Armageddon General Discussion Board

When I first started playing Armageddon about five years ago, I engaged in my share of twinkish behavior.  I used to lure a scrab to chase me close to the gates of the city only to have the soldiers kill it for me.  I used to spam forage resources out of the wilderness and sell them until I had the best armor.  I used to spam-pickpocket people until I had looted the best items.

But after a couple of months, things changed.  I re-read the rules and realized that these sorts of behaviors were hardly original.  And in most cases they were either discouraged by the documentation or outright prohibited.  I began to focus more on building characters who were important by virtue of their involvement in plots or social connections, or else on characters who were artistically role-played etc.

In short, I grew up.

However, my problems were hardly over.  Every couple of months I find that there are not-so-subtle changes to the riding code, the barter code, etc. to counter the latest round of twinking.  And often times, these changes aren't made in response to actual twinking, they are made in response to suspected twinking, which may not actually be taking place.  Or the changes are implemented because a small group of players are complaining and the staff just wants to shut them up.

And of course these changes  don't succeed at preventing game abuse, so then the staff impose a more restrictive set of rules.

And of course the new rules don't stop game abuse, so some audits of player-behavior take place.

And of course these audits don't cure human behavior, so players will snitch on each other and accuse each other of twinking.

Where does all of this get us?  I feel like this sillyness originates because of three fallacies.

If players are twinking, you need to make the game mechanics more complicated to block this.
This is of course not true.  Twinks, by their very nature, are experimenting with various sets of rules as a form of entertainment.  If you make the rules more complicated, they will merely seek new loopholes.  You can't out-twink a twink.  Changing the rules as an enforcement mechanism only punishes the innocent.

If players are twinking, you need to punish them to get them to stop.
In my opinion negative reinforcement accomplishes little.  Twinks are twinking because they think it's fun.  They find experiments against the game code to be more engaging than social aspects of the game.  The actual way to block this is to engage them more effectively.  Punishing only alienates some of the more creative (but slightly immature) players.

If someone is more successful than me, they must be cheating.
I think a lot of players accuse each other of cheating because they are jealous.  Other are pushy.  



Why not become more tolerant of each other?  Why not set a better example than the next guy?  Why not take the moral high-road?  Why not engage people and make friends and encourage them to become stake-holders in the game's success?


edit: I also think that people over-estimate the damage that twinking causes.  In all my years, I've only twice seen people deliberately twinking in game -- one dude was spam casting spells.  Another dude was spam-using a skill to boost it.  How traumatized are we by this?

I'd write a much longer response, but Colbert is almost on.  So, in short...

I disagree.

Also, you sound bitter.

I suggest avoiding IRC or shoutcast or wherever it is that Arm people hang out these days.

(Maybe I'll write more later.)

The only example I want to set, is that if you twink, I'm going to report you and try my best to ignore your existence in the game world.

Quote from: Marauder Moe on June 10, 2009, 11:27:18 PM
I suggest avoiding IRC or shoutcast or wherever it is that Arm people hang out these days.

I second this.

People are bitches, and they will complain about anything.  Ignore them.

I'm a white hat twink. (like a white hat hacker).

Meaning, I'm a twink, but I don't PK, ever, so, I use my powers for personal use only.

So, it's okay, right?

Oh, "ethical twink", I like that term much better.

Quote from: ibusoe on June 10, 2009, 11:05:58 PM
However, my problems were hardly over.  Every couple of months I find that there are not-so-subtle changes to the riding code, the barter code, etc. to counter the latest round of twinking.  And often times, these changes aren't made in response to actual twinking, they are made in response to suspected twinking, which may not actually be taking place.

Are changes made to prevent players from acting unrealistically?

Or are they done to make the gameworld a more rich, immersing, and, yes, "realistic" system?

Quote from: Marauder Moe on June 10, 2009, 11:27:18 PM
I suggest avoiding IRC or shoutcast or wherever it is that Arm people hang out these days.

This will definitely increase your arming enjoyment.

I've also found that ignoring or avoiding some of the GDB will as well.

My suggestion: Try playing Arm for a week without looking once at the GDB. Without IRC, AIM, MSN, etc. See if it helps at all.

I think some of the code changes to "enhance the environment/prevent twinking" have made the game mechanically less enjoyable to play. Things that once were not an OOC annoyance are now a coded annoyance and add nothing to the game except to prevent the few that would do so, from twinking out. Personally, I could give a fuck if someone else is twinking. What I do give a fuck about is enjoying the game and very -rarely- has someone else twinking out -directly- affected me negatively.
I'm perfectly willing to deal with a few twinks rather than have the game's code/mechanics be cumbersome, slow, and ultimately OOCly annoying to deal with.

So yes, in some ways I can see where you're coming from. At the same time, some of the other responses to your post do have merit as well.

Yeah, I have a lot to say about it, but I'm lazy and can't seem to type too much that won't be misintepreted in some way.

The twink witch hunt is a little annoying. So often, there are things done that aren't twinkish at all, but nobody looks into why it's a little odd. I'd rather people handle overhunting and overmining IG. Grinding up combat stats, looking pretty, all that could be completely IC, for IC reasons that's part of a much more interesting personality. But when someone does it, too many players seem to insist that the staff handle it, instead of taking it as part of the world and hiring all the bored warriors IG to engage in some IC rivalry.

Personally, I don't engage in no twink hunt, because I think they're getting the bad side of it. Heh, people who reroll to get high stats often end up with worse, those who twink the combat code miss out on the best bits, and they'd tend to take longer to gather karma. Not to mention that the time spent sitting somewhere, grinding up a skill is time better spent enjoying the game. And the ones who actively twink to PK others often get killed early.

So, yeah, up to them. I sort of see it as the guy in poker who always bluffs and bids heavy amounts. Quite annoying and you'd have to avoid them. But eventually, I get the better hand and get so much satisfaction in revenge. It's really up to them to play it that way.

This has been going on for a long time. Many of the game's features have been changed in the name of preventing twinkery.  Or removed outright; does anyone still remember the days when skills levels and the who list were visible to players? Even just recently we lost the last remnants of "who c" in the name of consistency.

Overall, it must work, or at least not detract that much, since Arm is still running well. Unfortunately, I think there's been a bit of cost in flavor, but it's not my decision. My only decision is whether to play or not play. Since I'm here, it's clear which choice I've made up to now.

Quote from: Salt Merchant on June 11, 2009, 01:09:47 AM
... Even just recently we lost the last remnants of "who c", presumably in order to... well, it's not clear exactly why....

Slight derail:
We made the decision we made because we feel it improves the game by leveling the playing-field for all clans and removing a very OOC-driven and OOC-driving feature from the game. - Xygax
Because it is an ooc construct.  Why should anyone automagickally know who in their clan is online at any given time, when they can just as easily take IC measures to find them? - Niamh
What we may consider are other IC alternatives to assist all  clans with communication. - Adhira

:::edit::: Oh, Salt Merchant.  You edited your post, making mine useless.  :(

[REDACTED]

I was drunk.

Quote from: brytta.leofa on June 10, 2009, 11:50:35 PM

Quote from: ibusoe on June 10, 2009, 11:05:58 PM
However, my problems were hardly over.  Every couple of months I find that there are not-so-subtle changes to the riding code, the barter code, etc. to counter the latest round of twinking.  And often times, these changes aren't made in response to actual twinking, they are made in response to suspected twinking, which may not actually be taking place.

Are changes made to prevent players from acting unrealistically?

Or are they done to make the gameworld a more rich, immersing, and, yes, "realistic" system?

- Tweak to half-elf stats: Made half-elves more like half-elves, and possibly stopped a tiny number of players who ever thought of picking half-elf "just for the stats".
- The riding changes: Made ride affected by terrain, speed, number of rider's hands free, etc. Adds to the "immersion".
- The nighttime crime code changes: Allowed crime to thrive at night, like it probably should.
- Apartment key changes: Made apartments more secure like they probably should be, for those few who should be able to afford the luxuries of an apartment. Incidentally stopped key-collectors.

I'm sure there's others... anyway, the point is I would agree with brytta and think that you're probably thinking about this the wrong way. I can say that all of changes have made the game more rich/immersing/realistic, with some of these changes having the secondary effect of preventing unrealistic behavior. Is that really so bad?

Twinking can hurt plotlines and roleplay. It doesn't always, but it can. In fact, I'd say for every character I've played, I've been affected directly by at least one case of twinkery. I'm guessing a lot of people have too. For the merchant character who plays by the rules, roleplays their crafting sessions, attempts to create things in a believable time frame, there are a couple of merchant characters who spam-craft their way up and take over the market, thus making the "rule-abiding" player's character obsolete, from a code standpoint (though this character has probably had a lot more opportunity to earn respect and influence from others, often it doesn't make any damned bit of difference because Lord Faithful Noble Templar doesn't want an ally, he wants a master-crafted nose-clipper.)

For everyone who went by the rules and the spirit of the game, and had their character work hard, following the schedule, there are players who have brought their characters in to spam-spar with their OOC buddies, experiementing to min-max the shit out of the "skill timer" and intentionally allowing each other to beat each other to near-death just for the defense boost, even though it makes no IC sense for them to do it. And then, when they go and piss off Joe Noble, Joe Noble and his Byn Troupe can't do dick about it because they're too damned buff to kill, thanks to their twinkery.

For everyone who tries to play by the rules, and the spirit of the game with regards to commoners and their finances, there are people who will spend RL hours non-stop spam-mining or spam-this or spam-that with no regard to roleplay, before they ever interact with a single other PC. And then they'll buy their full set of solid steel chain-mail, and show up in public for the first time after only a couple of RL weeks, richer than PCs belonging to players who have been around for months.

It -does- affect the RP of everyone else, whether everyone else is aware of it or not. The code favors cheaters. That's just how code is. It favors whoever takes the time to figure it out and exploits it to their advantage. The problem isn't that people exploit it. The problem is that some people will exploit it without any regard to the enjoyment of anyone else. There are ways to give yourself a little OOC, coded "Hey look at that!" boost, without it undermining the IC attempts of everyone else who wants to play fair, or at least who doesn't want to use those exploits to gain advantage over everyone else.

lol, blastchat.

Ah yes, that's the word I was looking for.

Anyway, looking at the poll, the crowd has spoken I think.

Armag is designed for twinking.

As a caveat, I don't feel I twink, and in fact most of my characters tend to be codedly on the weak side compared to other characters with similar playtimes. I suffer from powergamer's guilt, and just can't spam code endlessly. This also means I'm not playing the game according to how it is designed.

Let's look at the skill system to start off:

1. Every character starts weak as a kitten.

2. Skills must be practiced repeatedly in order for them to go up. Powergaming code exists in order to stop people from overdoing the same skill in a short period... but any good twink knows how to work around this and still increase skills rapidly.

3. Code is law. Every staff post I've read, and arbitration I've heard of in situations where the code has interfered in game world continuity has had the staff side with the code.

So let's say that I want to play an older man in his mid-40s who's been in some sort of mundane combat role all of his life. This is a pretty generic character concept, and in order to play it, I'd have to spend the first several days of playtime sparring obsessively instead of doing something fun like roleplaying. Why? Because it makes -no sense- for a 40 year old character who's been fighting his entire life to get his ass kicked by a 16 year old with eight days played.

See, armag's roots are hack & slash, and no matter how much roleplaying we layer on top of it, there's still that H&S core. The game has the mentality of any computer roleplaying game. Characters start weak, kill monsters, gather treasure, and become strong. The game world is predicated on this, and though we MANY roles which don't use coded stuff at all (usually the most entertaining roles in my experience), that code is still there. I can think of countless examples of nobles getting disciplined for using all these shiny coded abilities in ways which don't jive with the game world because they get bored or whatever.

I don't like twinks because they ruin my immersion, but we have to recognize where they're coming from in the first place and address those issues, rather than reactively punishing twinks when they commit their crimes against roleplay.

Quote from: Comrade Canadia on June 11, 2009, 11:47:25 AM
So let's say that I want to play an older man in his mid-40s who's been in some sort of mundane combat role all of his life. This is a pretty generic character concept, and in order to play it, I'd have to spend the first several days of playtime sparring obsessively instead of doing something fun like roleplaying. Why? Because it makes -no sense- for a 40 year old character who's been fighting his entire life to get his ass kicked by a 16 year old with eight days played.

I don't disagree with everything you're saying, but I would put this one differently:

Armageddon does not allow you to app an older man in his mid-40s who's been in some sort of mundane combat role all of his life.  Even special apps for that sort of role, from what I think what I've read on the GDB, would generally be denied.  Mundane characters have to gain power and skill organically.  (So do 'gickers and such, for that matter, but they're on a different stratum.)

If you're sparring obsessively, you're trying to play a different game than the one the staff have decided on.

Actually, you CAN play someone that starts as a 40 year old that has been working in combat his whole life... s/he just never learned anything from it until now.

Quote from: spawnloser on June 11, 2009, 12:21:56 PM
Actually, you CAN play someone that starts as a 40 year old that has been working in combat his whole life... s/he just never learned anything from it until now.

An entire life of ignorance? He musta had some really shitty teachers.

Lastly, love the title. Cumminity is a stage name in AstroGlide Grls Pt. 8.

Quote from: spawnloser on June 11, 2009, 12:21:56 PM
Actually, you CAN play someone that starts as a 40 year old that has been working in combat his whole life... s/he just never learned anything from it until now.

You could make him an old hand at combat, who suffered an crippling injury or simply retired from active training and got horribly out of shape/practice. Maybe he's always been really lazy or just not very good, until whatever event that caused the character's promotion from vNPC to PC spurred him to aspire towards being better.

Quote from: Comrade Canadia on June 11, 2009, 11:47:25 AM
Armag is designed for twinking.

Actually, I think that Armageddon is designed for people with lots of free time.

On another RPI mud that I play, it doesn't matter if you can play 24 hours a day or just an hour, if you craft that silk dress, you're not going to be able to craft anything else that is slightly valuable for another set amount of hours, depending on your skills and such.

After playing this game for many years, it's like I'm the alcoholic and I'm constantly invited to an open bar party. Each day I have to struggle to not fall back into bad twinking habits, because it's all there for me to do so, because the only thing that keeps me from spamcrafting or killing twenty verrin hawks in a row is -me-.

We don't have timers and such, so all we have to control ourselves is our willpower, and, well, some people are better than others at such. I guess that's why we have karma, as well. The staff probably allows a certain amount of 'twinkery', controlled-twinkery, perhaps, otherwise, I wouldn't have all that karma I have so far.

Or maybe, as well, like I said in a previous post, it's what you do in the end with your twinking.

Quote from: brytta.leofa on June 11, 2009, 12:19:25 PM

Armageddon does not allow you to app an older man in his mid-40s who's been in some sort of mundane combat role all of his life.  Even special apps for that sort of role, from what I think what I've read on the GDB, would generally be denied.  Mundane characters have to gain power and skill organically.  (So do 'gickers and such, for that matter, but they're on a different stratum.)

I've read the opposite, in that Special Apps that request a boost to mundane skills will more likely be approved than special apps that request spells and outrageousness.

I wouldn't say, "does not allow", but I would say that it requires a special application.

Quote from: number13 on June 11, 2009, 12:33:29 PM

Quote from: spawnloser on June 11, 2009, 12:21:56 PM
Actually, you CAN play someone that starts as a 40 year old that has been working in combat his whole life... s/he just never learned anything from it until now.

You could make him an old hand at combat, who suffered an crippling injury or simply retired from active training and got horribly out of shape/practice. Maybe he's always been really lazy or just not very good, until whatever event that caused the character's promotion from vNPC to PC spurred him to aspire towards being better.

It would be nice if karma also gave you extra addons to your 0 karma classes.

Like, at 3 karma, you could pick from a sub-category of Warrior - Veteran Warrior - Heavy Infantry Warrior - Cavalry Warrior, etc.. Each with slight bonuses.

Quote from: Malken on June 11, 2009, 12:43:38 PM
It would be nice if karma also gave you extra addons to your 0 karma classes.

Like, at 3 karma, you could pick from a sub-category of Warrior - Veteran Warrior - Heavy Infantry Warrior - Cavalry Warrior, etc.. Each with slight bonuses.

Bleh, no way. Keep that kind of thing in the realm of special apps. Automating skill bumps at chargen just seems... wrong to me.

Quote from: Zoltan on June 11, 2009, 12:48:37 PM
Automating skill bumps at chargen just seems... wrong to me.

There are good arguments for not doing it, don't get me wrong.  But it's one of several reasons that we don't have many middle-aged PCs.

Quote from: brytta.leofa on June 11, 2009, 12:59:47 PM

Quote from: Zoltan on June 11, 2009, 12:48:37 PM
Automating skill bumps at chargen just seems... wrong to me.

There are good arguments for not doing it, don't get me wrong.  But it's one of several reasons that we don't have many middle-aged PCs.

Or players. :D

More seriously, I agree that certain staff policies encourage a heavy handed, coded response. Every time there's a ruling against a res for a pc who drank cleaning fluid or starved while link dead, it reminds people that code is what matters.

If I can kill my opponent through twinking and exploits, I may get a slap on the wrist, but their pc will still be dead.  The lesson is obvious.

As long as the staff policy encourages a dependence on code, people will focus on code.  Explicitly the MUD claims to put RP first, but there's no mechanism for rewarding rp, and there's a ton of things encouraging code use. It makes for a schizophrenic, or seemingly hypocritical game.

Sure we can police ourselves... but I believe in a more structural, less confused approach. I don't blame people for being confused as to how to play the game properly: The whole system encourages that kind of confusion and frustration.

Quote from: staggerlee on June 11, 2009, 01:59:43 PM
Explicitly the MUD claims to put RP first, but there's no mechanism for rewarding rp.

Sure there is. It's called karma.

What witch hunt?  Without twinks there would be less competition.  The game would be more boring.

As a long-time player I really hate playing a 0 day character.  Trying to explain why I am a warrior who fucking sucks at everything is just as jarring to the immersion as the "who c" command.  I know this is a derail, but it is on point with one of the arguments posted above.  I'm all for any karma-based options that allow for marginal/moderate skill boosts to new characters.  1. Because I have karma.  2. Because if I'm trusted enough to play the badass sorc/psion of doomz or a ninja Templar, why can't I start the equivelant of a 5-10 day warrior/assassin/pickpocket and actually have a good time RP'ing out my first days?

Quote from: Eloran on June 11, 2009, 02:21:18 PM

Quote from: staggerlee on June 11, 2009, 01:59:43 PM
Explicitly the MUD claims to put RP first, but there's no mechanism for rewarding rp.

Sure there is. It's called karma.

Quote from: helpfiles
Karma     (Character)

In such a richly detailed playing environment as the world of Zalanthas, which is very different to most game settings most players will have encountered, there must be some degree of control over which players get to play which roles. The alternative (and this has happened in the past) is that we have a lot of people going around playing races and guilds very badly (i.e., nowhere near what the game's creators intended). Karma is one way in which the staff members exercise this control.

Karma is simply a measure of trust that the staff members have in a given player's:

- Degree of maturity and responsibility as a role-player, as evidenced
    by playing roles 'realistically.'

    - Knowledge of the game world, and an appreciation of the way in which
    the various races, guilds, and so on, interact.

    - Role-playing skill, as evidenced by role-playing in such a way as to
    show that they are really involved in the game world, and also
    enriching the game world for other players.

    Karma is not an end in itself. Acquiring karma points is not something you should be 'striving towards' as a player; the fun that you get out of role-playing your character should be the primary reward in itself.

    Players never get to know how much karma they have, and only find out when a character dies, and it is time to create a new character. (In which case, they will find that they have more options than before, i.e., certain races and guilds which are 'blanked out' for new players are now visible.) Since karma is not an end in itself, there are no 'guidelines' for 'how to get karma' although there are certain things that good players will exhibit in their playing (see the three points above).

    There are, however, certain things that will almost guarantee that you may not be the type of player who will gain karma. Following is a list of features of players who will likely never gain karma, and reasons why these things are considered bad on Armageddon MUD. You will likely not gain karma if you are the type of player who:

Never emotes:

Emoting is the primary form of non-verbal communication in the game, and is in fact a very powerful tool for enriching the game world for both yourself and other players. Not using emotes is somewhat akin to a person in real life who always talks in a monotone, and never shows any facial expression.

Does not play within the guidelines set out for your character's clan:

(assuming he/she is in a clan). For example, if your character is in a band of raiders, who have sworn never to enter Allanak for various good reasons, and you have your character enter Allanak (even when you think no one else is on-line ...) on a whim, then you are role-playing poorly. It's like someone who, in real life, lives safely and happily in a prosperous city and decides to visit a war zone on the other side of the world 'just because they feel like it.'

Skillmax:

(i.e., repeat commands over and over again, with the intention of trying to raise your character's skill levels). Certainly, everyone practices skills to some degree, but how many people (even on a harsh world such as Zalanthas) blindly repeat things to the exclusion of sleep, food, and social interaction? In some games, it is common to see PCs sparring for several game hours non-stop. On Armageddon MUD, this is considered very unrealistic, and thus, poor role-playing.

Suiciding your character just so that you can see if there are new race/guild options available to you in the character creation process is not acceptable, and will be punished by removal of all karma.

Karma is a totally out of character (OOC) concept, and should have no bearing whatsoever on what happens in the game.

Part of the function of karma is to make life easier for the staff members; those players who over time have demonstrated desirable qualities will 'automatically' gain access to privileged races and guilds. Gaining karma is not, however, the only way to do this. If you feel that you have a case to make about why you should be allowed to play a privileged race or guild (e.g., mul or sorcerer), then you are free to submit a application via the request tool, available at:

http://www.armageddon.org/request

See also:
    Guilds, Races, Roleplaying

In short, I don't believe it is.

Quote from: Comrade Canadia on June 11, 2009, 11:47:25 AM
Armag is designed for twinking.

As a caveat, I don't feel I twink, and in fact most of my characters tend to be codedly on the weak side compared to other characters with similar playtimes. I suffer from powergamer's guilt, and just can't spam code endlessly. This also means I'm not playing the game according to how it is designed.

Let's look at the skill system to start off:

1. Every character starts weak as a kitten.

2. Skills must be practiced repeatedly in order for them to go up. Powergaming code exists in order to stop people from overdoing the same skill in a short period... but any good twink knows how to work around this and still increase skills rapidly.

3. Code is law. Every staff post I've read, and arbitration I've heard of in situations where the code has interfered in game world continuity has had the staff side with the code.

So let's say that I want to play an older man in his mid-40s who's been in some sort of mundane combat role all of his life. This is a pretty generic character concept, and in order to play it, I'd have to spend the first several days of playtime sparring obsessively instead of doing something fun like roleplaying. Why? Because it makes -no sense- for a 40 year old character who's been fighting his entire life to get his ass kicked by a 16 year old with eight days played.

See, armag's roots are hack & slash, and no matter how much roleplaying we layer on top of it, there's still that H&S core. The game has the mentality of any computer roleplaying game. Characters start weak, kill monsters, gather treasure, and become strong. The game world is predicated on this, and though we MANY roles which don't use coded stuff at all (usually the most entertaining roles in my experience), that code is still there. I can think of countless examples of nobles getting disciplined for using all these shiny coded abilities in ways which don't jive with the game world because they get bored or whatever.

I don't like twinks because they ruin my immersion, but we have to recognize where they're coming from in the first place and address those issues, rather than reactively punishing twinks when they commit their crimes against roleplay.

This is exactly right. The code encourages twinking and powergaming in two ways:

1) It does not prevent twinking

2) It rewards twinking

There are so many things that could be done, so many things that other RPIs have done where Armageddon has become old-fashioned and sub-par by newer standards. To not twink is to accept a disadvantage, especially considering how many players choose to play with the code, and not realism, as their limit. There will always be twinks, but there can and should be measures that prevent them from gaining the staggering advantages that they always have here, and somethng should long ago have been done about the fact that the code encourages powergaming at every turn.

For someone with a goal in mind, twinking rather than "proper roleplay" is an infinitely superior way of reaching that goal. Whether you want a full set of badass armor, a maxed backstab skill or to branch Power Word: Pwn, twinking allows the observant player to do this with blinding speed while it often takes the responsible roleplayer an almost prohibitively long time to do. Nothing stands in the way of the twink short of the very lenient skill timers and the easily out-maneuvered chance of dying.

For someone who seeks to have the upper hand in every situation, it is so easy to forego roleplay and wield the code whenever the situation calls for it. Whether doing the age-old draw sword;east;kill man or spam-zigzag-walking away from any threat, the code trumps any arguments of realism and responsibility. There are no rules that say you must stop to portray your actions in a realistic, immersive manner. It is encouraged, but it is not punishable to refrain.

There are countless examples of things that players can and do practice in order to bend the premises of the game to their advantage, and just as many examples of how the code or the rules are woefully inept at discouraging it. Here are some examples of what other RPIs have done to prevent twinking and powergaming:

- Skill block-out timers that prevent excessive use of certain skills to the player's advantage. A valuable or profitable craft might only be possible to complete every 6 RL hours.
- Rules of Engagement that force players to roleplay PvP scenes rather than turning it into a contest of who can hit the other over the head first.
- More realistic health code that prevents people from fighting or hunting every five minutes.
- Skill-up timers that do not allow skills to increase faster than what is considered intended.
- Lack of limitless income venues which prevents players from becoming rich in no time.

One of the big problems with Armageddon is that twinking and powergaming is officially frowned upon, but very possible. If magickers aren't meant to branch every other hour, why can they? If you shouldn't go out fighting three times per IC day, why does it take 30 seconds to fully recover your health? These are things that make no sense to me, and I never understood why the source of twinkery wasn't taken away.

Another problem is that powergaming seems like almost the only way for some concepts to be viable within a reasonable span of time. You just can't start a criminal organization without a massive wad of cash, so instead of asking your minions to take jobs with Kadius for 50 sid a week, you ask them to go mining for 2500 sid a week. You simply can't become a passable assassin in any kind of time if you don't seek out those ritikki to train your backstab skill. If you want some measure of combat prowess in the rinth, you have to kill innocent beggars and bag ladies because none of the NPCs that can be fought are actually worth a realistic mugging.

Armageddon is the twink RPI. It's sort of discouraged but not prevented, and enough players do it that those who don't are at a significant disadvantage. This will never change unless the staff wants it to.

Quote from: staggerlee on June 11, 2009, 03:06:55 PM

Quote from: Eloran on June 11, 2009, 02:21:18 PM

Quote from: staggerlee on June 11, 2009, 01:59:43 PM
Explicitly the MUD claims to put RP first, but there's no mechanism for rewarding rp.

Sure there is. It's called karma.

Quote(snip)

- Degree of maturity and responsibility as a role-player, as evidenced
   by playing roles 'realistically.'

(snip)

   - Role-playing skill, as evidenced by role-playing in such a way as to
   show that they are really involved in the game world, and also
   enriching the game world for other players.

(snip)

In short, I don't believe it is.

In short, I do believe it is.

I think most of you think the word "twink" means "anybody with skills better then yours".

This is not intended to be a flame but from what I read over and over, this is the case.

Many of you will quote the docs on the matter then ignore your own quote of the docs.

If my PC spends 1 ic hour per Ic day working some skills (this is less then any house schedule BTW) And the rest of the time tavern sitting, socializing, whatever. Am I a twink? Because I assure you that with that 1 IC hour per IC day practice I can...as somebody else put it "max the skills with blazing speed".

Practicing skills is NOT...let me repeat NOT twinking. Twinking is ignoring the game world or the fact that your PC is supposed to be a person. If your PC sits in the sparring hall for 5 game days straight without leaving for rest or anything...that is twinking (and not gonna get you any farther then the one there for 1 IC hour each of the 5 days).

Then there is the fact that many of you do not take into account PC wisdom.

Believe me when I say this, it matters and it matters a LOT. A human with ave wis will take over twice as long to max a skill as a human with Extremely good wis, and that is if they both practice the exact same amount. And lets not even get into the non-humans.

I have more I'd love to say but I am sure that the "responsible roleplayers" (rolls eyes) Would consider it flaming so I will stop here.

Well I'm definitely not confusing the two situations XD. My issue is very narrow in scope, but -seems- to be common. Whether it really is common or not, is a matter of numbers that I don't have access to. But it is a matter of perspective. I can tell you, that the instances of what *I* think are "twinkery" match or are similar to the instances that *you* think are twinkery. And I feel it is prevalent enough that it's an actual problem.

I wouldn't begrudge anyone for spending an hour a game-day sparring, or three hours or four if their clan schedule calls for it. What I"m talking about, is when they spar, then sit and go afk/idle, then get up and spar again, then sit and go afk/idle, then spar, walk around the city, walk back, spar again, sit and go afk/idle, rinse repeat.

Or when they mine sid, go to the sleeping room of the gaj, rest til their stamina regens. Stand, go out to the deposit, mine sid, go to the sleeping room of the gaj, rest til their stamina regens. Sell the sid accumulated, to back out and mine sid, then go to the sleeping room of the Gaj, rest til their stamina regens.

That's what *I* consider twinking. And I've seen enough of it that I feel it is a problem.

What really annoys me are the gemmers that do nothing but sit in a temple and spam-cast.  They never leave to go interact with people... to give people a chance to piss in their cheerios or even kill them as this character goes off to finally act like a real person, doing more than one thing in a day.... week... month.

X-D, I'm pretty sure I'm being intentionally misinterpreted here. I'm not trying to describe you and those who play like you as a twink, nor am I describing -myself- as responsible roleplayer. I'm not holding myself above the mud - I still play it after all, and I still put in my time upping my skills every session because it's a part of the game.

I don't even particularly like the term twink, because it's sort of an all or none thing. I know some brilliant roleplayers who are also the most mindless code-jockeys, and have spent their armagging careers learning every single possible trick to skillmax. I also know some shit roleplayers who also don't do much with the code. It varies. I'm not accusing the average armer of being a a poor roleplayer who only cares about code.

What I'm arguing here is what Good Gortok so eloquently pointed out: those who want to use code to achieve their means over roleplay have the advantage. No matter how many times you apply the world roleplay to armag, those who will forsake roleplay in the name code-spam will get what they want more easily.

Another way to put it:

Spam-sparring until you're both at near-death, sleeping to heal back up, and sparring again will get you better skill raises than a single heavily emoted combat scene. Personally, I don't feel this is conducive to roleplay.

Roleplay needs to be rewarded. In a more substantial way than Karma.

I don't see Karma as a reward for roleplay, because I don't really plan on playing a halfgiant, or magicker. Psion option is way way way out of my reach. And the special application option already offers these things.

QuoteSpam-sparring until you're both at near-death, sleeping to heal back up, and sparring again will get you better skill raises than a single heavily emoted combat scene. Personally, I don't feel this is conducive to roleplay.

This part is true.

But, it, like as you said, the term "twink" Is all or nothing.

Mostly let me say that my other post is that I hate that everybody throws the word/term "twink" around for everything. When per the docs, it has a very precise definition and people use it for many things other then that.

But as for your above example,  one way is just as bad as the other. People should strive for the balance. I think that is what staff strives for. And what I do.

And Lizzie, thats why I did not target anybody in my other post, though I could go through this thread and pull at least 3 posts where the poster is indeed saying "his skills are better...TWINKS!".

Of course I do not see why people worry so much about it. So Joe goes and mines obsidian 10 RL hours a day for 2 RL weeks straight and has 100,000 coins in the bank. So what? All this means is you have a PC with 140 hours played, tons of loot, really nice boots and no skills....(called raider bait) and nobody knows or cares about him.

These things tend to take care of themselves one way or another.

Actually, now Joe had enough sids to buy himself a nice bribe from the templar that Sue Fair-Player just paid to kill him. So he can go and act like a total asshole when he finally decides to be a "public" persona, and ain't no one can do diddly shit about it, because HE can afford to pay off the right people more than you can. All because he spam-mined and spam-slept in the Gaj while you were busy - roleplaying.

If you were busy roleplaying, I seriously doubt that Joe Sidminer is going to beat you in the social arena, no matter how much money he has.

People will defend anything on these forums.

QuoteIf you were busy roleplaying, I seriously doubt that Joe Sidminer is going to beat you in the social arena, no matter how much money he has.

What if I don't want to be a social mover? What if I want to be a normal person who hangs out with his/her friends and has role which involves code? If my social roleplay involves pointless fun, but I am also roleplaying being dedicated and good at my job, I'm at a supreme disadvantage to a twink who doesn't realistically roleplay anything, but knows the code and has the sheer bloody-mindedness to crank up his skills. EVEN THOUGH roleplay wise, I may be better at my job.

I'm not talking about whether political networking makes you more powerful than having a high defense skill, you can't compare the two. What I'm talking about is whether or not roleplaying the same things that code does will get you farther along than the actual code. I'm sticking with my example because it hasn't really been trumped out yet:

A beautifully roleplayed, in character combat training session or hell - a virtual encounter with foes created simply for an entertaining little story will never get you anywhere when it actually comes time to do your job as a guard. The shmoe who stayed away from the roleplay and instead just did his requisite amount of sparring is going to be the better guard every single time. He/she could be fifteen years old with a background that indicates he's the worst fighter in Zalanthas, and your character could be twenty-eight and have a few fights under his/her belt, and the one who sparrs the most wins.

Because this is the case, the game structure encourages twinking, even though the game rules discourage it.

I don't think the issue is so much as "he is skilling up faster more than me, that means he is a twink".

I think it has more to do with "he is skilling up faster than me, and I feel the need to twink to catch up".

Often though, what I've noticed is that isn't so much that they are twinking. More that they know how the code works so they are able to skill up with less work.

But this game is so competitive, and the potential for loss is high enough that I would consider cutting corners in my RP if I felt like my character was lagging behind in power or skill. And this, honestly is the origin of my single bad account note.

Quote from: staggerlee on June 11, 2009, 01:59:43 PM
Or players. :D

More seriously, I agree that certain staff policies encourage a heavy handed, coded response. Every time there's a ruling against a res for a pc who drank cleaning fluid or starved while link dead, it reminds people that code is what matters.

If I can kill my opponent through twinking and exploits, I may get a slap on the wrist, but their pc will still be dead.  The lesson is obvious.

As long as the staff policy encourages a dependence on code, people will focus on code.  Explicitly the MUD claims to put RP first, but there's no mechanism for rewarding rp, and there's a ton of things encouraging code use. It makes for a schizophrenic, or seemingly hypocritical game.

Sure we can police ourselves... but I believe in a more structural, less confused approach. I don't blame people for being confused as to how to play the game properly: The whole system encourages that kind of confusion and frustration.

I like this quote.  There were a bunch more that I like too but I'm in a bit too much of a hurry to post them all.

I thank those who tried providing me advice and encouragement but I assure you that I'm not mad at the game.  I'm actually having a terrific time with the game.  I'm having a better clan experience than I've ever had.  The one or two conflicts that my character is involved in are with role-players that I respect.  Everything is going so well.

But I want to point out how much I like this thread.  I've seen an amount of candor and honesty out of people discussing the twink situation and I think that mutual understanding would help to ease tensions.

Quote from: staggerlee on June 11, 2009, 01:59:43 PM
Explicitly the MUD claims to put RP first, but there's no mechanism for rewarding rp, and there's a ton of things encouraging code use. It makes for a schizophrenic, or seemingly hypocritical game.

Your reward for RP is being allowed to play.

;)

And now I have to bring up the often said, emote does not equal RP, Using code does not equal no RP.

If you do nothing but talk to people and emote everything out you are no better or worse in RP then somebody that never emotes but uses code.

As I also said, it is all about balance. The person who is going to get along the best is going to be balanced between code/social/emotes etc.

And that is the great part about this game. If you do balance them then you will be better off then any of the above examples given.

I have had broke PCs who had a good social network, I did not have any worry that joe the rich sid miner is going to have him killed, odds are whoever he tried to hire is a friend or friend of a friend and would take the money then kill joe the sid miner. At the same time, the PC had enough skill to take out most any assassin sent after him anyway.

If you are neglecting your coded skills but saying you are good at your job of being a guard you are neglecting RP...actually, you are Roleplaying poorly. Sorry, it is not a mush.

I think the examples given by staggerlee are bad ones - if you drink from a keg of cleaning fluid, serves you right for not LOOKing at the keg. It states very clearly, in OOC terms, that you should -not- drink from the cask. It specifies it. As far as I know, you can't starve while link-dead anymore unless you were already starving before you went link-dead, so it isn't applicable.

As for the staff policies encouraging twinking, I'm not sure I'm seeing any of that. Here are the staff policies:

Quote
Examples of inappropriate play:

    * Actions designed purely to advance skills, such as spamming commands, with no regard for roleplay.
    * Disregarding the game world, such as stealing repeatedly from an NPC who is shouting "Thief!"
    * Disregarding the state of your character, such as sparring repeatedly when your character is seriously wounded.
    * Code abuse, such as finding a loophole that can be exploited to your character's gain and employing it to do so.
    * Using OOC information to drive the actions of your character, such as information gained through a previous character, or from another player outside the game.
    * Excessive use of the OOC command in a way that is disruptive to other players' enjoyment of the game.
    * Abuse of the quit command, such as quitting out to avoid capture or confrontations with other PCs or staff.

...from http://www.armageddon.org/general/rules.html

It's pretty clear to me, that anyone finding loopholes in the code that are used in a way UNintended, is cheating. That using code contrary to the spirit of roleplay is cheating. That spam-sparring without considering the state of your character is cheating. That spam-casting without regard to roleplay is cheating.

Notice, that nowhere does it say spamming is against the rules. It is specific. Spamming for the purpose of advancing skills, *without regard to roleplay*.

It seems pretty clear to me, that the staff has certain expectations of the playerbase. They've even done us all the courtesy of putting it in text, which was published in 2006. So we've all had the opportunity to read it.

The examples used are over a year old, as per the rules. They no longer apply, and are merely meant to serve as examples.

Quote from: Qzzrbl on June 11, 2009, 06:22:51 PM

Quote from: staggerlee on June 11, 2009, 01:59:43 PM
Explicitly the MUD claims to put RP first, but there's no mechanism for rewarding rp, and there's a ton of things encouraging code use. It makes for a schizophrenic, or seemingly hypocritical game.

Your reward for RP is being allowed to play.

;)

This isn't true. You are currently allowed to play the game without rping.

The hack and slash, diku base is what makes Armageddon fun, and not just a roleplay chatroom.  It's undoubtedly a balancing act.  

On one hand:  People are correct in saying that my 15 year old slender, twiggy lad should be a worse fighter than a 28 year old behemoth, bloodthirsty warrior (but isn't due to my twinkery)..  That doesn't make much sense, IG.

On the other hand: I don't want my hours played, and determined effort to spend time IG to be completely wiped out by something entirely arbitrary, like someone putting in their background "most awesomest warrior in the -world-".

The hack n' slash code is like alcohol.  Often pleasurable and entertaining, but should be used responsibly.

Agreed with Marshall. The staff has given us the tools with which to enjoy a terrific combination of H&S and MUSH in a pretty decent hybrid codebase. They have also given us, in advance, the trust to abide by the rules and not cheat. If we betray that trust, then we should be held accountable for it. That's why I don't feel there's any witch hunt. If enough people get around the rules, it gets to the point where you just can't spend any more time scolding them. Instead, you have to make a code decision that will affect everyone else.

It's unfortunate, but that's how it is. It's not specific to Armageddon either. The games I've played in the past have had to adjust their code to "accommodate" a proliferation of abusers. You really can't prevent it. You can discourage it through code, you can even prevent it with code. But the more code changes you make to prevent things, the more you limit options of people who aren't abusing the code at all. The only other choice, really, is to dedicate staff members to the exclusive function of catching cheaters. I don't imagine anyone who would volunteer for such a job, nor would I have much faith in any game that would advertise for it.

If there was a way to wave a magic wand and know that from now on, everyone will be worthy of whatever trust is given to them, it'd be great. But there isn't. And until then, the staff will need free reign to do whatever is necessary to do what they feel is in the best interests of the game as a whole, given the influx of "really smart people who know how to get around the code, and do." If it means culling the skills list from one guy, removing karma options from another, and making a game-wide code change, then that's what it means, and in general, I don't see much of a problem with it.

As far as the whole who.c thing goes, I've only been in one clan that had it. I might as well not have had it at all, since I was usually the only person logged in from the clan anyway, and the one or two others who were logged in, were either link-dead or getting ready to log out anyway. I really don't miss it at all and don't see why anyone would make a fuss about it.

Quote from: staggerlee on June 11, 2009, 06:44:34 PM
The examples used are over a year old, as per the rules. They no longer apply, and are merely meant to serve as examples.

Quote from: Qzzrbl on June 11, 2009, 06:22:51 PM

Quote from: staggerlee on June 11, 2009, 01:59:43 PM
Explicitly the MUD claims to put RP first, but there's no mechanism for rewarding rp, and there's a ton of things encouraging code use. It makes for a schizophrenic, or seemingly hypocritical game.

Your reward for RP is being allowed to play.

;)

This isn't true. You are currently allowed to play the game without rping.

Well shit....

Quote from: Lizzie on June 11, 2009, 04:08:20 PM
I wouldn't begrudge anyone for spending an hour a game-day sparring, or three hours or four if their clan schedule calls for it. What I"m talking about, is when they spar, then sit and go afk/idle, then get up and spar again, then sit and go afk/idle, then spar, walk around the city, walk back, spar again, sit and go afk/idle, rinse repeat.

What would you suggest, when your character is caught in a relentless schedule?

You really have two choices. Be "good", which means your options are very limited. Often your character won't have much or any coin. Activities such as playing darts you've already done about a thousand times. After many days of being with the same group of people, you tend to run out of things to talk about and dramatize over. New events don't occur at a rate to keep everyone talking.

Or be a trouble maker and step outside the bounds. This too has been done about a thousand times, to the point where people are weary of it. Generate brief excitement, then get expelled from the clan or die.

I have a natural inclination to want to build things, but here you really run into a lot of resistance. Other people just aren't interested, it seems. Even if you have huge fistfuls of coins to wave at them, they're barely interested. Even if you get a few people onside, the staff will likely not be interested.

Maybe you can wave $ at the staff, I don't know, but I haven't tried.  ;)

Quote from: spawnloser on June 11, 2009, 04:14:29 PM
What really annoys me are the gemmers that do nothing but sit in a temple and spam-cast.  They never leave to go interact with people... to give people a chance to piss in their cheerios or even kill them as this character goes off to finally act like a real person, doing more than one thing in a day.... week... month.

To me, this post just says "I want more people to stick their heads in a noose to be my victims. Brainzzzzzz!"

Also, ask yourself, in roleplaying terms, why should gemmers -want- to go to a tavern to be abused? And where else should they go? If I lived in a walled community, and there was nothing but grief for me outside of it, I'd be tempted to stay within it too.

And then if gemmers visit a tavern as a pack (since they're the only ones that will talk to each other most of the time), people start bitching about too many gemmers.

Players do this far more than Staff.

People as a whole should calm down and stop worrying about everybody else. Super-Twinks get got. Those who do not get got are not super-twinks, and their play-style falls within staff guidelines.

Quote from: staggerlee on June 11, 2009, 06:44:34 PM
This isn't true. You are currently allowed to play the game without rping.

This isn't true. You are currently allowed to play the game without being a grand thespian.

That character that doesn't talk much to anyone and goes out to mine each day, then rests, is playing the role of a workaholic miner. The fact that he isn't brightening other players' lives with great drama and deep plots doesn't mean he's not playing a role.

Quote from: Salt Merchant on June 11, 2009, 07:11:56 PM
...when your character is caught in a relentless schedule...

You really have two choices. Be "good", which means your options are very limited. Often your character won't have much or any coin. Activities such as playing darts you've already done about a thousand times. After many days of being with the same group of people, you tend to run out of things to talk about and dramatize over. New events don't occur at a rate to keep everyone talking.

Or be a trouble maker and step outside the bounds. This too has been done about a thousand times, to the point where people are weary of it. Generate brief excitement, then get expelled from the clan or die.

I have a natural inclination to want to build things, but here you really run into a lot of resistance. Other people just aren't interested, it seems. Even if you have huge fistfuls of coins to wave at them, they're barely interested. Even if you get a few people onside, the staff will likely not be interested.

Maybe you can wave $ at the staff, I don't know, but I haven't tried.  ;)

Very true.

Quote from: Good Gortok on June 11, 2009, 05:30:42 PM
People will defend anything on these forums.

this here is the gold

Quote from: Salt Merchant on June 11, 2009, 07:33:03 PM

Quote from: staggerlee on June 11, 2009, 06:44:34 PM
This isn't true. You are currently allowed to play the game without rping.

This isn't true. You are currently allowed to play the game without being a grand thespian.

That character that doesn't talk much to anyone and goes out to mine each day, then rests, is playing the role of a workaholic miner. The fact that he isn't brightening other players' lives with great drama and deep plots doesn't mean he's not playing a role.

I don't want to get dragged down into arguments about definitions.
I'll simplify it for you:

I think that emoting and/or talking is essential to depicting a role.
Neither emoting or speaking is a requirement in order to play Arm.

If a scripted bot could play your role, you're probably not rping. But you're not necessarily breaking any game rules.

Quote from: Good Gortok on June 11, 2009, 05:30:42 PM
People will defend anything on these forums.

Bullshit.  Roleplaying is interacting with your gameworld and fellow players as realistically as possible. The code plays a vital role as a mediator between opposing narratives, and while (thanks coders) elegant in its ability to maintain our suspension of disbelief, some use this tool to excuse their own shitty play.  It is a game, I repeat IT IS A GAME...we need to better facilitate the story --- not the tools that were intended to assist with continuity. This is the problem, people are relying on the code to tell their stories --- and while I can't speak for the coders, I was under the impression it was there to resolve conflicts --- not diminish our realism.

Oh, and just as a square is a rectangle, but a rectangle need not be a square---good roleplayers emote (part of the whole interacting with the world thing), but that doesn't mean all those emoting are good at roleplaying.

Excuse me while I go drink more scotch.

Edit: Cleaned it up some.

Quote from: Ampere on June 11, 2009, 07:47:05 PM
Good roleplayers emote (part of the whole interacting with the world thing

Quote from: staggerlee
I think that emoting and/or talking is essential to depicting a role.

Alright, maybe the key word here is "depicting". Certainly emoting will add color to a character's existence, and speaking will make him or her potentially more interesting. But I don't label them as necessities for roleplay. You can stay absolutely true to the role you have in mind without doing either. Staying true to concept is the definition of roleplaying to me. You can emote all you want and still be a poor roleplayer.

QuoteThat character that doesn't talk much to anyone and goes out to mine each day, then rests, is playing the role of a workaholic miner. The fact that he isn't brightening other players' lives with great drama and deep plots doesn't mean he's not playing a role.

Using that kind of logic, you're basically redefining roleplay to suit whatever unrealistic, code-focused way of playing suits you. Bravo.

The defense of way things are, which LIzzie and Marshall seem to be heind, at least makes sense to me. Let's try addressing that.

QuoteOn the other hand: I don't want my hours played, and determined effort to spend time IG to be completely wiped out by something entirely arbitrary, like someone putting in their background "most awesomest warrior in the -world-".

That's not what I'm getting at here and you know it. I'm talking about realistic characters, not silly exaggerations. Most awesomest should totally be earned in game. But I'd love to see the game move towards a system which assumes competence. The great 'born yesterday' subguild joke illustrates this perfectly. We're completely stuck on the idea of characters starting super weak with their goal to become strong. Because of that, people will focus on becoming strong rather than pursuing more individual, character-oriented goals.

The 'balance' which has been talked about sways far too much towards the hack & slash side of things. If I wanted freeform RP, I'd go to a roleplay chatroom or play by post or whatever, but I don't. Roleplay does need structure and rules. The problem here is that the rules are more important than the roleplay. The problem I see is that not only is powergaming possible, but it's preferable and in my mind and is the best way to play armag. Find the limit of how much code you can spam before the staff get mad at you, stick to that, throw on some emotes and thinks so tha tit looks like you're in character, and spend the rest of your time roleplaying and doing stuff you actually enjoy.

What I'd love to see is a system that makes assumptions on virtual practice. That is, if my character is logged off, it can be assumed that he's spending some time working on his swordplay or spells or whatever. The reason for this is that if coupled with some harder restrictions on skillups when in game, it would discourage people from code spam, and let them do more interesting things. This will never fly, because we're completely stuck in a "earn everything in game" mentality and rewarding those who play twelve hours a day, but I hope it's a decent indication of what I feel would be more in the spirit of good roleplay.

Quote from: Comrade Canadia on June 11, 2009, 07:56:32 PM
Using that kind of logic, you're basically redefining roleplay to suit whatever unrealistic, code-focused way of playing suits you. Bravo.

Look, there are plenty of people in real life that live this way. Basically as worker drones. They eat their breakfasts, go to work, come home, do chores, watch TV and go to sleep. You could write bots that would describe their lives pretty accurately.

Does that mean these people are fake or powergamers? No, it just means they're not very interesting, to you.

I am not defending players that are, for example, every PC's best friend but kill NPCs at every chance the law code allows them. Nor am I defending insane crafters who produce a gazillion things in one day. What I am defending against is the apparent notion that you have to be some sort of social wizard in game to be a worthy player. This is what makes Arm different from MUSHes; the code base gives you other things to do!

QuoteLook, there are plenty of people in real life that live this way. Basically as worker drones. They eat their breakfasts, go to work, come home, do chores, watch TV and go to sleep. You could write bots that would describe their lives pretty accurately.

And yet they're still going to be unique, and require some fleshing out in order for them to actually be characters. I've known plenty of people with lives like that, and they're all different from one another - even in subtle ways. They will move, speak, think, and just -act- in a way which only they do, no matter how many people share similar lifestyles. The armag miner is going to require thoughts, feels, emotes, and possibly even a bit of speech in order to be a character. People are people, no matter how boring their jobs are. Seriously, your argument for what defines roleplay coudl apply to every videogame in the world. Do you write Pac-Man fanfiction?

I doubt that spam-mining obsidian is a clever commentary on the alienation of modern life. It's just twinking.

I challenge you all to continue this discussion with the following words, phrases, and their equivalent conjugations, abbreviations, and variants forbidden:
twink
role play
witch hunt
straw man (I don't think it's come up yet, but it's a horrible catchphrase on these boards)
spam
power game
immersion
loophole
exploit
realistic
balance
hack 'n slash

Seriously.  All those words are loaded, oft-misinterpreted, ill-defined, and/or too broad and I think it's muddying the discussion.

Quote from: Salt Merchant on June 11, 2009, 07:55:20 PM

Quote from: Ampere on June 11, 2009, 07:47:05 PM
Good roleplayers emote (part of the whole interacting with the world thing

Quote from: staggerlee
I think that emoting and/or talking is essential to depicting a role.

Alright, maybe the key word here is "depicting". Certainly emoting will add color to a character's existence, and speaking will make him or her potentially more interesting. But I don't label them as necessities for roleplay. You can stay absolutely true to the role you have in mind without doing either. Staying true to concept is the definition of roleplaying to me. You can emote all you want and still be a poor roleplayer.

If you don't think emoting is vital to rp on a text based rpi, perhaps you should find somewhere else to get your geek on --- it is NECESSARY ... Emote doesn't add just add 'colour', it's the GAME (along with all the other narrative tools (think, say, etc)).  Everything else is there to provide some semblance of consistency...just in case some retard wants to come in and crash your party as though this were some lame ass mush.  Really, if you want to just run around and farm, feel free to pay blizzard $15/month...however, if you want to play the gruelling role of some ragged miner, working hard in the hopes of getting enough glass to pay for next month's rent --- well that sounds like a story.

The truth out of all of this is that Armageddon is a number of things to a number of people. As varied as Armageddon is to those varied people, so is their view of right and wrong also varied.

Realistically, Staff should be the end all of things. Players should mind their own business and forget about reporting anything but the most outrageous infractions. There are too many examples of 'reports' that lead to nothing, because there was a misunderstanding in the observation or assumption.

Staff watches, and staff disciplines, and I think they are at just about the right balance at this point in time.

Quote from: Comrade Canadia on June 11, 2009, 08:12:35 PM
Do you write Pac-Man fanfiction?

Our little miner's player could be enjoying the game perfectly well. Probably is, since he keeps playing the game. As long as he's staying within the bounds of realistic play, where's the harm? Oh. He's not entertaining -you-.

Sorry, while your point about adding dimensions to the character through emotes and speech strikes a chord, I still don't see the harm in having such characters about, nor the need to label them twinks. Also, I still find they add to the game, even if it's only as a stranger in a cloak that you watch ride past and wonder about.

EDIT: also, it's a stage of playing the game. After it's over, the player will either leave or graduate on to more thorough roleplay. Or maybe he'll even fall back on it now and then, between bouts of inspiration.

Quote from: Ampere on June 11, 2009, 08:19:37 PM
If you don't think emoting is vital to rp on a text based rpi, perhaps you should find somewhere else to get your geek on

I've been playing here just about since Arm began (in fact, I remember Nessalin, the only original founder left, from when he was a player of an LPMud and just looking to begin Arm). I've got a fistful of karma and I've even spent time on staff (more than a decade ago).

So I don't really appreciate being invited to leave by some snot-nosed rookie.  ;) (For the humor-impaired, that last reference is a joke. The sentiment is not, though).

Quote from: Salt Merchant on June 11, 2009, 08:26:59 PM
Our little miner's player could be enjoying the game perfectly well. Probably is, since he keeps playing the game. As long as he's staying within the bounds of realistic play, where's the harm? Oh. He's not entertaining -you-.

Yah, I've been playing this game for over 15 years, now.

I'm code-oriented, and I've got more karma than your mamma does.

Moe, you forgot 'jarring'.

This whole thread is jarring. It ruins my immersion because of all the twink role-players who insist on adding straw men to their witch hunts. If I wasn't so busy power-gaming, I'd do something realistic, like maybe eat some spam. As it is, I know you loop-holes will exploit my balance if I even try to hack-n-slash my way through a can of the stuff. Thanks for nothing.

Quote from: Lizzie on June 11, 2009, 09:24:54 PM
This whole thread is jarring. It ruins my immersion because of all the twink role-players who insist on adding straw men to their witch hunts. If I wasn't so busy power-gaming, I'd do something realistic, like maybe eat some spam. As it is, I know you loop-holes will exploit my balance if I even try to hack-n-slash my way through a can of the stuff. Thanks for nothing.

Someone really ought to sig this.

I tried. It wouldn't fit.

Quote from: Eloran on June 11, 2009, 09:17:46 PM
Moe, you forgot 'jarring'.

Very well.  Add it to the list!

Sometimes I think it would be nice if we banned those words from the entire board.   :P

Malken, you're sort of illustrating my point. Chances are you know your way around the game RP and codewise, and because of that do comfortably well for yourself. You probably also recognise that you're all about knowing how to work the code because it's extremely beneficial.

I'm arguing that it shouldn't be - at least not nearly to the extent it is. I think the game would be more focused, and dare I say enjoyable if code spam wasn't such a large part of most characters' lives. We talk big about roleplay, but the game itself is big about code. If twinking is bad according to staff policy, then the relaunch of the game should be designed in a way that makes twinking undesireable and instead rewards the kind of play the community wants to see.

And Salt Merchant, I'm not personally offended by people who spam-mine obsidian and never said I was. Frankly, they're doing what the game is indicating they should do - mine obsidian, buy loot, profit, whatever. However, it's still not roleplay according to any definition I've heard of, but yours. If roleplay means code-spam with no character development to you, then all the power to you. Shine on you crazy diamond.

I'd probably leave if the game became more of a mush than the hybrid it is now. I love RP to the fullest, but I also love the advancement of my skills. I'm not saying there's no room for improvement, but I'd really dislike less code. In fact, I'm usually a proponent of more code, so I suppose my stance is rather clear cut.

Code to encourage RP and realism is ok.

On topic, though, I still think players waste too much time worrying about other players and not enough time worrying about themselves.

QuoteAlright, maybe the key word here is "depicting". Certainly emoting will add color to a character's existence, and speaking will make him or her potentially more interesting. But I don't label them as necessities for roleplay. You can stay absolutely true to the role you have in mind without doing either. Staying true to concept is the definition of roleplaying to me. You can emote all you want and still be a poor roleplayer

I am quoting this point simply because  it is nearly word for word what Sanvean posted on the subject several years ago(pretty sure it was her, or another staffer at or above highlord so carries the same weight no matter what).  I'd look up the staff posts on the subject but the search function on this GDB blows chunks.

Also this.

QuoteOn topic, though, I still think players waste too much time worrying about other players and not enough time worrying about themselves

Quote from: Comrade Canadia on June 11, 2009, 09:31:39 PMif code spam wasn't such a large part of most characters' lives

*Inigo voice* You keep using that word ... I don't think spam does what you think it does.

Quote from: The7DeadlyVenomz on June 11, 2009, 10:21:38 PM
I still think players waste too much time worrying about other players and not enough time worrying about themselves.

[edited because I was completely garbled]

I'm not trying to talk about how other people are bad roleplayers. Salt Merchant's "you don't need to think/feel/emote/say in order to roleplay" set me off, but it's not relevant to the topic. What I'm trying to illustrate is this:

1. Armageddon prides itself on setting a high level of realistic roleplay.

2. The code structure Armageddon is built on encourages video-game style play which is all about increasing numbers to the point that this is prefential in many circumstances to roleplayed solutions.

ERGO the nature of the game creates behaviour it condemns.

That said, I think I've said my peace on this and will shut up unless something intriguing is said.

Quote from: Comrade Canadia on June 12, 2009, 01:41:10 AM
2. The code structure Armageddon is built on encourages video-game style play which is all about increasing numbers to the point that this is prefential in many circumstances to roleplayed solutions.

I think this is unnecessary hyperbole. Twinks who really understand the codebase understand that one of the basic facts of Zalanthas is that there's always, always someone bigger than you... even when you're playing a were-spider psi-Nilazi vampire slay-beast with skill_parry. The numbers are only one of many factors which lead to the 'win', and social influence is still much, much more potent–especially since social influence often is enough to get staff support, which is far more potent than having maxxxed skills.

I would counter-argue that for the most part 'PvE'-type interaction in Armageddon is relatively boring. Armageddon encourages social interaction, not skill-grinding, on the pure basis of its skill-grinding activities all being incredibly dull. Ask any twink how tedious it was to grind up skill_bandage, or skill_rescue, or how many lizards they had to kill to branch skill_parry. I'm pretty sure they'll say something along the lines of "God, I could not wait to get back to PLOT." Moreover, the moment they did get their jacked-up Super Amos back to Plot Land they got killed by mantis/halflings/magickers/NPC templar super-agents/another twink anyway.

Quote from: jstorrie on June 12, 2009, 03:59:03 AM
Moreover, the moment they did get their jacked-up Super Amos back to Plot Land they got killed by mantis/halflings/magickers/NPC templar super-agents/another twink anyway.

Take heed, everyone. This is the truth.

I wrote a highly flammable response, which was true and kept civil, but it's going to make a lot of people defensive and send this thread spiraling towards its doom. Not worth it. Twinks and twink hunters can go an' fight each other as they like. I like both of them equally. Just leave me out of your fights.

Let the staff handle twinkishness. That's their job and our job is to worry about our own characters.

Armageddon is a game where the roleplaying was built around the code and will probably stay that way. If you think it's solely about roleplaying, you're kidding yourself; just look with how quickly 'more realistic' RP suggestions are shot down, compared to 'more realistic' code suggestions. And how I love it. It allows conflict to be handled realistically. MUSHes will never have the kind of conflicts that Armageddon has.

Twinking helps you win those conflicts. Sure. But it leaves you vulnerable to other types of conflicts.. and those same twinks turn into twink hunters when that happens. Forgive me if I roll my eyes when your 1 million 'sid apartment gets robbed by an off-peaker.

Quote from: The7DeadlyVenomz on June 11, 2009, 10:21:38 PM
I'd probably leave if the game became more of a mush than the hybrid it is now. I love RP to the fullest, but I also love the advancement of my skills. I'm not saying there's no room for improvement, but I'd really dislike less code. In fact, I'm usually a proponent of more code, so I suppose my stance is rather clear cut.

Code to encourage RP and realism is ok.

On topic, though, I still think players waste too much time worrying about other players and not enough time worrying about themselves.

Pretty much this.

Armageddon is not a MUSH. It's also not a hack-and-slash DIKU MUD. It's a hybrid, and I think a pretty well-balanced one. If the scales were tipped too much more towards MUSH, I think we'd lose a lot of our best players, and, unrelated to that, I know I'd quit, too. The arbitrary limits on skill growth seen in some other RPI MUDs sort of kills the enjoyment for me--not because I can't "twink," but because it feels arbitrary and tacked-on. It makes the skill system too obvious even as it limits abuse.

Many of you are saying that we all talk a big game about being all about roleplay. We do. I'll admit that. But maybe we should stop, because I'm going to go out on a limb and say that many of our best players enjoy coded skill-building as much as they enjoy the roleplay. Whether that's right or wrong, well, I'm not going to say my judgment is the only correct one, but I think it's completely fine. Armageddon is roleplay-enforced, and roleplay-intensive, but it's not roleplay-exclusive, and I really don't think it should be.

As a community, I think we ought to stop pretending that the game is as roleplay-exclusive as we say it is, because it causes misconceptions about what is or isn't "twinking" or "code abuse." Those things do exist, when skill-building practices push the boundaries of realism like going out bahamet-hunting because you know you can survive a few hits and flee and it'll be good for your defense skill, or standing out in a place where your Krathi's mana will regenerate quickly and spam-casting for hours on end with only a few emotes here or there to differentiate you from a robot. And when these things happen, the staff corrects the problem--I should know, I've been reprimanded for it myself and have since changed my ways. A realistic dedication to skill-building and a knowledge of how the code works, well, that can work well within the bounds of realism.

I don't expect that this will be a popular sentiment, but I stand by it. Let's stop pretending we don't care about skills, because I assure you, more of us do care than are willing to admit it. Let's stop pretending that intricate code knowledge gained from player experience and use of that knowledge (not abuse, which, as I said, the staff is really good at catching) is a bad thing, because I really don't think it is.

Okay, I'll bite. I'm only human.

Nobody here is asking for a MUSH. For the love of God, it's brought up constantly as an example of what people don't want armag to be and completely missing what I'm trying to say. If I wanted to play a MUSH, I'd play a fucking MUSH. Stop intentionally misinterpreting my arguments and exaggerating them into idiocy.

The RPI-mud blend of code and roleplay is the best possible way to construct a roleplaying game. However, that doesn't mean that the way in which the code and roleplay are blended is without fault. Armageddon has grown out of hack & slash roots, and because of that the basic underpinnings of that system still exist in the game. I feel that they are antithetical to good roleplay, and it's worth our time to either say I'm wrong, or agree with me and then figure out ways in which the code can be used to further roleplay while still maintaining the highly interactive world.

There are arguments which say that the game naturally balances these disparate elements out to create a harmony in which we all thrive. This addresses what I've been saying, so it'll get a response.

I think this is coming from regular players who really enjoy the game, and thus don't think anything is wrong because it's fun. I may be wrong, but I get the impression I'm being told "It's not broke, don't fix it." It doesn't naturally balance out. The game is putting too much weight on code, and I can see it reflected in the playerbase. People seem to be far more code-savvy now than they were five years ago when I last played. Hell, I remember when pkill was never a term used in this game and now it's bandied about all over. I think that's indicative of the times, and it's not a roleplaying term.

QuoteIf you think it's solely about roleplaying, you're kidding yourself; just look with how quickly 'more realistic' RP suggestions are shot down, compared to 'more realistic' code suggestions.

This is right on the money. What I'm arguing about is completely futile because the staff have already made up their minds to continue to give the code authority over player roleplay rather than player roleplay authority over code. I don't think this is a good path - thus my excessively enjoying my board privileges in order to dissent.

I refused to comment in a thread where the OP can't spell community...doh! Damnit, I just did it.

If you're asking for roleplayed emoted actions to trump coded actions, then you are asking for a MUSH.

Quote from: Comrade Canadia on June 12, 2009, 11:59:14 AM
This is right on the money. What I'm arguing about is completely futile because the staff have already made up their minds to continue to give the code authority over player roleplay rather than player roleplay authority over code. I don't think this is a good path - thus my excessively enjoying my board privileges in order to dissent.

Since you're enjoying your board privileges excessively, why don't you list and argue the merits of both approaches. There are benefits to both, which is why there's typically a compromise. I'm sure there's a audience including me, that is interested in seeing it all layed out, as you see it, and folks willing to contribute.

Since I already screwed up and posted in this thread... I'll toss my two cents in.  Mush's suck horribly, because there it's not backed up by code.

Here at least you know that unless a staff member has specifically tweaked someone's skills to make it easier to kill you it's going to be fair.  In a mush it's all like the scene in "Role Models"... "I killed you!" "No I had a spell of deflection on myself and you couldn't have touched me!"

Okay Dakurus, I'll see if I can't lay this out properly. Chances are this will be flawed and I'll get my ass reamed over coals, but it'll be constructive!

Armageddon's Current System (and what it means to me:

- Players start weak.

- Skills are increased by endlessly practicing them.

- In order to become even competent at basic skill-related tasks, it's required that you practice your skills ad nauseaum.

- Unpublished knowledge such as what branches from what, how to circumvent powergaming code, what areas to work out your skills in, which mobs are best to skillup on, and a variety of other bits of knowledge become highly desierable amongst the playerbase.

- In addition, more code is being created to allow players to interact with the game world without requiring any roleplay. You can now clean your clothes, pick up mount shit, mine obsidian, pick cotton and do several other things with no human interaction whatsoever.

- As a result, people become focused on figuring out ways to take advantage of the code in order to further their characters and metagame the hell out of everything. You can become buff and rich without any human interaction or emotes - twinks are born.

Comrade's Ideal System (feel free to tear this apart):

- Players start from weak to basically competent, depending on age and background. A sixteen year old would be pretty useless to start, as most teens are - a thirty year old wouldn't embarass him/herself fighting a tregil.

- Skills are increased gradually as players age, with the benefit of in-game skill spam reduced significantly. The goal of this is to get players to interact on a more meaningful level with the game world and worry less about making sure their skills are regularly exercized. Reasoning here is that if two guards work alongside each other, and one plays eight hours a day with the other playing two hours a day - they shouldn't be vastly different skillwise because they still exist virtually. The eight hour player by all means should be better, but not to the extent they are currently. Therefore, count virtual time spent practicing skills. More casual players aren't left behind as much, and everybody is interacting with people instead of code.

- Institute some sort of system which means that character roleplay can assist in the rate your stats increase. I'm hazy on this and the only ideas I have would be screamed down immediately. Suggestions welcome. A perfect example is say... a bored sergeant takes her privates out for a patrol. An entirely virtual scenario with some combat is created by the sergeant, who leads the privates to victory. Why this? Because it's more fun than nothing happening at all or mindlessly slaughtering gurth. A few regular scenes like this will result in a faster rate of skill increase for those who are participating.

- The result of this is that practice + roleplay + age = badass. If you cut any of those, you become less badass. If you do nothing but age, you'll be able to do your job, but not well at all. I would like to see some other factors included in order to create more variety in skill level - but not have that variety solely predicated on who powergames more.

- Less emphasis on coding every single facet of the game world and instead move that into the realm of virtual space players create through emotes and whatnot.

- Focus on code which brings players together to roleplay and create situations where people can make money and further themselves. Rather than giving isolated people ways to make money, I'm more interested in giving isolated people the opportunity to roleplay with someone and make money through those means.

- End result is that hiding in a corner and code-spamming becomes far less desirable when there are more entertaining options available, the twink problem (which will never go away) is just not as much of an issue, and we enter a magical age where we all speak French and have 2% body fat.

Interesting and worthy of discussion, but what I was specifically talking about is your conclusion bolded below. You are suggesting that roleplay over code is better then code over roleplay. This is what I was asking you to lay out the merits of, both sides. Because both sides have merit, and both should be arguable. While bias and opinion exists in almost any medium, it should be possible in most cases to remove those shackles and show that one can approach them from both sides, presenting a clear picture.

Quote from: Comrade Canadia on June 12, 2009, 11:59:14 AM
This is right on the money. What I'm arguing about is completely futile because the staff have already made up their minds to continue to give the code authority over player roleplay rather than player roleplay authority over code. I don't think this is a good path - thus my excessively enjoying my board privileges in order to dissent.

I personally think that each character should be generated and started at their skills based on their background and age.

Keeping the coded restrictions on age in play (Get weaker when your older, but get wiser etc) <--stab in the dark, don't think or know if it's true but I'm taking an educated guess.

This way there is no teenagers who are absolute beasts through RL months of IC twinkery or very heavyily used skills spam (The difference between twinkery and powergaming is often just a few emotes IMO)

This way it would require a longer approval time with Admin, but the admin should create some type of criteria where they look at a history of say a teenager who's done nothing but suck on his mommy's booby for 17 years then decide to be an assassin and give him minimal or starter skills as it is now.

However if you've got an application in front of you where the fellow spent ten years with the Byn, another ten working for Lord Fancypants of the purple brigade as an assassin as well as being a personal escort to said FancyPants.  He should start higher.

In essence making almost every application have a bit of approval along with it more than currently is and having the apps with warrent tweaked to make sense.

A 40 year old veteran of countless battles is not going to start out the game unable to kill a scrab, it just ISN'T going to happen if this stuff was taken into effect.  But a teenager might very well end up being eaten.

I personally find sometimes that warriors are the deadliest guild around if people spend the time to twink/powergame their sparring and do it rigerously for a few months rl.  Where their concept itself is never taken into account.

And before someone says it, I'm well aware that you can special app to have what I'm suggesting be done, but we only get two of those a year and I don't think it's fair to ask everyone to start out as a whelp skillwise or create characters based on being weaklings to get better, or worse yet, faking the funk and acting like a hardass when you codedly can't kill a tregil.

Dunno, I've never really agreed with the system all that much because as that other long winded fellow said, everyone and their mom knows ways around the coded restrictions and how to escape detection of the admins.

Just my two cents

Sorry Dakurus, let me clarify then, and I think this is a large philisophical difference between myself (and the few who agree with me) and staff. I think the system I outlined above sort of jives with what I'm talking about, but let me try to be clear and actually answer your question.

Code over Virtual

The code-over-player RP philosophy which I believe (my impression) the staff is firmly on side dictates that the game world will become more immersive if minuitae is removed from the virtual realm of player roleplay, and brought into the 'physical' realm of code.

Dirty clothes are an example. By coding dirty clothes, the idea is that the game world becomes more immersive because the clothes realistically will get dirtier over time, and require cleaning with the application of soap. If the clothes are bloodied - that player has been in a fight. If the clothes are dusty, dude has been running in a sandstorm.

Coupled with this has been the creating of code-only jobs which a player can sustain him/herself by. Mining and cotton picking, for example, don't require human interaction whatsoever. This means that players who play solo roles can supplement, or drive their income by going out and mining, lessening player reliance on clans to make a living.

Another interesting thing I've noticed is that the resurrection policy seems to have tightened. The drinking cleaning fluid thing, for example. Once the code decides you are dead, you are dead. There have been a billion reasons discussed for this, but the important rule is that the code is law.

Virtual Over Code

I'm phrasing these as arguments against the current system as it's just easier for me that way.

The reason why I argue against moves like this is that the code isn't smart enough to actually work with player roleplay. With clothes becoming stained, what happens if my player is a noble in a clan with no other PCs? Well, SOMEBODY is washing those clothes because I'm a damn noble. But the code dictates the clothes don't get clean unless somebody cleans them - so there I am scrubbing away. What this has also lead to is people using soap like a scrub brush in two seconds with a cursory emotes in order to get stains out. In a sense, this code has made things -less- realistic for me because it forces people to just run through the motions of cleaning themselves regardless of circumstance. It'd just be more realistic for me to assume I'm cleaning my clothes during my offline time, or be a rare bird who goes out of his way to create a scene where I clean up for the hell of it. The code is not smart enough to arbitrate this little bit of roleplay, and so players should be left to it.

To further illustrate my point, there was a question of why there isn't a quick ooc tool that would llet you know if your clan-mates have been around. This was shot down because it's ooc knowledge. However, in another thread, the idea of dusts gathering on chests was considered great - and somebody mentioned you could use that to tell if a player had been active.

This again creates very unrealistic roleplay by coding things in game rather than giving players knowledge which they can then imprat in game in a realistic manner. If my lover is missing, I'd be asking around the vnpcs and getting quick responses - which an ooc tool would do. Instead, I'm guided to go inspect her locker's dust level and draw conclusions from that because I'm reacting to code and not roleplaying in a believable manner. My roleplay becomes tied down by the code, rather than enhanced by it, which is the purpose of an RPI mud.

Then we also get to the twinking topic. If you haev the OOC knowledge about how to pump up your skills, you'll do just that, and have tha advantage over someone who doesn't have that knowledge - no matter what your characters actually are. As well, it encourages people who make new characters to spend the first three days of their life obsessively twinking up in order to get to a level of competence. Many people continue doing this the rest of their character's lives because learning how to work the code is, in many cases, a  great way to get what you want in terms of money/power/killing enemies and often better than roleplayed alternatives.

I also believe that the res policy is far too restrictive. If somebody dies in an stupid, improbable or unrealistic manner, they should be propped back up, and the players who witnessed it given a reasonable excuse as to why they didn't completely die. Roleplay should trump code in this case, but code trumps the roleplay.

There's more of this, but I hope that I've correctly understood what you're asking of me here, heh.

Comrade, you seem to be implying exclusivity where it only very rarely exists.

In your dirty clothes example, no one is telling you that your noble can't emote vNPC doing the actual cleaning while you personally input the commands.  That's a great example of cooperation between the code and emoted actions (also, seriously, stop using the word "roleplay" and I think your arguments will become much clearer).

The notion of "code over roleplay" only pertains to situation where there is a direct conflict between emotes and code.  While it's OK for you to emote vNPCs cleaning your clothes, it's not OK for you to emote that your clothes are actually spotless when they have coded bloody/stained/smelly tags on them.

Also I think the phrase "code-only jobs" is silly.  There's no reason you can't emote while doing those jobs.  There's no reason you can't team up with a friend to do those jobs.  There's no reason you can't come into conflict with a rival doing these jobs.

You know how this could be resolved, actual accountability, you staff are so eager to be seen as professional, how about allowing the registered playerbase to vote on amendments to the mandate?  I put forward a motion to form a mandate review committee, and I nominate Comrade Canadia in that capacity.

Do I have a second...on both points?

Oh wait, that might be dangerous given the majority vote for changes to the resurrection policy...sorry forgot about that.

There's changes to the resurrection policy? When did that happen? I must've slept through it. What is it now and where's the thread please? (I never really paid attention to the -old- policy because I've never had a character I wanted resurrected).

There aren't any.
I wish there was.

Quote from: Lizzie on June 12, 2009, 02:13:20 PM
There's changes to the resurrection policy? When did that happen? I must've slept through it. What is it now and where's the thread please? (I never really paid attention to the -old- policy because I've never had a character I wanted resurrected).

I said a majority vote in favour of, not actual changes: http://www.zalanthas.org/gdb/index.php/topic,35324.0.html (http://www.zalanthas.org/gdb/index.php/topic,35324.0.html).

Okay, swearing off of the word roleplay because the word -is- becoming meaningless largely due to my bandying it about.  ;D

Moe - you're absolutely right about how people can bring some real life to those code-only jobs. The trick, however is that it's not required, and many people don't feel the need to do it. I'm indicating that the system we have now creates an environment ripe focus on skill development over character development. I'm not saying that everybody does it - the game has many amazing players who bring life to everything they do, no matter how coded the situation. However, using think/feel/emote/say in these situations is optional and not necessary. Jobs which require that you interact with other players do require use of these commands, and thus why I'd prefer we create ways to bring people together, rather than ways to make being apart more rewarding.

The flags on clothes do force responses, but I find that with most players the response is to toss out an emote, spend two seconds scrubbing, and go on with his/her day. Soap doesn't really work like that, and although it falls to the player to make using soap a more interesting experience, most people skip acting out the mandatory laundry scene and just go on with what they were doing. Because of this, although I understand the intent behind the code, I don't feel it's improving the game world and instead causing people to throw out a few quick commands before they go do something they like.

Quote from: Comrade Canadia on June 12, 2009, 02:25:40 PM
Okay, swearing off of the word roleplay because the word -is- becoming meaningless largely due to my bandying it about.  ;D

Moe - you're absolutely right about how people can bring some real life to those code-only jobs. The trick, however is that it's not required, and many people don't feel the need to do it. I'm indicating that the system we have now creates an environment ripe focus on skill development over character development. I'm not saying that everybody does it - the game has many amazing players who bring life to everything they do, no matter how coded the situation. However, using think/feel/emote/say in these situations is optional and not necessary. Jobs which require that you interact with other players do require use of these commands, and thus why I'd prefer we create ways to bring people together, rather than ways to make being apart more rewarding.

The flags on clothes do force responses, but I find that with most players the response is to toss out an emote, spend two seconds scrubbing, and go on with his/her day. Soap doesn't really work like that, and although it falls to the player to make using soap a more interesting experience, most people skip acting out the mandatory laundry scene and just go on with what they were doing. Because of this, although I understand the intent behind the code, I don't feel it's improving the game world and instead causing people to throw out a few quick commands before they go do something they like.

I agree with the direction Comrade Canadia wants to see the MUD go. I think a lot of good arguments have been lost in this thread under a hail of flaming and smugly superior quips. (From both sides of the argument, plus comments completely unrelated to the argument)  Arguing over whether or not you need to use emotes to role play is beyond pointless, and entirely beside the point.

A few points of clarification:

1) I've never suggested that the MUD should have more rp, only that the current system encourages and rewards  heavy code use, which is often deemed undesirable by members of the community. I believe that's the root of the problem underlined in the thread's title, and creates a lot of conflict.

2) I think that part of the reason the code is often desired to be absolute, is that it's impartial. I can understand it from a staff perspective: A rinther running around in silks and jewels is bad, but the moment staff step in and use room echoes to illustrate the character's shit smell, the player feels picked on. Solution? Coded stink on rinthers. Less staff support required, and less martyrs in the player base.

3) Nobody (to my knowledge) wants less code, or a MUSH environment. We just want code that encourages cooperation and interaction. Tools to tell stories, with the code used to mediate conflict and reinforce a "game" element with chance, risk, and reward. The most important aspect of the code however is to mediate conflict, when two player's unique interpretations of the world meet. We clearly don't all get along, so how do we tell a cohesive story without resorting to real life bloodshed? The code is there to ensure that a thief can steal from a noble, if he's good enough, that a brawler can punch out an ox, if he's good enough, and that there's an objective way to determine whether he is that good. Mediating conflict.

I just want to point out that I think this thread is only really serving to lower the enjoyment people get out of the game without itself being directly related to the game at all.  There is a lot of grey area, poorly defined arguements which will mean different things to different people and raise general dissatisfaction.  What is the problem with that you ask?  Well the point of Armageddon, to me, is to have a good time.  That is the only reason I login and play.  Therefore anything that increases my overall enjoyment I think of as good and anything that decreases it I think of as bad.  

I probably won't post in this thread again, so pointing out that I should probably leave this thread alone is already noted.  But my ultimate point is I think each and every individual should really look at this and think, is this making me happier or less happy and if it isn't making me happy why am I doing it?

This thread is full of bitterness and unhappiness and I don't think it's even grounded on any foundation.  Moe makes excellent points because if you are experiencing a building level of frustration or anger after reading a few posts, and the meaning of those arguements are not clearly defined than you're basically working yourself up over nothing.

Lets have fun and not worry so much stuff.

Don't worry.  Be happy.

Also, Moe, will you marry me?

Jobs which require interaction with other players fail miserably when there aren't enough players around.  I say it's fine that we have options to allow off-peakers and loners to make money.  Also, I doubt very many of them perform said jobs when there are PCs around to interact with.


Back on laundry again... OK, how about this: stop thinking of dirty clothes as a coded hindrance but rather as a coded tool.  This is generally how I see it.

Some people do indeed choose not to make heavy use of it and will simply dust themselves off and continue with their day (and I think this is perfectly fine).  I don't think it's a huge inconvenience to people, but I think removing it (or creating an option to be immune to it) could create a disconnect between the information people receive from the game and the realities of the world.

For others, it's a helpful reminder that Zalanthas is a dirty, sandy place.  It help them remember to take that into account with their actions, and immerse themselves in a world where people often do have to clean themselves up every single time they come inside.  Some take it even further and like being codedly marked as the dirty, smelly scum that they're trying to portray.

I will say, Staggerlee posted more along the lines of what I was imagining.
Merits of code authority
Merits of player roleplay authority

Situational examples/discuss/arguing can go on forever, because the situations are endless.

Heh I love the dirt code. It gives fancy people a built-in excuse to criticize unfancy people, and unfancy people a built-in excuse to criticize fancy people.

It also gives people a more believable reason to mine salt, gives a more tangeable result from it than just a few sids at a shop. It also performs as a money-sink, providing a reason to buy and use soap and cleaning solution. It also makes the soap-making skill useful for something other than just another pointless but interesting piece of fluff 8-byte game code packet floating around the internet. It gives Bynners, Kurac Fists, and Soldiers of all sorts, something to DO every Dzeda afternoon when it's time for cleaning your stuff, with results a roleplay-freak AND a code-junkie can enjoy.

It gives people a *code-supported* reason to interact and roleplay with each other. I think that's kinda the whole point of having a RPI hybrid mush/hack-n-slash.

Quote from: UnderSeven on June 12, 2009, 02:39:46 PMThis thread is full of bitterness and unhappiness and I don't think it's even grounded on any foundation.  Moe makes excellent points because if you are experiencing a building level of frustration or anger after reading a few posts, and the meaning of those arguements are not clearly defined than you're basically working yourself up over nothing.

Lets have fun and not worry so much stuff.

Don't worry.  Be happy.

Quite right!

I very much believe that the vast majority of complaints people have about the game (and many things in real life, actually) are all problems with perspective.  When you stand between the walls of code and roleplay emote, you believe they are opposites.  Rise above, and you will see that they are but two walls of the same house (along with the walls of Staff and Community).  Weakening one weakens the whole game.  Also realize that you are not alone in this house of Armageddon.  Some like the view from the east face, some like the view from the west.  They may argue about which is prettier, but let us all remember that we all agree that it is a beautiful and wonderful house.

QuoteAlso, Moe, will you marry me?

I'm just gettin' started, baby.   8)

I think I'll retire my stand in this thread (for real this time) as I think I've done my best to clarify my admittedly inarticulate arguments. Also, pelase understand that I'm currently enjoying the game, and although I can get frustrated all to hell like any other player, I'm certainly not bitter. I just enjoy arguing. My goal in getting this argument going was to look at some aspects of the game which aren't often discussed and see what people thought about them, which I think succeeded as much as it can on the GDB.

Moe - I absolutely understand what you're arguing, and it's the best clarification of why this code is a good thing I've seen. I still think the way it has affected how we deal with clothes has been somewhat more negative than positive. It does remind us about how dirty Zalanthas is, but it also has us doing laundry in a fashion I find to be silly and unrealistic. It'd just make more sense for me ot keep cleaning clothes as a virtual (or occasionally acted out) activity, and place the onus on players to bring the world alive by emoting with their clothes. Tools for roleplay are wonderful thing and the reason why RPI muds rock so much, but they're not necessary in every case.

That said, I'm done! Anyone who wants last word on me go nuts.  ;D

Quote from: Comrade Canadia on June 12, 2009, 03:13:56 PM
Moe - I absolutely understand what you're arguing, and it's the best clarification of why this code is a good thing I've seen. I still think the way it has affected how we deal with clothes has been somewhat more negative than positive. It does remind us about how dirty Zalanthas is, but it also has us doing laundry in a fashion I find to be silly and unrealistic.

Who is "us"?  Is it you?  Or is it other people?

If it's you, then emote doing it more realistically.

If it's other people, I think you should try not to worry so much about other people's activities, particularly ones like cleaning that have such little bearing on your own game experience.

QuoteIt'd just make more sense for me ot keep cleaning clothes as a virtual (or occasionally acted out) activity, and place the onus on players to bring the world alive by emoting with their clothes.

Then that puts you in the first class of tool-user.  Like I said, it's not a big deal if you just want to clean your clothes without making it into a big event.  You really don't even have to emote if you don't want to (assuming you're out of sight).

QuoteTools for roleplay are wonderful thing and the reason why RPI muds rock so much, but they're not necessary in every case.

What is necessary, then?  Why not strip down Arm into just an IRC chatroom?  On the other side, who's saying that every case does need coded tools?  We don't have tools for for PC pooping.  We don't have tools for shaving and grooming in general. 

Are you saying that coded tools are never necessary?  Or that one or more specific tools that we have should be taken away?  If the latter, then I think those should be addressed on a case-by-case basis rather than lumping them together into one big messy generality and throwing it at a philosophical debate.

FWIW, I'm in Comrade and Staggerlee's camp.

They said everything I could hope to, though. I suggest reading their posts without the lens of "bitter player" over it - I don't think it's bitterness at all that fuels their debates, it's an enjoyment of the game (despite observations of its flaws), and a desire to see it grow even better.

Also, someone PLEASE edit the title of this thread. It makes me think dirty thoughts.

Quote from: a strange shadow on June 12, 2009, 03:59:55 PM
FWIW, I'm in Comrade and Staggerlee's camp.

Ditto, to the rest of what she said as well.

I don't see what the big deal is.  Personally, I find practicing skills to be enjoyable.  However, much of the game is coded in such a barebones fashion that you can get away with some pretty ridiculous shit and offer only a hand wave as justification for it.

The things that break my immersion have nothing to do with the "practicing skills" definition of twinking. Rather, it's the "doing unrealistic things" definition of twinking. It's the silly things like apartments that people can break into with virtual impunity, the fact that you can murder people in apartments without anybody ever finding out, the fact you can sneak into clan compounds and murder people in the barracks and sneak out without anyone ever finding out, the fact that someone can flee from you after failing a backstab on you and basically be invisible, even though you would've been chasing after them, the fact that someone can be three leagues away by the time you recover from a failed bash, the fact that someone can subdue you while you have weapons out and you're watching them, the fact that someone can charge through a fireball at you and keep swinging away like nothing happened, the fact that seven foot elves can sneak up on you across a flat, barren plain, and on, and on, and on....

I sincerely hope that the code in 2.arm is robust enough to prevent such silliness.  If you attack someone in an apartment and don't kill or incapacitate them within a few strikes, guards should come in and break it up.  If you're in an apartment building and fail any sneak or hide check versus a guard, you should get crim-flagged for it, even if you're a resident.  It should be virtually impossible to hide from someone who you were just within knife-range of if they are still actively pursuing you.  If you have weapons out, it should take a half-giant or a bona fide ninja to put you in the type of incapacitated state that subdue represents.  If you take a fireball to the face, it should put you on the ground, writhing in agony...and the last thing you should be thinking is whether or not you can get a solid enough hit on that 'gicker to reel him.  If you're on a flat, barren plain, sneaking shouldn't even be possible.

So, code forces you to clean your clothes but not RP out the cleaning. So what? Would forced emotes make it better? I mean, like, you could not enter a command without a command emote attached?

Because I don't think I'd mind that sorta requirement, but realistically, I also don't think it's that important. If they don't emote, then they don't. Set an example and move on. It's hard to judge what RP is and what Twinking is. You could say a college student cramming for his exam is twinking ... but that's RP too, isn't it, because he's got a goal.

Quote from: Gimfalisette on June 12, 2009, 04:07:59 PM

Quote from: a strange shadow on June 12, 2009, 03:59:55 PM
FWIW, I'm in Comrade and Staggerlee's camp.

Ditto

me three

Quote from: Synthesis on June 12, 2009, 05:11:16 PM
I don't see what the big deal is.  Personally, I find practicing skills to be enjoyable.  However, much of the game is coded in such a barebones fashion that you can get away with some pretty ridiculous shit and offer only a hand wave as justification for it.

The things that break my immersion have nothing to do with the "practicing skills" definition of twinking. Rather, it's the "doing unrealistic things" definition of twinking. It's the silly things like apartments that people can break into with virtual impunity, the fact that you can murder people in apartments without anybody ever finding out, the fact you can sneak into clan compounds and murder people in the barracks and sneak out without anyone ever finding out, the fact that someone can flee from you after failing a backstab on you and basically be invisible, even though you would've been chasing after them, the fact that someone can be three leagues away by the time you recover from a failed bash, the fact that someone can subdue you while you have weapons out and you're watching them, the fact that someone can charge through a fireball at you and keep swinging away like nothing happened, the fact that seven foot elves can sneak up on you across a flat, barren plain, and on, and on, and on....

I sincerely hope that the code in 2.arm is robust enough to prevent such silliness.  If you attack someone in an apartment and don't kill or incapacitate them within a few strikes, guards should come in and break it up.  If you're in an apartment building and fail any sneak or hide check versus a guard, you should get crim-flagged for it, even if you're a resident.  It should be virtually impossible to hide from someone who you were just within knife-range of if they are still actively pursuing you.  If you have weapons out, it should take a half-giant or a bona fide ninja to put you in the type of incapacitated state that subdue represents.  If you take a fireball to the face, it should put you on the ground, writhing in agony...and the last thing you should be thinking is whether or not you can get a solid enough hit on that 'gicker to reel him.  If you're on a flat, barren plain, sneaking shouldn't even be possible.

These are all awesome suggestions --- and fall under the category of mediator.  The fact that this sort of behaviour isn't penalized has ground my lens to this deplorable perspective --- code has the final say.  There are three routes as I see it, the first is to code all of the above, the second is to penalize those who take advantage of the code at the cost of the story, and the third would be to ACTIVELY reward those who show some f**king respect to the god of the plausible.  Something here is broken, that much is obvious.

Quote from: staggerlee on June 12, 2009, 02:38:51 PM
which is often deemed undesirable by members of the community.

This should read "often deemed undesirable by -some- members of the community".

Some people enjoy the achievement and exploration aspects of the game along with the social aspects. So long as they stay within the bounds of realism, I don't see what the problem is.

Without the code backing, there'd be no sense of achievement. No sense of having survived difficult odds out in the harsh environment. No sense of having wrenched a living from the land. No thrill at realizing those scrabs that have always kicked your ass are about to have the table turned on them.

All there would be is flowery emotes, quickly forgotten.

There's already a lot of pressure on independents to join clans and be reined in. Do we really want to tighten things up further this way?

Quote from: Salt Merchant on June 12, 2009, 06:50:31 PM

Quote from: staggerlee on June 12, 2009, 02:38:51 PM
which is often deemed undesirable by members of the community.

This should read often deemed undesirable by -some- members of the community.

Some people enjoy the achievement and exploration aspects of the game along with the social aspects. So long as they stay within the bounds of realism, I don't see what the problem is.

There's already a lot of pressure on independents to join clans and be reined in. Do we really want to tighten things up further this way?

Mhmm?  You do realize that your edit was rendundant, and the sentence in question already meant that?

Quote from: Ampere on June 12, 2009, 06:49:30 PM

Quote from: Synthesis on June 12, 2009, 05:11:16 PM
I don't see what the big deal is.  Personally, I find practicing skills to be enjoyable.  However, much of the game is coded in such a barebones fashion that you can get away with some pretty ridiculous shit and offer only a hand wave as justification for it.

The things that break my immersion have nothing to do with the "practicing skills" definition of twinking. Rather, it's the "doing unrealistic things" definition of twinking. It's the silly things like apartments that people can break into with virtual impunity, the fact that you can murder people in apartments without anybody ever finding out, the fact you can sneak into clan compounds and murder people in the barracks and sneak out without anyone ever finding out, the fact that someone can flee from you after failing a backstab on you and basically be invisible, even though you would've been chasing after them, the fact that someone can be three leagues away by the time you recover from a failed bash, the fact that someone can subdue you while you have weapons out and you're watching them, the fact that someone can charge through a fireball at you and keep swinging away like nothing happened, the fact that seven foot elves can sneak up on you across a flat, barren plain, and on, and on, and on....

I sincerely hope that the code in 2.arm is robust enough to prevent such silliness.  If you attack someone in an apartment and don't kill or incapacitate them within a few strikes, guards should come in and break it up.  If you're in an apartment building and fail any sneak or hide check versus a guard, you should get crim-flagged for it, even if you're a resident.  It should be virtually impossible to hide from someone who you were just within knife-range of if they are still actively pursuing you.  If you have weapons out, it should take a half-giant or a bona fide ninja to put you in the type of incapacitated state that subdue represents.  If you take a fireball to the face, it should put you on the ground, writhing in agony...and the last thing you should be thinking is whether or not you can get a solid enough hit on that 'gicker to reel him.  If you're on a flat, barren plain, sneaking shouldn't even be possible.

These are all awesome suggestions --- and fall under the category of mediator.  The fact that this sort of behaviour isn't penalized has ground my lens to this deplorable perspective --- code has the final say.  There are three routes as I see it, the first is to code all of the above, the second is to penalize those who take advantage of the code at the cost of the story, and the third would be to ACTIVELY reward those who show some f**king respect to the god of the plausible.  Something here is broken, that much is obvious.

I agree with most of this except for being crim flagged for failing a sneak in an apartment building if you are a resident. Sneaking is also merely blending in to your surroundings, there is a such thing as hiding in plain sight. A guard might notice you when you're trying not to be noticed but it doesn't mean that the guard -knows- that is the case. Especially if you live in the building anyway.
I would agree more with a -chance- in front of very intelligent or suspicious guards that being the case, but it would be unrealistic to turn them all into perfect mind-readers or have them all suffer from extreme paranoia. That's making the situation suck just as bad but in the opposite direction.

And the "flat, barren plain" thing, well that should be truly rare areas that likely folks wouldn't be spending much time on anyway. Like the Salt Flats in the current game...and that's about it.

Quote from: Ampere on June 12, 2009, 06:58:24 PM
Mhmm?  You do realize that your edit was rendundant, and the sentence in question already meant that?

I've found it's necessary to make things really, really clear on this board to avoid misinterpretation. Even then, you get replies from people who obviously haven't read past the first sentence.

The notion of "player roleplay authority over code" summons up nightmarish visions.

A perfect example of the problem this creates is the roleplaying of wounds. The code lets you heal quickly from near-death. Many have chosen to roleplay out being wounded instead. The difficulty here is a lack of consistency in just what means being wounded. I've seen everything from the "sleep and I'm alright" approach up to the "I've lost a body organ and will never be the same" approach. With attendant OOC debates and snipings on the GDB. This is what ruins the immersion for me; the sense that no matter what I do, someone will be bitching about it, if only to themselves.

No consensus has ever been reached. This is what happens when players try to rule over the code. And it adds an additional impediment to new players in that they can't see the invisible rules the player base has imposed on itself.

The code base is not, and will never be, a perfect moderator. But the code base, backed by the staff preventing the worse abuses, works far better for me than the sort of "player moderator" system I've seen on MUSHes. Gah, just the thought of having to go through that and the interruption in IC play it represents curdles my gut. Even more so the potential for OOC arguments breaking out in-game and the volleys of player complaints that would fly back and forth.

Just no thanks. That is all.

Quote from: Salt Merchant on June 12, 2009, 07:33:40 PMA perfect example of the problem this creates is the roleplaying of wounds. The code lets you heal quickly from near-death.

Tell me about it. This brings back memories of one of my characters been yelled at by his Sergeant because I was hesitant to "sleep off" fairly grievous wounds after a large-scale battle, because it just felt wrong to me. That, among other things which the code unrealistically didn't cover at the end of the battle, left me pretty pissed off IRL (though I don't blame the Sergeant in question) and 'disconnected'/jarred from the game which was a shame because the rest of the RPT was absolutely incredible.

The current state of the game (a mixture of code and staff intervention in very extreme cases) seems all right to me so far, though as mentioned above there are certain situations where even more code could, IMO, improve things. I've never had any of these "anti-twink" coded measures really affect me in recent memory so there's no complaints here.

Quote from: Ghost on June 12, 2009, 06:44:13 PM

Quote from: Gimfalisette on June 12, 2009, 04:07:59 PM

Quote from: a strange shadow on June 12, 2009, 03:59:55 PM
FWIW, I'm in Comrade and Staggerlee's camp.

Ditto

me three

I'm with this side of reasoning. 

RPI MUSH  ------- <level of authority held by code> ------- HACK and SLASH
                                        <-- ^ -->

I don't ever want to find Armageddon at either end of this spectrum, yet some people seem to expect that a sea of individuals comprised of varied ages, varied RP backgrounds, varied tastes, varied hours to play, varied access to play, and varied opinions on game philosophy will eventually agree on where the " ^ " should be positioned for the optimal RP experience.

The simple answer is that will never happen.  Armageddon has been, and always will be, in a state of flux between these two extremes based on what the current team of Staff members decides to implement, experiment with, or try -- partially based on whim, partially based on internal discussion, and partially based on player discussion.

I find many of the suggestions for increasing RP potential by lessening the authority held by code to be "pie-in-the-sky" illusions that don't bring solutions, only different problems.  It's easy to espouse the benefits and superiority of a theoretical system, but I'm not convinced that the proposed line of thinking will provide us with any more enjoyable of an environment when considering the "whole" of the player base.

Off peak players, fluctuating distribution of player resources, the relative size of the game world, the historical blend of code and RP, and many other factors directly contribute to the sustained balance between code-generated results and player-generated results.  Many of the suggestions seem to be aimed at increasing an individual enjoyment based on an individual belief of what Armageddon should be rather than taking what everyone enjoys and trying to find a compromise.

Personally, I find the hard-coded aspects of the game a refreshing and necessary part of the experience, allowing me to follow a variety of paths and options when pursuing my character's and my personal goals.  I enjoy exploring and experimenting with the code, and feel rewarded when I make discoveries, achieve milestones, or have coded success.  Likewise, I enjoy interacting and playing with other people, and feel rewarded when I contribute to a good scene, am able to persuade someone based purely on my own RP, or have success with something that cannot be achieved through code alone.  There have been times when my success has hinged upon purely coded support, and other times when it's hinged upon purely RP support.  It's the compromise of the two, and the allowances that come with that compromise, that have always provided me with the greatest level of enjoyment over the years.

I, for one, hope that balance always stays.

-LoD

Quote from: LoD on June 13, 2009, 01:09:51 AM
RPI MUSH  ------- <level of authority held by code> ------- HACK and SLASH
                                       <-- ^ -->

I don't ever want to find Armageddon at either end of this spectrum, yet some people seem to expect that a sea of individuals comprised of varied ages, varied RP backgrounds, varied tastes, varied hours to play, varied access to play, and varied opinions on game philosophy will eventually agree on where the " ^ " should be positioned for the optimal RP experience.

The simple answer is that will never happen.  Armageddon has been, and always will be, in a state of flux between these two extremes based on what the current team of Staff members decides to implement, experiment with, or try -- partially based on whim, partially based on internal discussion, and partially based on player discussion.

I find many of the suggestions for increasing RP potential by lessening the authority held by code to be "pie-in-the-sky" illusions that don't bring solutions, only different problems.  It's easy to espouse the benefits and superiority of a theoretical system, but I'm not convinced that the proposed line of thinking will provide us with any more enjoyable of an environment when considering the "whole" of the player base.

Off peak players, fluctuating distribution of player resources, the relative size of the game world, the historical blend of code and RP, and many other factors directly contribute to the sustained balance between code-generated results and player-generated results.  Many of the suggestions seem to be aimed at increasing an individual enjoyment based on an individual belief of what Armageddon should be rather than taking what everyone enjoys and trying to find a compromise.

Personally, I find the hard-coded aspects of the game a refreshing and necessary part of the experience, allowing me to follow a variety of paths and options when pursuing my character's and my personal goals.  I enjoy exploring and experimenting with the code, and feel rewarded when I make discoveries, achieve milestones, or have coded success.  Likewise, I enjoy interacting and playing with other people, and feel rewarded when I contribute to a good scene, am able to persuade someone based purely on my own RP, or have success with something that cannot be achieved through code alone.  There have been times when my success has hinged upon purely coded support, and other times when it's hinged upon purely RP support.  It's the compromise of the two, and the allowances that come with that compromise, that have always provided me with the greatest level of enjoyment over the years.

I, for one, hope that balance always stays.

-LoD

I understand what you're saying, and that the root of it is that you like the MUD. I've heard a similar sentiment expressed by others in this thread, with varying levels of snarkiness.
Where you're losing me is, why does that mean concerned individuals can't critique the game's structures or propose changes? If the game is constantly in a state of flux, as you assert, than isn't it possible to push it in a direction that you find favorable?

I'm not saying that I, or anyone else in this thread, has done a very good job of wooing the staff and convincing them of our wisdom. But what does "I like the MUD and all its silly blessings and flaws" add to a critical discussion about its content and structure?

I know you've got a right to express your views, I'm just singling you out because you're the most eloquent of a series of people to express that sentiment.
There's a lot of hostility to change on these forums sometimes. As good as the game can be, it'd be a shame if it missed opportunities to grow and evolve. There's a lot more room for dialogue and cooperation on the part of the player base. Sure nobody is going to "win," but we could at least be working toward something positive.

I don't think this is as simple as "more or less" code, though a vocal minority seems intent on conflating the two. It's a shame that the nuances of the discussion were lost in the bickering and nay saying.

Quote from: Salt Merchant on June 12, 2009, 06:50:31 PM

Quote from: staggerlee on June 12, 2009, 02:38:51 PM
which is often deemed undesirable by members of the community.

This should read "often deemed undesirable by -some- members of the community".

Some people enjoy the achievement and exploration aspects of the game along with the social aspects. So long as they stay within the bounds of realism, I don't see what the problem is.

Without the code backing, there'd be no sense of achievement. No sense of having survived difficult odds out in the harsh environment. No sense of having wrenched a living from the land. No thrill at realizing those scrabs that have always kicked your ass are about to have the table turned on them.

All there would be is flowery emotes, quickly forgotten.

There's already a lot of pressure on independents to join clans and be reined in. Do we really want to tighten things up further this way?

You quoted half of a sentence, took it out of context, and used it to horribly misrepresent my argument. Please don't do that.

I can't say it as well as LoD and Salt Merchant, but I agree.

Quote from: LoD on June 13, 2009, 01:09:51 AM
RPI MUSH  ------- <level of authority held by code> ------- HACK and SLASH
                                       <-- ^ -->

I don't ever want to find Armageddon at either end of this spectrum, yet some people seem to expect that a sea of individuals comprised of varied ages, varied RP backgrounds, varied tastes, varied hours to play, varied access to play, and varied opinions on game philosophy will eventually agree on where the " ^ " should be positioned for the optimal RP experience.

The simple answer is that will never happen.  Armageddon has been, and always will be, in a state of flux between these two extremes based on what the current team of Staff members decides to implement, experiment with, or try -- partially based on whim, partially based on internal discussion, and partially based on player discussion.

I find many of the suggestions for increasing RP potential by lessening the authority held by code to be "pie-in-the-sky" illusions that don't bring solutions, only different problems.  It's easy to espouse the benefits and superiority of a theoretical system, but I'm not convinced that the proposed line of thinking will provide us with any more enjoyable of an environment when considering the "whole" of the player base.

rd
Personally, I find the hard-coded aspects of the game a refreshing and necessary part of the experience, allowing me to follow a variety of paths and options when pursuing my character's and my personal goals.  I enjoy exploring and experimenting with the code, and feel rewarded when I make discoveries, achieve milestones, or have coded success.  Likewise, I enjoy interacting and playing with other people, and feel rewarded when I contribute to a good scene, am able to persuade someone based purely on my own RP, or have success with something that cannot be achieved through code alone.  There have been times when my success has hinged upon purely coded support, and other times when it's hinged upon purely RP support.  It's the compromise of the two, and the allowances that come with that compromise, that have always provided me with the greatest level of enjoyment over the years.

I, for one, hope that balance always stays.

-LoD

I agree. For me personally the changes are starting to overbalance toward the overcoding direction and have been the last couple years. Some people will disagree but it is starting to turn me away from the game and harm my enjoyment of it after all these years. I thought the balance was nearly perfect a few years ago.

Quote from: staggerlee on June 13, 2009, 02:06:27 AM
I understand what you're saying, and that the root of it is that you like the MUD. I've heard a similar sentiment expressed by others in this thread, with varying levels of snarkiness. Where you're losing me is, why does that mean concerned individuals can't critique the game's structures or propose changes? If the game is constantly in a state of flux, as you assert, than isn't it possible to push it in a direction that you find favorable?

I intended to convey a dual message; one message being that I enjoyed the current state and why, and the second message being that I (and you, and everyone else) are only one part of a complex composition that has admittedly different tastes, expectations, wants and wishes.  It's certainly possible, and extremely natural, for you to push the agenda that most positively impacts your subset of wants and needs -- it's what most of us do, myself included.

However, we need to be cognizant that pushing the game in one direction requires it to give in another area, at least if you are approaching the issues without much thought to compromise.

Both sides of the fence could benefit from giving a little and understanding that catering to both sides is not only helpful, but, ultimately, necessary, and that the most successful solution will be one that compromises between the two rather than attempting to pursue one ideal over the other.  That's the point I was trying to make -- criticisms, suggestions, and ideas spawning too far to the left or right are too easy to discard or ignore.

It isn't that people shouldn't express opinions, or shouldn't push their agenda, but that it would be optimal if they would consider both sides of the coin, or tailor their suggestions to take the opposite viewpoint into account and express why they feel both sides of the coin win as a result.

I'd like to see less, "I want..." and more "We could really benefit from...".  Some people seem to think the benefit is obvious, but ideas might be more readily discussed and accepted if they were presented in a way that made it obvious to both sides what would be gained and lost.

Player A might suggest, "I think we should do away with coded resource gathering, such as obsidian mines, because it requires absolutely no interaction with other players and isn't supporting my idea of optimal RP."

Player B might suggest, "I think we should keep coded resource gathering exactly the way it is."

Player C might suggest a compromise, "I would like to see more benefits granted to players who interact while gathering hard-coded resources to promote RP, conflict, and interaction.  Perhaps solo players could still be allowed to mine obsidian for small chunks, but the most valuable pieces required a team effort of 2-3 players that might lead to interesting arrangements, RP scenes, and increased interaction."

I didn't mean the finality in my tone to be associated with my likes/dislikes as much as with my belief that one-sided suggestions just won't find much purchase in a serious discussion about such a personal and touchy subject as this.

-LoD

Quote from: LoD on June 13, 2009, 02:45:24 AM
It isn't that people shouldn't express opinions, or shouldn't push their agenda, but that it would be optimal if they would consider both sides of the coin, or tailor their suggestions to take the opposite viewpoint into account and express why they feel both sides of the coin win as a result.

I thought it was pretty self evident how both sides "win" as a result of focusing on roleplay as opposed to code. At least, it was to me.

Well, if you're really focusing on the roleplay, it's tough to not win. Sometimes the character doesn't, but hey, you get a good story out of it anyway :P

Quote from: Eloran on June 13, 2009, 08:58:37 AM

Quote from: LoD on June 13, 2009, 02:45:24 AM
It isn't that people shouldn't express opinions, or shouldn't push their agenda, but that it would be optimal if they would consider both sides of the coin, or tailor their suggestions to take the opposite viewpoint into account and express why they feel both sides of the coin win as a result.

I thought it was pretty self evident how both sides "win" as a result of focusing on roleplay as opposed to code. At least, it was to me.

That's very true, and you can focus on roleplay with the current code. Really, you can.

I still stand by this definition of twinking and code abuse: "Actions undertaken to increase skill levels that are patently unrealistic." Sparring for an entire IC day straight, then continuing into the next day? Pretty damn unrealistic. Spam-casting in an area where your mana regenerates quickly for RL hours on end? Pretty damn unrealistic. These sorts of things shouldn't happen, and in my experience, are punished when they do.

That's as far as I think it needs to go.

If roleplay was given more "authority" over code, I'd leave Armageddon and never look back. I'm not saying that as some sort of threat, because I'm certain my absence wouldn't be noticed, but because I want to illustrate that some of us are pretty good roleplayers, focus on the roleplay, and also enjoy skill-building and code arbitration. The code is the DM in this big Dungeons & Dragons game--we need that impartial arbiter to make sure we don't devolve into emoted combat where one side has to admit defeat based on an honor system.

My opinions of where it goes too far, using an earlier post to illustrate my points:

Quote from: Comrade Canadia on June 12, 2009, 01:00:49 PM- Players start from weak to basically competent, depending on age and background. A sixteen year old would be pretty useless to start, as most teens are - a thirty year old wouldn't embarass him/herself fighting a tregil.

Okay. I think this is a pretty all right idea, but it'd need some really careful implementation and might be more work than it's worth.

Quote from: Comrade Canadia on June 12, 2009, 01:00:49 PM
- Skills are increased gradually as players age, with the benefit of in-game skill spam reduced significantly. The goal of this is to get players to interact on a more meaningful level with the game world and worry less about making sure their skills are regularly exercized. Reasoning here is that if two guards work alongside each other, and one plays eight hours a day with the other playing two hours a day - they shouldn't be vastly different skillwise because they still exist virtually. The eight hour player by all means should be better, but not to the extent they are currently. Therefore, count virtual time spent practicing skills. More casual players aren't left behind as much, and everybody is interacting with people instead of code.

I could live with this, but it, again, would require extremely careful implementation to not leave people who play often feeling like their dedication to the game isn't going to get them anywhere. I think we're better off requiring coded practice of skills, honestly.

Quote from: Comrade Canadia on June 12, 2009, 01:00:49 PM- Institute some sort of system which means that character roleplay can assist in the rate your stats increase. I'm hazy on this and the only ideas I have would be screamed down immediately. Suggestions welcome. A perfect example is say... a bored sergeant takes her privates out for a patrol. An entirely virtual scenario with some combat is created by the sergeant, who leads the privates to victory. Why this? Because it's more fun than nothing happening at all or mindlessly slaughtering gurth. A few regular scenes like this will result in a faster rate of skill increase for those who are participating.

Now we've reached the point of something that is utterly terrifying to me. In my opinion, in a game with coded combat and coded opponents, this should never, ever happen. My ideal solution would be to bring on a couple of Storytellers who don't work on clans or even approve applications, but whose entire job is to listen to wishes about clans going out on patrols and animate things to make it interesting every once in a while. That's it, that's all they'd do. This, to me, seems like a much, much better solution than virtual emoted scenarios being rewarded with skill increases.

I like our current balance. I don't think I'm alone. And, look, I don't play endlessly. I don't even play all that much. If my characters are fairly weak as a result, so be it. I'll deal with it. I see karma as a good roleplay reward, and I don't think skill bonuses need to be meted out as another one, or anything along those lines.

Now, I would like to see coded changes making it harder to apartment-kill someone, or anything along those lines, but this isn't giving roleplay authority over code--it's just making the code more realistic. I'm 100% in favor of increasing the realism of the code.

Quote from: Eloran on June 13, 2009, 08:58:37 AM
I thought it was pretty self evident how both sides "win" as a result of focusing on roleplay as opposed to code. At least, it was to me.

The opposition between code and roleplay, which you seem to be assuming here, is not self evident.

(http://i608.photobucket.com/albums/tt170/ampere_1980/comic.jpg)

Quote from: Thunkkin on June 13, 2009, 12:47:48 PM
The opposition between code and roleplay, which you seem to be assuming here, is not self evident.

You assuming that I am assuming anything is self evident. Because you said it. And I quoted it.

But I am not assuming anything. You are.

Assumer.

On topic: Code augments my roleplay - it governs it and facilitates it. Code can foster roleplay, but it does not come before my character.

Quote from: Eloran on June 13, 2009, 08:58:37 AM
I thought it was pretty self evident how both sides "win" as a result of focusing on roleplay as opposed to code. At least, it was to me.

You seem to think that RP and code are mutually exclusive by stating that one's focus must be split between the two and proposing that more focus on "RP" will improve everyone's experience.  However, I've always believed that the code is simply one of the tools in your chest that allow you to flesh out your character and further represent an integral part of Armageddon's balance between no code and hard code.

I can RP without anyone else in the room based strictly on hard coded commands, because my character's choices and actions are constantly defining his role.  My character is not defined through my interactions with others alone, but with every action he/she takes -- and that certainly includes use of the hard code.

Here's a scene where there's nothing but a character, the hard code, and his choices.

Sandy Desert [NEWS]
A large obsidian deposit is here, half buried in the sand.

Looking over his shoulder, the burly, large-nosed man has arrived from the west.

Appearing nervous, the burly, large-nosed man wields a glass hacker.

The burly, large-nosed man takes a few steps toward a large obsidian deposit, taking care to face toward the northeast as he squints toward the horizon and folds his hands about a glass hacker.

The burly, large-nosed man swings a glass hacker at a large obsidian deposit.

Tiny chips of dark obsidian fall to the sand as the burly, large-nosed man's glass hacker strikes the surface of the deposit.

The burly, large-nosed man swings a glass hacker at a large obsidian deposit.

Muttering to himself and gazing to the northeast again, the burly, large-nosed man says, in sirihish:
    "...fekkers better not try anythin' this time..."

Returning to his work, the burly, large-nosed man readies a glass hacker and brings it down sharply upon the deposit.

The burly, large-nosed man swings a glass hacker at a large obsidian deposit.
A small chunk of obsidian falls away.

Reaching down toward the small piece of obsidian, the burly, large-nosed man suddenly crouches down and presses his back flat against the deposit.

Breathing raggedly, his features layered in sweat, the burly, large-nosed man says, in sirihish:
   "...fek...fek...fek...why did they have ta come this way..."

Easing up from his crouched position, the burly, large-nosed man peers over the edge of the deposit with a nervous squint, his dark tongue probing the ridges of his cracked lips.

Thrusting himself up suddenly and readying a glass hacker, the burly, large-nosed man says, in sirihish:
   "A'right -- time ta knock dis out an' get the krath back inta town."

The burly, large-nosed man swings a glass hacker at a large obsidian deposit.

The burly, large-nosed man swings a glass hacker at a large obsidian deposit.

Grimacing, the burly, large-nosed man slams his glass hacker against the deposit quickly, his cheeks quivering slightly with the sharp impact of his tool to the stone.

The burly, large-nosed man swings a glass hacker at a large obsidian deposit.
A large chunk of obsidian falls away.

Breathing a quick sigh of relief, the burly, large-nosed man says, in sirihish:
   "Krath smile on me, that'll keep ole' Jak off mah back fer at least a week."

The burly, large-nosed man picks up a small chunk of obsidian.
The burly, large-nosed man picks up a large chunk of obsidian.

Casting one last glance toward the northeast, the burly, large-nosed man walks east.

Does the fact that code has a place in this scene exclude it from being RP?  If there's no one there to witness the event, does it mean that it counts less or that he does a worse job portraying his character?  No, I don't think any of those things are true.  The code is simply helping him complete and flesh out the scene in a way that he couldn't have accomplished without it.

What I think you mean to say is that we would all "win" through changes that place a heavier focus on "interaction" -- and I wouldn't disagree.  If there are choices to be made, and one option places a heavier focus on interaction with other players than the others, then you could make a good argument as to why that's the superior choice, but it's important not to place code and RP into an arena and expect one to rise up victorious.

Code and RP are oftentimes the same thing with varying degrees of poetry, exposition, and flexibility.  Our search should be for ways to improve systems so that the largest number of people can benefit from the resulting opportunities for participation and interaction.

-LoD

Quote from: LoD on June 13, 2009, 02:01:20 PM
You seem to think that RP and code are mutually exclusive by stating that one's focus must be split between the two and proposing that more focus on "RP" will improve everyone's experience.

You seem to be one of those assuming types. Assumer.

Quote from: LoD on June 13, 2009, 02:01:20 PM
However, I've always believed that the code is simply one of the tools in your chest that allow you to flesh out your character and further represent an integral part of Armageddon's balance between no code and hard code.

ZOMG, isn't that what I just said in my last post?  :o :o :o :o :o

Let me pull up my post for you:

Quote from: Eloran (that's me)Code augments my roleplay - it governs it and facilitates it. Code can foster roleplay, but it does not come before my character.

Quote from: Eloran on June 13, 2009, 02:59:49 PM
Code augments my roleplay - it governs it and facilitates it. Code can fosters roleplay, but it does not come before my character.

How do you see code coming before your character?  You use the words augment, govern, and facilitate in your description of the code's relationship with your RP, but I'm contesting that the code is your RP just as much as your emotes and dialogue are your RP.  All of those components are direct expressions of your character's decision-making process that defines them and their "role" within the game.

> say (anger rising in his tone) I'll not suffer another moment of your presence!
> pemote knuckles whiten as they grasp the pommel of ~sword, his features constricting in rage as he charges toward ~aqualine.
> kill aqualine

All of these decisions/actions are being combined to portray your role and contribute to your role-play.  And if code is a component of your roleplay, then how can it be possible to focus on it over the code?  That's like saying everybody wins if we focus more on Sprite as opposed to lemon-lime flavor.  It doesn't make any sense.

-LoD

Quote from: LoD on June 13, 2009, 03:10:54 PM
How do you see code coming before your character?

Ebonically speaking, it don't.

Quote from: LoD on June 13, 2009, 03:10:54 PM
You use the words augment, govern, and facilitate in your description of the code's relationship with your RP, but I'm contesting that the code is your RP just as much as your emotes and dialogue are your RP.

Ya I got that. I disagree. Code =/= roleplay. Code is a tool that helps govern. It is not roleplay in and of itself.

Quote from: LoD on June 13, 2009, 03:10:54 PM
And if code is a component of your roleplay, then how can it be possible to focus on it over the code?  That's like saying everybody wins if we focus more on Sprite as opposed to lemon-lime flavor.  It doesn't make any sense.

Y'see, thar you go with them damned assumptions 'gain, dag-nabbit.

Concepts, sir.

To me, roleplay is just a tad more important than code. You can roleplay without code.

Code is the brain.
Roleplay is the heart.

em nods firmly

I think we need to define roleplay.

I think it's one of those generalities that everyone has a different conception of.

We start roleplaying the moment we log into the mud.The way I see it, I can play a role without intereracting with the code. Just not a very good one. NPC's do it fine, vnpcs are even playing a role.

The problem is that sometimes we play a role that does not mesh with the gameworld.

So I think instead we should differentiate between what is poor roleplay/ good roleplay and how each interacts with the code. Rather than drumming up the old cliche about emoting/code not being roleplay.

Quote from: LoD on June 13, 2009, 01:09:51 AM
RPI MUSH  ------- <level of authority held by code> ------- HACK and SLASH
                                        <-- ^ -->

I don't ever want to find Armageddon at either end of this spectrum, yet some people seem to expect that a sea of individuals comprised of varied ages, varied RP backgrounds, varied tastes, varied hours to play, varied access to play, and varied opinions on game philosophy will eventually agree on where the " ^ " should be positioned for the optimal RP experience.

The simple answer is that will never happen.  Armageddon has been, and always will be, in a state of flux between these two extremes based on what the current team of Staff members decides to implement, experiment with, or try -- partially based on whim, partially based on internal discussion, and partially based on player discussion.

I find many of the suggestions for increasing RP potential by lessening the authority held by code to be "pie-in-the-sky" illusions that don't bring solutions, only different problems.  It's easy to espouse the benefits and superiority of a theoretical system, but I'm not convinced that the proposed line of thinking will provide us with any more enjoyable of an environment when considering the "whole" of the player base.

Off peak players, fluctuating distribution of player resources, the relative size of the game world, the historical blend of code and RP, and many other factors directly contribute to the sustained balance between code-generated results and player-generated results.  Many of the suggestions seem to be aimed at increasing an individual enjoyment based on an individual belief of what Armageddon should be rather than taking what everyone enjoys and trying to find a compromise.

Personally, I find the hard-coded aspects of the game a refreshing and necessary part of the experience, allowing me to follow a variety of paths and options when pursuing my character's and my personal goals.  I enjoy exploring and experimenting with the code, and feel rewarded when I make discoveries, achieve milestones, or have coded success.  Likewise, I enjoy interacting and playing with other people, and feel rewarded when I contribute to a good scene, am able to persuade someone based purely on my own RP, or have success with something that cannot be achieved through code alone.  There have been times when my success has hinged upon purely coded support, and other times when it's hinged upon purely RP support.  It's the compromise of the two, and the allowances that come with that compromise, that have always provided me with the greatest level of enjoyment over the years.

I, for one, hope that balance always stays.

-LoD

No apologies should be necessary, my good man.  When I conceived of this poll, the best case scenario that I could conceive of was that someone would express something like this, but maybe half as awesome.

That post turned the awesome up to 11.

I like code.  I like combat.  I like improving skills.  I even like that I can log into Armageddon, create a generic Amos, and go exploring without directly interacting with a soul, though I get bored with that more sooner than later.

As someone has said, the idea of people heading out into the desert, emoting through a Random Encounter, and having that count as coded training is horrifying to me.  When we move that far away from code and into the realm of individuals Making Stuff Up, we (a) deny other players the opportunity to influence us in ways we haven't agreed to or anticipated, and (b) will get a ton of sad, self-indulgent play.

But here is a point with which I most strenuously agree:

Quote from: staggerlee on June 11, 2009, 01:59:43 PM
More seriously, I agree that certain staff policies encourage a heavy handed, coded response. Every time there's a ruling against a res for a pc who drank cleaning fluid or starved while link dead, it reminds people that code is what matters.

If I can kill my opponent through twinking and exploits, I may get a slap on the wrist, but their pc will still be dead.  The lesson is obvious.

There are a some cases--a few--in which the code does or allows the wrong thing.  Drinking cleaning fluid is, I daresay, one; why are those items still even in the game?  Why do we let people die from a gulp of raw sewage--as though they wouldn't smell it before they took a sip?  Why does every half-giant soldier in sight draw edged weapons and instagib someone EVERY SINGLE TIME that Private Malik types "hit man"?

Because the code will never represent reality perfectly, I think we need to administratively have a little more respect in such cases for the huge quantities of time, effort, and emotion that we expend on our characters.  If the code does something that defies all logic, and the code can't be outright fixed, the default staff action should be to undo what the code did wrong.

I'm speaking a little dogmatically here, and I realize that staffage requires a balancing act between facilitating play, avoiding favoritism or the appearance of it, and maintaining policies that will not suck up all the staff's time just, say, weighing crime-code resurrections.  But I think there are a handful of code issues that are regularly harmful to the game, and my uninformed feeling is that staff ought to be a bit more open to doing manual overrides if the underlying problem can't be fixed.

Quote from: brytta.leofa on June 13, 2009, 05:00:31 PM
I like code.  I like combat.  I like improving skills.  I even like that I can log into Armageddon, create a generic Amos, and go exploring without directly interacting with a soul, though I get bored with that more sooner than later.

As someone has said, the idea of people heading out into the desert, emoting through a Random Encounter, and having that count as coded training is horrifying to me.  When we move that far away from code and into the realm of individuals Making Stuff Up, we (a) deny other players the opportunity to influence us in ways we haven't agreed to or anticipated, and (b) will get a ton of sad, self-indulgent play.

But here is a point with which I most strenuously agree:

Quote from: staggerlee on June 11, 2009, 01:59:43 PM
More seriously, I agree that certain staff policies encourage a heavy handed, coded response. Every time there's a ruling against a res for a pc who drank cleaning fluid or starved while link dead, it reminds people that code is what matters.

If I can kill my opponent through twinking and exploits, I may get a slap on the wrist, but their pc will still be dead.  The lesson is obvious.

There are a some cases--a few--in which the code does or allows the wrong thing.  Drinking cleaning fluid is, I daresay, one; why are those items still even in the game?  Why do we let people die from a gulp of raw sewage--as though they wouldn't smell it before they took a sip?  Why does every half-giant soldier in sight draw edged weapons and instagib someone EVERY SINGLE TIME that Private Malik types "hit man"?

Because the code will never represent reality perfectly, I think we need to administratively have a little more respect in such cases for the huge quantities of time, effort, and emotion that we expend on our characters.  If the code does something that defies all logic, and the code can't be outright fixed, the default staff action should be to undo what the code did wrong.

I'm speaking a little dogmatically here, and I realize that staffage requires a balancing act between facilitating play, avoiding favoritism or the appearance of it, and maintaining policies that will not suck up all the staff's time just, say, weighing crime-code resurrections.  But I think there are a handful of code issues that are regularly harmful to the game, and my uninformed feeling is that staff ought to be a bit more open to doing manual overrides if the underlying problem can't be fixed.

This is exactly where I'm coming from.
To clarify, (again) I'm not calling for less code, but I do think that we need to consider the limitations of code. Code is stupid, or blind, if you prefer. It can't tell the difference between a pickpocket stealing from a templar, and a filthy, rag clad rinthi surreptitiously placing a bread crumb in another filthy rinther's pocket with a "plant" skill. Both bring down immediatte and horrific judgement.  Sure you can think of clever ways to avoid the more common problems, but it's always going to be an uphill battle.

As such... I'd rather admit the failings of the system and concentrate on code that allows tools to player. Tools for interaction, for mediating conflict, for causing conflict, and for bringing your own story, and the world around you, to life.  I believe that the players, with those tools in hand, then need to be held accountable by the game's staff, and when possible, each other.

Trying to build a perfect, self sustaining sim-world is an admirable project, but it's inevitably going to lead to the problems underlined in Brytta's post. From a design perspective, I think that it's important to realize those limitations, and the impossibility of ever plugging all the holes.  Instead focus on cooperation, story, conflict, and at the end of the day... roleplaying. :D

Quote from: disclaimer!
For clarification: When I say roleplaying, I mean the intentional or subconscious  process through which a player uses the tools provided by code to depict a character's unique and individual personality, story and role in the world.

Or if you prefer:

–verb (used with object)
1.to assume the attitudes, actions, and discourse of (another), esp. in a make-believe situation in an effort to understand a differing point of view or social interaction: Management trainees were given a chance to role-play labor negotiators.  

I'm going to provide a few positive examples, because picking on the failings of the game fosters a really profoundly negative environment and isn't doing much for the discussion here:


Example #1

The kudos tool.

It allows players to provide feedback to each other, while maintaining the  curtain of anonymity. After a particularly brutal torture scene or death players can ensure that the victim knows it was an ic dispute, and not ooc. Things players think to be positive can be encouraged.  It fosters ooc understanding, and encourages good habits in game. It does this in a transparent, monitored way so as to avoid the potential pitfalls of ooc communication.

It does nothing to advantage any character in the game, but enormously helps players.

Example #2

Combat Code/Various Gambling and Gaming Code.

Both allow two parties to engage in a head to head conflict. The code not only determines the victor, but also adds an element of chance and uncertainty. The game couldn't function without this kind of code. It's code to mediate conflicts.

Example #3

The Way and centralized meeting points in game, such as the Gaj.

Both the building choice of having central bars, and the inclusion of code for the Way allow players to coordinate and meet up in game, and encourage interaction without forcing people to run around the streets hoping to bump into another pc.  This is very, very good.  Otherwise it would be like living in New York and knowing six people, none of whom had phones or permanent residences. Yow. Very important.

My thoughts, and I have only read the first three pages
of this thread.

Play how you want to play and only worry about
-your- play.  If you are not playing within the
guidelines of the game rules the IMMs will deal with
you.

I like staggerlee's list, and I would add the following to it.

• The emote code. I think this is one of the real points of pride for this game. So flexible, and only getting better. Especially command emotes, for allowing us to paint an image while using otherwise plain commands.
• Biography
• Original submissions
• Cultural documentation
• Rumor boards

Looking at the original post, I can't say I agree with the community being too hard on twinking. Yeah, collectively we all can be pretty judgmental (something I noticed about the GDB early on), but on the whole I don't find the game policies to be strict at all, compared to what I've seen in other games.

I'm not sure if there are any aspects of the game that are diminished due to concern over twinking. I can't think of any.

Like others have said, I think sometimes the code rewards the wrong kind of behavior. Or, rewards it too much. In other words, unrealistic behavior, even extremely unrealistic behavior, is often the very thing that the code tends to encourage.

i just like reading the title of this thread.

Quote from: Agent_137 on June 14, 2009, 01:34:47 AM
i just like reading the title of this thread.

Thank you I put more effort into the title than I usually do, but it's not the best ever.  Current champion goes to a sports writer who actually published an article in mainstream press entitled:

"The Kentucky Derby is degenerate and depraved."

Quote from: RogueGunslinger on June 10, 2009, 11:33:28 PM
The only example I want to set, is that if you twink, I'm going to report you and try my best to ignore your existence in the game world.

Seconded.

ibusoe: You're not getting it.

Look closely at the title.

Quote from: Eloran on June 14, 2009, 02:28:38 PM
ibusoe: You're not getting it.

Look closely at the title.

No, I think we're not getting it. Clearly, this thread was intended to be a celebration of cumin, that most marvelous of spices.

Except she spelled cumin with too many Ms.

I thought it was short for "cum in it y'all!"

Quote from: DustMight on June 14, 2009, 01:07:59 PM

Quote from: RogueGunslinger on June 10, 2009, 11:33:28 PM
The only example I want to set, is that if you twink, I'm going to report you and try my best to ignore your existence in the game world.

Seconded.

Twink or not, I wouldn't like to see anyone ignored. There's a nasty effect when someone avoids someone else for OOC reasons  :-\

Ignoring someone from OOC reasons is not that far a stretch from someone ignoring other IC factors for character gain.

Quote from: spawnloser on June 16, 2009, 04:42:01 AM
Ignoring someone from OOC reasons is not that far a stretch from someone ignoring other IC factors for character gain.

That's quite right, and not at all a good thing.

Okay, so twinks ignore IC realism for the sake of coded character gain, right? That doesn't mean one ought to respond in kind--albeit with a less hard-coded result--because it leaves you violating the same rules of fair play that they do. That's just not the way to win in a situation like that. I say, let the staff sort out the twinks, concern yourself with yourself and enjoy the game.

If someone's acting in a manner you believe is drastically unrealistic, the best possible way to get back at them is to act as though it's an entirely in-character phenomenon.  (Please note, I'm entirely in favor of giving each other a little slack.  Sometimes Amos gets caught up in stuff and, say, misses a night's sleep.  It's a game and we all have to log out eventually and things happen.)

I'll show you what I mean.

Epic sparring, morning 1: "Doin' good there, Amos."
Epic sparring, through lunch: "Ain't you fellas gettin' hungry?"
Epic sparring, afternoon: "Hoo-ah, you boys got spirit, ain't chew."
Epic sparring, late at night: "You fellas don't cut it loose, I'm-a have the Sawbones haul you out."
Epic sparring, before dawn: "Psst, Talia!  Go find a templar!  I'm purty sure Amos an' Malik is 'gickers!"

And, y'know, if your despised victim does have a good reason for his unusual actions, you're still doing exactly the right thing.

Heh, there are fun IC ways to punish a guy who's twinking out. It's always the twinks who bring it upon themselves by completely ignoring all warning signs :P

Quote from: SMuz on June 16, 2009, 12:31:22 PM
Heh, there are fun IC ways to punish a guy who's twinking out.

It can be difficult to get involved or understand what's happening.

"Twinking" gives people something to do.. Which IS realistic in this crazy environment.

2 days digging rocks for water and food without sleep? What are you options?

Its desperation if you ask me... People are stupid, scared and powerless.

Also.. It's tough to learn the world without interaction with experienced players.

It's like an... In the mean-time I'll get buff...

Maybe something will happen vs risk of death talking to the wrong person and if I'm strong enough, maybe I won't have to.

This is from a very mundane perspective - New player twinking out, intrigued by the game.

Quote from: Versu on September 10, 2009, 11:00:07 PM
It can be difficult to get involved or understand what's happening.

"Twinking" gives people something to do.. Which IS realistic in this crazy environment.

2 days digging rocks for water and food without sleep? What are you options?

I don't think there are many people that would say that doing something ingame (other than perhaps sparring) for two IC days straight is bad. I am often guilty of forgetting just how short an IC day is, due to the fact that if it's a boring afternoon where I'll be playing several hours of Armageddon, 90 minutes just isn't a very long time.

People have IC day-long conversations (and sexual encounters!) all the time because sometimes it just takes a certain amount of RL time to play out a certain type of scene.

This is just my opinion, but I wouldn't sweat it if you think that's your worst 'twinkish' behaviour.  :) RP being appropriately tired, dirty, sore, or what-have-you after whatever your PC engages in and I think you're good to go.