Many times do I see people claiming that raiding can no longer happen because of coded restrictions. Without impugning or supporting the legitimacy of that claim, I'll strive to make another: in order to encourage raiding, we need to play in a way that allows this role to exist.
I'm aware that this isn't an argument for making people change, but rather, an exhortation to change. I realize that my apology of behaviour here won't be able to force people to allow raiders to exist, as certain coded benefits and drawbacks might. Nevertheless, for the enjoyment of the players (as distinct from the coercion thereof), I believe it still needs to be made.
The primary problem I hear reported is that raiders are known and prosecuted too easily. The coded restrictions seem aimed at disabling the first; I hope to persuade to forgo the latter.
Firstly, in many "primitive" (apologies to anthropologists, but the word does get the point across), raiding is/was a respected occupation. (See Vikings, Herodotus 1:4?, 3:45, et. al., Bedouin, Araby before the Turks, etc.) As for all that, one might argue that this generally holds true before the establishment of city-states, but not after. However, a closer reading of the above sources combined with background on the surrounding civilizations should lead to the conclusion that even the established people care not who raids in the true wastes, and even do so themselves from time to time (see, for example, Herodotus again, and the behaviour of the Persians before and after Croesus).
Which all leads into my next point: city-bound authority generally shouldn't care who gets raided, so long as said raiding is no serious threat to their interests. If you attack Allanak's walls or outlying lands, expect to get a response from the Arm of the Dragon, but the Allanaki templarate shouldn't prosecute a resident who makes his money stealing from grebbers on the Salt Flats (though, if any of those grebbers get away, they may bring back friends), much less those who spend a good third of the year on the Tuluki grasslands. This holds less true for those whose jobs 'tis to police those outlying lands, but still, a templar should not ride out or ruthlessly track down any rumour of raiding that comes to his ear. It just should not matter enough, unless, as stated above, the raiders' activities constitute a non-negligible threat to the city-state (or Outpost; I haven't forgotten the Kuraci).
Unless I am mistaken, the most common reason that authority figures ruthlessly prosecute raiding (along with any criminal activity, no matter how slight), is a preference for activity rather than passivity (viz., boredom). The only solution I can give to this is a combination of awareness and self-control. A templar (or equivalent) has massive power of influence in the game, even though oftentimes while in the role it seems otherwise. Concentrate your thwarted energy into plots, or socialization, or even character development. Instead of responding to even the rumour of raiding, craft a mission and take your underlings on it. Everyone involved will have more fun that way.
Again, I recognize that my argument does not have the coercive force that a code-change might. Nevertheless, the underlying mentality necessitating the code change needs to be addressed, and I hope I have done a servicable job in the above.
Though raiding within your own area is a possibility, I think the most successful raids (in recorded history) are those raids that happen in foreign lands. Quick, precise, and efficient. Then disappear. Like that. ::)
What do you need?
A loyal, fun, enjoyable, risk-taking, adventurous, blood-thirsty, ruthless, bi-polar group. (could be any one of these, not all required)
Members (or self) proficient and skilled enough to pull off a raid.
A safe haven to "disappear" into.
External connections that keep you updated and "in-the-know" of movement along the roads, etc, as well as provide background and a smoke-screen for information probing of potential bounty-hunters.
What gives a raid the highest success? Immobilize the target. That's it. No mount, no/little/static defense, slow wagon, etc. You just ride them down or tire them out and pounce before reinforcements arrive.
Asking the higher authorities to not care about raiding is all well and good until you have someone telling your character they're incompetent for not caring about what happens 6 leagues away in the grasslands because it's merely 16 rooms away.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FUD_factor
As with a lot of issues, we want to be very careful about blowing up an issue that may or may not exist outside of the forums.
With that said, raiding is a fairly precarious job. Killing people for their money is never very successful in the long term in any society, it puts you at odds with the powers that be and everyone around you. And rightly so, it'd be kind of ridiculous if criminals weren't persecuted. Especially when operating in a totalitarian militaristic state. (They don't like the competition)
With all those disclaimers aside, here's how you can increase your odds of surviving as a raider:
A: Don't frequently raid on major roads, near city states or mineral resources. Why? Trade, resource gathering, hunting, etc can all become profitable and even state sponsored activities. If you start disrupting any of those the state may swat you.
B: Don't raid people that matter. Important people have friends and they're valuable to organizations. When celebrities get killed under the watch of the guards, the state looks bad. When valuable people start dying, those that value them start making examples, setting precedents and wreaking vengeance. You don't want that.
C: Buy your security. Templars and guards exist to be bribed. You want to make sure that nobody notices the next time you slip on and off the road to kill some idiot, buy a templar, pay them well. This combines with point A and B, because if you're viewed as a problem than no amount of bribing is going to help you.
D: Remember your place. You're scum, you live on the margins of society and you pick off people that nobody cares about for their money. Don't expect to be a huge player in the world, don't expect to take on platoons, if you get greedy you'll probably piss someone off, and that's when you die. Similarly don't try to make a point by killing nobles or templar, thumbing your nose at the law, etc etc.
E: Don't shit where you eat. Preferably raid as far from home as you can. And if home is becoming uncomfortable, find a home outside of the major urban centers.
I love raiding and I love being raided.
One of the biggest piece of advice is not to--pardon the language--piss in your own back yard.
Using Allanak as an example:
- If you are going to be raiding Nakis around Allanak, it would be a good idea for you to assume
that you might be wanted in Allanak, and not go there with in the reach of the guards.
Pretend that you are codely wanted. (if you would be IC)
- If you get to be a fairly popular raider, drop an email to the AoD IMMs. If you are lucky, they
might even have you perma-crimed in Allanak, and get the PC Templars and militia looking for
you. (RP, Plot, and Conflict: OH MY!)
- Tuluk, Luir's and Red Storm, most likely won't care that you are raiding Naki's as long as you
aren't messing with any of the GMHs (they can have a lot of pull power). You might even
eventually me made a hero in Tuluk if you cause enough trouble for The Black.
Other advice for the raider:
- Choose your targets carefully. (No soldiers, bynners, GMHs, etc.)
- Try to know who you are raiding. (before you start your career, Hang out in the Gaj and get
to know people: traders, grebbers, hunters, etc.) - Listen in the other cities' bars for talk of trade trips coming from Allanak.
- Stalk people.
To kill or not to kill:
WWYPCD. What would your PC do?
- If he is in it for the coin. Killing future repeat victims: not good for business.
- If he is in it for the prestige. Kill some, leave most alive. (bonus points for having a calling card)
- If he is in it to survive. Most likely would not kill unless he had to.
- If he is just a plain monster. THERE MUST BE BLOOD!!!
Advice for the raided:
WWYPCD. What would your PC do?
- Taking off across the desert, trying to get away from a raider IRL and IC would most likely
mean death. (even though it is codely easy) - Is what the raider asking for worth risking our life? If not, give it up and enjoy the RP.
- Remember that most players (and PC raiders<see above>)don't like to PK (kill their victims)
when they don't have to, So if you give it up, you will probably live. - Don't be a hero... docs say they are VERY rare. 100 coins is not worth dieing to your PC.
None of this advice is affected by the recent code change.
I absolutely agree that we need to challenge the assumption that identification = death for raiders.
As has been mentioned already...
Raiders should strongly consider not living in the same place as their victims.
Raiders should be prepared to bribe authorities (or counter-bribe as really money or other political favors should be the only reason local authorities should care about small-time raiders, or even better preemptively bribe).
Anonymity should not be your first and last line of defense.
Quote from: staggerlee on October 23, 2008, 11:59:38 AM
A: Don't frequently raid on major roads, near city states or mineral resources. Why? Trade, resource gathering, hunting, etc can all become profitable and even state sponsored activities. If you start disrupting any of those the state may swat you.
B: Don't raid people that matter. Important people have friends and they're valuable to organizations. When celebrities get killed under the watch of the guards, the state looks bad. When valuable people start dying, those that value them start making examples, setting precedents and wreaking vengeance. You don't want that.
C: Buy your security. Templars and guards exist to be bribed. You want to make sure that nobody notices the next time you slip on and off the road to kill some idiot, buy a templar, pay them well. This combines with point A and B, because if you're viewed as a problem than no amount of bribing is going to help you.
D: Remember your place. You're scum, you live on the margins of society and you pick off people that nobody cares about for their money. Don't expect to be a huge player in the world, don't expect to take on platoons, if you get greedy you'll probably piss someone off, and that's when you die. Similarly don't try to make a point by killing nobles or templar, thumbing your nose at the law, etc etc.
E: Don't shit where you eat. Preferably raid as far from home as you can. And if home is becoming uncomfortable, find a home outside of the major urban centers.
A: Mostly magickers and hardass rangers and warriors brave anything other than mineral deposits and main roads. Not to mention all of the dangerous NPCs about. Prepare to be burninated or face the blender. Potential raider? Yes, it blends.
B: Okay, so you avoid all of the very important people.... What's impossible to avoid though, are the commoner friends of the very important people. Hurl a spear at one of these people, and prepare to have the fury of an organization nipping at your ass after he tells his well-connected friend about that raider who's sdesc he got from using the Way.
C: A great idea, until one of your victims bribes said templar and guards even more than you do after spam-mining for five hours straight. And to keep that from happening, you'll have to pour every 'sid you raid into your bribery account and that = no profit. Unless you break rule B and knock over an argosy for phat lewt.
D: Capital idea.
E: Unless you live in a cave far, far away from civilization, any posse formed by a past victim can trot to any of the cities in the Known World and find you. It gets even worse when they have friends in every city who can do the deed for them.
Quote from: Qzzrbl on October 23, 2008, 07:33:07 PM...
Those are all very good reasons why raiding is hard. For each one, though, your example pretty much consists of a raider coming into conflict with a character who's been around for a while.
A newbie raider
should lose when he goes up against an experienced magicker, ranger, or warrior.
A newbie raider
should lose when he goes up against a well-connected merchant, information dealer, or whatever.
A newbie raider
should lose when out-bribed by someone... with more money than him.
A newbie raider
should lose when being tracked and out-numbered.
You want to raid successfully? Then don't be a newbie.
On a small side note: I have in the past, used the way to grab a raider's sdesc, so that I could send them a player kudo.
I think RP'ing out the raiding experience and not trying to leave the said mark naked in the middle of the road will also severely impact your success as a raider, from a strictly playability standpoint.
Quote from: Marauder Moe on October 23, 2008, 07:56:16 PM
Quote from: Qzzrbl on October 23, 2008, 07:33:07 PM...
Those are all very good reasons why raiding is hard. For each one, though, your example pretty much consists of a raider coming into conflict with a character who's been around for a while.
A newbie raider should lose when he goes up against an experienced magicker, ranger, or warrior.
A newbie raider should lose when he goes up against a well-connected merchant, information dealer, or whatever.
A newbie raider should lose when out-bribed by someone... with more money than him.
A newbie raider should lose when being tracked and out-numbered.
You want to raid successfully? Then don't be a newbie.
Even experienced 100+ day ex-Byn raiders will be taken out by magickers, groups of pissed friends, out-bribed templars and guards, and well connected merchants.
Quote from: Qzzrbl on October 23, 2008, 08:00:36 PM
Even experienced 100+ day ex-Byn raiders will be taken out by magickers, groups of pissed friends, out-bribed templars and guards, and well connected merchants.
Which brings us to our next bit of advice ... don't raid alone.
Robin Hood didn't, neither should you.
Quote from: Qzzrbl on October 23, 2008, 08:00:36 PM
Quote from: Marauder Moe on October 23, 2008, 07:56:16 PM
Quote from: Qzzrbl on October 23, 2008, 07:33:07 PM...
Those are all very good reasons why raiding is hard. For each one, though, your example pretty much consists of a raider coming into conflict with a character who's been around for a while.
A newbie raider should lose when he goes up against an experienced magicker, ranger, or warrior.
A newbie raider should lose when he goes up against a well-connected merchant, information dealer, or whatever.
A newbie raider should lose when out-bribed by someone... with more money than him.
A newbie raider should lose when being tracked and out-numbered.
You want to raid successfully? Then don't be a newbie.
Even experienced 100+ day ex-Byn raiders will be taken out by magickers, groups of pissed friends, out-bribed templars and guards, and well connected merchants.
I'd
hate it if that wasn't true.
There are three types of power in Armageddon: combat (includes magick), wealth, and social.
A character strong in two or three of those types has an advantage over a character strong in only one.
Right, so none of those problems really have anything to do with being a newbie.
Also, getting a group of a few raiders together can be a real pain in the ass.
But is it any more of a pain in the ass for a person with a grudge to get a few of their friends together and go raider hunting?
It seems like both people are going to run into the same problems, like getting everyone online together ... communication issues ... planning, ect. So, if we're going to use "people who got raided can band together some friends and hunt the raider down" as an example, I'm just curious how it's any more diffuclt for them to do that, than it is for the raiders to get some friends of their own.
Quote from: Qzzrbl on October 23, 2008, 08:11:20 PM
Right, so none of those problems really have anything to do with being a newbie.
A newbie is a character not strong in
any of those types of power.
Quote from: musashi on October 23, 2008, 08:17:35 PM
But is it any more of a pain in the ass for a person with a grudge to get a few of their friends together and go raider hunting?
It seems like both people are going to run into the same problems, like getting everyone online together ... communication issues ... planning, ect. So, if we're going to use "people who got raided can band together some friends and hunt the raider down" as an example, I'm just curious how it's any more diffuclt for them to do that, than it is for the raiders to get some friends of their own.
It's easier to get a group of friends around to go hunt down that bastard who took your ring than to convince your possibly relatively law-abiding buddies to go out and beat people up for money.
Raiding long term will never work on Arm because once you're identified, it gives 90% of the MUD someone to gun for. Then, it's only a matter of time...
Actually, the major problem regarding raiding in Armageddon is very simple to identify. It goes beyond the whole...needing to be an experienced PC and how ridiculously easy it is for you to be slain if you're a mundane raider (and there is nothing inherently wrong with either).
No, the major the problem facing raiding is that historically, people raid because it was more profitable for them than to work within the system. Or in the case of Vikings, staying home and growing crops.
In Armageddon, it is VASTLY more beneficial and easy to work within the system. Just about the only city clan that has any kind of real poverty is the Byn. Just about every other Clan is easy street. If you just stay alive and don't do anything stupid, you can become very comfortable and get your own little apartment and keep skilling up. As opposed to living a few days in the wilderness and dying to a mantis, hole or rogue gicker.
That's not to say some raider groups don't form. Sometimes you get some brilliant players together. There are a couple examples I and everyone else can think of.
Quote from: Fnord on October 23, 2008, 09:02:08 PM
Raiding long term will never work on Arm because once you're identified, it gives 90% of the MUD someone to gun for. Then, it's only a matter of time...
Which is what the OP is trying to change. "Let's try to persuade that 90% not to jump at the chance to kill every raider it comes across."
Yes, I realize the weakness of the approach. I'm making it because we already have
plenty of people holding the other flank, and this one, if successful, leads to intrinsically better gameplay.
Tis,
I like the idea. I'd like to see more misfits, outlaws and crooks in the game.
That being said, the playerbase is too small to properly support certain classes properly including hooker, wagon-wright and yes let's admit it raiders.
The problem with playing a hooker for example or a raider is that you will get drawn into political plots by bored law enforcement/spies/templars and end up getting rolled.
In a perfect world, the playerbase would have 900 active members making enough background lawlessness that one or two small bands of raiders could start small camps together and pull a couple of raids a week without really bothering any of the powers that be.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to piss on your idea. I like your idea. But I've come to accept the conclusion as inevitable.
That being said, if you really, really really want to play a raider, you can pm me and perhaps we can play a brother/sister raid team or something.
But keep in mind that's it's going to be a lot of work.
Quote from: touringCompl3t3 on October 23, 2008, 10:50:27 PM
In a perfect world, the playerbase would have 900 active members making enough background lawlessness that one or two small bands of raiders could start small camps together and pull a couple of raids a week without really bothering any of the powers that be.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to piss on your idea. I like your idea. But I've come to accept the conclusion as inevitable.
That being said, if you really, really really want to play a raider, you can pm me and perhaps we can play a brother/sister raid team or something.
But keep in mind that's it's going to be a lot of work.
Really, I'm just trying to do my small part for changing the mindset of the game. Sure, raiding is next-to-impossible now - but mostly because we have a collective illusion of its impossibility.
Quote from: Tisiphone on October 23, 2008, 10:57:52 PM
Really, I'm just trying to do my small part for changing the mindset of the game. Sure, raiding is next-to-impossible now - but mostly because we have a collective illusion of its impossibility.
And you've done your part wonderfully. If ten noobs read this post, probably five of them will walk away from it with something meaningful.
But two months from now we'll have a whole new crop of noobs, and four months from now some of those guys will be playing templars.
And anyone brave enough to be playing a raider when this happens will have their hopes/dreams crushed when their characters get eaten for no good reason by an unrealistically strong law enforcement response.
I'm not picking on your post, it's awesome. But I think that the next step is to actually engineer a solution to the problem.
The root cause of the problem is boredom and a lack of anonymity. The only realistic solution that I can see is more players.
Some roles work pretty well in the game, i.e. gritty Byn trooper, rough and tumble hunter or frou-frou noble. Others take quite a bit of work to pull off, and I think that players should know what they're getting into when they decide to sink forty or eighty hours of their life into building a raider -- they're taking on a thankless task that will result in them getting moshed one day while they're AFK by a gang of bored PCs who probably won't emote.
Really, my point is that one or two bad apples can ruin things for the rest of us. Even if you educate, 80, 90 or 95 percent of the playerbase one errant staff member or sergeant can pull the heat down on a gang of raiders who are contributing much to the game atmosphere.
Maybe the docs should be modified?
Maybe the docs should go from saying:
most commoners fear elves, templars and spell-casters
to read
most commoners fear elves, templars, thieves, gangsters, raiders and spell-casters
in order to give players the idea that they should probably leave certain castes of characters alone.
But yeah, in case any noobs are reading this THE ORIGINAL POST IS TOTALLY AWESOME AND I AGREE. DONT SNICTCH OUT RAIDERS IT ADS NOTHING TO THE GAME.
But we really need to expect that one or two bad apples will slide through and rain on the parade.
What solution will you suggest that wouldn't be spoiled by one or two bored peeps?
I just want to point this out, since I think it might help:
Quote from: Morgenes on October 23, 2008, 11:57:17 PM
A formal post will be put on the Weekly Update & Staff Announcements when this goes live.
A code change is being tested that will make it so that you can only use someone's name, keywords and REAL short description when contacting them from any room other than your current room. Keywords granted from temporary short descriptions (such as from hoods/masks/face-wraps, whatever) will not be usable.
Note that this does not change the way contact works if you are in the same room with someone. You will be able to use hooded/figure etc... to contact them if they're in the same room.
We (we being the staff of Armageddon) feel this brings the code into line with our vision of how contact targeting should work and at what level it can be used to determine who someone really is.
Quote from: touringCompl3t3 on October 23, 2008, 11:28:50 PM
What solution will you suggest that wouldn't be spoiled by one or two bored peeps?
I'm all behind a hypothetical coded solution, and agree that 'tis absolutely necessary. The mindset's for the betterment of the experience, not the causing of it.
Raiding is a dangerous, unpopular thing done by desperate people with short life expectancies. The problem isn't that people want to play raiders, it's that they want to play long lived raiders... and it isn't a career that promises a long and fruitful life. At all. I can't really imagine it in a form where it was an appealing opportunity, cultures generally frown on that kind of crap. The best option if everyone wants an easy mode pvp experience would be to have another nation that pilfered from Nak... but anything short of Tuluk is going to get spanked pretty quick for that kind of behaviour.
Edit to add: Long lived raiders can/do/will happen, but they're the exception. And I'm pretty sure that's just fine. Life on Zalanthas isn't easy, particularly when you decide to make enemies with everyone in the world and spend your days running around the barren wasteland battling giant bugs and every person you come across. If you make your life a player vs player man hunt, sooner or later you'll come up short.
Quote from: staggerlee on October 24, 2008, 10:33:54 AM
I can't really imagine it in a form where it was an appealing opportunity, cultures generally frown on that kind of crap. The best option if everyone wants an easy mode pvp experience would be to have another nation that pilfered from Nak... but anything short of Tuluk is going to get spanked pretty quick for that kind of behaviour.
Any of you historionic people feel like posting more on the cultural and political conditions under which raiding can flourish? Because, as Tisi has said, we know that it has sometimes been successful in at least the mid-term (Danes vs. the British Isles, etc.). A society might not successfully raid another for
many generations, but a skilled raider really can make a successful, life-long career of it.
A resource-poor culture within reach of a rich one that is both geographically and politically decentralized?
Looking at 1.Arm as methodological inspiration for 2.Arm, what would have to change for a real raider culture to flourish?
Quote from: brytta.leofa on October 24, 2008, 11:48:52 AM
Quote from: staggerlee on October 24, 2008, 10:33:54 AM
I can't really imagine it in a form where it was an appealing opportunity, cultures generally frown on that kind of crap. The best option if everyone wants an easy mode pvp experience would be to have another nation that pilfered from Nak... but anything short of Tuluk is going to get spanked pretty quick for that kind of behaviour.
Any of you historionic people feel like posting more on the cultural and political conditions under which raiding can flourish? Because, as Tisi has said, we know that it has sometimes been successful in at least the mid-term (Danes vs. the British Isles, etc.). A society might not successfully raid another for many generations, but a skilled raider really can make a successful, life-long career of it.
A resource-poor culture within reach of a rich one that is both geographically and politically decentralized?
Historically most of the examples of sustained cultures of "raiders" are nationally supported enterprises. Vikings or privateers are both good examples, but both worked because said raiders weren't bandits... they were state sponsored, so their actions were ignored, even congratulated, and they had a safe port to return to. It's not quite the same as buying a sword and running around the outskirts of a city telling everyone and their dog to hand over their wallet.
If we want flourishing raiders, Nak could sell licenses and allow its people to attack Tuluki, or tribals, or whoever else and return to the safety of the city. But that's at the mercy of ic events and politics, and not on the menu currently. Also, if it were to happen don't come crying when the political atmosphere shifts and you find yourself on a gallows. ;)
Personally I think that situation could be a lot of fun, but I'd be sure to qualify that a role like that would need to interact with the virtual world and npcs more heavily than pcs, playing a character that subsists entirely off of attacks on other pcs is a bit ludicrous... not to mention dangerous.
Bank robbers, horse thieves, purse snatchers and thugs are
always going to lead short, miserable lives. It's how it goes. They aren't noble professions.
Quote from: staggerlee on October 24, 2008, 12:00:30 PM
Personally I think that situation could be a lot of fun, but I'd be sure to qualify that a role like that would need to interact with the virtual world and npcs more heavily than pcs, playing a character that subsists entirely off of attacks on other pcs is a bit ludicrous... not to mention dangerous.
I think that's the bigget problem with raiding right there.
It's all the biggest problem with being an assassian, or burgler in all likelyhood.
Those folks have to pray strictly off of other PCs for the role to really work, and since PC's are often the "exceptional" people of the world ... you stand a far greater chance of getting knocked off because you're focusing on attacking the 2% percent of the population that are above average.
Unfortunately, there just aren't any NPCs wandering around outside the gates, going on caravans, or that you can beat up and rob without having to codedly kill them.
Another thing about raiders, historically, or even modern pirates...is that they don't go for the small stuff. Those who go for the small stuff are more accurately called "muggers." Raiders are the guys who are rustling the whole herd, or hitting that heavy-laden cargo ship, etc. Raiding shouldn't be a small-time, full-time occupation, it should be the kind of thing that's done infrequently but on a grand scale; get the big haul, go home for a few months and live it up.
We don't venerate muggers, after all. We venerate pirates. ARM's raiders, currently, are just muggers.
If you want to be venerated and Make Plots, then go big.
Make believe scenario:
-Low level hostilities break out between Nak and Tuluk, without going so far as to become an all out war. Things are getting ugly, and both suspect an all out war is coming.
-Nak informs the Byn that they'll be allowed to raid a spice caravan heading from Red Storm to Tuluk.
-The Byn says sure.
-The Byn loots the caravan, making off with much treasure.
-GMH get pissed off, threaten to withdraw support from Tuluk if they can't protect the damn trade routes.
-Tuluk and Nak make peace.
-Everyone in the Byn above private is executed as a show of good faith.
That would be real raiding. I realize that the roles and politics are all skewed, it's a hypothetical example and very intentionally not representing the way things actually work ic.
Come to think of it... the Byn are basically already raiders. Don't they live off of contracts to go rough people up? I'm still not sure there's even an issue here, aside from the fact that people have fantasies about playing glorious, badass and feared muggers. Which is an unrealistic goal.
Of course I'd love to play a successful privateer, even at the risk of the gallows.
I think the problem would be better addressed by more realistic raiding (as mentioned in this thread in several places), and people with more realistic responses to raiders. It's the responses that I'd really like to see, though there is a world of difference in being raided/mugged by a well-roleplayed PC thug, and having someone try and just walk up to you and kill you. It's really hard to respond in a good RP way when the raid/muggers are poorly RPed, too.
If there was more RP, realism (in the form of treating your characters like actual people who wouldn't want to die for a piddling 100 coins), and understanding on all sides of this issue, and less twinkery, I think we'd be well off. But I think that can be said for most of the game ;)
The Byn would never take a job that potentially threatened their holdings in either city-state, I'm pretty sure. (Remember, the Byn is alive and well in Tuluk too, at least virtually?)
Quote from: staggerlee on October 24, 2008, 12:20:14 PM
Come to think of it... the Byn are basically already raiders. Don't they live off of contracts to go rough people up? I'm still not sure there's even an issue here, aside from the fact that people have fantasies about playing glorious, badass and feared muggers. Which is an unrealistic goal.
Of course I'd love to play a successful privateer, even at the risk of the gallows.
The Byn are mercenaries, which means they'll do almost anything for coins.
I'd suggest that anyone wanting to play a privateer would need, in the current game, to go after large targets which are primarily virtual. Going after virtual targets is totally do-able, but of course it's going to require a lot of coordination with and some support from staff.
"Glorious mugger" kind of cracks me up. I have a hard time imagining venerating such a character, either ICly or OOCly.
Quote from: Shiroi Tsuki on October 24, 2008, 12:05:49 PM
Unfortunately, there just aren't any NPCs wandering around outside the gates, going on caravans, or that you can beat up and rob without having to codedly kill them.
Subdue wouldn't help with that?
Either way I do agree with you that the oppertunity just isn't there, same as there are really no coded commoner houses for burglers to burgle :(
Or NPC marks for assassins to kill on the behest of NPC contractors.
Quote from: Gimfalisette on October 24, 2008, 12:26:07 PM
The Byn would never take a job that potentially threatened their holdings in either city-state, I'm pretty sure. (Remember, the Byn is alive and well in Tuluk too, at least virtually?)
Quote from: staggerlee on October 24, 2008, 12:20:14 PM
Come to think of it... the Byn are basically already raiders. Don't they live off of contracts to go rough people up? I'm still not sure there's even an issue here, aside from the fact that people have fantasies about playing glorious, badass and feared muggers. Which is an unrealistic goal.
Of course I'd love to play a successful privateer, even at the risk of the gallows.
The Byn are mercenaries, which means they'll do almost anything for coins.
I'd suggest that anyone wanting to play a privateer would need, in the current game, to go after large targets which are primarily virtual. Going after virtual targets is totally do-able, but of course it's going to require a lot of coordination with and some support from staff.
"Glorious mugger" kind of cracks me up. I have a hard time imagining venerating such a character, either ICly or OOCly.
Yeah, my example was intentionally inaccurate and not based on current in game events.
But I do maintain that hired mercenaries are almost indistinguishable from raiders.
Under the current game privateers aren't really likely to happen, not until such a time as the political climate changes. I suppose you could hit gith, you might be able to cut a deal with a government or other organization in regards to that actually. That kind of contract might work - but again, we're cutting into a market the byn already has pegged down.
Edit to add: I think what we're describing now is a very different beast from what people complaining about sdesc sniffing and the lifespan of their raiders are trying to play. But I'm much more excited about this idea, and it's a lot more viable.
Then again... maybe that's a trunk they're feeling, and an ear I'm feeling. The two concepts aren't entirely unreconcilable.
Quote from: staggerlee on October 24, 2008, 12:33:59 PM
Under the current game privateers aren't really likely to happen, not until such a time as the political climate changes. I suppose you could hit gith, you might be able to cut a deal with a government or other organization in regards to that actually. That kind of contract might work - but again, we're cutting into a market the byn already has pegged down.
Nah, see, I think if someone in Allanak really wanted to hit Tuluk in some way (or vice versa), they wouldn't / couldn't hire the Byn, specifically because the Byn has obligated itself to neutrality by ownership in both cities. That's a perfect opportunity right there for a privateering group, hired by <authority figure> for sekret raids on <large virtual target>.
Quote from: Gimfalisette on October 24, 2008, 12:39:39 PM
Quote from: staggerlee on October 24, 2008, 12:33:59 PM
Under the current game privateers aren't really likely to happen, not until such a time as the political climate changes. I suppose you could hit gith, you might be able to cut a deal with a government or other organization in regards to that actually. That kind of contract might work - but again, we're cutting into a market the byn already has pegged down.
Nah, see, I think if someone in Allanak really wanted to hit Tuluk in some way (or vice versa), they wouldn't / couldn't hire the Byn, specifically because the Byn has obligated itself to neutrality by ownership in both cities. That's a perfect opportunity right there for a privateering group, hired by <authority figure> for sekret raids on <large virtual target>.
Very clever. ;)
What I'd like to reinforce now is that the secret here is to stop thumbing your nose at the powers that be. Work with the power structures and authorities in the game to flourish as a raider, don't work
against them.
Also... the best raiders all back up their actions with a fervent dedication to one ideology or another, preferably the dominant one in whatever nation they represent. I'm looking at you Cortez.
Quote from: staggerlee on October 24, 2008, 12:00:30 PM
Quote from: brytta.leofa on October 24, 2008, 11:48:52 AM
Quote from: staggerlee on October 24, 2008, 10:33:54 AM
I can't really imagine it in a form where it was an appealing opportunity, cultures generally frown on that kind of crap. The best option if everyone wants an easy mode pvp experience would be to have another nation that pilfered from Nak... but anything short of Tuluk is going to get spanked pretty quick for that kind of behaviour.
Any of you historionic people feel like posting more on the cultural and political conditions under which raiding can flourish? Because, as Tisi has said, we know that it has sometimes been successful in at least the mid-term (Danes vs. the British Isles, etc.). A society might not successfully raid another for many generations, but a skilled raider really can make a successful, life-long career of it.
A resource-poor culture within reach of a rich one that is both geographically and politically decentralized?
Historically most of the examples of sustained cultures of "raiders" are nationally supported enterprises. Vikings or privateers are both good examples, but both worked because said raiders weren't bandits... they were state sponsored, so their actions were ignored, even congratulated, and they had a safe port to return to. It's not quite the same as buying a sword and running around the outskirts of a city telling everyone and their dog to hand over their wallet.
If we want flourishing raiders, Nak could sell licenses and allow its people to attack Tuluki, or tribals, or whoever else and return to the safety of the city. But that's at the mercy of ic events and politics, and not on the menu currently. Also, if it were to happen don't come crying when the political atmosphere shifts and you find yourself on a gallows. ;)
Personally I think that situation could be a lot of fun, but I'd be sure to qualify that a role like that would need to interact with the virtual world and npcs more heavily than pcs, playing a character that subsists entirely off of attacks on other pcs is a bit ludicrous... not to mention dangerous.
Bank robbers, horse thieves, purse snatchers and thugs are always going to lead short, miserable lives. It's how it goes. They aren't noble professions.
There's no mystery to it. Raiding is hard work, and only genuinely rises when it is significantly easier and more profitable than tilling the earth, looking after your flock or dying of starvation. Or living in misery and oppression. In Armageddon, there are two things that work against the natural tendencies to raid...Number one is that half the PCs that play directly represent or loyally work for those that do the most oppressing. The vast majority of the rest are given extremely comfortable existences, so long as they have the remotest inclination for it. Why take up raiding when you can be an aide to the Lady Templar? Working for the Merchant Houses is EXTREMELY comfortable. The only real 'civilized' Clan that has any kind of poverty or hardship is the T'zai Byn.
So those that take up raiding fall into either two categories: A) Those looking for a challenge and B) Those that are a bit suicidal and impulsive to begin with.
Sometimes, you get a good group together, but even when you do, raider mortality is high because of the overwhelming force that the established organizations can project.
It can take ten or fifteen days on a mundane raider PC to really become proficient. Most people that live inside the law, being coddled with all the food and water and lockers they can handle, do not survive that long. So naturally, few raiders do. And the most successful are 99% of the time, those who went rogue later in life after coming up the easy way.
The closest I've seen Arm come to any kind of real longterm raider mentality that didn't depend on the overwhelming charisma of one or two people, are the more hostile D-elf tribes.
This thread makes me want to knock over a caravan.
Quote from: Qzzrbl on October 24, 2008, 05:44:41 PM
This thread makes me want to knock over a caravan.
We're sorry, but Wagon and Caravan Making is currently closed. Please try one of our other, fully integrated crafting schools such as Raiding. You can CARVE out your future!
Sorry. I'm a bit knackered.
Could we -please- archive and maybe sticky this thread? It has a -lot- of good tips and pointers!
Probably the biggest problem with raiding I see is this:
Raider enters from the east.
Raider starts emoting out and roleplaying raiding yous.
You notice Raider is not nice and is not here to say 'Hullo'.
stand
mount kank
e
e
e
n
e
e
e
Quote from: Vessol on October 29, 2008, 04:23:08 AM
stand
mount kank
Stinging sand swirls around you.
A grizzle-furred ratlon carries you south.
Sandy Wastes [NSFW]
A large obsidian deposit rises out of the shifting sands.
The tall, muscular man is standing here, looking exhausted.
A yellow kank is standing here, looking tired.
Swinging down from a grizzle-furred ratlon, you dismount, nodding to the tall, muscular man.
The tall, muscular man says, in sirihish,
"hi, hows it going."
You tell the tall, muscular man, squinting up at the sun as you lead a grizzle-furred ratlon towards a large obsidian deposit, in sirihish,
"The land thirsts."
The tall, muscular man says, in sirihish,
"yeah."
You draw an obsidian stabbing sword from your back, in a smooth motion.
You begin guarding a yellow kank.
Quote from: Vessol on October 29, 2008, 04:23:08 AM
Probably the biggest problem with raiding I see is this:
Raider enters from the east.
Raider starts emoting out and roleplaying raiding yous.
You notice Raider is not nice and is not here to say 'Hullo'.
stand
mount kank
e
e
e
n
e
e
e
And this behavior is one of the major contributing factors to the issues that likely surround PC raiding groups, because it perpetuates a viscous cycle that ends up with a lot of dead PC's.
My observations in many, many raids were that about 90% of all players we attempted to raid using RP first and code second would elect to spam coded commands rather than respond to the situation. Very rarely did we encounter the people that would allow their characters to be raided. Eventually, this behavior forced us to adapt our raiding styles to take a heavy-handed coded approach where we would instantly subdue PC's moving into our "room" to even create a chance to interact.
It felt as if we were having to force people to RP with us through the use of code.
Even in the clutches of a mammoth half-giant or a beastly mul, probably 90% of all players we attempted to raid would immediately struggle against the subdue and attempt to escape. Even when they were told there would be consequences. Even when threatened with their life. They were SO against losing any of their previous belongings, or to submit to the power of another character, that they were willing to lose their character instead.
We had no intention of killing most people. Dead people can't bring you more loot. They can't spread word of your fearsome reputation. There's no story to be told, at least not ICly. However, I found the general behavior of the player base to be particularly discouraging to the raider archetype. Even 1-on-1, the encounters that I had with people when trying to bully or raid them in the middle of nowhere generally resulted in them running or attempting to kill me -- all over my requested fee of 50 coins.
What results from all of these knee-jerk, hard-coded responses on the part of the victims are an adaptation on the part of the raiders to match your play. The result is a group of raiders that begins to completely dominate the coded aspect of every encounter to even have a chance at RP. And this heavy handed game play resulted in a lot of PC death. While playing my raider, I was involved in the deaths of more PC's than all of the rest of my characters combined for a period of fifteen years.
Was it because we/I were bloodthirsty or irresponsible? I would like to say no, since my tendencies are not to PK unless it's absolutely necessary. Was it partially because of the nature of the business? Sure, there were always people gunning for us with a bone to pick or, more likely, a sword to swing. However, it was largely this battle for coded supremacy, waged simply to have an opportunity to interact with someone and create a scene, that ultimately resulted in so many PC deaths. The Imms won't want to sanction, promote, or support any group of players whose MO (mission objective) will likely result in the deaths of several PC's, regardless of whether those deaths are deliberately planned or simply a byproduct of the encounter.
Those are some of the other challenges facing raiders and raiding groups in the game, and I don't see any intelligent solution on the horizon since much of the problem exists between the players themselves. If the players won't allow themselves to be dominated, the already small window of opportunity that exists for a meaningful scene between a raider and victim often closes entirely.
And that's unfortunate, because it
can be an incredibly exciting and interesting event.
-LoD
Re: LoD
In the next incarnation of Arm, or even in this one, I'd love to see more mundane methods of immobilizing your enemies/victims without killing them. Nets, snare traps, more powerful guard/subdue commands, hell even a movement delay in desert rooms.
To some extent players will always behave that way, as silly as it is. The issue is that bolting is too easy. It's a relatively effective tactic in real life too, but only if you're not cornered or in the middle of an open plain.
Out of all my suggestions I think that a more powerful guard command coupled with a movement delay while off the road would be the best solution, and the most fun to work with.
North road: (exits= n/s)
A raider begins guarding the north exit.
A raider begins guarding the south exit.
100/100/100>n
The raider steps in front of you!
100/100/100>run
100/100/100>e
You try to run but the raiders intercept you, subduing you!
A raider has you held tightly.
100/100/100>flee
You struggle against the raider and he squeeze more tightly, choking you.
100/100/90>
You know staggerlee, what if we had movement delay -before- we physically changed rooms?
Quote from: Delstro on October 29, 2008, 11:30:52 AM
You know staggerlee, what if we had movement delay -before- we physically changed rooms?
That's kind of how I imagined it. And actually doing that could even allow you to use it when changing terrain types, rather than every single room. (As I know most people seem to hate that idea)
The north road (exits: n, s, e, w)
>e
You make your way through some thorny underbrush and into the scrub (Brief delay)
I wouldn't imagine it would even need to be a very long delay, just long enough that you can't fill the buffer with movement commands, and that the particularly quick could hammer out a "subdue victim."
With that said however, the name of the game was roleplaying here. Regarding the frustration of spam fleeing on the part of bandits, I'd say to some extent you're always just going to have to let it go. There's always going to be a higher number of people fighting or fleeing than is reasonable. Code changes could diminish that reaction somewhat, but a thick skin will still be necessary. Put in a player complaint and move on to a more entertaining target that actually wants to roleplay.... It's frustrating, but that stuff comes up a lot in MUDs.
- Command:
>intercept muscular
You position yourself to intercept the tall, muscular man if he moves. - Mechanics:
The intercept command takes into account a few factors such as size,
speed, the guard skill, the rescue skill, watch, and the number of
people you wish to intercept, or, the number of people set to intercept
a specific target.
Use of this command is applicable in scenarios such as preventing a
criminal from escaping, or raiding a traveler, or chasing a beast about
if a hunter. The agressor cease to be able to intercept once s/he
enters combat.
If a target is in combat, the applicability of this command changes.
If the target flees, combat will stop, but there is a chance that
non-combatant interceptors in the same room can keep him/her from
leaving the scene.
Quote from: The7DeadlyVenomz on October 29, 2008, 12:56:30 PM
Command:
>intercept muscular
You position yourself to intercept the tall, muscular man if he moves.
I like this very much. Similar to subdue, but calling out exactly what you're trying to do (or prevent).
Quote from: The7DeadlyVenomz on October 29, 2008, 12:56:30 PM
- Command:
>intercept muscular
You position yourself to intercept the tall, muscular man if he moves. - Mechanics:
The intercept command takes into account a few factors such as size,
speed, the guard skill, the rescue skill, watch, and the number of
people you wish to intercept, or, the number of people set to intercept
a specific target.
Use of this command is applicable in scenarios such as preventing a
criminal from escaping, or raiding a traveler, or chasing a beast about
if a hunter. If in combat, the applicability of this command narrows
to your target.
I like it!
I like the intercept idea. I don't think you should get to try to intercept while fighting, though. The "flee" command on the victim's part already takes care of whether that happens or not.
I'd really prefer it be worked into guard. Simply because the game already has a ton of commands, the idea of having more worries me.
Quote from: Gimfalisette on October 29, 2008, 01:37:49 PM
I like the intercept idea. I don't think you should get to try to intercept while fighting, though. The "flee" command on the victim's part already takes care of whether that happens or not.
But a noncombatant should be able to use "intercept" to try to prevent a combatant from escaping, as in the current "you guard, I hit" combination.
Quote from: staggerlee on October 29, 2008, 01:39:00 PM
I'd really prefer it be worked into guard. Simply because the game already has a ton of commands, the idea of having more worries me.
Maybe it can be syntactically worked into guard, but I think the difference in intention is worth coding in.
Quote from: brytta.leofa on October 29, 2008, 01:40:30 PM
But a noncombatant should be able to use "intercept" to try to prevent a combatant from escaping, as in the current "you guard, I hit" combination.
Isn't the intent here to encourage more roleplay and less reverting to raw code to force one's will on another? That just sounds like another (slightly milder) version of "you subdue, I hit."
The intercept idea has come up before, FYI. Search for threads about a "threaten" command.
Quote from: Gimfalisette on October 29, 2008, 01:46:57 PM
Quote from: brytta.leofa on October 29, 2008, 01:40:30 PM
But a noncombatant should be able to use "intercept" to try to prevent a combatant from escaping, as in the current "you guard, I hit" combination.
Isn't the intent here to encourage more roleplay and less reverting to raw code to force one's will on another? That just sounds like another (slightly milder) version of "you subdue, I hit."
I think the intent is actually to facilitate a better way to conduct raids in the first place. We've been encouraging RP for fifteen years. If there is a non-aggressive way to encourage or force somebody to stay somewhere, isn't that better?
You are right, it is a milder version of subdue, without the hit. It also takes into account the concept of distance as opposed to subdue, by not requiring you to be right on someone. It allows the use of commands by both parties, whereas subdue is extremely limited in that regard.
So then it doesn't need to be operative in combat.
Quote from: Gimfalisette on October 29, 2008, 02:02:51 PM
So then it doesn't need to be operative in combat.
Someone outside of the combat, though, should still be able to attempt to intercept someone from fleeing. Perhaps it could be more difficult, but I see it as making it more difficult to flee because there are two people attempting to stop you, and not just one.
I advocate this for the sake of realism, and I like the intercept/threaten idea quite a bit as it is.
Basic principle, guys: If you make it more and more dangerous for people to submit themselves to the code, you'll make it more and more enticing for them to get away as quickly as possible. Do you see how that actually LIMITS roleplay potential? If threaten/intercept provides a bonus to combat, then necessarily it will be used primarily for gaining an advantage in combat. That's exactly the opposite of what you're claiming to want.
I have been convinced that Gim is right.
Realism-wise, intercept on a combatant makes sense, but what we specifically need to do here is encourage pre-melee interaction. Combat lockup is probably okay as is (perhaps flee needs to be nerfed slightly).
Making intercept work only on non-combatants nerfs people fleeing out of raids without giving raiders an advantage once they start combat.
Edit: for horrifying malapropism.
I'll go with that. I thought you were against the entire concept. :P
The agressor cease to be able to intercept once s/he
enters combat.
If a target is in combat, the applicability of this command changes.
If the target flees, combat will stop, but there is a chance that
non-combatant interceptors in the same room can keep him/her from
leaving the scene.
Is that better?
Quote from: The7DeadlyVenomz on October 29, 2008, 02:52:58 PM
If the target flees, combat will stop, but there is a chance that
non-combatant interceptors in the same room can keep him/her from
leaving the scene.
I think that's what Gim was arguing against. And I agree that such an interception is realistic, but probably doesn't help to encourage what we want to encourage.
The problem with intercept functioning to stop someone from fleeing combat is that it will make combat much more deadly for those without the flee skill. So yes, it helps to make it stop working for the raider who is attacking the victim, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's all good.
I don't know, I feel very "meh" about it. If you want to design a skill that will make pre-melee RP happen, then do that. Don't start piling a whole bunch of other crap on the skill too and dilute the purpose of it.
Doesn't a subdue even break when combat is initiated, for this very reason?
>intercept tall
You position yourself to intercept the tall muscular man if he moves.
The husky, grim raider positions herself to intercept the tall muscular man if he moves.
The tall muscular man attacks you.
You are no longer able to intercept him.
The tall muscular panics and attempts to flee.
The tall muscular man flees, but the grim, husky raider prevents him from leaving the scene.
>tell tall We just want fifty coins. That's the toll for passing through this region.
You tell the tall muscular man, in sirihish:
"We just want fifty coins. That's the toll for passing through this region."
The tall muscular panics and attempts to flee.
The tall muscular man flees west, as the grim, husky raider fails to prevent him from leaving the scene.
>say (sighing) Well, we've got his sunback. That's something, I guess.
Sighing, you say, in sirihish:
"Well, we got his sunback. That's something, I guess."
You see, it would not stop the victim from fleeing. It would make it so that he might not be able to flee the scene. Fleeing the scene is the issue in most cases, anyway. It would probably make some hardheads give up and submit to the raid like they shoulda in the first place.
Edit: Nevermind.
I like intercept as an articulation of guard in these situations. But things would have to be rebalanced to be sure that we're not simply making combat even moar lethal. Much as we love to hate it, flee is probably "overpowered" for a reason.
Upon the idea of using the intercept concept with guard
guard -o venomz
You begin offensively guarding the awesome, fatherly ex-thug and are ready to move if they do.
(this will try to block them from movement or offensive actions they perpetrate on anything else in the room)
guard -d venomz (or just guard venomz)
You begin guarding the awesome, fatherly ex-thug.
I likey this concepty.
I have a feeling that the same fight or flight mechanics will continue to play a role regardless of code changes. Some people just become very attached to their belongings and do not like the idea of something changing that they do not control, I think it stems from the ideas of past games players have played.
Quote from: Vessol on October 29, 2008, 04:13:27 PM
I have a feeling that the same fight or flight mechanics will continue to play a role regardless of code changes. Some people just become very attached to their belongings and do not like the idea of something changing that they do not control, I think it stems from the ideas of past games players have played.
I also have the same feeling, but I think a change such as this could manage to make such situations more fair, for both parties. Subdue is very limited. This essentially sets a stage, using the same sort of mechanics as guard or what have you.
For the record, making it an extension of guard is a grand idea, Malifaxis.
Quote from: Vessol on October 29, 2008, 04:13:27 PM
I have a feeling that the same fight or flight mechanics will continue to play a role regardless of code changes. Some people just become very attached to their belongings and do not like the idea of something changing that they do not control, I think it stems from the ideas of past games players have played.
It's an understandable attachment for the player, but less rational for the character. In this virtual world we inhabit, many times our clothing, weapons, and armor serve to define us just as much, if not sometimes moreso, than our main description or emotes. To some players, being divested of these items may actually seem equal to losing one's character because of the work they may associate with replacing or recovering those defining pieces they may have worked RL weeks, months, or years to obtain.
There's certainly more at work here than some missing coded "middle ground" that spans the gap between heavy-handed code use on the part of the raider (i.e. instant subdue) and heavy-handed code use on the part of the victim (i.e. st;mount;e;e;e;n;n;e;e;e or flee;flee;flee;flee;e;e;e;n;n;n, etc...).
Offering additional commands such as intercept, threaten, and refined versions of the 'guard' skill would likely help take strides toward more interesting encounters, but I'm not sure that it will ultimately solve the issues surrounding the raider/victim relationship. It's an almost MUSH-like encounter as it relates to levels of trust in the other player; trust that the raider will use this opportunity to create the best story possible and not simply to take the victim for everything they are worth, trust that the victim will appropriately RP their environment and surroundings.
I would certainly classify it as one of the more delicate and difficult scenes to pull off well, where both parties are left with a sense of satisfaction and excitement. There may never be an easy answer, but I like many of the ideas offered over time related to skills, code, and items that facilitate scenarios that deal with temporary or permanent loss of control for a given character.
-LoD
Quote from: LoD on October 29, 2008, 04:34:45 PM
It's an almost MUSH-like encounter as it relates to levels of trust in the other player; trust that the raider will use this opportunity to create the best story possible and not simply to take the victim for everything they are worth, trust that the victim will appropriately RP their environment and surroundings.
Make raiders a karma class. A -high- karma class, with special imm support. Perhaps then trust could develop and these scenes could be fun for all. (I'm not necessarily completely kidding.)
I would strongly suggest that raiders focus on taking coin from their target, or targeting deliveries, wagons, and other things owned by an employer and not an individual. This relates to things I said much earlier in the thread about who can profit from raiding and when, and why muggers don't do so well.
If players suspect that they're going to get stripped bare and lose their armor, weapons and gear, then they are probably going to panic a little for the reasons LoD gets into.
Quote from: staggerlee on October 29, 2008, 04:43:18 PM
I would strongly suggest that raiders focus on taking coin from their target, or targeting deliveries, wagons, and other things owned by an employer and not an individual.
This would be an ideal solution, but as it is right now, it's next to impossible.
To start, most Merchant House employees in my experience actually own all their own gear--they can buy it at a discount or they might get some starter armour/weapons, but most of these characters have bought their items themselves, so nothing they have on them really 'belongs' to their employers.
Unless you get very creative or have a lot of staff help, waylaying a wagon is a pipe dream. I'd love the hell out of anyone who did it or tried, but we're talking about the average raider here who doesn't have tons of resources and dudes at his disposal, right?
Unfortunately, aside from hunters running around hunting and/or the Fist patrolling, I'd guess that about 80% of all deliveries and travel done by the Merchant Houses are done by wagon. When I ran a Merchant House clan for over an OOC year, we only had a handful of deliveries that we sent somebody north/south to deliver/pick up. Because it was easier--and more realistic, considering the nature of our deliveries--to just use a wagon.
There are no real employers to knock over and/or steal from who have employees that leave the city with frequency save for the Merchant Houses, unless you count military organizations and the CAM--both of which you'd have to be a nutter to try to raid.
I've seen as many as seventeen NPC guards on one Merchant House wagon, to boot.
So in short, I agree wholeheartedly, Staggerlee, but as it stands right now, the little guys who earned the 'sid for all their own stuff and may be partisans or loosely tied to clans are really the only targets for the average raider.
Yeah, I agree Fathi.
And that is why raiding is so rare and difficult currently. In all but the most extreme cases it's not a profitable enterprise icly. I don't think it says as much about the rp of raiders and victims so much as that they're trying to force something into the game world that just doesn't have a niche at the moment.
Earlier in the thread I laid out situations where raiding could become feasible, your post ties into that nicely.
For raiding to be viable in the game we as players need to rethink what raiding means and consider it in a more historic context. On top of that the game world needs to reproduce those historic circumstances that made things like piracy or highway robbery viable. As it stands, raiding has no place in the game world. I suspect we're waiting until Arm 2, if not longer, for it to find that place.
I agree that currently, there isn't really a "place" for raiders in the traditional sense (ie, raiders that pick off wagons or other profitable travelling groups), so we're left with "raiders" who find single travellers and take their boots/armor/weapons/coins ... ... pants.
I personally don't mind parting with equipment items or the like unless they're something that the character would feel emotionally attached too (a mount that he'd had a long time and considers a friend, something his parents/love gave him) ... however on the flip side, I have also never had a raider encounter where the raider was happy just taking some coins and buggering off. They have always done something akin to: Oh ... you're willing to give me some coins huh? Well eh ... gimmie your boots and cloak and armor and spear and kank and waterskin and backpack and wrist guards and ring too!!!! Yeah!!!
So there is also a bit of responsibility on the part of the raider PC to realize that it's a game and that the situation is already delicate from a player's perspective, and not being a complete dick as a player can go a long way to making sure no one is overly sore about the event (and wants to now go round up templar/friends/guards/ect to hunt said raider down and kill him for a "tiny" robbery).
Oh ... actually I believe I was once raided by a desert elf who wanted my PC's spear, and I said well ... I use that for hunting so ah ... no. But here take these shells and some hides and bugger off, and they did. However ... given the circumstance I can't shake the feeling that the elf (who was dressed rather like a new character) looked at my PC (dressed rather like an established character) and figured they couldn't actually take him in a fight anyway, so they settled.
Quote from: musashi on October 30, 2008, 01:45:08 AM
Oh ... actually I believe I was once raided by a desert elf who wanted my PC's spear, and I said well ... I use that for hunting so ah ... no. But here take these shells and some hides and bugger off, and they did. However ... given the circumstance I can't shake the feeling that the elf (who was dressed rather like a new character) looked at my PC (dressed rather like an established character) and figured they couldn't actually take him in a fight anyway, so they settled.
Was there 'Bad Motherfucker' stamped on your spear?
(http://www.pulpfictionwallets.com/images/jules-with-gun.gif)
Yes ... there was.
I -really- want to be a Raider myself, on my current character. If I did it solo, there is no doubt it would not be easy. But as has been discussed here before, numerous times, my issue is this:
I cannot trust the playerbase as a whole. If I were to raid someone, and ask for money, or that nifty pair of gloves... once I'm done raiding them, they go and make a scene at the local populated bar about how some guy that was wearing exactly this and looked like this held him up and took his gloves, which amounted to maybe a small's worth of steal. Then the local public or templarate decides that I am now a threat, and comes after me due to boredom, or an IC-reasoning of "Well, nobody raids THIS random asshole and gets away with it!"
I can't possibly ask for a coded thing to fix the situation, but as such, I have to either kill the people I raid, know them OOC and convince them with every diplomatic thread I have that I do -not- want to kill their character, or just not raid. I hate that I have to restrict my play due to mistrust in people in game.
Alright, I'll give it up. Here's the secret.
The best "raiders" ever were two groups. The Mob and the Vikings. Two very simple strategies. Kill them all or have at least one decent contact in the city you dont live in but raid near who will calmly dispose of the loudmouth so that folks get the idea that if -I- decide to let you live you damn well better keep your mouth shut about it.
Raiding can be done. The latest changes to the Way really kick ass. Be careful who you raid.
Quote from: fourTwenty on October 30, 2008, 03:01:40 PM
Alright, I'll give it up. Here's the secret.
The best "raiders" ever were two groups. The Mob and the Vikings. Two very simple strategies. Kill them all or have at least one decent contact in the city you dont live in but raid near who will calmly dispose of the loudmouth so that folks get the idea that if -I- decide to let you live you damn well better keep your mouth shut about it.
Raiding can be done. The latest changes to the Way really kick ass. Be careful who you raid.
Neither of those is a very good example of raiders in the sense that people are trying to play them.
It was more like state sponsored war/pillaging when the vikings did it... you're not a bandit when you represent the status quo. The mob also doesn't work, they don't really rob, pillage or mug... they're into the big time games.
I think I went over that much earlier in the thread though.
Quote from: staggerlee on October 30, 2008, 03:07:47 PM
Quote from: fourTwenty on October 30, 2008, 03:01:40 PM
Alright, I'll give it up. Here's the secret.
The best "raiders" ever were two groups. The Mob and the Vikings. Two very simple strategies. Kill them all or have at least one decent contact in the city you dont live in but raid near who will calmly dispose of the loudmouth so that folks get the idea that if -I- decide to let you live you damn well better keep your mouth shut about it.
Raiding can be done. The latest changes to the Way really kick ass. Be careful who you raid.
Neither of those is a very good example of raiders in the sense that people are trying to play them.
It was more like state sponsored war/pillaging when the vikings did it... you're not a bandit when you represent the status quo. The mob also doesn't work, they don't really rob, pillage or mug... they're into the big time games.
I think I went over that much earlier in the thread though.
They're both great examples. Done it. It works perfectly. Check out the part I bolded. :o Pirates where often sponsored by governments and they're pretty bandity if you ask me. Old West style bandits used the same strategies. You want to be a solo fly-by-night feared by all boogie man, it aint gonna happen. You can however be a
solo fly-by-night feared by many boogie man, it just takes a little thought and effort.
Quote from: fourTwenty on October 30, 2008, 03:15:16 PM
Quote from: staggerlee on October 30, 2008, 03:07:47 PM
Quote from: fourTwenty on October 30, 2008, 03:01:40 PM
Alright, I'll give it up. Here's the secret.
The best "raiders" ever were two groups. The Mob and the Vikings. Two very simple strategies. Kill them all or have at least one decent contact in the city you dont live in but raid near who will calmly dispose of the loudmouth so that folks get the idea that if -I- decide to let you live you damn well better keep your mouth shut about it.
Raiding can be done. The latest changes to the Way really kick ass. Be careful who you raid.
Neither of those is a very good example of raiders in the sense that people are trying to play them.
It was more like state sponsored war/pillaging when the vikings did it... you're not a bandit when you represent the status quo. The mob also doesn't work, they don't really rob, pillage or mug... they're into the big time games.
I think I went over that much earlier in the thread though.
They're both great examples. Done it. It works perfectly. Check out the part I bolded. :o Pirates where often sponsored by governments and they're pretty bandity if you ask me. Old West style bandits used the same strategies. You want to be a solo fly-by-night feared by all boogie man, it aint gonna happen. You can however be a solo fly-by-night feared by many boogie man, it just takes a little thought and effort.
I agree with you, absolutely about the solo fly-by-night business. And I think piracy, or privateering more appropriately, is an excellent example.
I only take issue with the viking thing because it's more like... if Nak sent the militia to raid Luir's, it's not really raiding when an army does it. Nit picking, I know.
You're right about having support and somewhere to go home to, even political connections - and all the good examples do, even most of the wild west style train robbers/stage coach business came out of the civil war. That's what makes the role so interesting.
The only real thing I'd point out is that solo will always be hard, in pretty much every case - be it pirate, train robbery, or anything else, these people operate in bands. Numbers are important, solo is always going to be a really dangerous game. Possible on Arm perhaps, but only in the most extreme cases.
Edit to add: I'm more clarifying than arguing, you sound like you definitely know what you're doing.
Yes, I agree. I believe we are saying the same thing. I don't only think solo raiding is hard, I think it's impossible for any length of time. My point was, you can be any "type" of raider that gets you off but if you don't have the connections to back it up your screwed.
You know, some of the most successful raiders in history tended to be nationally funded.
The Mongolian Great Clans before Ghenghis united them..if you were not in a Great Clan
and you were out in the Steppes, you were dead when they came, became a slave or
were too diseased/poor/old to come near/bother.
Maybe Allanak should be the ones raiding in their territory with their military and Tuluk doing
the same and simply grounding out less funded, less equipped loner powers who rely on
stories of Robin Hood (who was also regionally manned/equipped by the people of his province).
Not even Robin Hood did it alone.
I believe even the Blackmoon were a full sized tribe. The Soh were written on a similar basis.
I think the game would be better if the two city states regularly oppressed and stole, extorted
from the regions they so totally control.
Quote from: Hot_Dancer on November 01, 2008, 04:00:44 PM
You know, some of the most successful raiders in history tended to be nationally funded.
The Mongolian Great Clans before Ghenghis united them..if you were not in a Great Clan
and you were out in the Steppes, you were dead when they came, became a slave or
were too diseased/poor/old to come near/bother.
Maybe Allanak should be the ones raiding in their territory with their military and Tuluk doing
the same and simply grounding out less funded, less equipped loner powers who rely on
stories of Robin Hood (who was also regionally manned/equipped by the people of his province).
Not even Robin Hood did it alone.
I believe even the Blackmoon were a full sized tribe. The Soh were written on a similar basis.
I think the game would be better if the two city states regularly oppressed and stole, extorted
from the regions they so totally control.
You remind me of Walter from The Big Lebowski. Everything had to be connected to Vietnam.
Don't be a newbie. The motto for all master assassins and exceptional raiders. I've seen both roles done exquisitely, but it takes smarts and game knowledge. Kind of an elite crowd, really but in my opinion they are armageddon's finest.
Nothing real to add but the later posts just brought something to mind.
I once tried to organize state funded raiding, essentially, along with resource stealing for the sake of the parent city-state, or the noble house that would fund it and provide training for it. This wasn't with a newbie character, but with an established one. It was called a ludicrous idea. XD
Quote from: Armaddict on November 11, 2008, 04:50:13 AM
Nothing real to add but the later posts just brought something to mind.
I once tried to organize state funded raiding, essentially, along with resource stealing for the sake of the parent city-state, or the noble house that would fund it and provide training for it. This wasn't with a newbie character, but with an established one. It was called a ludicrous idea. XD
For a lot of reasons we've discussed in this thread... it probably was a ludicrous idea.
But it's also very situational.
Y'know, I just thought of something.... Maybe a reason as to why not a lot of people like playing raiders or thieves....
Perhaps it's got something to do with the fact that we're limited to only one character at a time?
I know I'd always have a character off causing trouble if I were allowed to have two characters on an account. (Not at the same time, mind you)
Hell, it could even be a higher karma option.
I know it's an idea that'll get shot down pretty quickly, but it's still an idea. -shrug-
I'm tempted to make a raider, but I won't, because it's against my character's motives. Here's what I'd do:
1. Get a lot of combat training. Alternatively, start a raiding group together with someone in the tavern and spar with him outside the gates.
2. Leave whatever group I got the training from and venture far from the city.
3. Dress up like a group of hunters, then scour the land. Raiding without a mount is suicide. But unlike hunters, it's not bad roleplay to hunt with a hulking inix.
4. If you find a hunter, rob him (don't kill) or force him to join your band.
5. Travel the roads sometimes.. if you see a merchant.. profit!
6. Don't rob the guys naked or kill them, that'll encourage the lazy soldiers to attack.
7. If you're feeling brave, kidnap the merchant, hold him for a few days, and free him later with enough food and water to survive - or ransom him.
It could be done. It's about as difficult as playing (and surviving) as a pickpocket, though. I'd want to see someone doing this, and I'd like to be the bad-ass militia or mercenary guy who tears that guy apart :P
I played a state-funded raider once. It was fun until the inevitable rogue magicker showed up. ::)
Quote from: Synthesis on December 02, 2008, 11:19:12 AM
I played a state-funded raider once. It was fun until the inevitable rogue magicker showed up. ::)
Somehow I can't help but feel your situation could have been avoided.
Quote from: Lakota on December 02, 2008, 11:02:09 PM
Quote from: Synthesis on December 02, 2008, 11:19:12 AM
I played a state-funded raider once. It was fun until the inevitable rogue magicker showed up. ::)
Somehow I can't help but feel your situation could have been avoided.
The
inevitable rouge magicker is unavoidable. You may prolong it but it's eventually going to happen, hence the word "inevitable".
I'd think that given the problems raider characters have when they 'go easy' on people, the best solution is to kill your victims and drag their bodies off the road, out of sight. You should probably have a small group rather than just doing it solo, though I understand this to be a problem.
If/when the staff feel that the killing has gotten out of hand (and you avoid capture or justice yourself) perhaps they will implement reliable methods for the raiding PCs to continue doing such a great job but without all the casualties (I recall the blackmoon having specific masks and a hideout, long ago). Maybe they will even implement such methods for the general playerbase.
Or, maybe the staff want the bloodshed. There's no particular OOC reason why you shouldn't just kill anyone you want, if you're a raider. Seems to save a raider the trouble of the loud mouthing of their targets and spare them of a fearsome reputation that might disturb the hives of the City States into action.
Maybe if you're not willing to kill kill kill, you should not be a raider? Spare us your so called mercy until such a time as the code allows you THE LUXURY of that mercy.
Then again... luxury is fairly rare on Zalanthas. So is mercy.
Not to tell anyone how to play their roles but could you please give other characters the benefit of the doubt?
Getting killed out of the blue sucks balls. I want to die for any other reason than that somebody wants my stuff. And assuming that killing is the only way to get my stuff, I think is indicitive of a H&S mentality.
Also, knowing that there are players who would much prefer just to kill me rather than work something else out, makes me much less likely to consider interacting with anyone that I meet while traveling. So, when I see a PC at a distance with my newbie ranger. I think I'll just run for the hills from now on, it's not worth the risk.
Though, I do agree with KIA that there should be a coded way to deal with raiding prospects targets than kill them. Why don't we have a bondage or slaving code or anything like that yet?
Quote from: Jingo on December 03, 2008, 01:04:07 AM
Though, I do agree with KIA that there should be a coded way to deal with raiding prospects targets than kill them. Why don't we have a bondage or slaving code or anything like that yet?
You have to branch those from your base mudsex skill.
Quote from: Synthesis on December 03, 2008, 01:16:58 AM
Quote from: Jingo on December 03, 2008, 01:04:07 AM
Though, I do agree with KIA that there should be a coded way to deal with raiding prospects targets than kill them. Why don't we have a bondage or slaving code or anything like that yet?
You have to branch those from your base mudsex skill.
Yeah. It's a hidden skill like alcohol tolerance, except the code can't improve it for you automatically so you have to send in logs for the skill ups.
Quote from: Jingo on December 03, 2008, 01:04:07 AM
Getting killed out of the blue sucks balls. I want to die for any other reason than that somebody wants my stuff. And assuming that killing is the only way to get my stuff, I think is indicitive of a H&S mentality.
Your 'stuff' is exactly why you should be killed.
I respectfully disagree.
If you kill everyone you come across, I think it ends up being bad for business, and if you're a raider, I'm imagining that you're in it for the business ... since I figure someone in it for the killing would be a) insane, and b) apt to go into a city where there are way more folks to kill at his fingertips.
For me, it comes down to that old saying that you can shear a sheep time and time again, but you can only skin it once. If you kill someone on the road for their boots, you're robbing yourself of the chance for said person to bring you another pair of boots later on.
Likewise, murder brings the reckoning of the law much faster than robbery does, in any society, and it always has ... and will. (If you can find a society in which this wasn't the case, let me know as I'd be interested to read up on them). So the more you kill, the more you can rely on people finding you and killing you back.
Hence, I believe that a good raider should actually be doing very little killing, and a whole lot more skimming off the top of those they shake down.
Quote from: KIA on December 03, 2008, 02:20:10 AM
Quote from: Jingo on December 03, 2008, 01:04:07 AM
Getting killed out of the blue sucks balls. I want to die for any other reason than that somebody wants my stuff. And assuming that killing is the only way to get my stuff, I think is indicitive of a H&S mentality.
Your 'stuff' is exactly why you should be killed.
Wouldn't you rather just have the stuff and not have to go through the trouble killing for it? You're just making an excuse to PK.
Most of the 'raiding' I see isn't actually raiding. It's more along the lines of oppurtunistic killings. Really, I'd love to see a slaver raid on a tribal camp. Or a tribal raid on a caravan. Or a group of thugs running a toll booth along the north road. But all the raiding I see in this game is just some loner, wandering around and killing other PC's for their boots and then going back to the cities to interact and pretend there isn't something wrong with him.
Quote from: musashi on December 03, 2008, 05:17:58 AM
Hence, I believe that a good raider should actually be doing very little killing, and a whole lot more skimming off the top of those they shake down.
A raider who does very little killing will not live long, unless that player earns the respect of his/her victims oocly from excellent roleplay. Even then, whose to stop the player from going ooc and breaking tone with their character so they can get "revenge." I've seen people I let go come back with posses time and again.
Devising ways to mask your face would help this immensely, and the fix to the way has already helped alleviate the contact/break scheme to get someone's shortdesc before fleeing.
Raiders should also be -smart- though. Use different outfits when raiding, and get buds to help you.
Hey sorry to ask this here, but what fix to the way Lakota? EDIT- Found it, never mind.
Oh and also, raiders, use clubs. Bash people upside the head. They won't have a chance to see you if you know how to use the club well enough (which presumably you do if what everyone is saying is true about raiders just killing), they don't die unless someone else comes along and finishes them, and you still get their goodies.
Cheers,
Elvenchipmunk
Next char is going to be a raider, I am going to spend half my life indie twinking. Then use my copious amount of moolah to randomly give money to people rather than taking it away.
Ooh, Robin of the Hood.
I think most raiders are too merciful. Most players can be such twinks when raided.. they look at the hooded figure and tell the templars every single detail from head to toe, hair color, beefiness of arms, etc. That kind of poor roleplay should be punished, even more than stealing from alert NPCs and attack spamming :-\ If I was a raider, I'd spare the people who didn't look at me, but I'd threaten to kill them if they sent a mercenary party after me.
Also, I think masks are a bit too rare in this game. Most RL 'raiders' just take a piece of cloth, cut holes in it, and put it over their heads. Why can't there be a maskcrafting skill for rebels and thugs?
This thread has reminded me, that just because I contact a cloaked figure via' the way, I don't necessarily know who they are. Seeing that your mental image of them is in fact the cloaked figure you contacted, not the sdesc that occurs. Although I don't think I've been guilty of the above, it's a good reminder, thanks.
Quote from: Jingo on December 03, 2008, 01:04:07 AMSo, when I see a PC at a distance with my newbie ranger. I think I'll just run for the hills from now on, it's not worth the risk.
That makes you a twink. Just figured I'd let you know.
Quote from: RogueGunslinger on December 04, 2008, 11:59:06 PM
Quote from: Jingo on December 03, 2008, 01:04:07 AMSo, when I see a PC at a distance with my newbie ranger. I think I'll just run for the hills from now on, it's not worth the risk.
That makes you a twink. Just figured I'd let you know.
Not so long as your ranger runs from humanoid NPC's he sees on the road as well. :)
After all, he could just be anti-social.
Good point.
Off topic;
I really wish I could interact with Musashi more in game more. Did it once a while ago, back when he told enough IC info for me to be positive it was him and If he played that well back then, I'd like to know how much he's progressed.
Musa: Quit playing indie roles, goddamnit.
Quote from: RogueGunslinger on December 04, 2008, 11:59:06 PM
Quote from: Jingo on December 03, 2008, 01:04:07 AMSo, when I see a PC at a distance with my newbie ranger. I think I'll just run for the hills from now on, it's not worth the risk.
That makes you a twink. Just figured I'd let you know.
If I don't want to lose my character, it's kind of what it has devolved down to; Don't you think?
Especially if I know there are people out there that are going to kill me for my stuff and arn't going to consider an alternative?
Umm, avoiding strangers seems to be intelligent rather than twinkish. Just my opinion.
Quote from: RogueGunslinger on December 05, 2008, 12:19:31 AM
Good point.
Off topic;
I really wish I could interact with Musashi more in game more. Did it once a while ago, back when he told enough IC info for me to be positive it was him and If he played that well back then, I'd like to know how much he's progressed.
Musa: Quit playing indie roles, goddamnit.
Ohhh ... thanks :)
... ... I still think you're trying to kill me though.
Quote from: fourTwenty on December 05, 2008, 12:35:37 AM
Umm, avoiding strangers seems to be intelligent rather than twinkish. Just my opinion.
Kind of like why nobody sleeps in the tavern dorms. It's intelligent.
I sleep in tavern dorms ... I also get robbed blind.
Quote from: musashi on December 05, 2008, 12:44:47 AM
I sleep in tavern dorms ... I also get robbed blind.
Does the robber immediatly quit out when you wake up?
Quote from: RogueGunslinger on December 04, 2008, 11:59:06 PM
Quote from: Jingo on December 03, 2008, 01:04:07 AMSo, when I see a PC at a distance with my newbie ranger. I think I'll just run for the hills from now on, it's not worth the risk.
That makes you a twink. Just figured I'd let you know.
Uh, hardly, if I was out in the desert, and I knew that the place had plenty of raiders, I'd run. Quickly and quietly. Heh, someone mistook my first character, a hunter, as a raider. I bet I scared him half to death. No wonder he didn't even look at me for a while.
Quote from: Jingo on December 05, 2008, 01:04:24 AM
Quote from: musashi on December 05, 2008, 12:44:47 AM
I sleep in tavern dorms ... I also get robbed blind.
Does the robber immediatly quit out when you wake up?
I usually don't wake up, I just: emote snorts a bit, rolling over as he murmurs something about being married.
because of the new way rules, isn't a bit easier to conceal yourself? just barrier when you are doing the dirty dead, and when you are a scene away your in the clear?
It isn't a code issue.
Mugging as a career choice is only for the truly desperate. It isn't a profitable venture, and leads to nasty, brutish, short lives. No amount of code change is going to make mugging suddenly safe, anonymous and awesome... and zalanthas wouldn't be a very harsh place if it was, now would it?
I'm pretty sure this thread already had extensive conversations on how raiding could work, but those of you trying to play "successful" muggers are always going to be in for frustration. For your own sakes, I'd strongly recommend reconsidering the role you're trying to play and how it fits into the world.
Quote from: SMuz on December 05, 2008, 02:20:22 AM
Quote from: RogueGunslinger on December 04, 2008, 11:59:06 PM
Quote from: Jingo on December 03, 2008, 01:04:07 AMSo, when I see a PC at a distance with my newbie ranger. I think I'll just run for the hills from now on, it's not worth the risk.
That makes you a twink. Just figured I'd let you know.
Uh, hardly, if I was out in the desert, and I knew that the place had plenty of raiders, I'd run. Quickly and quietly. Heh, someone mistook my first character, a hunter, as a raider. I bet I scared him half to death. No wonder he didn't even look at me for a while.
If your character knows there's been raider activity in the area, and sees someone at a distance then runs, that's absolutely okay. If you OOC'ly know there are raiders in the area, then make you character run away without a viable IC reason, then I'd classify it as twinking. If you just run from everyone you see out in the wild regardless... then how do you ever have fun? Fear of PC on PC death is the funnest part of Arm, IMO.
Quote from: RogueGunslinger on December 05, 2008, 02:32:35 PM
If your character knows there's been raider activity in the area, and sees someone at a distance then runs, that's absolutely okay. If you OOC'ly know there are raiders in the area, then make you character run away without a viable IC reason, then I'd classify it as twinking. If you just run from everyone you see out in the wild regardless... then how do you ever have fun? Fear of PC on PC death is the funnest part of Arm, IMO.
What is your definition of "twink", exactly?
QuoteIf your character knows there's been raider activity in the area, and sees someone at a distance then runs, that's absolutely okay. If you OOC'ly know there are raiders in the area, then make you character run away without a viable IC reason, then I'd classify it as twinking. If you just run from everyone you see out in the wild regardless... then how do you ever have fun? Fear of PC on PC death is the funnest part of Arm, IMO.
Mostly I'm just not interested in losing my character in a one second raid. Call it what you want.
QuoteMugging as a career choice is only for the truly desperate. It isn't a profitable venture, and leads to nasty, brutish, short lives. No amount of code change is going to make mugging suddenly safe, anonymous and awesome... and zalanthas wouldn't be a very harsh place if it was, now would it?
I've seen very few muugers/raiders and only one actual group of raiders that I thought did a good job of playing. Like I said, 95% of the time it's just some oppurtunistic player that wants your clothes and not someone who wants to play the lifestyle of a raider.
Quote from: LoD on October 29, 2008, 11:00:37 AM
Quote from: Vessol on October 29, 2008, 04:23:08 AM
Probably the biggest problem with raiding I see is this:
Raider enters from the east.
Raider starts emoting out and roleplaying raiding yous.
You notice Raider is not nice and is not here to say 'Hullo'.
stand
mount kank
e
e
e
n
e
e
e
And this behavior is one of the major contributing factors to the issues that likely surround PC raiding groups, because it perpetuates a viscous cycle that ends up with a lot of dead PC's.
My observations in many, many raids were that about 90% of all players we attempted to raid using RP first and code second would elect to spam coded commands rather than respond to the situation. Very rarely did we encounter the people that would allow their characters to be raided. Eventually, this behavior forced us to adapt our raiding styles to take a heavy-handed coded approach where we would instantly subdue PC's moving into our "room" to even create a chance to interact.
It felt as if we were having to force people to RP with us through the use of code.
Even in the clutches of a mammoth half-giant or a beastly mul, probably 90% of all players we attempted to raid would immediately struggle against the subdue and attempt to escape. Even when they were told there would be consequences. Even when threatened with their life. They were SO against losing any of their previous belongings, or to submit to the power of another character, that they were willing to lose their character instead.
We had no intention of killing most people. Dead people can't bring you more loot. They can't spread word of your fearsome reputation. There's no story to be told, at least not ICly. However, I found the general behavior of the player base to be particularly discouraging to the raider archetype. Even 1-on-1, the encounters that I had with people when trying to bully or raid them in the middle of nowhere generally resulted in them running or attempting to kill me -- all over my requested fee of 50 coins.
What results from all of these knee-jerk, hard-coded responses on the part of the victims are an adaptation on the part of the raiders to match your play. The result is a group of raiders that begins to completely dominate the coded aspect of every encounter to even have a chance at RP. And this heavy handed game play resulted in a lot of PC death. While playing my raider, I was involved in the deaths of more PC's than all of the rest of my characters combined for a period of fifteen years.
Was it because we/I were bloodthirsty or irresponsible? I would like to say no, since my tendencies are not to PK unless it's absolutely necessary. Was it partially because of the nature of the business? Sure, there were always people gunning for us with a bone to pick or, more likely, a sword to swing. However, it was largely this battle for coded supremacy, waged simply to have an opportunity to interact with someone and create a scene, that ultimately resulted in so many PC deaths. The Imms won't want to sanction, promote, or support any group of players whose MO (mission objective) will likely result in the deaths of several PC's, regardless of whether those deaths are deliberately planned or simply a byproduct of the encounter.
Those are some of the other challenges facing raiders and raiding groups in the game, and I don't see any intelligent solution on the horizon since much of the problem exists between the players themselves. If the players won't allow themselves to be dominated, the already small window of opportunity that exists for a meaningful scene between a raider and victim often closes entirely.
And that's unfortunate, because it can be an incredibly exciting and interesting event.
-LoD
Having played a couple of authority figures with coded and immortal support, these groups suffer from many of these encounters, I would like to say this arguent LoD made works vice-versa.
I do not believe another coded device will help us solve this problem. We as players have to take a more responsible role towards every step we make in this game, allowing opportunity for both parties to enjoy themselves.
I remember playing a Nakki bard a long time ago who not only paid a raider's (I believe it was LoD's) ransom but had that same raider escort him through the tablelands. Good times. If people are spamming out of those situations they're missing great opportunities for RP and sometimes wicked adventures that can come out of that.
That was back in 2001 I believe.
Quote from: staggerlee on December 05, 2008, 11:25:51 AM
It isn't a code issue.
Mugging as a career choice is only for the truly desperate. It isn't a profitable venture, and leads to nasty, brutish, short lives. No amount of code change is going to make mugging suddenly safe, anonymous and awesome... and zalanthas wouldn't be a very harsh place if it was, now would it?
I'm pretty sure this thread already had extensive conversations on how raiding could work, but those of you trying to play "successful" muggers are always going to be in for frustration. For your own sakes, I'd strongly recommend reconsidering the role you're trying to play and how it fits into the world.
Ok, after reading through this entire thread from the beginning, Staggerlee, I have to say that I disagree with your entire concept of criminal profitability. In the united states today, highway robbery is the #2 cause of the greatest loss of gross national product. It is probably the largest, most profitable portion of the modern mafia's income sources.
Crime is not necessarily for the desperate alone. Desperate criminals get caught. Intelligent people who make a conscious decision to lead a life of crime due to profitability, and a fairly high payoff with very little effort are also reaslistic. Because the "desperate" people are more likely to get caught, it may seem as if it's only desperate people doing the jobs. But IRL, thats not the way it works. Over 50% of all crimes go unsolved. So that means half of all criminals in the united states don't get caught. By the way, all this info was available on the FBI's website, last I checked. Which was a number of years ago, so #'s might be slightly off.
Having said that, I think a "threaten" command would be an excellent addition to facilitate RP in raiding scenario's, and others as well. I think the code of it should be handled a bit differently, however. I envision a "threaten" command being something like, your character walks up to mine with sword drawn and holds his sword out in a position that would be easy to strike me quickly and lethaly.
If I were determining how the code for it works, I'd make it a pre-emptive command that basically "warned" people not to move, draw a weapon, or make any offensive moves. In the event the "warned" character tried to run, draw/wield/hold a weapon, or make any offensive move, the "threaten" command would activate, basically auto-initiating combat with a significant bonus to hit and damage on the first strike.
This allows potential raiders/soldiers/templars or whoever to maintain the coded(and realistic) advantage that they would have had should they have forgone the RP and went straight to combat, without skipping the RP.
I don't think the command should to any more or less than what I outlined above. I try to run while threatened, combat is immediately and pre-emptively initiated. My "go north" action doesn't work because I was at the point of a blade when I tried it. I can still flee and successfully get away after combat is initiated, assuming I don't get clobbered by the 3 guys currently threatening me and asking for my travel pack.
This system would allow most people to escape from a single, lone raider, while being surrounded by 2-3 raiders with the initial "threaten" bonus activated would be a daunting situation indeed.
A 'threaten' command wouldn't solve the problem of people simply fleeing from raiders.
All it would do is allow time for a few silly emotes/says/etc. before the person attempted to flee.
What is the difference between:
>Raider 1 enters from the north
>Raider 2 enters from the north
>Raider 3 enters from the north
>Raiders 1, 2, and 3 attack you!
>You flee!
and
>Raider 1, 2, and 3 enter from the north.
>Raider 1, 2, and 3 threaten you.
>You emote backing away.
>Raider 1 says, "Hey, gimme ur stuffz."
>Raider 2 menaces you menacingly.
>Raider 3 has three stacked offensive commands in his input buffer, so he can't emote right now.
>You say, "Please, don't hurt me!"
>You attempt to flee.
>Raiders 1, 2, and 3 attack you!
>You flee anyway!
...you see my point? If the person being raided is inclined to flee unrealistically, the threaten code doesn't change the equation at all.
Furthermore, the "threatening" from across the desert wastes is just as unrealistic as instantly attacking from across the desert wastes. The only thing that can possibly solve this is some sort of "approach" code.
I think we're using a vastly overpowered flee to balance other stuff.
Hence locked rooms' reputation as an assassination necessity.
Quote from: Synthesis on December 06, 2008, 08:39:49 PM
A 'threaten' command wouldn't solve the problem of people simply fleeing from raiders.
All it would do is allow time for a few silly emotes/says/etc. before the person attempted to flee.
What is the difference between:
>Raider 1 enters from the north
>Raider 2 enters from the north
>Raider 3 enters from the north
>Raiders 1, 2, and 3 attack you!
>You flee!
and
>Raider 1, 2, and 3 enter from the north.
>Raider 1, 2, and 3 threaten you.
>You emote backing away.
>Raider 1 says, "Hey, gimme ur stuffz."
>Raider 2 menaces you menacingly.
>Raider 3 has three stacked offensive commands in his input buffer, so he can't emote right now.
>You say, "Please, don't hurt me!"
>You attempt to flee.
>Raiders 1, 2, and 3 attack you!
>You flee anyway!
...you see my point? If the person being raided is inclined to flee unrealistically, the threaten code doesn't change the equation at all.
Furthermore, the "threatening" from across the desert wastes is just as unrealistic as instantly attacking from across the desert wastes. The only thing that can possibly solve this is some sort of "approach" code.
The difference is that if you act unrealistically by trying to flee, they get 3 free rounds of attacks on you with bonuses to hit and damage while you're unarmed before you can do so. If those 3 raiders are each dual wielding, thats 6 attacks with hefty bonuses. If you manage to get through that, you -should- be able to flee. If you don't, maybe you shouldn't have tried. Either way, it makes the idea of running away much more dangerous.
A "chase" toggle could be implemented as well, that would allow you to chase any fleeing enemy if they successfully flee. It would take them out of combat, and you'd have to "attack" them again, but it would make pursuit viable. It would also probably make it to where those who have no other means to run/hide other than flee/spamrun would not often escape people bent on killing them, if their attackers have the skill to do so. Perhaps this is the way it
should be. IRL, if a badass mercenary wants to kill you, and gets close enough to do so, thats pretty much it for you, barring some incredible luck.
Or just make it so that flee doesn't automatically break follow.
If flee didn't break follow, you could conceivably get situations where the supposed "raider" gets spamwalked into say...the Sanctuary, right into the hands of your friendly local templar.
Besides which...the point isn't to make it -easier- for raiders to kill people.
If you know what you're doing, it's stupidly easy to rack up raiding pkills. I had a 5-day ranger who had already nailed 8 unlucky/stupid saps out in the desert. You don't need anything to do it except a little common sense, and a skill that you can get from a subclass.
If you simply give combat bonuses to the raider, or make it harder for the victim to flee, it doesn't encourage the victim to roleplay any better...it just makes everyone more paranoid than they already are. If anything, it encourages more people to become artless thugs, because it now takes even less finesse or forethought to get the job done.
I sympathize with the general observation that raiding roleplay is typically lame, but I haven't seen any proposed code fix that would remedy the situation, because the problem is largely a result of people roleplaying poorly, on both sides of the equation.
Quote from: Synthesis on December 07, 2008, 12:30:52 AM
Besides which...the point isn't to make it -easier- for raiders to kill people.
If you know what you're doing, it's stupidly easy to rack up raiding pkills. I had a 5-day ranger who had already nailed 8 unlucky/stupid saps out in the desert. You don't need anything to do it except a little common sense, and a skill that you can get from a subclass.
If you simply give combat bonuses to the raider, or make it harder for the victim to flee, it doesn't encourage the victim to roleplay any better...it just makes everyone more paranoid than they already are. If anything, it encourages more people to become artless thugs, because it now takes even less finesse or forethought to get the job done.
I sympathize with the general observation that raiding roleplay is typically lame, but I haven't seen any proposed code fix that would remedy the situation, because the problem is largely a result of people roleplaying poorly, on both sides of the equation.
With my proposed system, it would encourage raiders to RP just as much as it would encourage those being raided. Since the raider gets a bonus for "threat" where he doesn't get the bonus if he simply attacks someone. It's one of those stalemate situations, where neither party is encouraged to make the first violent move.
Quote from: Heade on December 07, 2008, 01:45:32 AM
Quote from: Synthesis on December 07, 2008, 12:30:52 AM
Besides which...the point isn't to make it -easier- for raiders to kill people.
If you know what you're doing, it's stupidly easy to rack up raiding pkills. I had a 5-day ranger who had already nailed 8 unlucky/stupid saps out in the desert. You don't need anything to do it except a little common sense, and a skill that you can get from a subclass.
If you simply give combat bonuses to the raider, or make it harder for the victim to flee, it doesn't encourage the victim to roleplay any better...it just makes everyone more paranoid than they already are. If anything, it encourages more people to become artless thugs, because it now takes even less finesse or forethought to get the job done.
I sympathize with the general observation that raiding roleplay is typically lame, but I haven't seen any proposed code fix that would remedy the situation, because the problem is largely a result of people roleplaying poorly, on both sides of the equation.
With my proposed system, it would encourage raiders to RP just as much as it would encourage those being raided. Since the raider gets a bonus for "threat" where he doesn't get the bonus if he simply attacks someone. It's one of those stalemate situations, where neither party is encouraged to make the first violent move.
Consider this situation.
>The tall, lanky raider enters the room.
>The tall, lanky raider begins threatening you!
>Holding your hands up, you say, in sirihish, "I don't want no trouble, man."
>The tall, lanky raider says, in sirihish, "Then drop your pack, holmes."
>Resting your hands on your hips, you say, in sirihish, "Now why exactly would I do that?"
>The tall, lanky raider says, in sirihish, "Because if you don't, I'll cut you. And if you try to flee, I'll get -three- freebie cuts on you that will totally fuck you up."
>Holding a finger up, you say, in sirihish, "Aha, but I have no intention of fleeing! If you initiate combat with me, you'll lose your threat bonus, imbecile! It's a catch-22! You haven't solved a damn thing by holding out that longsword at me, because I can stalemate you here indefinitely until you tire of it and forfeit your threat posture!"
>Facepalming himself, the tall, lanky raider says, in sirihish, "Egads, you're right. Well, I suppose I'll have to cut you, because if I tarry here too long, you're liable to contact some friends or authority figures to come and bail you out. En garde!"How do you propose to solve this little dilemma?
Quote from: Synthesis on December 07, 2008, 01:59:06 AM
Quote from: Heade on December 07, 2008, 01:45:32 AM
Quote from: Synthesis on December 07, 2008, 12:30:52 AM
Besides which...the point isn't to make it -easier- for raiders to kill people.
If you know what you're doing, it's stupidly easy to rack up raiding pkills. I had a 5-day ranger who had already nailed 8 unlucky/stupid saps out in the desert. You don't need anything to do it except a little common sense, and a skill that you can get from a subclass.
If you simply give combat bonuses to the raider, or make it harder for the victim to flee, it doesn't encourage the victim to roleplay any better...it just makes everyone more paranoid than they already are. If anything, it encourages more people to become artless thugs, because it now takes even less finesse or forethought to get the job done.
I sympathize with the general observation that raiding roleplay is typically lame, but I haven't seen any proposed code fix that would remedy the situation, because the problem is largely a result of people roleplaying poorly, on both sides of the equation.
With my proposed system, it would encourage raiders to RP just as much as it would encourage those being raided. Since the raider gets a bonus for "threat" where he doesn't get the bonus if he simply attacks someone. It's one of those stalemate situations, where neither party is encouraged to make the first violent move.
Consider this situation.
>The tall, lanky raider enters the room.
>The tall, lanky raider begins threatening you!
>Holding your hands up, you say, in sirihish, "I don't want no trouble, man."
>The tall, lanky raider says, in sirihish, "Then drop your pack, holmes."
>Resting your hands on your hips, you say, in sirihish, "Now why exactly would I do that?"
>The tall, lanky raider says, in sirihish, "Because if you don't, I'll cut you. And if you try to flee, I'll get -three- freebie cuts on you that will totally fuck you up."
>Holding a finger up, you say, in sirihish, "Aha, but I have no intention of fleeing! If you initiate combat with me, you'll lose your threat bonus, imbecile! It's a catch-22! You haven't solved a damn thing by holding out that longsword at me, because I can stalemate you here indefinitely until you tire of it and forfeit your threat posture!"
>Facepalming himself, the tall, lanky raider says, in sirihish, "Egads, you're right. Well, I suppose I'll have to cut you, because if I tarry here too long, you're liable to contact some friends or authority figures to come and bail you out. En garde!"
How do you propose to solve this little dilemma?
Kill Dude Being Raided
Raider 1 attacks Dude Being Raided
assist Raider 1
Raider 2 charges into the fight
assist Raider 1
Pink Raider charges into the fight.
flee
DBR flees heading south
bash DBR
Raider 4 slams into DBR knocking him to the ground.
The rest of the posses shows up
think Oh shit.
You... *beep*
Quote from: Synthesis on December 07, 2008, 01:59:06 AM
Quote from: Heade on December 07, 2008, 01:45:32 AM
Quote from: Synthesis on December 07, 2008, 12:30:52 AM
Besides which...the point isn't to make it -easier- for raiders to kill people.
If you know what you're doing, it's stupidly easy to rack up raiding pkills. I had a 5-day ranger who had already nailed 8 unlucky/stupid saps out in the desert. You don't need anything to do it except a little common sense, and a skill that you can get from a subclass.
If you simply give combat bonuses to the raider, or make it harder for the victim to flee, it doesn't encourage the victim to roleplay any better...it just makes everyone more paranoid than they already are. If anything, it encourages more people to become artless thugs, because it now takes even less finesse or forethought to get the job done.
I sympathize with the general observation that raiding roleplay is typically lame, but I haven't seen any proposed code fix that would remedy the situation, because the problem is largely a result of people roleplaying poorly, on both sides of the equation.
With my proposed system, it would encourage raiders to RP just as much as it would encourage those being raided. Since the raider gets a bonus for "threat" where he doesn't get the bonus if he simply attacks someone. It's one of those stalemate situations, where neither party is encouraged to make the first violent move.
Consider this situation.
>The tall, lanky raider enters the room.
>The tall, lanky raider begins threatening you!
>Holding your hands up, you say, in sirihish, "I don't want no trouble, man."
>The tall, lanky raider says, in sirihish, "Then drop your pack, holmes."
>Resting your hands on your hips, you say, in sirihish, "Now why exactly would I do that?"
>The tall, lanky raider says, in sirihish, "Because if you don't, I'll cut you. And if you try to flee, I'll get -three- freebie cuts on you that will totally fuck you up."
>Holding a finger up, you say, in sirihish, "Aha, but I have no intention of fleeing! If you initiate combat with me, you'll lose your threat bonus, imbecile! It's a catch-22! You haven't solved a damn thing by holding out that longsword at me, because I can stalemate you here indefinitely until you tire of it and forfeit your threat posture!"
>Facepalming himself, the tall, lanky raider says, in sirihish, "Egads, you're right. Well, I suppose I'll have to cut you, because if I tarry here too long, you're liable to contact some friends or authority figures to come and bail you out. En garde!"
How do you propose to solve this little dilemma?
Actually, you misunderstood the system I proposed. You only get ONE freebie round with bonuses. The "three" thing came from your scenario with the
three raiders. But as far as I'm concerned, the situation you proposed doesn't pose a "dilemma", and so there's nothing to solve. RP took place before the raiders were FORCED to resort to violence or leaving without any loot. Thats the entire point of the proposed system. Thanks for helping demonstrate it, albeit with your rather sarcastic scenario. ;)
I'm not saying this system would completely, codedly stop twinkishness and lack of RP in raiding scenarios. Nothing anyone could come up with would do that. What it DOES do, is
encourage RP and interaction.
My question is, what if the other person was holding a weapon as well?
It would seem unfair to me that a raider could pop into the room, type threaten <character> and enjoy a potentional attack bonus against them when they had their weapons drawn just the same.
But on the other hand, if the code didn't allow anyone to threaten an armed character ... it's not likely to change anything currently happening in game, save to make sure that EVERYONE has their weapons drawn outside the city gates, and not just most everyone.
Or so my thought process goes anyway.
I don't think threaten should kick in for attacking. I think if you attack them they shouldn't get a bonus, only get the bonus if you try to run. And I also think it should be a flee self type thing, where it checked their flee skill vs your guard skill or something as to whether or not your threaten was successful. It should also be possible that 3 raiders ride up on some dude and dude:
emote :grins broadly, reaching beneath his cloak
' (chuckling darkly) Alright, I been bored all week.
Raider thinks Ohhhhhhhhh shit.
Furthermore, what about raiders who don't rely on silly things like "weapons"?
Or what about victims with magick abilities?
A magicker certainly wouldn't want to threaten anyone if it meant getting into a fistfight. Conversely, why should a raider be able to close with and 'threaten' someone who could melt his face off with 5 words?
None of these clunky, stupid workarounds are necessary, given implementation of a two-word solution:
APPROACH CODE
Quote from: Lakota on December 03, 2008, 04:48:53 PM
Even then, whose to stop the player from going ooc and breaking tone with their character so they can get "revenge." I've seen people I let go come back with posses time and again.
hahaha
so you were the victim of this or was it the other way around?
Quote from: Ghost on December 07, 2008, 01:37:22 PM
Quote from: Lakota on December 03, 2008, 04:48:53 PM
Even then, whose to stop the player from going ooc and breaking tone with their character so they can get "revenge." I've seen people I let go come back with posses time and again.
hahaha
so you were the victim of this or was it the other way around?
It happens...
Well. I was once raided by one of those rascelly Soh.
The next time, I was escorted by several people. I ran into that raider again. That raider still tried to attack me. That raider died.
Did I set out for revenge? No. Did I get revenge? Yes, Yes I did.
Quote from: Delstro on December 07, 2008, 05:05:45 PM
Well. I was once raided by one of those rascelly Soh.
The next time, I was escorted by several people. I ran into that raider again. That raider still tried to attack me. That raider died.
Did I set out for revenge? No. Did I get revenge? Yes, Yes I did.
I'm curious. How did the raid play out the first time? Did you hand over what he wanted?
He wanted all my weapons, I told him he can have some coin. He wanted all my weapons, I flipped him off and rode off. I didn't spam, I just rode off. He stayed with me for about 3 rooms, before shouting he is going to kill me.
Yeah the "give me all your weapons" probably doesn't win many votes. It tends to make the raidee think: Well if I give you all my weapons, you'll assuredly try to kill me because I'll be unarmed so ... you know ... bugger off with something else or lets just cut to the chase while I'm still wielding this sword.
I had a d-elf from the AV try that one time (more because my PC's weapon was elven make and they probably didn't think I should have it ... but I dunno). But, when I told them to take a few things my guy had been hunting and skinned instead, they just took those, said something like "You're luck, you got this to give to me" and ran away.
Quote from: Delstro on December 07, 2008, 05:48:16 PM
He wanted all my weapons, I told him he can have some coin. He wanted all my weapons, I flipped him off and rode off. I didn't spam, I just rode off. He stayed with me for about 3 rooms, before shouting he is going to kill me.
How long did you pause in each new room you rode to? If less than 5 seconds per room, it's pretty much spam. ::shrugs::
I view "spam running" as any coded means at which you're avoiding their character by walking fast enough as to not allow their character to target you.
So even if you just wait for them to hit the same room as you before you hit "N", they won't have time to type "kill you" in the time it takes you to type "N". I don't like the way the follow command works anyhow. As it stands, if I'm following someone, they can just force me not to follow them with a simple command, which isn't really cool.
If you could follow people without them being able to stop you, I wouldn't bitch about spam-runners.
I usually give them a second or two after they joined the room, then run away.
A chase command or something would be nice. Flee and then have it do a skill check to see if you where successful in loosing them. If not the delay should allow enough time to attack or do something else. It should check race/mount speeds against each other and if your faster than you should be able to attack before their move delay is up. If you're slower it should make it really hard of not impossible to keep up. This way your either fast enough to run them down or their fast enough to get away, either way, you don't get spamwalked to the authorities. Just a rough idea but an idea like this would be cool.
Quote from: fourTwenty on December 07, 2008, 07:26:56 PM
A chase command or something would be nice. Flee and then have it do a skill check to see if you where successful in loosing them. If not the delay should allow enough time to attack or do something else. It should check race/mount speeds against each other and if your faster than you should be able to attack before their move delay is up. If you're slower it should make it really hard of not impossible to keep up. This way your either fast enough to run them down or their fast enough to get away, either way, you don't get spamwalked to the authorities. Just a rough idea but an idea like this would be cool.
OOOOOOOO!!!!! Me Likes!
4 raiders + guard <direction> = flee problem solved
Ranged weaponry and poisons can be a big help too.
Be strategic about your raiding.
Quote from: Qzzrbl on December 07, 2008, 09:11:04 PM
4 raiders + guard <direction> = flee problem solved
Ranged weaponry and poisons can be a big help too.
Be strategic about your raiding.
Right...good luck getting ~10% of the playerbase in the game at any given time to work with you reliably, without some sort of staff support. Maybe the Soh could pull this off, but independent raiders? Highly unlikely.
Beyond that, I'm fairly certain that if you engage in combat, you cease guarding whatever you're guarding, so there goes that idea, unless you have 4 guys in a room with 2 exits. Even then, it would be possible to circumvent this if your guards aren't paying close enough attention.
As far as poisons are concerned: none of the easily accessible poisons are good enough to get the job done. The inaccessible poisons are too rare and valuable to be wasting on people just to steal their boots.
Quote from: Delstro on December 07, 2008, 07:19:14 PM
I usually give them a second or two after they joined the room, then run away.
Yeah, thats spam-running. You're not giving them enough time to emote or perform any significant commands.
They didn't give me any room to be reasonable. I've died to a few groups of raiders so far.
Look Tears the Kuraci C-elf
Look Half-giant subdue artist and human companion
Look group of Soh in the grasslands
Look PC halflings in the grey forest
Look Invisible Krathi as I'm chopping wood that turned me from 107 HP to -10 in one blow.
Look Hidden Sapper as I'm chopping obsidian and trying to contact someone trying to hire me
Look hot chick that wanted to Mudsexxx, but really wanted to run off with all my shit when I was naked.
Most of those were caused by me giving them the benefit of the doubt. Except for the Krathi, he just turned me into a hunk of carbon.
Quote from: Delstro on December 07, 2008, 10:08:08 PM
They didn't give me any room to be reasonable. I've died to a few groups of raiders so far.
Look Tears the Kuraci C-elf
Look Half-giant subdue artist and human companion
Look group of Soh in the grasslands
Look PC halflings in the grey forest
Look Invisible Krathi as I'm chopping wood that turned me from 107 HP to -10 in one blow.
Look Hidden Sapper as I'm chopping obsidian and trying to contact someone trying to hire me
Look hot chick that wanted to Mudsexxx, but really wanted to run off with all my shit when I was naked.
Most of those were caused by me giving them the benefit of the doubt. Except for the Krathi, he just turned me into a hunk of carbon.
You mean that previous twinky situations have made you feel like the only appropriate response for future interaction with various characters in similar situations is to resort to twinkish behavior in an effort to pre-emptively out-twink the twinkers?
I was really hoping my thread wouldn't degenerate into people advocating new code. Really, this was originally just supposed to be about fostering proper roleplay.
Quote from: Tisiphone on December 07, 2008, 10:42:38 PM
I was really hoping my thread wouldn't degenerate into people advocating new code. Really, this was originally just supposed to be about fostering proper roleplay.
Yeah, pretty much how I see it.
Quote from: Tisiphone on December 07, 2008, 10:42:38 PM
I was really hoping my thread wouldn't degenerate into people advocating new code. Really, this was originally just supposed to be about fostering proper roleplay.
The code is there to encourage and assist with "fostering" proper roleplay. The code ideas presented, in my opinion, have been born with that very idea in mind. 8)
Heade, I believe that given the speed of d-elves running vs. the speed of any other mount/thing in the game running it's safe to say that a few seconds is more than enough time for them to type "kill whoever". If memory serves me right d-elves are probably the fastest thing on the surface of the world. I some of my characters have tried to keep pace with them in the past, and it was like trying to outrun the sun.
Also please don't start accusing people of twinkish behavior on the board, and it's generally in bad taste and gets everyone in a right foul mood with you ... I'm speaking from experience learned in my younger days when I first started playing the game (go look up "What makes a good hunter RP" thread or something like that, I think you'll see what I mean 8)
As for the RP etiquette with raiders and the potentional code changes ... I agree with some of the other people who've posted in that I really don't think it should be easier for people to go raiding than it already is, and if I recall correctly ... the last time I spoke with staff about raiding they said to just try and keep in touch with them while I was doing it, and to not go really crazy because despite the game being a harsh unforgiving world, they're still a bit wary about having PC's whose entire purpose is to hunt the rest of the player base. (Of course that could have just been the opinion of one staff member, and not staff as a whole but ... for what its worth we don't have any more PC raiding clans do we?)
I think raiding in groups is the best, most tasteful way to get it done unless you're playing a sorcerer of doomy death. I'm generally pretty unsympathetic to the "But it's hard to get people online at the same time!" arguement because ... well ... it is hard, but everyone else who gets a group together does it. It just takes patience and good communication.
Lastly, I'm a big advocate of raiders only skimming a little off the people they raid, instead of trying to leave them in nothing but a loincloth. Much the same way that I'm a big advocate of burgulars and thieves not clearing out the entire apartment that they rob. To me that's more of just an OOC courtisy at heart, their are in game trains of thought to justify it but I'll be honest, I'm typically just more concerned with not messing up someone else's fun too terribly.
Last ... I don't really have any sympathy for the "But I can't survive off just raiding unless I do it a lot or take a lot when I do it." mentality. Hey I'm sorry, but that guy over there can't survive off just being a bard ... and that girl over there can't survive off just being a physician ... and he can't survive off just being a partisian to a noble. To me, it seems like there are actually only a few professions in the world that one can actually survive off of by doing only that. Hunting, Mining 'sid, and lumber come to mind. But beyond that, all the rest of us have to find other ways to suppliment our main role-played career so ... I don't see any reason why a raider shouldn't have to do the same.
So just to recap my thoughts on how to improve the raider situation without the introduction of any new code:
(1) Have a group, people will probably take a group more seriously.
(2) Don't take someone for everything they own, because it's mean ... kind of humilitating and they probably will want revenge.
(3) Find another job aside from raiding so you don't have to rely on that for all of your income.
(4) Keep staff in the loop so they know you aren't just looking for reasons to PK everyone. They're apt to treat you nicer for it.
You want better raiding? You don't need much code.
First off, enable watch to work at a distance. Screw chase code, all you need to know is where your target is headed.
Secondly, modify the way mounts work. Since I started playing this game, the most rugged, highest-capacity, and battleworthy mounts have always been the fastest. All others are largely worthless except in specific situations.
By the way, battleworthy is mostly a combination of speed and size in regards to charge, which isn't really all that much of a consideration. Inixes are not that much better than kanks in terms of game balance.
Quote from: musashi on December 08, 2008, 01:27:01 AM
Also please don't start accusing people of twinkish behavior on the board, and it's generally in bad taste and gets everyone in a right foul mood with you ... I'm speaking from experience learned in my younger days when I first started playing the game (go look up "What makes a good hunter RP" thread or something like that, I think you'll see what I mean 8)
EDIT: Definition of "Mark" for those unfamiliar with the term. A mark is simply "the target of a crime" as used in this document's context.
Ok, first off, I'm not accusing anyone of twinkish behavior. If you look at the whole conversation, I
asked what he did, specifically, and I
defined twinkish behavior. And second, I'm not faulting him for it. I'm guilty of it just the same. If twinks keep pulling twinky shit on me, killing my characters or leaving them destitue, and the only way to avoid it is to spam-run away since they don't give me an opportunity to RP, I'd probably do the same as he. So please don't take this the wrong way.
Twinkish behavior perpetuates further twinkish behavior from others. Thats my point, and currently, thats just the way things are. And what I was suggesting wasn't to "make it easier" for raiders to raid. It was to encourage RP on the raiders part by giving them a counter-option to marks who just spamrun away, which IS twinkish behavior.
Think of it this way. Currently, many raiders might just run in and subdue/attack their mark because, in their experience, mark's just spam-run away when you try to RP with them. Marks, on the other hand, spam-run away because, in their experience, raiders just subdue/attack them without giving them the opportunity to pay a reasonable road toll. It's a vicious cycle. I'm trying to come up with a system that can change that a bit.
IRL, if I am close enough to politely tell you to hand over the sid, I'm going to be capable of chasing you in the event you run. The current code doesn't really allow that very well. If they had a "pursue" or "chase" command, I'd obviously be all for it taking mount speed/foot speed into account to determine if you could keep up with them or not. And if not, great, they get away. If you can, however, then piss on them for running, they can now be forced into combat.
There
are things we can do to encourage more RP in raiding situations. In my opinion, those things are to implement code that allows for a "peaceful" median, in which someone can let you know that there is serious risk to your health in the event you don't cooperate, but doesn't necessarily have to lead directly to combat.
Again, I'm not trying to make it easier to raid. I'm just trying to make the code more condusive to RPing a raid as opposed to just taking immediate offensive action against you.
So, in closing, let me put it this way:
If you are opposed to code that allows raiders to chase/pusue/threaten you, thats fine. Just don't bitch when all they do without it is run in the room and shank your ass. 8)
The only things that can fix twinkish behavior on either side of the raiding equation are approach code and X/Y location grids within rooms.
However, as with all things: BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR.
Accursed Lands has both of these, and if some ancient, experienced character wants to raid you, there is absolutely nothing you can do to stop it, short of fleeing in terror from -every- person who approaches you. (Unless you can fly or breathe water.) Of course, this might be ameliorated if you couldn't actively engage in combat while sprinting top-speed after your mark...but I digress. As it's implemented there, it's a horrible system...you can't escape, because all humanoids move at virtually the same speed, so once someone gets close enough to engage you, you might as well not even try to run (unless it's to a body of water, where if they kill you, your loot will simply sink to the bottom...that's a protip for you all). But you see my point: unintended consequences and fixes to fixes.
Quote from: Synthesis on December 08, 2008, 02:01:52 AM
The only things that can fix twinkish behavior on either side of the raiding equation are approach code and X/Y location grids within rooms.
However, as with all things: BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR.
Accursed Lands has both of these, and if some ancient, experienced character wants to raid you, there is absolutely nothing you can do to stop it, short of fleeing in terror from -every- person who approaches you. (Unless you can fly or breathe water.) Of course, this might be ameliorated if you couldn't actively engage in combat while sprinting top-speed after your mark...but I digress. As it's implemented there, it's a horrible system...you can't escape, because all humanoids move at virtually the same speed, so once someone gets close enough to engage you, you might as well not even try to run (unless it's to a body of water, where if they kill you, your loot will simply sink to the bottom...that's a protip for you all). But you see my point: unintended consequences and fixes to fixes.
I'm quite familiar with accursed lands. I played there for a long time.
I don't disagree with your "approach code" idea. But to have a system similar to what AL has basically takes a whole new approach to building rooms, as well. We're not talking about a simple fix with that idea. We're talking about a revolutionary change to the game that some here may not like. Travelling in AL is EXTREMELY tedius, almost exclusively because of the approach code.
The chase/pursue options that I've listed would take almost NO work to code at a rudimentary level, and would offer an alternative to running in and shanking you so you don't get away by spam-running.
Thats all I want here, people. An option
other than directly attacking you without RP to ensure that you don't just hit "n n n n e e n e n e" As soon as I say, "Yo, the toll is 100 sids, hand it over."
As it is now, I completely empathise with both sides. I understand raiders who attack without warning. I understand marks who spam-run without RP. The problem is, neither of their behaviors is contributing to a good solution to the problem enherent with the code. So....change the code.
I also understand when people bitch about a raider saying, "Give me all your sids, and your weapons too."
Unfortunately for the people doing the bitching, this is a perfectly IC thing for a raider to do. If you don't wanna give it up, fight em for it. If you don't wanna fight em for it, hand over the weapons and be happy they left you with your mount to get back to civilization.
I DO, however, agree that there should be speed factors involved in making the chase/pursue code viable, so that if some dickhead raider really does try to leave you naked in the desert without a mount, you can have the option to
try to run.
But in order for you to get away, I think you should have to have the coded skill/speed/mount to do so, instead of having the option to
abuse unrealistic movement code. Thats all spam-running is, really. It's an abuse of code, when you realise all those miraculous escapes you've made are mostly due to catching the player, as opposed to the character, off guard.
Again, support it or don't support it. But if you don't, then don't bitch when a raider shanks you without emoting. And raiders who don't support it, don't bitch when people spam-run away without emoting. The current code doesn't leave either side much choice without relying solely on the trust, goodwill, and RP ability of the playerbase.
Hmm, I feel bad. Who's thread was this? I feel like I've hijacked it.
Oooh, I really am a raider. :D
Quote from: Synthesis on December 08, 2008, 02:01:52 AM
The only things that can fix twinkish behavior on either side of the raiding equation are approach code and X/Y location grids within rooms.
However, as with all things: BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR.
Accursed Lands has both of these, and if some ancient, experienced character wants to raid you, there is absolutely nothing you can do to stop it, short of fleeing in terror from -every- person who approaches you. (Unless you can fly or breathe water.) Of course, this might be ameliorated if you couldn't actively engage in combat while sprinting top-speed after your mark...but I digress. As it's implemented there, it's a horrible system...you can't escape, because all humanoids move at virtually the same speed, so once someone gets close enough to engage you, you might as well not even try to run (unless it's to a body of water, where if they kill you, your loot will simply sink to the bottom...that's a protip for you all). But you see my point: unintended consequences and fixes to fixes.
As opposed to the current situation in Armageddon, where if a somewhat experienced magicker wants to raid you, there is absolutely nothing you can do to stop it.
:D
Quote from: Heade on December 07, 2008, 11:51:26 PM
Quote from: Tisiphone on December 07, 2008, 10:42:38 PM
I was really hoping my thread wouldn't degenerate into people advocating new code. Really, this was originally just supposed to be about fostering proper roleplay.
The code is there to encourage and assist with "fostering" proper roleplay. The code ideas presented, in my opinion, have been born with that very idea in mind. 8)
Read the OP, and then dig through the archives.
Quote from: Clearsighted on December 08, 2008, 05:26:55 AM
Quote from: Synthesis on December 08, 2008, 02:01:52 AM
The only things that can fix twinkish behavior on either side of the raiding equation are approach code and X/Y location grids within rooms.
However, as with all things: BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR.
Accursed Lands has both of these, and if some ancient, experienced character wants to raid you, there is absolutely nothing you can do to stop it, short of fleeing in terror from -every- person who approaches you. (Unless you can fly or breathe water.) Of course, this might be ameliorated if you couldn't actively engage in combat while sprinting top-speed after your mark...but I digress. As it's implemented there, it's a horrible system...you can't escape, because all humanoids move at virtually the same speed, so once someone gets close enough to engage you, you might as well not even try to run (unless it's to a body of water, where if they kill you, your loot will simply sink to the bottom...that's a protip for you all). But you see my point: unintended consequences and fixes to fixes.
As opposed to the current situation in Armageddon, where if a somewhat experienced magicker wants to raid you, there is absolutely nothing you can do to stop it.
:D
[slight derail]
I haven't had the twinkness bug bite me in a very long time and I personally have never been able to get a magicker to anywhere near the "Scary" level that folks often refer to. So that leads me to ask, do you guys sit there and rest till you have full mana, blast off all of it in Nil incantations then rinse and repeat for ten days played to get "scary" or "experienced".
Cause I personally wouldn't use a magicker to raid anyone without damned good reason, but I just haven't seen a scary magicker outside of staff animated and twink gemmed.
[/slight derail]
JaRoD
Quote from: Tisiphone on December 08, 2008, 08:43:32 AM
Quote from: Heade on December 07, 2008, 11:51:26 PM
Quote from: Tisiphone on December 07, 2008, 10:42:38 PM
I was really hoping my thread wouldn't degenerate into people advocating new code. Really, this was originally just supposed to be about fostering proper roleplay.
The code is there to encourage and assist with "fostering" proper roleplay. The code ideas presented, in my opinion, have been born with that very idea in mind. 8)
Read the OP, and then dig through the archives.
Nah, just make your point here. I've read the OP.
Quote from: Heade on December 08, 2008, 09:41:57 AM
Nah, just make your point here. I've read the OP.
Obviously not closely enough. The last four pages or so of this thread have been done to death. This was conspicuously not about code, at all, in any way, shape, or form.
Let it die.
I think you have to learn to work with the code to be a good raider. I dislike people thinking that "roleplaying" is a way to work around the code. A great roleplay works within the code - things like guarding all 4 directions is how raiding should be done. I mean, if you tried to mug someone, the only way to keep him from running is to have him surrounded.
The existing code has plenty of ways to support raiders. I've figured quite a few, but I'll show you guys later ;) There are so many ways to raid - just gotta figure out IC how to stop a guy from running, how to stop a guy from telling on you, and how to survive when he does.
Just play a PC raider like an NPC would. And play a PC victim like a NPC would too - but NPCs cheat. Those NPCs are damn twinks, running up GTA-style city-wide alerts even though you're wearing a cloak like every other guy in town. I don't see how any real player could be worse.
Quote from: SMuz on December 08, 2008, 11:21:21 AM
Just play a PC raider like an NPC would. And play a PC victim like a NPC would too -
Sorry but, I didn't understand this part of your post at all ???
I don't understand how the post is on-topic, but I've been hoping this thread would die for the last four pages.
How does magick and do magickers impact PC-vs-PC raiding?
I mean, codedly.
Quote from: brytta.leofa on December 08, 2008, 11:42:45 AM
How does magick and do magickers impact PC-vs-PC raiding?
I mean, codedly.
Basically, a good magicker can wtfpwn! you before you can even type 'flee self.'
Of course, rogue magickers are sort of the natural predators of solo mundane PC raiders, heh...so...I guess their effects kind of balance each other out.
Quote from: brytta.leofa on December 08, 2008, 11:42:45 AM
How does magick and do magickers impact PC-vs-PC raiding?
I mean, codedly.
Without getting into specifics...
Crowd control.
Tisiphone is slowly -willing- the thread to it's death.
Quote from: Tisiphone on December 08, 2008, 09:46:59 AM
Quote from: Heade on December 08, 2008, 09:41:57 AM
Nah, just make your point here. I've read the OP.
Obviously not closely enough. The last four pages or so of this thread have been done to death. This was conspicuously not about code, at all, in any way, shape, or form. Let it die.
Just because the OP didn't mention new code as a solution to lack of meaningful RP in raiding situations doesn't mean that no one else should. It's pertinent to the discussion at hand, and no, I don't think we should just "let it die."
Maybe it's just me, but this thread is feeling like it just got its second wind...Four more pages!
Ok, fine. Back on the OP's topic. Here's the solution, in the form that you seemed to be wanting it:
1. We need to commit to RPing these situations out instead of codedly just logging their desc and spam-running away.
2. We need to commit to playing realistic raiders who take calculated chances in an attempt to minimize risk. (ie, you KNOW you can get away with 100 of this guy's sid. He's offering. If you push your luck, you might just get p00ned. Take your 100 and open the road. Hell, as previously mentioned, perhaps offer to escort them the rest of the way for an additional 100 sid. Whatever.)
The point is, we need to RP instead of immediately resorting to agressive code or spam-running.
Additionally, if someone is wearing a skull-faced helm, a full body cloak, and head to toe armor, you probably don't have their description IC. You don't have their sdesc, or their fulld desc. You don't know they're the "blonde-haired man" because their clothes covered that up. All you have is a description of their clothing. Play that way.
There, problems solved. If people follow the above, we will have no further problems with raiding being an issue.
....
Right. Not everyone is going to, and thats the point. Thats why this thread became about code. Because you can talk about RP all you want, and how to play a good raider/victim, and you can be 100% right about how to go about doing it. But without code in place to counter the twinkish behavior, it's just not going to happen. People are too attached to their PCs and gear to want to risk death, or losing everything they own for something like "Good RP suggestions" to work without coded support.
If people know that they can codedly save their character by doing something thats obviously a bit twinkish, there's a good possibility to do that. This goes for raiders and victims alike. It could be argued that the raiders who run in and take aggressive action are doing it out of a desire to protect their characters, so the victims don't just spam-run away and get a posse together.
I say, eliminate that opportunity, or at least it's appeal. Put code in place that makes it more difficult, or at lease less appealing, to simply resort to something twinkish. I think there are a number of ways to make that happen. Most of them, in my mind, involve implementing new code.
Some of the code ideas are simple, others are more complex. Implementing a variety of them would actually make the system the best.
These two would eliminate tons of problems:
1. Bring in mask code that hides your entire description, other than the clothes you're wearing.
2. Make some sort of "follow" command that the person being followed can't cancel.
You'd see a return of raiders, better RP, and less PKilling over identity issues.
What we need are innocent, automated, NPC travellers, whom can be attacked at the cost of a random chance to make you wanted in their home city. Some can be guarded, some can be alone. THAT will encourage real PC raiders to form.
Quote from: Clearsighted on December 08, 2008, 04:49:11 PM
What we need are innocent, automated, NPC travellers, whom can be attacked at the cost of a random chance to make you wanted in their home city. Some can be guarded, some can be alone. THAT will encourage real PC raiders to form.
I agree with this too. Put it in with the other code. :D
I just must be lucky after reading through most of this thread. I've had a few 'raider' type characters over the years and I've only really ever come across a few 'twinks' that insta-ran. I saw TONS as a Templar, but not as a raider. I only had one raid result in a death and the rest were RP'd thefts of some sort and everything went off without a hitch. No one to my knowledge reported my desc.
On the flip side, I've been raided twice to my memory. One time was done beautifully by a PC, the other was pretty well an insta-ganking attack which annoyed me some. The one that I survived, I never reported a thing about it because it was RP'd that they had snuck up behind me and the only thing I would've seen if I -did- glance at the last second was a hood or club in my face before being knocked cold.
I actually wish I get raided/tortured/beat up more. It's ARM after all.
It takes me less than a second to type "Kill person." I have it set up as an alias in fact, "Kiss".
I run away after they have proved to me they are not reasonable. You forgot that part Heade.
I've always had a pleasant time interacting with people in the wastes with both of us thinking the other is a raider.
If I am a twink, (Shrug), so be it.
Clearsighted wins.
To fix raiding, I'd want:
The followed can't unhitch another PC.
If you want someone to stop, flee self, or flee [Direction].
Watch works at a distance.
If you can see them, you can watch them.
Look East
[Near]
The man in the Iron-colored mask
Watch iron east
You begin watching the man in the iron-colored mask to the east.
The man in the iron-colored mask walks south.
s
Follow works at a distance. (The following is based on agility, endurance, encumbrance, and strength of mounts involved.)
When they move you move, if you are running and they are walking, you'll catch them.
If you are walking and they are running, you will lose them.
If you are both running, then you go until someone gives up, or catches up.
Example:
If a Half-giant A is on a shaking erdlu and HG-b is ona racing inix.
HG-B follows HG-A, HG-A is walking. HG-B catches HG-A because the erdlu died under the weight.
Quote from: Delstro on December 08, 2008, 08:55:36 PM
To fix raiding, I'd want:
The followed can't unhitch another PC.
If you want someone to stop, flee self, or flee [Direction].
I like those ideas, except for this. This isn't good. If you want to follow a PC and not get unhitched, maybe try following their mount? If they have no mount, they have more manuverability and so you can't follow them easily. However, watch makes up for this, and their lessened ability to cover ground counts.
The unhitch command is very important for purposes of mundane following, such as link-dead PCs, mounts, etc.
Quote from: The7DeadlyVenomz on December 08, 2008, 10:21:04 PM
Quote from: Delstro on December 08, 2008, 08:55:36 PM
To fix raiding, I'd want:
The followed can't unhitch another PC.
If you want someone to stop, flee self, or flee [Direction].
I like those ideas, except for this. This isn't good. If you want to follow a PC and not get unhitched, maybe try following their mount? If they have no mount, they have more manuverability and so you can't follow them easily. However, watch makes up for this, and their lessened ability to cover ground counts.
The unhitch command is very important for purposes of mundane following, such as link-dead PCs, mounts, etc.
:o That is such a mindblowingly easy work around. Why have I never thought about this? I'm seriously amazed. I'm being serious. You wyn.
Chase Command
Yeah... It's always been kind of ridiculous that someone could simply "unhitch" a following raider.
Maybe flee could take stats or a skill or something into consideration when fleeing from a follower. Higher dexterity/strength/endurance will manage to escape from a chasing PC after a distance.
I want to be raided. I'm so ready for this. Once someone came upon me in the desert (I was sleeping, no less), where I thought I was all safe or whatever and they were all like, "Don't worry, I don't hurt women." What I want to add to this is it was a high-karma role this guy had, a mul. Not that a wandering mul would have be a raider. That was just an odd thing to say. So..long story short, I've never met up with any raiders.
I guess that's chivalry in the sands.
Quote from: path on December 11, 2008, 09:35:12 AM
Once someone came upon me in the desert (I was sleeping, no less), where I thought I was all safe or whatever and they were all like, "Don't worry, I don't hurt women." What I want to add to this is it was a high-karma role this guy had, a mul. Not that a wandering mul would have be a raider. That was just an odd thing to say.
Just a thought: perhaps our wise consent rules are encouraging a misunderestimation of the desert's potential brutality. It would be an odd thing for a male human to say to a female human, but, in that light, rather less odd for an escaped mul.
Well, maybe a woman ranger helped the mul escape?
Or, a woman rukkian. In which case from then on he would respect and honor female magickers. You're right. You never know. I didn't mean to point the finger and say, 'bad', just that I've never had a raiding experience, and that was the closest I've gotten, an experience I still find odd to this day.
I think sometimes people allow their 'OOC pity' to get the best of them and cut people a break when they should be murdering them.
Quote from: Clearsighted on December 12, 2008, 02:21:01 PM
I think sometimes people allow their 'OOC pity' to get the best of them and cut people a break when they should be murdering them.
I've played some mean pieces of work from time to time, and yeah... sometimes the OOC pity does creep up. But it has come back to bite me in the ass before. It's dangerous to be nice on Armageddon. It can have consequences. Better to just kill when you're character would kill that to have some lapse into compassion-ville.
It's got nothing to do with compassion. It makes for a funner game for everyone involved.
Quote from: Jingo on December 12, 2008, 08:01:18 PM
It's got nothing to do with compassion. It makes for a funner game for everyone involved.
It has its places and time. But on the whole, I agree with KIA.
It is NOT fun to lose a 100 day playing character because you oocly felt bad about killing another's character. Sure I might miss a plot or two with that player's character, but plenty of plots on Arm to be had. :P I do not mind when it is ic sympathy/pity/compassion which comes back to bite my char in the butt later though.
And I've yet to have a 100+ playing day character.
Are we playing this game to win, or to have fun? Think about it. This isn't a zero-sum game.
This attitude about killing every potential enemy every chance they get, I think makes for a less fun game.
Quote from: Jingo on December 13, 2008, 01:04:28 AM
Are we playing this game to win, or to have fun? Think about it. This isn't a zero-sum game.
This attitude about killing every potential enemy every chance they get, I think makes for a less fun game.
It's not an OOC attitude. It was a character who was a cold blooded killer... and ONLY that. My point is that it's much harder to stick to a role like that than is imagined. And you know... good people play the best bad guys.
edit: And no, Jingo. It does not make a less fun game. It is exciting to play with the knowledge that at any given time, at any peak hour or even during the lower playing times, there could be someone out there whose sole purpose is to murder you at the earliest opportunity, as effectively as possible. It's dark, twisted stuff like that that flavors this mud, and it is perma-death that has always, invariably, made me happy to play the game... whether I'm playing a character who wouldn't hurt a fly... or one whose sole consuming focus is to destroy the world step by step.
Quote from: Jingo on December 13, 2008, 01:04:28 AM
Are we playing this game to win, or to have fun? Think about it. This isn't a zero-sum game.
This attitude about killing every potential enemy every chance they get, I think makes for a less fun game.
Winning is fun.
I think identifying and eliminating enemies in a tactful or direct manner(read: however you can get away with it) is what makes the game fun for me. I play a permadeath game because when someone lets it slip that they are somehow my enemy, they don't come back to life when I get rid of them. On the same note, my characters don't either, which gives me a real, tangable reason to play them as sniveling little bitches who tell you how monstrous your massive, almighty cock is, till you drink that laced drink I gave you, and I stick a knife in your back.
Quote from: Jingo on December 08, 2008, 02:13:02 PM
Tisiphone is slowly -willing- the thread to it's death.
Can this please just happen already?
Quote from: Tisiphone on December 13, 2008, 09:42:05 AM
Quote from: Riev on December 13, 2008, 09:41:25 AM
Quote from: Jingo on December 08, 2008, 02:13:02 PM
Tisiphone is slowly -willing- the thread to it's death.
Can this please just happen already?
Why do you guys care? Can't you just ignore it if you don't want to participate in the discussion?
Quote from: Heade on December 13, 2008, 02:09:16 PM
Quote from: Tisiphone on December 13, 2008, 09:42:05 AM
Quote from: Riev on December 13, 2008, 09:41:25 AM
Quote from: Jingo on December 08, 2008, 02:13:02 PM
Tisiphone is slowly -willing- the thread to it's death.
Can this please just happen already?
Why do you guys care? Can't you just ignore it if you don't want to participate in the discussion?
Excellent Statement, and No, they can't.
JaRoD
Quote from: Riev on December 13, 2008, 09:41:25 AM
Quote from: Jingo on December 08, 2008, 02:13:02 PM
Tisiphone is slowly -willing- the thread to it's death.
Can this please just happen already?
Tsiphone must reap what he hath sewn.
Wait wait wait ... I thought Tisi was a girl?
If my character has an IC desire to kill your character, I'll be damned if he doesn't try.
Keep your silly OOC pity out of the game.
Quote from: Qzzrbl on December 13, 2008, 04:55:11 PM
If my character has an IC desire to kill your character, I'll be damned if he doesn't try.
Keep your silly OOC pity out of the game.
Silly Pity...sounds like a perfect Zalanthan children's toy.
Quote from: Synthesis on December 13, 2008, 07:25:25 PM
Quote from: Qzzrbl on December 13, 2008, 04:55:11 PM
If my character has an IC desire to kill your character, I'll be damned if he doesn't try.
Keep your silly OOC pity out of the game.
Silly Pity...sounds like a perfect Zalanthan children's toy.
I mean.... If you want to raise your kid
that way, but that's you're business I guess. ::)
x]
Quote from: musashi on December 13, 2008, 03:15:00 PM
Wait wait wait ... I thought Tisi was a girl?
I daresay she's not.
... ... ... Tis? Do you have a penis? :-[
I could have SWORN you were a girl!
No, no. Parse harder, and, uh, in a different thread (http://www.zalanthas.org/gdb/index.php/topic,31227.msg409258.html#new).
I'm parsing damnit!
Quote from: brytta.leofa on December 15, 2008, 03:12:12 PM
No, no. Parse harder, and, uh, in a different thread (http://www.zalanthas.org/gdb/index.php/topic,31227.msg409258.html#new).
Methinks this (http://www.zalanthas.org/gdb/index.php/topic,31227.msg401838.html#msg401838) is the link you meant.
Quote from: Tisiphone on December 15, 2008, 03:46:17 PM
Quote from: brytta.leofa on December 15, 2008, 03:12:12 PM
No, no. Parse harder, and, uh, in a different thread (http://www.zalanthas.org/gdb/index.php/topic,31227.msg409258.html#new).
Methinks this (http://www.zalanthas.org/gdb/index.php/topic,31227.msg401838.html#msg401838) is the link you meant.
Mine is somehow less disturbing.
My link, I mean.
Ah ha ... it is all parsed now.
Quote from: musashi on December 15, 2008, 02:59:27 PM
... ... ... Tis? Do you have a penis? :-[
I could have SWORN you were a girl!
IT'S A TRAP!
(http://www.studentsoftheworld.info/sites/misc/img/275_Bear%20Trap.jpg)
Can't make a "Its a trap!" joke without the fish.
(http://jeremyvonhoff.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/trap.png)
;D
Alright. Now the thread can die.
Quote from: Clearsighted on December 17, 2008, 04:06:28 AM
Alright. Now the thread can die.
Agreed. There haven't been any topic relevant posts for awhile now. Without looking, I think mine was the last. So I wyn.
I.. like raiders. C'mon, guys, make a raider gang or something. There are so many warriors out there just looking for something to kill :P