passed two hours after he logged off, and was in bed.
Maybe that clears it up a bit. We'll see, but yeah thanks again.
Quote from: "FightClub"...Warrior A is on a hunt, he's still in his territory, but the territory he chooses to hunt this day is particularly bad...
And that is where you got it all wrong. You got to understand this simple thing.
Warriors fight Humanoids.
Warriors do not fight beasts. Warriors do not hunt.
Warriors have no clue how to skin a beast, and even the most expert warriors still have trouble with a simple skin job. It's a waste of time and energy to ATTEMPT to skin a beast. They chop off the heads of the scrabs and say, 'LOOK AT ME I SKINNED IT'.
Quote from: "mansa"Warriors have no clue how to skin a beast, and even the most expert warriors still have trouble with a simple skin job. It's a waste of time and energy to ATTEMPT to skin a beast. They chop off the heads of the scrabs and say, 'LOOK AT ME I SKINNED IT'.
Warriors get skin. This suggests they obviously have some kind of clue.
Quote from: "LauraMars"Quote from: "mansa"Warriors have no clue how to skin a beast, and even the most expert warriors still have trouble with a simple skin job. It's a waste of time and energy to ATTEMPT to skin a beast. They chop off the heads of the scrabs and say, 'LOOK AT ME I SKINNED IT'.
Warriors get skin. This suggests they obviously have some kind of clue.
Even the Most Expert Warriors STILL have Trouble with a SIMPLE SKIN JOB.
You can avoid stumbling into "sudden" storm areas by using the weather command to check the room ahead of you before you proceed there.
-- X
Quote from: "mansa"Even the Most Expert Warriors STILL have Trouble with a SIMPLE SKIN JOB.
I know warriors who've skinned plenty of things just fine, without the benefit of a hunting subguild, so...yeah, I guess we have a difference of opinion here.
Quote from: "LauraMars"Quote from: "mansa"Even the Most Expert Warriors STILL have Trouble with a SIMPLE SKIN JOB.
I know warriors who've skinned plenty of things just fine, without the benefit of a hunting subguild, so...yeah, I guess we have a difference of opinion here.
Mansa's opinion on this subject more closely matches the content of the guilds datafile (the one that sets skill caps, etc.). Warriors have some token skinning ability, but really it's -nothing- like the ridiculous screen-spam a veteran ranger can make with a skinning knife.
-- X
Quote from: "Xygax"Quote from: "LauraMars"Quote from: "mansa"Even the Most Expert Warriors STILL have Trouble with a SIMPLE SKIN JOB.
I know warriors who've skinned plenty of things just fine, without the benefit of a hunting subguild, so...yeah, I guess we have a difference of opinion here.
Mansa's opinion on this subject more closely matches the content of the guilds datafile (the one that sets skill caps, etc.). Warriors have some token skinning ability, but really it's -nothing- like the ridiculous screen-spam a veteran ranger can make with a skinning knife.
-- X
Off topic, but I'd like to see warriors doing ridiculous screen-spam with flying body parts. *nods*
Quote from: "Xygax"Mansa's opinion on this subject more closely matches the content of the guilds datafile (the one that sets skill caps, etc.).
Yes, I realize a warrior's cap is low. However, that doesn't mean they absolutely cannot do it for shit, as mansa says, or...let's see...
Quote from: "mansa"Warriors fight Humanoids.
Warriors do not fight beasts. Warriors do not hunt.
They do fight beasts, and they do hunt, if that's what they want to do. They're quite good at killing whatever they put their mind to, it seems. In my short time here I have known plenty of hunting warriors. They can certainly kill animals, and (albiet crudely) skin them. I was also under the impression that profession is not directly determined by guild, but I'll concede to the veterans here, and point us back on topic by saying that I think the warrior guild is nicely balanced how it is.
However, I think it would be nice if after some long years of crazy nomadic desert travelling a small navigation skill could be learned by anybody who earned the right.
Quote from: "LauraMars"However, I think it would be nice if after some long years of crazy nomadic desert travelling a small navigation skill could be learned by anybody who earned the right.
I've seen some very very strange things in my time with the game, and this could potentially happen, as can most anything in the game.
But, that's up to immortals to 'specialize' characters in that format. The typical warrior guild is designed for Humanoid vs Humanoid combat. If you want to primarily fight non-humanoids, you go with a Ranger. That's just the way it is. It's like deciding to be a pickpocket or a burglar.
Quote from: "mansa"Quote from: "LauraMars"However, I think it would be nice if after some long years of crazy nomadic desert travelling a small navigation skill could be learned by anybody who earned the right.
I've seen some very very strange things in my time with the game, and this could potentially happen, as can most anything in the game.
But, that's up to immortals to 'specialize' characters in that format. The typical warrior guild is designed for Humanoid vs Humanoid combat. If you want to primarily fight non-humanoids, you go with a Ranger. That's just the way it is. It's like deciding to be a pickpocket or a burglar.
I contest, warriors are good for killing anything at close range. Rangers distance. They both can get the same job done, just get it done in different ways.
Perhaps a different approach to this discussion would help Fight Club. I'll take a stab at it.
In most games, the class you pick is the profession your character has, rather than just a bunch of skills clumped together. You pick the class because you want that character to "do" that class -as- a profession.
Arm is a bit different in its approach, but the basic premise is the same - only kinda-sorta in reverse.
First, you have to learn how Armageddon defines its roleplay, and its professions. Other than a gladiator, there really is no such thing as a warrior profession in Arm. A traditional real-world warrior would be the front-man in an army and generally wouldn't walk around the city patrolling. He'd be training for war, or fighting in a war, and not doing much else. In Arm, a warrior is a set of skills grouped for the *primary* purpose of being a combat-related character within the confines of a city or outpost. Like a House guard, or a templar's right-hand-man, or the city's police department (legionairres and Arm of the Dragon).
So - you decide what -kind- of character you want to play. What do you intend for his profession, his career? And then you pick the set of skills that most closely match what you want your character to do. Then you pick a subset (subclass) to either back up your primary choice or augment it.
If you want to "be" a warrior, that means you want your character to get in on a city clan, and not spend much time at all outside the city, except during active war when you might be needed to defend the gates and walls.
If you want to "be" a ranger, that means you want your character to spend most of its time outside the city, rarely venturing inside, knowing his own territory like the back of his hand and knowing -how- to identify aspects of other territories as well.
Desert elfs only get the outdoor quit-anywhere thing if they pick the ranger class, even though they've spent their entire lives outside cities. Why -would- a "merchant class" desert elf get a quit-anywhere? The merchant class desert elf would *usually* run only with the company of rangers in his tribe, who would escort him to and from trading posts. Otherwise he'd spend the bulk of his time in the trading posts, or in his encampment, or in "communal areas" of various territories, making trade and making crafts. He wouldn't need a quit-anywhere skill latched onto his character code because the need to quit anywhere would only come up once in awhile - and "wish all I gotta log" would usually suffice for that.
The same goes for city-based characters. A city-based character's primary function involves being IN the city, not out of it. If anything, you should be arguing for a "city quit" tag on city-based characters, that let them quit out in more parts of city-coded areas (like along that long-ass road leading from the north side to the south side of Tuluk). ICly, city characters have homes they live in, on city streets, and it would make sense for them to emote walking up to one of those virtual houses and opening the door, then typing "quit." A desert-dweller would not have that luxury within a city.
It would make much more sense to petition for more city quit-spots than it does for city-dwellers and non-rangerly desert-dwellers to have more quit-spots in the desert.
I think the southern hunters would have learned a set of skills that is more accurately reflected by picking warrior as a class from the start than picking ranger. In the north, it would be the other way around. Why?
Northern Hunter
:arrow: Archery:
Northern hunters would depend heavily on archery (even if this isn't always refelcted by player characters in game). Wood and all materials you need for arrows are easily available, as well as cheap arrows and bows if you don't make those yourself. Arrows would also damage a pelt far less than any other weapon used (except maybe for bludgeoning) and can be used from a safe distance without getting yourself in too much danger.
Rangers get archery right from the start and can also kick major ass with a bow, much moreso than warriors - so that's a plus for rangers.
:arrow: Running Critters:
In the north, you've got mostly relatively harmless (compared to the southern ones) critters that depend on running to get away. Sure, there's larger ones a bit further out - but why bother with those if the far easier-to-kill ones give you less danger, are closer to the city and get you an equal or greater profit?
Well, the running critters - those are far easier to hunt if you depend on your bow (ranger speciality, see above) or your ability to sneak up to them quietly (another ranger speciality) to kill them than chasing them down until they can't run anymore, for creatures whose ability to survive depends solely on running away as fast as they can.
Another ranger ability, tracking, is also very useful if you can't find your prey or if you lose sight of it for whatever reason.
:arrow: Furry and small critters.
Hunting in the north involves pelts, and a lot of those. Skinning an animal is hard - you need to know where exactly to place your starting cuts, might easily slip and cut through the pelt and you need to find a balance between cutting a hide that's too thick (thus cutting off parts that you don't want to cut off) or too thin.
There's also soem smaller animals around that would be harder to cut apart since you need to work more precise. Try getting a pelt and a steak off a ra, even if that rat is the size of a small dog (try doing the same with your dog for that matter... :shock: ).
Ranger again for the skinning ability.
Southern hunting:
:arrow: NASTY beasts.
A southern hutner would have to be much better concerning pure fighting ability than a northern one to not get eaten once he's outside. Whatever you are hunting is probably nasty enough already - but there's always soemthing bigger luring somewhere else - scrabs, terantula, mekillots, beetles, even gith - the ability to fight well against humanoids would come in handy there, and someone that's not already very experienced at fighting will (and does) have a hard time hunting around there.
:arrow: Chitinous creatures
Most of the huntable stuff in the south is insectoid - scrabs, mostly, maybe something larger when you're feeling lucky. You chop the head and legs off, cut off a few chunks of meat and maybe get the shell - which has a definite shape already, you start at the edghes and can't cut through it. I can see this at being easier than cutting off a thin, easily damaged pelt - that would explain the lesser skinning ability if you play a warrior in the south and not a ranger.
:arrow: Aggressive creatures
You don't need to sneak up to anything but jozhals down there and since the salt flats or just dunes don't provide cover like the grasslands might, it would be near impossible anyways.
Sneaking would be low-priority inthe south for other reasons, too - the critters are likely to find you before you find them... Same goes for hunting, the critters don't run away, they try to eat you. So there's no real need for hunt or sneak.
:arrow: No archery
No wood, arrows and bows are expensive as hell and whatever you're trying to hit might eat you before you even got your bow out... A hunter isn't very likely to learn archery at all.
:arrow: the landscape
It's pretty flat and doesn't provide a lot of shelter that would make ranger quit look sensible. There also is no opportunity to forage for food other than stealing it from the fields (or was there a place near the city that's not a field, I forgot, if there is ignore this...) which would get you in trouble with the guards. Scrabs live realtively close to the city so you're also less likely to spend a night or several outside (ranger quit) than when you go off to one end of the grasslands or all the way to the tablelands in the north.
So in the south, you wouldn't really need all those ranger skills, but need someone that fights well for hunting - so that's what I think the hunters down there would be best at (your learn what you need in whatever environment you're doing the job), so sometimes picking warrior abilities might be a better match than picking ranger for a southern character.
The only problem I see with this are the sandstorms - the south is really stormy and as a warrior, you wouldn't be able to deal with those - but you probably just wouldn't go out in bad weather anyways.
Has anyone thought of that typical fantasy-stereotype of the heroic warrior slaying the dragon? Even if the stereotype doesn't really fit into zalanthas that well.
also, the thing about warriors being only good at fighting humanoids isn't reflected by the code, so if a warrior skillset fits my hunter concept better than ranger skills I'll pick that one.
Quote from: "Xygax"Warriors have some token skinning ability, but really it's -nothing- like the ridiculous screen-spam a veteran ranger can make with a skinning knife.
-- X
Out in that one area, six bodies, two bags, one skinning knife - good times. :)
Anyways, going to what Nao said, I can see where you are coming from, but I disagree.
The need for a southern ranger would be even greater than that of the north. Having a working knowledge of general beast locations, the ability to lead a group through massive storms, to scout ahead for a hunting party, and to know how to take apart bodies that are nothing more than walking slabs of armor just begs for a ranger. You also have to consider the need to be able to scour for food in far off locations when things are looking grim, how to patch up hunting party members when a swarm of spiders hits and how to have a sharp eye out for those hidden buggers waiting to slay you for a quick fix.
The main difference between north and south to me is that the south is deadly enough to require not -only- a ranger, but one, if not two, warriors working together as a team to make any hunting trip worthwhile (unless we're talking about a truly badass ranger here). So while the south might need the brute strength of a meat head to hack down the beetles and silt flyers, the ranger's wilderness prowess, perceptive abilities and general survival tools are just as necessary.
Xygax Said
QuoteWe as the staff feel that the benefits with respect to game balance outweigh your (and by "you" in this context, I mean, you FightClub and the few people who are arguing this point) inability to plan your time online. If you consider this a significant barrier to your play, then I invite you to find a less restrictive environment elsewhere.
Not to disrespect the immortals or the one whos said this. Or even to challenge the monstrous and frightening bureaucracy that makes this game work so well. But I have issues with what Xygax said.
Even if wilderness quit is given only to rangers for balanced reasons, it is still difficult to players who like to play city-based character and leave the city. To suggest that because some such players are unable to spend the time required to overcome the difficulty of such roles shouldn't even play them, (I'm assuming that xygax meant less time intensive roles when he says "less restrictive enviroment") is discouraging not to just the players of such roles, but to the players that don't have alot of time to spend on the game.
As someone that might be able to put in three hours a week (at this point) I am restricted to a number rolee. These include nobles, leadership roles, roles that are central to large plots etc. To limit this even further is even more upsetting even if based on the pretense of 'balance'.
If I had five hours a day to play this game, it wouldn't be an issue. However, it gets under my skin when someone suggests that I 'should go somewhere else' under the pretense time management.[/b]
Quote from: "Inky (unlogged)"To limit this even further is even more upsetting even if based on the pretense of 'balance'.
If I had five hours a day to play this game, it wouldn't be an issue. However, it gets under my skin when someone suggests that I 'should go somewhere else' under the pretense time management.[/b]
I don't see any pretense. It's pretty simple and straight forward. If you know you only have an hour to play, you don't set out for a distant locale that takes an IG day to travel to. Instead, you travel for a bit, enjoy the sights, snag a bit of wood or small game, then by early afternoon you turn around and head back home. That is what is meant by time management.
Are you wanting your city dweller to be able to head out on a camping trip? Because if you are, this really isn't too realistic.
Quote from: "Inky"Even if wilderness quit is given only to rangers for balanced reasons, it is still difficult to players who like to play city-based character and leave the city.
This is by design. Zalanthas is a harsh world, and if you have a city-based character (or even a non-ranger), they will naturally have difficulty leaving the city. I don't think we're suggesting you not play a city-based character who leaves the city. However, many people, staff included, have played many non-ranger characters and overcome the difficulties.
Yes. Sometimes you get stuck in a sandstorm. Yes, sometimes it sucks. But yes, that is the choice you make when you play a non-ranger, and head out into the wilds.
Quote from: "Tlaloc"Quote from: "Inky"Even if wilderness quit is given only to rangers for balanced reasons, it is still difficult to players who like to play city-based character and leave the city.
This is by design. Zalanthas is a harsh world, and if you have a city-based character (or even a non-ranger), they will naturally have difficulty leaving the city. I don't think we're suggesting you not play a city-based character who leaves the city. However, many people, staff included, have played many non-ranger characters and overcome the difficulties.
Yes. Sometimes you get stuck in a sandstorm. Yes, sometimes it sucks. But yes, that is the choice you make when you play a non-ranger, and head out into the wilds.
I think we probably lose players because of it. I think if we thought about it we could come up with something that would reflect how hard it is to survive out there but still let people leave the game if they needed to.
How about skill "make camp".
I figure, alright, rangers spend all their time outside, therefore giving them the ability to camp outside if necessary. Say, a warrior spends so-so amount of time out there, growing accustomed to the ways of the outdoors (a modest amount of time that is, not something to be easily acquired) and would be capable of branching such an ability(the ability would range class from class, giving the realism of ability to stay outdoors, aswell). In all realism, and outdoorsman can make it in the wild IRL without anything, but an untrained person cannot, whats to make an untrained person capable of such a feat, spending time outdoors.. thats just my opinion.
Just to emphasize why I think this should be opened up to non-rangers, is for example, I just died and I was trying to decide what to play.
My last 3 chars have been naki city dwellers so I'm ready for change and I thought about possibly venturing out doors again.
However, I don't really want to play a combat hunter guy who will one day have access to archery and poisons. I'd like to play a travelling merchant who in all likely hood isn't rich enough to hire a byn escort.
Now, given enough time I know I could get a merchant from Nak to Tuluk and back, it would be tough, but I've been playing a while and that sort of thing is the challenge that makes me smile.
But I'm a grown up and a professional and I'm not going to risk having to sit at my computer for a day and a half while I wait for a storm to blow over.
So, my travelling merchant will be a ranger, it will be easy, and it will suck.
Well, it won't suck, but it would be much cooler if I could be a merchant caravan guide and in the odd event I need to quit out do so, with some horrible penalty.
Plus, I don't want to play a ranger with a starting offense of whatever, and all sorts of weapons skills. I want to haggle over goods and buy in the north and sell in the south.
Am I the only one who thinks of these types of characters?
Good idea everybody (including some staff members) let's encourage people to stop playing the game.
If you are adequately prepared to camp in the wilds, if you have received adequate training to camp in the wilds, if you are comfertable camping in the wilds, then why can't you camp (quit) in the wilds? Oh wait I know, there is a massive ooc distinction between a ranger and other classes. A Ranger should be able to do it right away, a Ranger should be able to do it "better" than others, and a Ranger is going to be able to do it in many scenerios. However, if you are going to sit there and tell me that a character that is not a Ranger can not eventually learn how to set up some sad excuse for a shelter in a very hospitable part of the Grey then I don't know what to tell you except DIRRRRRRRRR.
Quote from: "jmordetsky"Plus, I don't want to play a ranger with a starting offense of whatever, and all sorts of weapons skills. I want to haggle over goods and buy in the north and sell in the south.
Ranger/Con Artist?
Quote from: "Marauder Moe"Quote from: "jmordetsky"Plus, I don't want to play a ranger with a starting offense of whatever, and all sorts of weapons skills. I want to haggle over goods and buy in the north and sell in the south.
Ranger/Con Artist?
Subguilds are nice. But, it's like a warrior thief. You are still a tank, but you can sort of steal. You're just shit at it.
I suppose you could try letting characters quit out in the wilderness if they're with a ranger. Kinda like how groups led by rangers don't get lost in sandstorms.
I think it'd be nice to have in a few subguilds. Sure, a lot of people would take them all of a sudden, but there's a reason for that. A lot of people want to play outside the walls, and they don't want to be forced into playing the same guild every time. They don't have to have desert nav and wilderness quit. Nor do they have to be as good at either (I.E., timed tick down for quitting, like several people mentioned) as rangers. It'd be nice for people who don't want to play rangers every time, and for the people who are tired of seeing a million rangers. :)
Quote from: "Grey Area"I suppose you could try letting characters quit out in the wilderness if they're with a ranger. Kinda like how groups led by rangers don't get lost in sandstorms.
Not a horrid idea at all.
QuoteSure, a lot of people would take them all of a sudden, but there's a reason for that. A lot of people want to play outside the walls, and they don't want to be forced into playing the same guild every time. They don't have to have desert nav and wilderness quit.
You don't -have- to have either of these to do it. You just have to be creative and understand that it's going to limit you a bit if you want your
main area of expertise to be something other than
desert survival.
And that's -exactly- how it should be.
Quote from: "Grey Area"I suppose you could try letting characters quit out in the wilderness if they're with a ranger. Kinda like how groups led by rangers don't get lost in sandstorms.
I don't see anything wrong with this. It makes sense and still keeps a limitation on non-rangers in the wilds.
All I have to say is your complaining about taking something away from the rangers that they only have. Rangers are known survivors of the lands, not warriors or anything else. And it would suck ass to have every class in the game be able to quit out in the wilds. That would take something away from rangers. Being able to quit in the wilds is something unique that rangers has and wouldn't make since to give it to warriors or anyone else. Is is really that hard to go find a quit-safe place or wander into a city to quit out?
Having read all this chatter, I have one question to ask. Something I feel is absolutely vital to the argument.
-Allowing everyone to quit outside of a city does what to the opportunities for RP?
Armageddon is an RP mud. For that, you need at least some interaction with other PCs. As of now, a vast majority of PCs are located within the confines of the cities/outposts/camps. Out of necessity, for they cannot reliably quit out in the wilds should the need arise. Give them the chance to quit out in the desert, and quite a few of those characters may very well disappear for long periods of time, spent wandering the wastes doing whatever. What good is a soloing character to an RP environment? For the most part, very little. I say, keep it the way it is. It is a player's responsibilty to manage what online time they have.
Discuss if you want, this is just my two cents on the subject.
Quote from: "jmordetsky"Am I the only one who thinks of these types of characters?
I would have created a merchant. It isn't as hard as you say it is.
How it is now:
Rangers survive in the desert.
Warriors kill shit.
Merchants make money.
Pickpockets steal coins.
Assassains surprise people.
Buglars steal couches.
How it would be:
Rangers survive in the desert.
Warriors kill shit and survive in the desert.
Merchants make money and survive in the desert.
Pickpockets steal coins and survive in the desert.
Assassains surprise people and survive in the desert.
Buglars steal couches and survive in the desert.
How about not?
If you want to travel from city to city selling shit as a merchant, HIRE A RANGER. Any guide worth his salt will know quit-safe areas for non rangers that he can lead you to in an emergency. And even then, there will be less "omg sandstorm" emergencies because he can lead you -through- them.
I hope this thread gets lost in a sandstorm, unable to quit out, and gets eaten by a pack of raptors like it should because its guild's main focus isn't desert survival.
Snicker.
wipes eyes
Oh, What Agent_137 said.
I thought about this and changed my position. Keep it how it is.
I just felt spurred to post because I think Agent_137 misrepresents what giving this ability to everyone would do to rangers.
Rangers do a lot more than just 'survive in the wastes'. They own the wastes. Heh. Giving the ability to quit out in the wastes would not make rangers much less powerful or unique. I'm sorry, that's just the truth.
Quote from: "Kalden"It's not -that- big of a deal to allow people to survive a little in the wastes.
This thread has gone 8 pages.
Idea: More quit safe rooms.
Implementation: Use the idea command.
If you (ranger or not) are out and about and you come across a room that you think would be a good quit safe room but when you try "quit test" you find out it isn't one try:
>idea This would be a great quit room!
Maybe an imm will agree with you.
What makes a good candidate for a quit room? My guess is any room that is sheltered in some way, like a cave, a dead end that is sheltered from the wind on two or three sides, a room that shows evidence of being used as a campground, a room under an overhang, a (preferably empty) animal den or nest, an abandoned building, etc.
It can't hurt to try.
Angela Christine
As mentioned by the Imm Staff, the ranger guild should be chosen if your character has the background necessary for surviving and living in the wilderness for extended periods of time. Period.
If your character does not have this background, then don't expect the ability to survive a natural storm in a harsh environment like Zalanthas. People die in sand storms. Heck, people die in heavy storms today and they have technology, houses, electricity, emergency reponse vehicles and neighbors. If they wanted to be realistic, most characters who went into a sand storm without a good deal of perparation and knowledge would probably die, while you merely lose your way and are forced to spend some "time" navigating or waiting it out.
If you start a character as a warrior and feel that they've practiced and learned enough of the desert world to adopt the ranger skillset, I'm sure you could special app for your character guild to be changed from warrior to ranger and pow - you can quit. You may whine that you cannot keep some of your warrior skills, but that's how the game works. We don't have backstabbing warriors no matter how much they practice the skill. We don't have fireballing merchants regardless of what they put in their backgrounds. And we don't have wilderness quitting characters who aren't rangers because it is your responsibility to ensure that your character's skillset and guild choice mirriors both your background and your expectations.
The Imm Staff have already made it clear that emergencies can often be dealt with via the 'wish' command, and I don't think they've removed the comnand "quit regardless" if you really need to go. But time management is also your responsibility, not the Imm Staff, the other players or the gameworld's. To claim that there is something wrong with the game because it doesn't suit the time you have to play is pretty selfish. The integrity of the gameworld is one of Armageddon's finest points, and I'll happily die in the desert storm to maintain that.
All that said, I wouldn't be adverse to certain expensive objects (i.e. tents) creating quit-safe rooms that disappeared after use. For example, if you made a tent and then quit out - the tent object would be removed when you logged back into the game. At about 1500 'sid a pop and their designed weight, this would likely keep such an activity to a minimum and truely reserved for those moments of emergency.
-LoD
Quote from: "LoD"
All that said, I wouldn't be adverse to certain expensive objects (i.e. tents) creating quit-safe rooms that disappeared after use. For example, if you made a tent and then quit out - the tent object would be removed when you logged back into the game. At about 1500 'sid a pop and their designed weight, this would likely keep such an activity to a minimum and truely reserved for those moments of emergency.
Explain how that would make any sense.
They're magick tents?
Quote from: "EvilRoeSlade"Quote from: "LoD"
All that said, I wouldn't be adverse to certain expensive objects (i.e. tents) creating quit-safe rooms that disappeared after use. For example, if you made a tent and then quit out - the tent object would be removed when you logged back into the game. At about 1500 'sid a pop and their designed weight, this would likely keep such an activity to a minimum and truely reserved for those moments of emergency.
Explain how that would make any sense.
For the purpose of playability, if "something" was going to be implemented to allow anyone (non-rangers) an IC way to quit-out without wishing up or using the "quit regardless" command, I'd want there to be some weighty disadvantages. If someone setup a tent in sandstorm conditions and chose to use the room as a quit-safe room, they'd understand that the tent would be rendered useless and consumed by a potential myriad of desert related problems (i.e. weather, critters, debris).
Perhaps the stakes for the tent were buried too far beneath the dunes, one of the tent poles snapped and the cloth tore, and while it allowed you to survive, it's no longer useable. Pick a scenario in your mind that might occur in a scenario where someone is unable to return to a quit-safe location due to weather, critters, humanoids, distance and apply it to what might happen to that virtual tent while they are safely logged out.
I think it actually makes pretty good sense in the low fantasy environment. My idea hinges on the premise that a canvas tent might develop a tear or break in a fierce storm or when approached by a desert animal as a "disadvantage" to using an expensive tent object in an emergency situation. I already accept things in this game such as the existence of beings that have a connection to the elemental plane of fire and are able to channel energies through it via a mystical force we all have called "mana".
Is this really so far a stretch of the imagination?
-LoD
quit regardless was removed a long time ago. Now there is only quit, quit test and quit die.
Quote from: "Morgenes"quit regardless was removed a long time ago. Now there is only quit, quit test and quit die.
Well, that shows how often I've needed to use any command other than quit in the last several years because I don't go wandering the wastes before class. :wink:
-LoD
Quote from: "EvilRoeSlade"Quote from: "jmordetsky"Am I the only one who thinks of these types of characters?
I would have created a merchant. It isn't as hard as you say it is.
I didn't say it was hard. I said I wanted a more a challenge then a ranger and not to have to play the sit to quit game.
Don't you people get it? Rangers are very capable melee fighters, so don't give me the old "warriors fight stuff and rangers quit in the wilderness garbage." Furthermore, Rangers get many many many outdoor survival skills, they can tame mounts, they get trample, they get incredible archery, and they get listen. Now, if one person can give me one reason why an individual can not learn how to make shelter outside of the city in places such as right off a main road, or in the shade of a cliff, or in a cave I want to hear it. This afformentioned person would of course have to have appropriate gear and training. Now classes such as assasin and pickpocket are incredibly city oriented and I can understand why they would not receive the skill. However, a merchant and a warrior is not a pure city guild so they should be able to quit in about 1/5 of the places a ranger can.
Only one reason? If it's not sheltered from storms, he simply cannot.. One must live for a real long time to handle storms. If it's sheltered from storms, then bug it, because it should have already been a quitsafe room.
Not ALL sheltered rooms are meant to be quit-safe. Often, though the area is empty when you're there (or appears so), something lives there which returns from time to time to eat hapless PCs living in its lair. Please don't be upset if a room you've typod (use typo, not bug -- a room being not quit-safe isn't a bug... a bug is when you take off your carru-leather jacket and it turns into a silt-horror that suddenly backstabs you. Mis-spellings, missing room-flags, etc., are typos) doesn't immediately become quit-safe. Also, please submit typos like this only once. We don't count typos like votes and then use the most-voted-on-typos as a technique for prioritizing tasks.
-- X
Quote from: "Packersfan"Now, if one person can give me one reason why an individual can not learn how to make shelter outside of the city in places such as right off a main road, or in the shade of a cliff, or in a cave I want to hear it. This afformentioned person would of course have to have appropriate gear and training.
You're absolutely right. Individuals
can learn how to make shelters outside of the city, avoid dangers of the desert, and survive all with the appropriate training and gear.
These individuals are called "Rangers".
Your guild defines what your character can do, and has been trained in doing (or depending on how your'e playing, will one day define what they're going to be trained in), and spends the majority of their time training in (or at least the potential of it). You may not believe it when people say: "Warriors fight, so they don't know anything about the desert", but its true: Warriors spend most of their time thinking about how best to gouge out someone's eyes with their thumbs, and less time thinking about which mushrooms are safe to eat.
This is why your warrior cannot quit out in the desert, and will likely never learn how. On the other side of the coin: a ranger will never even begin have the mastery of combat that even a midranged warrior will have.
As for the indie Merchant question: I've played an indie merchant (as well as desert-elf warriors) and never had problems with the 'sit to quit' game. I think you just have to be aware of the weather, and the time you have on hand to make your trips...or hire yourself a newbie ranger, if you don't feel like hiring the Byn. I firmly believe there are enough quit-safe locations in the desert, that this isn't really as much of a problem as people are making this out to be.
Then the Ranger guild needs immediate reduction on their combat prowess, because they are far too good at melee to be just an outdoorsmen. It can not just be a one way street.
Edited to add: What I mean is that just because way down the road a warrior will be better than a Ranger at melee is simply not enough of a distinction between somebody who is a fighter and somebody who is not.
Quote from: "Packersfan"Then the Ranger guild needs immediate reduction on their combat prowess, because they are far too good at melee to be just an outdoorsmen. It can not just be a one way street.
Edited to add: What I mean is that just because way down the road a warrior will be better than a Ranger at melee is simply not enough of a distinction between somebody who is a fighter and somebody who is not.
Doesn't even have to be way down the road. Every warrior pc I've had was able to beat rangers of twice as many days of playing time. They aren't that good at melee. They don't even come -close- to the melee combat power of a warrior. Not close at all.
Dude I don't know what you're talking about with that. Hand to hand, warriors pretty much always rule over rangers. THAT part DEFINITELY needs no adjustment at all. At ALL. It's not like rangers don't fight, but they learn how to fight against critters. Nasty critters, sometimes.
Quote from: "Tlaloc"
As for the indie Merchant question: I've played an indie merchant (as well as desert-elf warriors) and never had problems with the 'sit to quit' game. I think you just have to be aware of the weather, and the time you have on hand to make your trips...or hire yourself a newbie ranger, if you don't feel like hiring the Byn. I firmly believe there are enough quit-safe locations in the desert, that this isn't really as much of a problem as people are making this out to be.
I hear you. I do. It probably isn't an epidemic. But I can definitely know we've had lost n00bs who just never log back in because they wander out somewhere and then can't quit. I've discovered enough idle characters on foot in charlton leather boots out on a dune to make this assumption. (Of course, I do also k1llz0r them.)
And the other part is just that the 1 or 2 times that it does happen....... it's *REALLY* annoying.
I know I'm not the first person to walk 3 ticks and then say, "oh wait"
80/80 >weather
You are in the middle of a rediculous sandstorm.
80/80 >raise hood
And sometimes this means I need to raise my hood for rp purposes....and sometimes this means I'm going to be stuck 3 ticks from the entrance to Red Storm for 4 rl hours thinking "man this sucks" on an endless loop.
Now just to restate. I'm not for giving desert full quit to everyone. But,
I would like to see three subguilds given the ability at a varying penalty. And when I say pentaly, I mean like 1/2 to 2/3 of your current hit points for doing so. This is not something that would be taken lightly.
80/80 80/80 80/80> quit
Spending time in wilds has caused you to suffer.
40/80 40/80 40/80>
Come back soon!I think something that seems so minor would completely alleviate this cause of annoyance, allow the game to remain "harsh" and give people who have other things to do a chance to do them without having to sacrifice their characters.
It would make things more playable. Without a doubt.
As far as quit points go, they are great if you know where they are (which I do) but if you are stuck, or you are a n00b and need to log out these really don't apply because you still need to find or get to one.
I personally don't ever make IC game mechanics decisions based on concern for newbies. We accomodate newbies by improving policy, polish, and UI, not by "dumbing down" the game. Newbies get lost, confused or injured by the brutal environment in all sorts of places, most of which -aren't- in fact the desert.
Also, and this is very, very imporant: if you find sandstorms "annoying" what in blazing Suk-krath's hellpits are you doing in Red Storm? Seriously. Stop it. Red Storm isn't built for people who aren't cautious enough to observe the weather ahead of them before they walk into it. You're bound to die from this sort of behavior (if not from boredom, then from something much, much more direct), and it weakens your argument significantly. Now that I know that your core complaint is really, "the brutal weather around Red Storm inconveniences my dainty warrior," I'm finding it very hard to give your concerns merit.
Sorry.
-- X
Also, as has been stated many times, subguilds aren't meant to give you tools with which to round out the coded deficiencies in your character. Your character has been given coded deficiencies on purpose, so that you are forced to make difficult choices, ICly. This is called "conflict", and our game thrives on it. We're not going to remove this sort of conflict because you'd like to have more freedom to go sight-seeing around Red Storm.
-- X
Quote from: "Xygax"I personally don't ever make IC game mechanics decisions based on concern for newbies. We accomodate newbies by improving policy, polish, and UI, not by "dumbing down" the game. Newbies get lost, confused or injured by the brutal environment in all sorts of places, most of which -aren't- in fact the desert.
Also, and this is very, very imporant: if you find sandstorms "annoying" what in blazing Suk-krath's hellpits are you doing in Red Storm? Seriously. Stop it. Red Storm isn't built for people who aren't cautious enough to observe the weather ahead of them before they walk into it. You're bound to die from this sort of behavior (if not from boredom, then from something much, much more direct), and it weakens your argument significantly. Now that I know that your core complaint is really, "the brutal weather around Red Storm inconveniences my dainty warrior," I'm finding it very hard to give your concerns merit.
Sorry.
-- X
I am joe's mild annoyance. You're trivializing my argument into one point. First off, the brutal weather around red storm doesn't inconvenience my "dainty warrior". I don't play warriors, so lets lose the "joe wants a desert quitting warrior" attitude immediately, because he doesn't.
That said, I love that red storm is dangerous, I actually like playing there ALOT regardless and infact, because of, the weather.
What I'm trying to find a solution for about is having no OC alternative to an OC mistake that OOCly inconveniences me for many RL hours.
To which your answer will be "then play a ranger".
To which I've responded, ranger doesn't cover my character concepts. I want to play mage that is forced hide in redstorm (who was the character in question).
To which you answer will be "its supposed to be that way, pay attention to the weather and don't journey far.".
To which I've responded, I find it unrealistic and mildly silly that we limit the player base with OOC playability issue of not being able to quit the game when they need to when it's reasonable to come up with a coded IC penalty that would impose the same deterent.
It has very little to do with the weather (which I personally embrace, I've had a lot of fun getting lost in storms) and a lot more to do with general understanding "why" we're so adament about forcing people to idle in the desert at any juncture, in any weather.
If I'm heading from Tuluk to blackwing and my office calls with a down server, why do I need idle as D-elf bait? I honestly don't see the positives to it. And as for the play "a ranger" argument you can't tell me your not limiting character concepts by enforcing that policy. It just really makes no sense to me.
Quote from: "Xygax"Also, as has been stated many times, subguilds aren't meant to give you tools with which to round out the coded deficiencies in your character. Your character has been given coded deficiencies on purpose, so that you are forced to make difficult choices, ICly. This is called "conflict", and our game thrives on it. We're not going to remove this sort of conflict because you'd like to have more freedom to go sight-seeing around Red Storm.
-- X
IC conflict is good. IC conflict for IC reasons is good. Taking a non-ranger out into the desert and having the possibility that the environment will cause you to ICly suffer is good.
OCly suffering with having to keep zmud open and glancing at it because you can't quit out is retarded.
I guess guilds do somewhat define what profession you can have.
Quote from: "Packersfan"Then the Ranger guild needs immediate reduction on their combat prowess, because they are far too good at melee to be just an outdoorsmen. It can not just be a one way street.
Uh, no.
Rangers are best when they are fighting dirty and distanced, not up close and personal. They can get very good at defending themselves during a melee fight, but they will never, ever be able to approach the sheer destructive, asskicking power a skilled warrior can wield. It also takes a long, long time for a ranger to be able to defend themselves like a warrior can.
Trust me. I know.
Quote from: "jmordetsky"I am joe's mild annoyance. You're trivializing my argument into one point. First off, the brutal weather around red storm doesn't inconvenience my "dainty warrior". I don't play warriors, so lets lose the "joe wants a desert quitting warrior" attitude immediately, because he doesn't.
Yes, I'm sorry. Please substitute "elementalist" for "warrior" in the above.
Quote from: "jmordetsky"What I'm trying to find a solution for about is having no OC alternative to an OC mistake that OOCly inconveniences me for many RL hours.
I'm of the philosophy that it's okay that OOC mistakes often yield IC consequences. I have often advocated, for example, playing through typos, unless the results they yield are entirely nonsensical.
Quote from: "jmordetsky"To which I've responded, I find it unrealistic and mildly silly that we limit the player base with OOC playability issue of not being able to quit the game when they need to when it's reasonable to come up with a coded IC penalty that would impose the same deterrent.
It is not unrealistic that desert sandstorms are inconvenient. I'm not sure why you believe this. I concede that there is an OOC playability problem to be discussed here, but I am entirely opposed to "let anyone quit in the wilderness" as the solution. Find a different one.
Quote from: "jmordetsky"It has very little to do with the weather (which I personally embrace, I've had a lot of fun getting lost in storms) and a lot more to do with general understanding "why" we're so adamant about forcing people to idle in the desert at any juncture, in any weather.
No one is forcing you to play in the desert
at all, much less idle there. You are using this assumption as a straw man, and it is causing you to craft an entirely fallacious argument. It is possible to live without strolling through the desert (even in Red Storm), and it is possible to stroll through the desert with a non-ranger character without getting caught in storms (even in Red Storm -- and even for a non-ranger). That said, storms are bound to curtail your wanderings even if you're paying attention to what's going on around you, and even more-so bound to extend them if you don't take the hints. For example, if you're wandering the desert, and you notice the wind pick up -- suddenly as you're pacing along, you notice sands whipping around your ankles, for example -- and you're not a ranger, you should turn back. You should also know (and this is common enough knowledge that I am comfortable posting it), that there are regions of the world, even particularly small ones, where sandstorms linger forever and the winds/sands are always worse than the weather even a room away. If you're paying attention, you can navigate around these (even if you're not a ranger, and even around Red Storm).
Numerous players have coexisted with this difficulty for a very long time -- the only reason this difficulty (getting lost in blinding sandstorms) was absent for a time (a year or two, I think) was due to a bug someone had negligently dropped into the movement code. Prior to that, and for a year now after I fixed the bug, numerous players of both rangers and non-rangers alike have survived and even thrived in the desert (without being able to quit there).
Quote from: "jmordetsky"If I'm heading from Tuluk to blackwing and my office calls with a down server, why do I need idle as D-elf bait? I honestly don't see the positives to it. And as for the play "a ranger" argument you can't tell me your not limiting character concepts by enforcing that policy. It just really makes no sense to me.
If you're the on-call man that night, don't hike from Tuluk to the desert outpost. It really is that simple. If an emergency does arise, just wish up (I've said this before) and if someone is around and feeling helpful, they'll probably purge you (safely removing you from the world).
-- X
Quote from: "Maybe42or54"I guess guilds do somewhat define what profession you can have.
Certainly they define what professions you can excel at. I don't encourage you to advertise your ranger as a fireball tossing Krathi, for example. But, you might be able to get away with it, for a while.
-- X
Well, we're still a little caught up on storms there but...whatever
The important points I'm pulling from that:
Quote from: "Xygax"
I concede that there is an OOC playability problem to be discussed here.
Atleast we agree on something.
Quote from: "Xygax"
If you're the on-call man that night, don't hike from Tuluk to the desert outpost. It really is that simple. If an emergency does arise, just wish up (I've said this before) and if someone is around and feeling helpful, they'll probably purge you (safely removing you from the world).
-- X
Again, I think this *is* the "playability" issue and I know I'm not the only one.
So, we''l have to agree to disagree and until such time as it changes, rangers it is, and rangers it will be. How dull.
Quote from: "Xygax"Not ALL sheltered rooms are meant to be quit-safe. Often, though the area is empty when you're there (or appears so), something lives there which returns from time to time to eat hapless PCs living in its lair. Please don't be upset if a room you've typod (use typo, not bug --
Wouldn't
idea be even better?
Quote from: "Packersfan"Then the Ranger guild needs immediate reduction on their combat prowess, because they are far too good at melee to be just an outdoorsmen. It can not just be a one way street.
Edited to add: What I mean is that just because way down the road a warrior will be better than a Ranger at melee is simply not enough of a distinction between somebody who is a fighter and somebody who is not.
Warriors are waaaay better than Rangers when it comes to melee combat. Rangers may be the second best combat characters, but it really is a distant second.
Try this: roll up a ranger and then join the Byn. Even after 3 days play time in the Byn, with all that Byn sparring and decent gear, my Ranger was getting her ass handed to her by brand new Warriors that had just joined on a regular basis. Sparring was a painful and embarassing excercise. Mounted combat . . . usually the sarge orders everyone to dismount before combat, so you don't get to show off Trample even if you can get it to work. Archery sucks at first, and it is unlikely to get you much IC respect, because the non-archers in the unit don't want to stand around "guarding" while the archers take their shots.
There is nothing like playing a ranger in the Byn to make you think rangers are under-powered, not over-powered. That makes sense. Warriors a perfectly adapted to be mercenaries, Rangers are not. (Though a mercenary unit will find it useful to have a ranger or two for desert missions).
Angela Christine
I think of it like this:
When you quit, your character is still in the world. The character was just added into the population to the millions of vNPCs out there. This doesn't mean your character is non-existant in the world anymore, and that is why we have IC excuses for your characters absence, whenever someone inquires about them.
If you quit in the wilderness, you are probly going to be hunting, trying to survive off the enviornment, trading with tribals, and all that good stuff. If you quit within the cities, you are probly going to be enjoying the entertainment, sexing other vNPCs, getting into small arguments with others, training, selling your wares, finding a place to sleep, and so on. Thus, if your character can not fit and adapt to the enviornment, you should not be able to quit there, because your character would more than likely die. Thats not to say that your character would not die in the enviornment best suited for them (I blame this the storage of characters :P).
My question is, what would the virtual warrior, merchant, thief, and so on (excluding the ranger) be doing out in the wilderness for days at a time?
Semi-joking
Maybe we can take away city quitting from rangers to show that they shouldn't have extended visits in the city?
If I was Mr. Spock, I would say this debate was "fascinating."
Curiously, in my ten+ years of playing Armageddon, I have found it much easier to survive in the wastes as a warrior than as a ranger. Both guilds can skin and fight. If you can skin and fight, you can eat. Now all you need is water. All your warrior needs to do is have someone else tell him where to find a source of water, find a way to get water on his own, or occasionally make a trip to civilization to get some water. Now that you have food and water you can live in the wastes until something kills you. This is where the advantage of the warrior far outshines the ranger. Try fighting off a pair of gith, a hungry halfling, or a mul raider with a ranger.
In fact, I bet if you did a rectrospective study reviewing ranger and warrior deaths that you would find that most of them are killed by losing a fight and not by starvation or dehydration. Everyone agrees that warriors win more fights than rangers. So, once and for all I have dispelled the myth that rangers are better than warriors at surviving in the desert.
So, if warriors are better at surviving in the wilderness than rangers, why can't they quit the game like rangers? Most people roleplay quitting as resting or sleeping. Warrior can sleep in the wastes...in the sands, in a cave, under trees. Warriors can build a tent and rest inside it for IC days through a storm. In fact, any guild can rest and sleep in the wastes. Any guild can live for years in the waste so long as they can find food, water, and nothing kills them. The only thing you can't do is quit the game.
Concurrently, if you play a ranger and don't find food, water, or a fight you can win, you will die. I find it hard to explain an OOC function like quitting the game using IC reasoning. It just doesn't make much sense to me. When playing rangers, I have quit the game in the wastes only to log back into the game into a storm at night and immediately be attacked by something while sitting atop my mount. You don't get any advantage by logging out. When you log into the game, you are still hungry, thirsty, poisoned, tired, and wounded. If you are lost, you are still lost. If the weather was bad, it might be good now. However, if the weather was good, it might be bad now.
Ranger quit is just little perk that rangers have been getting for a long time and it sounds like they will continue to get it for the foreseeable future. That's just they way it is and doesn't make a tremendous amount of IC sense. So, don't worry too much about it.
-Williamson
The trick to surviving most desert battles is organized retreat, not staying to fight. At that, Rangers are better equipped. Rangers who stick around to fight with gith and halflings are foolish, not the defining norm of their classes.
-- X
Quote from: "Anonymous"So, once and for all I have dispelled the myth that rangers are better than warriors at surviving in the desert.
I think you have shown that warriors codedly -fight- better than rangers. No big secret there. Still does not dispell the argument.
Quote from: "Xygax"The trick to surviving most desert battles is organized retreat, not staying to fight. At that, Rangers are better equipped. Rangers who stick around to fight with gith and halflings are foolish, not the defining norm of their classes.
-- X
Agreed. Rangers are survivalist - Not well-trained and beefed-up fighters.
I'll tell you something about rangers and warriors. My two longest lived characters have been, first, a warrior, and secondly, a ranger.
Warriors are absolute gods at combat, as they should be. They can survive in the desert, and for a good amount of time. But if it comes down to life or death, when the hordes come and they can not run any more, and they can't kill them all, that is when it is time to head back to the city. My warrior, who lived about 50 days, once fought off eight gith at once. This was back when there were some very scary gith NPCs, and two of those uber gith were among the fighters. They all died, as I almost did, ending the fight at last with 3 hitpoints left.
Rangers are very good at combat. If you have a ranger who can not defeat a few gith, then you are playing your ranger incorrectly, or you are a newbie. In my particular case, I had a mulish ranger at around 40 days. Obviously, a mul is a scary fighter, but when you are facing 6-10 gortok, 2 halflings, and a tembo, even a mul is vulnerable. As a ranger, with a 2 day old warrior fighting beside me, and me rescuing him constantly, we were winning the fight. Of course, a magicker who happens upon you in such a dire predicament is the last thing you need, and of course it was our undoing (and please don't comment on the number of NPCs we were fighting ... I assure you most sincerely, that was just the way the cards fell in on us that day, we were not trying to find all of that).
Rangers, as I have pointed out, are good at combat, but I absolutely concede that they are not warriors. In any fight at close range, the warrior is the best off with animal or human. Therein lies your answer. Rangers are absolute monsters with bows. Additionally, rangers can learn to both sneak and hide in the wild, to the same level as an assassin in the city can. They can forage food when they can not find game.
So, you see, when the warrior faces so many foes or so dangerous of foes that he can no longer win, when it's time to run, when it's time to hide out, to sneak past your opposition, to find food when the game is too dangerous .... the ranger wins. And he wins, hands down.
The ranger shoots first, draws blades last. The ranger sneaks away from foes. The ranger hides amongst the rocks that his foes search for him in. The ranger needs no game to live off of the land.
Warriors are city or camp based character builds, they need base.
Rangers are built to live on nothing but skill.
And that is truth.
*insert williamsons post here*
You're assumign that just because other dangers than aggressive NPCs and PCs, dehydratuion and starvation aren't coded that they don't exist.
But you can die in a sandstorm, or get lost, or eat something poisonous, die from an infection because you didn't bother treating it in an appropriate way or whatever.
Actually, those things are represented by code, through ranger ability to get through a sandstorm better than anyone else and they can stick around out there for longer periods of time (quit).
I've played delves that were not rangers in anunknown area before, and it worked just fine. If you don't know the quit rooms, ask around where those caves are, really. They aren't that ahrd to find, either.
Most of my playtime here went off on rangers and I still use those quit rooms pretty often when I've got to stay outside for whatever reason, because even for a ranger it makes more sense to pick the easy way and quit in some sheltered place.
Quote from: "Nao"You're assumign that just because other dangers than aggressive NPCs and PCs, dehydratuion and starvation aren't coded that they don't exist.
Dehydration and starvation DO exist.
Editted to add: ...and by this, I mean they ARE coded.
Quote from: "spawnloser"Quote from: "Nao"You're assumign that just because other dangers than aggressive NPCs and PCs, dehydratuion and starvation aren't coded that they don't exist.
Dehydration and starvation DO exist.
Editted to add: ...and by this, I mean they ARE coded.
You're misunderstanding me there, the sentence is confusing now that I look at it, my bad, I'm german so I have a tendency for sentences that span across half your screen.
just because other dangers than -aggressive npcs and pcs, dehydration and starvation- , just because those other dangers than those I listed aren't coded you can't assume that they don't exist.
Lol, give it up Nao. That sentence just isn't working for you. :lol:
Heheh...okay, so just because some dangers aren't coded (examples of coded dangers being startvation, dehydration and aggro critters) doesn't mean they don't exist. This is what you meant, Nao? :)
Quote from: "spawnloser"Heheh...okay, so just because some dangers aren't coded (examples of coded dangers being startvation, dehydration and aggro critters) doesn't mean they don't exist. This is what you meant, Nao? :)
Umm, yea... :oops:
This is embarassing -.-
Don't worry about it. :)