So last time I played on a regular basis (I've been back for a couple months now I've got free time again)
was several years ago.
Back then it seemed like death was not only likely, but nearly iminent due to active organizations such as:
Red Fang
Black moon
Borsail slavers
Kuraci
Wild defilers and magickers
Mullish raiders
The Guild
Mantis
Gith
Halflings
It seemed for a time to be almost a game of how to survive more than anything else, if you stayed in the city states you risked incurring the wrath of a templar or being noticed by a criminal org. If you went into the wild you were almost certainly going to run into either slavers, magickers, mantiss, gith, halflings, organized raiders, or mul outlaws. The road between the city states were litteraly littered with corpses, there was a while there I had a ranger that pretty much made a fortune simply off traveling between the city states and looting corpses/collecting mounts.
Since I returned it looks like all the 'nasty' organizations are either dead, cut back considerably, or outright closed down
Is this a friendlier more cuddly armageddon?
Plots are now 'player driven' and most players don't have the patience, time, or balls to get big killer plots going, especially when starting or making a group that gets hyper aggressive (for example, the Red Fangs) has gotten entire groups wiped in the past.
To me, it seems like violence is now more individual, and less prevalent. Sure a rogue magicker may kill your 2 day Ranger, or a sorcerer may dick around and get seen.. but they're much rarer now and there are no big arching plots where tons of people die, and the bedrock of the game world is shaken. It just doesn't happen anymore, as per the new staff policy of noninterference. There are going to be naysayers, and the usual crowd of 'EVERYTHING IS FINE!!!!!!' or 'FIND OUT IC!!!!!' (which is a ridiculous statement in a 'post your opinion' thread but it'll happen I can practically guarantee it) but that doesn't make their statements valid in any way, shape, or form.
That's not to say there is no danger or violence, but it is drastically reduced from how it used to be. I remember when RL year+ characters were staggeringly rare. Now I could name at least 4 or 5 off the top of my head.
Noted.
Not so much. With some of them, they were closed due to the IC world reacting to PC actions. Other things are very much still there. Others were written out in the HRPT/events around it. Others are less likely due to PC slave rules (not as likely to be picked up as a slave, because there are no pc slave roles and it'll get you instastored now).
It's not more cuddly, and it's definitely as dangerous, in its own way. It may just be a different set of dangers now. Find out IC. :)
Not really. I'm sure it comes and it goes but there's plenty of player conflict about. And the usual NPC threats (kryl and gith being the biggies now it seems). I'd also say that several of the orgs/roles you listed are still in game and can still be deadly depending on who's running them.
I just started back up a few months ago myself. In the first clan I joined there was a ton of clan vs clan conflict going on at the time, at least one big battle with nasty stuff that was player initiated and then staff animated (it was really cool) and plenty of other drama going on that I just got a peak at.
No. Everything is fine. Find out IC.
Quote from: Kebron on May 16, 2012, 12:57:44 PM
Back then it seemed like death was not only likely, but nearly iminent due to active organizations such as:
Red Fang
Black moon
Borsail slavers
Kuraci
Wild A few defilers and magickers
Mullish raiders
The Guild
Mantis
NPC Gith
Halflings
Kryl
Carru
From when I last played, the newly edited list there will show you the 'serious' threats to the Known, as we know it.
Not trying to deter you from getting back into the game - just don't expect to drop into the middle of things with gith death squads patrolling right outside the gates, or a horde of Mantis being controlled by Sorcerers.
If anything, get in there and shake it up. I've never been one to say no to some inner-game conflict.
Quote from: Gunnerblaster on May 16, 2012, 02:19:28 PM
Quote from: Kebron on May 16, 2012, 12:57:44 PM
Back then it seemed like death was not only likely, but nearly iminent due to active organizations such as:
Red Fang
Black moon
Borsail slavers
Kuraci
Wild defilers and magickers
Mullish raiders
The Guild
Mantis
Gith
Halflings
Kryl
Carru
Crazy Armageddon wimmen
Gunner and Malken hit the nail on the head.
Perhaps because I am no veteran player... but I still feel like Armageddon is incredibly dangerous...
Carru have always been the reapers of newbie dreams.
An elf, a northerner, a gemmed, a breed, a rinth rat or two, half the southern Byn and a number of local tough guys enter the Gaj.
All leave without so much as a dirty look.
^ happens to various degrees often enough that I wonder where exactly things did get safe and cozy.
Quote from: Patuk on May 16, 2012, 02:51:35 PM
An elf, a northerner, a gemmed, a breed, a rinth rat or two, half the southern Byn and a number of local tough guys enter the Gaj.
All leave without so much as a dirty look.
^ happens to various degrees often enough that I wonder where exactly things did get safe and cozy.
The thing is, this was happening back in 2006 when I took a break from the game. Most people don't like playing racist assholes. And not all PCs will be vocal or visible in their hatred. Don't be most people. Or just be that 'rinthi elf that's so despicable people will have to react.
It really used to be where you prety much hid out til you had SOME training under your belt (back then training also seemed easier too) And once you were capable of killing things like carru by yourself THEN you dared to stop wearing shitty gear (previously having worn shitty gear so noone would bother you just out of sheer "Bleh he's not worth it" ness) and start buying useful stuff and going out... I'm just saying, here was a regular trip to tuluk from nak for me-
Go a few leagues out of nak huge scrab or spider tries to eat you.
Little further down the road, anywhere from 1-6 hidden gith, some of which would be scattered out and using throwing impliments.
Once you pass that point is where you start looking for borsail slavers/magickers/anything else. And usually if you hung out for more than 5 minutes you would find one of the above.
Stopping in tuluk for 5 minutes tops (because those crazy spice addled killers would do you over just as bad as the borsails would)
You then did your best to speed travel through the north road which wasn't the safe place it is now, but was really just a choke point where all the PC raiders would litteraly camp out in HUGE hoardes waiting on silly newbies to come by :/
Then you were looking at having to avoid gypsies red fangs wild elves magickers black moon and any other asshole that just felt like robbing you on the way to tuluk... IF you made it past that, you still had to pass the gortoks and the carru, and sometimes a few halflings that might wander out onto the road...
So all in all it was a mad dash from one thing that wanted to kill you to another, and you could actually make a fortune being a ranger just learning how to go around all that stuff and making people pay you to carry them back and fourth (there are ways to do this , Find out IC)
It just boggles my mind that only every NOW AND THEN things try to kill me... before it was like... every 5 seconds... I actualy went and had a smoke break while OUTSIDE the city walls yesterday... I would have never done that before. Sneak and hide be damned.
The most dangerous threat in the Known: pits.
Some things have definitely changed in the past 8-10 years, but it looks to me like confirmation bias. Surely that wasn't what happened every trip or even on the majority of your trips.
In addition, you had a larger sample size of playing time then compared to now. If you've only shown back up in the past few months, you're basing your observations on a relatively short period of playing time. You've also lost PCs since returning due to actual NPCs in the game, no? I suppose I'd call you an outlier if you returned and kept the same PC alive since coming back, but it doesn't seem like I would have to do that. :)
I think it's still dangerous. Yes a few Clans are gon that once threatened the known, but there are other things.
About the only thing that hit me a year ago as somewhat jarring was when i was playing a raider.
Me and my buddy were raiding the north road, north of Luirs, using it as a choke point. I remember a Byn sergeant actively hunting us both down for a bounty, which didn't make alot of sense to me. Since Me and my Buddy were causing the Byn to get more escort contracts, because people knew me and my buddy were out there, waiting for them.
But beyond that. I see Battles between clans, plitical backstabbing, litteral backstabbing, bribing the powers that be, and everything else that makes this game what I love.
Quote from: Fredd on May 16, 2012, 05:09:05 PM
Me and my buddy were raiding the north road, north of Luirs, using it as a choke point. I remember a Byn sergeant actively hunting us both down for a bounty, which didn't make alot of sense to me. Since Me and my Buddy were causing the Byn to get more escort contracts, because people knew me and my buddy were out there, waiting for them.
Sounds like you don't know the whole story there... Likely not a good idea to make conjecture about other players like that.
Raiders are, from what I've picked up, supposed to be a 'common' occurrence for the vNPC populace. It just kind've hits hard when you finally hear of a bit of raider activity and then every do good'er and their mother wants to go out raider hunting, all of a sudden.
At times, I think people can be a bit too justice-bound for this game.
The mentality that most of my characters have had is; "if it doesn't directly affect me; it's not my problem".
Quote from: Riya OniSenshi on May 16, 2012, 05:16:16 PM
Quote from: Fredd on May 16, 2012, 05:09:05 PM
Me and my buddy were raiding the north road, north of Luirs, using it as a choke point. I remember a Byn sergeant actively hunting us both down for a bounty, which didn't make alot of sense to me. Since Me and my Buddy were causing the Byn to get more escort contracts, because people knew me and my buddy were out there, waiting for them.
Sounds like you don't know the whole story there... Likely not a good idea to make conjecture about other players like that.
I'm not. I was stating it didn't make sense to me. But all in all, it was a greatly rewardingly fun plot, all around. As I understand.
Quote from: Gunnerblaster on May 16, 2012, 05:18:59 PM
Raiders are, from what I've picked up, supposed to be a 'common' occurrence for the vNPC populace. It just kind've hits hard when you finally hear of a bit of raider activity and then every do good'er and their mother wants to go out raider hunting, all of a sudden.
At times, I think people can be a bit too justice-bound for this game.
The mentality that most of my characters have had is; "if it doesn't directly affect me; it's not my problem".
This is another reason that the danger of Armageddon has, in my opinion, lessened over time. People want to be the HERO! Despite that being a bad idea most of the time.
Quote from: maxid on May 16, 2012, 06:11:13 PM
People want to be the HERO! Despite that being a bad idea most of the time.
People do. Protagonist, antagonist, they just want to show up in the credits. And the ones who do not, we remember less. Is that confirmation bias, or "the squeaky wheel gets the grease"?
- You are not the Chosen One.
- You are not the Chosen One.
- You are not the Chosen One.
P.S. Arm is not safe and cozy. The older you get, the better you get at this game. I swear, nearly the last thing most characters would think, if we were being honest, is some version of "ooooOOooo! Shiny!" followed quickly by "Umm......". Many adults are partially immune to that reaction.
Quote from: Gunnerblaster on May 16, 2012, 05:18:59 PM
Raiders are, from what I've picked up, supposed to be a 'common' occurrence for the vNPC populace. It just kind've hits hard when you finally hear of a bit of raider activity and then every do good'er and their mother wants to go out raider hunting, all of a sudden.
At times, I think people can be a bit too justice-bound for this game.
The mentality that most of my characters have had is; "if it doesn't directly affect me; it's not my problem".
I feel like if I was a Templar, I would
want there to be threats beyond the city walls, because that reinforces the whole "We're protecting you, stay inside!" thing.
But players get bored, and bored players don't let you have nice things, so they hire a gemmer to murder you the first time you raid their Bynner buddy and take his 2000 sid special-order OOCspeshul bow.
A certain clan turned a certain area into a total kill zone within the last year. The area was dangerous, highly patrolled and bodies stacked up for a few months.
I think theirs a group of players who want more broad conflict / more raiders or raiding groups and then theirs a group of players who think such things don't bring anything to the game. I disagree with the fact they don't add anything, but then again my experience in arm is limited to two years...
That being said some of my most fun have been being raided, raiding and playing antagonist that try to promote conflict across a few groups and or PCs (as opposed to meaningless and senseless fights that don't bring anything to the game).
But keep in mind, if you want to stir the pot and rile things up, make sure you have an RP purpose that makes sense.. And be prepared to run into obstacles that will likely get you killed.
Even the best gunslingers get gunned down one way or another.
Yeah, I like playing raided people who keep their calm, give what they can, and keep what they truly need to get to civilization.
"Here are all my expensive things in a nice pile. Now, I am going to keep this waterskin, my hat, and my cheap backup weapon. Because without those things, I am going to see how many of you I can take with me."
People who live in a truly dangerous world would probably be a bit calmer about the whole "raid" thing. I know I used to have a grebber back in 2005 who, when raided, simply nodded calmly, stayed polite, and passed over a couple of expensive (for him) items. He did not look at the guy, did not posture, and looked at it as a tax. He never even told anyone.
Conflict is good for business; be it a rampaging horde of Staff-controlled Mantis or a PC-organized raiding crew.
Instead of trying to be the one to end the problem; why not try contemplating how you can most benefit from it?
Example: Group of raiders are making travel dangerous.
Option A.) Hunt them down and kill them. They are possibly better trained, more prepared, and more likely to kill me.
Option B.) Contact their leader behind the scenes, if possible, and attempt a little 'business dealing'. You pretend to escort people for a price, the raider group doesn't bother you when escorting, and they get a cut of the fees for playing nice.
I've tried to be a good victim when I've been raided. I was never killed despite having several characters held up. Usually the price was quite small, considering.
Quote from: BleakOne on May 16, 2012, 07:40:59 PM
I've tried to be a good victim when I've been raided. I was never killed despite having several characters held up. Usually the price was quite small, considering.
As a raider, interaction trumps coded trophies.
Quote from: Feco on May 16, 2012, 09:10:14 PM
Quote from: BleakOne on May 16, 2012, 07:40:59 PM
I've tried to be a good victim when I've been raided. I was never killed despite having several characters held up. Usually the price was quite small, considering.
As a raider, interaction trumps coded trophies.
Once I even managed to get employment out of it. :D
I'm jealous now, I only ever got raided by the:
"an arrow flies in from the west and hits you in the neck"
or the
3 characters ride in, with no emote chop chop death splash...
There was this one defiler that was absolutely crazy though. I was never sure if it was an NPC or a PC. He caught me on my first character sleeping in the desert. Woke me up long enough to make a scary magickal emote, and then knocked me out again. Only to have himself sapped by my mullish friend that was collecting plants the next room over I guess he didn't notice...
Ran into him 3 more times... can't remember if we killed him I know we killed one that tried to raid us but I don't think it was the same one.
definately ran into him several more times though and it became one of those "does this guy ever give up?" kind of things.
raiders are amazing. i really do think it's a shame that the red fangs got shut down. my red fang was probably my most fun character in the entire world, and I think probably 60% of his time was devoted to raiding the shit out of everyone on the planet. he raided a ridiculous amount of people, and there were maybe.. four pks that resulted from that. maybe one or two of them were an accidental result of "bash guythatjustspamwalkedaway". he of course died to something absolutely dumb and magick, but that's pretty much the name of the game when you're playing an antagonist. i don't think that successfully causing conflict needs to result in deaths to be effective.
conflict is essential to a game like this, and it had better not have become "safe and cozy". conflict creates a ripple effect that gets people involved and on board in ways that aren't going to happen when you're sitting around some tavern with a thumb up your ass waiting for dawn or whatever. i really do believe that a few more people need to sack up and put some shit on the line and get things moving. i have a feeling that if this happened we wouldn't be having debates in threads about whether or not you can create significant plots without staff assistance.
I would say a significant reason for the perceived lack of conflict (I personally see tons) is that most players are entirely reactive or think that conflict means PKing or fucking people up for no real reason.
At the same time too, I think people can be too hesitant to push social conflicts further now days. I see lots of badmouthing people, for the most part...that's about as far as a majority of conflict goes these days. High school bickering for conflict gets kinda old and silly after a while in a world that's supposed to be harsh and dangerous.
Also, people need to stop putting RL morals into the game. What might be considered an "over the top" or "no good" reason for killing someone in RL would likely not cause most Zalanthans to bat an eye about it. I also remember when even non-templar nobles in Allanak used to be as scary as templars and you could end up killed quite often for merely rubbing them the wrong way on accident. I once had a pc kicked out and banned from Allanak by a templar because they farted in the presence of a noble and offended them. I believe they had thought to throw him in the arena but then the player decided to cut him a break.
Admittedly, I even find myself looking for ways not to kill someone if I can help it when I probably shouldn't be.
Most of my conflict has come from getting so pissed off at someone that I would rather die then be around them anymore so its me kill them or them kill me usually. Havent seen alot of raiding or anything and I have played characters that would be in those types of conflicts. There are magickers running around though.
Quote from: Feco on May 16, 2012, 09:10:14 PM
Quote from: BleakOne on May 16, 2012, 07:40:59 PM
I've tried to be a good victim when I've been raided. I was never killed despite having several characters held up. Usually the price was quite small, considering.
As a raider, interaction trumps coded trophies.
Agreed. my only raider I had, I loved. I would rob people usualy for a few coins or, more commonly, water. Because we couldn't afford water.
But it was the same, if we came upon someone. Ride up, smile, wave. And tell them we wanted a donation.
I think I killed 4-5 people total. One guy was just mouthing off to us, locked outside of allanak for the night. Just talking crap about how he knew we were raiders, and he was telling the templars. So we killed him.
The others were runners. Way we saw it. If you ran from us being nice enough to ask. Then we no longer had to be nice.
Now I want to play a raider again... :(
It seems like there is always the same, solo-emoting ten year veteran defiler lurking around the sands.
I miss some of the 'shakers' that I met and/or experienced rumors of when I was just getting into this game.
The Plainsman, for one. The Salarri Expansion division was pretty awesome, too.
I think people are simply getting smarter about playing the game, but also, the desert has gotten a bit safer in regards to inescapable NPC threats - near the cities, anyway. Once you get beyond the well beaten trails, it becomes a lot more dangerous. I think this is perfectly okay and reasonable.
Raider clans have been staff-supported and pop up here and there, but tend to get wiped out through player initiative. We have only ourselves to blame. :)
I don't mind the long-lived PCs, they add some stability to an otherwise rapid turnover of faces and lives.
Quote from: Delirium on May 17, 2012, 04:12:03 AM
Raider clans have been staff-supported and pop up here and there, but tend to get wiped out through player initiative. We have only ourselves to blame. :)
This, a hundred times this.
Every one I know of was done away with due to PLAYERS getting together and whiping them out.
Quote from: Fredd on May 17, 2012, 04:31:40 AM
Quote from: Delirium on May 17, 2012, 04:12:03 AM
Raider clans have been staff-supported and pop up here and there, but tend to get wiped out through player initiative. We have only ourselves to blame. :)
This, a hundred times this.
Every one I know of was done away with due to PLAYERS getting together and whiping them out.
And this is 100% valid. However, they've left a power vacuum that we are now not allowed to fill. If new raider clans were invented/allowed, I think the world would be more interesting. It's just not the same without something like the Red Fangs around. Sure the SLK have raided some in the past, but it's usually a very specific area of the world, and leaves a solid chunk of the playerbase out of the fun.
Sure you could make a group of (no more than 4!) players who are all part of a 'tribe' or family and recruit a few people IC, but it'd have no staff support, no forum for organizing times, no relatively safe place to keep their stuff, no real place to train up, and it's really a shame to me.
Also, I'm going to do the odd thing of agreeing with Case, in saying that people are too quick to murder, and also A Large Bag in that people are too soft and things rarely rise above petty highschool bullshit. What I mean by agreeing with both those people is that there are some places where everything ends a halfsecond after you step out of line with a mantis head (sometimes this is a valid way to deal with an issue, but not 100% of the time) and there are some places where it is almost unheard of for pcs to even be inconvenienced in a significant way beyond something like.. not being invited to the party!! Or getting called a poopy head!! There's no middle ground. This is entirely lack of player imagination.. and I'm sure there are some things I'm not seeing that enter that middle ground, but there is a massive range of ideas between 'YOU CANT COME TO MY PARTY!!!' and 'backstab amos', and people just don't often do anything but those two options that I have seen. Again, there are probably instances of the middle ground and interesting conflict, but I feel it is underrepresented. If you're mad at Leader PC X? Don't just hire a 60d 'buxom doe-eyed' assassin to mudsex murder him, pick off his minions and let him know who did it, you just might be surprised at how fun the ensuing shadow war becomes. Also, Leader PC X, if you find out someone is fucking with you? Go for fucking with them back, don't just 'contact Templar; psi AMOS NEEDS 2 DIE' it's so unimaginative.
QuoteSure you could make a group of (no more than 4!) players who are all part of a 'tribe' or family and recruit a few people IC, but it'd have no staff support, no forum for organizing times, no relatively safe place to keep their stuff, no real place to train up, and it's really a shame to me.
This is what prevents any groups becoming significant enough to impact the game world. Sure a handful of PCs can get together and raid, but they'll all die or break apart due to lack of coded support before anything big gets going. It would be nice if the staff opened up the ability for PCs to start their own clans now that Arm.2 isn't going down.
Quote from: Semper on May 17, 2012, 10:15:19 AM
QuoteSure you could make a group of (no more than 4!) players who are all part of a 'tribe' or family and recruit a few people IC, but it'd have no staff support, no forum for organizing times, no relatively safe place to keep their stuff, no real place to train up, and it's really a shame to me.
This is what prevents any groups becoming significant enough to impact the game world. Sure a handful of PCs can get together and raid, but they'll all die or break apart due to lack of coded support before anything big gets going. It would be nice if the staff opened up the ability for PCs to start their own clans now that Arm.2 isn't going down.
I do not believe this to be true. Therefor:
(http://www.part-time-scientists.com/glxp-org/blog/07_07_11_challenge-accepted-cat.jpg)
Yam, as you can see from the pic above, I am drafting you.*
*After I return, of course.
Quote from: Case on May 17, 2012, 02:20:46 AM
I would say a significant reason for the perceived lack of conflict (I personally see tons) is that most players are entirely reactive or think that conflict means PKing or fucking people up for no real reason.
Quote from: Semper on May 17, 2012, 10:15:19 AM
QuoteSure you could make a group of (no more than 4!) players who are all part of a 'tribe' or family and recruit a few people IC, but it'd have no staff support, no forum for organizing times, no relatively safe place to keep their stuff, no real place to train up, and it's really a shame to me.
This is what prevents any groups becoming significant enough to impact the game world. Sure a handful of PCs can get together and raid, but they'll all die or break apart due to lack of coded support before anything big gets going. It would be nice if the staff opened up the ability for PCs to start their own clans now that Arm.2 isn't going down.
I'd even be ok with taking a few trusted players, and opening up one of the other delf tribes, or allowing a few trusted players/staff to work together to make a human raiding group, or a pack of dwarven tribals.. I mean you don't have to let any Tom, Dick, or Amos make their own clan, but we lost the majority of our outside the walls dangerous PC clans. It'd be cool to get that back.
Quote from: Riya OniSenshi on May 17, 2012, 10:32:12 AM
Quote from: Case on May 17, 2012, 02:20:46 AM
I would say a significant reason for the perceived lack of conflict (I personally see tons) is that most players are entirely reactive or think that conflict means PKing or fucking people up for no real reason.
I also agree with this.
I wouldn't mind seeing a raiding group that is -not- delves. Kinda been done to death.
Quote from: A Large Bag on May 17, 2012, 11:01:31 AM
I wouldn't mind seeing a raiding group that is -not- delves. Kinda been done to death.
(http://i.imgur.com/Fwqq0.jpg)
I honestly have not seen the kind of conflict that used to exist. For example the Rinth actually being formidable or the grasslands being a place of always looking over your shoulder due to that flowery-braided elf who just happens to be watching you just hoping you step on the wrong kind of flower. Hell I haven't even seen a scary defiler for ages, I think even those are getting warm and fuzzy.
I want a raiding group to exist and I want some of the old, veteran scary players, like myself, to stand up and start corrupting the world.
You all know who you are.....*cough* Yam *cough* X-D *cough*.......Halaster, where ever you are you scary sob. :-\
P.S: Nyr is clever, that made me laugh.
Quote from: Kebron on May 16, 2012, 12:57:44 PM
So last time I played on a regular basis (I've been back for a couple months now I've got free time again)
was several years ago.
Back then it seemed like death was not only likely, but nearly iminent due to active organizations such as:
Red Fang
Black moon
Borsail slavers
Kuraci
Wild defilers and magickers
Mullish raiders
The Guild
Mantis
Gith
Halflings
Wait I haven't played in months.
You're telling me gith, mantis, kuraci, rogue sorcerers are not around? Caaaam on.
I'm wondering how Kurac made the list with all the NPC nasties. I started about 10 years ago (shortly after Luir's fell to mantis I think) and remember Kurac being pretty cool and badass. They've always been tough SOBs if you crossed them but when were they crazy PKers? What'd I miss?
Quote from: SpyGuy on May 17, 2012, 12:41:29 PM
I'm wondering how Kurac made the list with all the NPC nasties. I started about 10 years ago (shortly after Luir's fell to mantis I think) and remember Kurac being pretty cool and badass. They've always been tough SOBs if you crossed them but when were they crazy PKers? What'd I miss?
Where do you think all the muls are going? 'Cause it ain' the 'rinth.
Quote from: Nyr on May 17, 2012, 11:46:34 AM
Quote from: A Large Bag on May 17, 2012, 11:01:31 AM
I wouldn't mind seeing a raiding group that is -not- delves. Kinda been done to death.
(http://i.imgur.com/Fwqq0.jpg)
ROFL!
Most antagonists are quickly snuffed out by the powers that be (IE: players in power). This is just how it is, mainly because antagonists are rarely played by PCs in clans and have little in the way of support and protection that clans offer. Antagonists (trouble makers) don't last long in clans (this goes double for trouble making clans) for various reasons, often times the virtual clan eventually gets rid of them for making them look bad (it's hard to be a good antagonist). Playing an antagonist is often a lot of work and often times thankless and can be very boring and also, depending on why one plays, unfulfilling.
Next time you see someone trying to mix things up and cause trouble, ask yourself if there isn't some way your character couldn't join them and help balance out the "sides" a bit, giving their cause a more of a chance at success? You'll have much more fun. If you're playing against an antagonist and have the opportunity to destroy/kill/obliterate them, maybe instead just wound them in a way that ends the conflict but lets in continue on into the future somehow (if possible). You'll have fun and the antagonist you are with will appreciate your efforts more than you'll know. In a game of conflict, it makes sense that we as players, when possible, should foster the conflict by not letting it be completely resolved.
^ I agree with that potentially dead cat.
troublemakers are actively culled from many clans (read: publicly joinable clans). if not by the STs/admins in charge, then they will be smacked by the playerbase via overbearing punishment until gone or dead. there's really no room in general for a rebellious type in zalanthas, and you're pretty much public enemy number one as soon as you begin to fly your colors. the only room for a real villain is at the top or at the very fucking bottom, so unless you're a templar, or you pretend to be a nice, obedient guy for ten in game years you won't get to be anyone's nemesis and actually exert some power.
well, you can always be a bottomfeeder scumsack raider with no friends, but good luck with that one. I feel like most of you who would even consider such an option are entering into it with OOC friendships, as per previous posts. kudos to anyone who is actually entering the game and trying to garner minions/friends from a strictly IC perspective - it's tough, let me tell you.
this game has become more and more heavily slanted away from raiding, war, general "open conflict" over time. Defilers are also noticeably more rare. I've yet to worry about raiders or wild 'gickers in the last four or five years.. even the classically dangerous activities are generally simple and easy to avoid trouble with (salt grebbing, obsidian mining). The only death I worry about these days is getting locked into melee by a bahamet and killed by my own flee skill. Not tense, not engaging, just boring, frankly.
I have the sneaking suspicion that most of the people bemoaning a lack of raiders just want an antagonist they can defeat.
Losing is fun. Winning perpetually, well, it gradually loses its shine. In regards to what you said, though, Yam, I doubt the pbase really is clamoring for yet another half giant raider that can't be tricked, or a mul with nothing better to do than pkill you for your boots. So you're probably right. Winning AND losing are more fun when the playing field is vaguely level.
Rivals and Villains are a necessary component to a good story. If you out and kill your rival/villain you are making the game world a whole lot more boring for yourself and everyone else.
It's characters like these that'll provide you your fun and danger, until someone kills them because they've gotten to this point where they want to be left alone and they do not want to be bothered to deal with it anymore. To them, the conflict has become a "bad" thing
Ideally, everyone in a situation where they could kill a troublesome character should take a moment to consider the ramifications of that death on a local scale before making their lives easier. A little conflict is not a bad thing and sometimes its
fun.
Of course, this doesn't matter to the players who just want to tavern sit or languish in their apartments and mudsexing all day.
Quote from: Necro on May 17, 2012, 02:47:29 PM
Losing is fun. Winning perpetually, well, it gradually loses its shine. In regards to what you said, though, Yam, I doubt the pbase really is clamoring for yet another half giant raider that can't be tricked, or a mul with nothing better to do than pkill you for your boots. So you're probably right. Winning AND losing are more fun when the playing field is vaguely level.
Indeed, it seems lately I've come across too many characters who just want to win, losing can be just as fun. (I've had a
lot of fun losing, way more drama failing. It's a great vehicle for character development.) Let's be realistic, no villain/rival is going to keep trying when all they do is get killed. No one is going to keep making villains if players go all Zero Tolerance. So it's the villain/rival killers who are creating their own raider/conflict deficit with their antics.
Blame yourselves for the safe/cuddly/boring game.
Quote from: Yam on May 17, 2012, 02:45:41 PM
I have the sneaking suspicion that most of the people bemoaning a lack of raiders just want an antagonist they can defeat.
While I'm not one of those (I prefer to be the antagonist who is defeated) can you explain what, exactly, is wrong with that? ;)
Quote from: Necro on May 17, 2012, 02:47:29 PM
Losing is fun.
I stopped reading there.
I win in life, I constantly win on Arm, and that's how I like it baby.
Quote from: Malken on May 17, 2012, 04:01:07 PM
Quote from: Necro on May 17, 2012, 02:47:29 PM
Losing is fun.
I stopped reading there.
I win in life, I constantly win on Arm, and that's how I like it baby.
(http://images.memewow.com/memes/1/513/good-guy-greg-slight-chuckle.jpg)
So go out and win at being a villain, fella.
Quote from: maxid on May 17, 2012, 03:42:35 PM
Quote from: Yam on May 17, 2012, 02:45:41 PM
I have the sneaking suspicion that most of the people bemoaning a lack of raiders just want an antagonist they can defeat.
While I'm not one of those (I prefer to be the antagonist who is defeated) can you explain what, exactly, is wrong with that? ;)
What's wrong with it is they're not actually willing to go out and do it themselves, I think is what Yam means. Though he can correct me if that's the wrong idea.
Quote from: Malifaxis on May 17, 2012, 04:29:27 PM
So go out and win at being a villain, fella.
I win at life because I know where my limits are ;D
I REALLY REALLY REALLY tried hard to play villains on Arm.. I'm a total failure at that.
Being a villain IRL is a lot easier..
Meh. I think if you're trying to be a villain, then you're probably failing at it.
Good villains don't know/believe that they're villains. They think they're the hero.
Corollary: villainy is in the eye of the beholder.
I think one of the few traits, though, that one could purposefully adopt in order to maximize one's chances at villainy is a sort of selfish and/or ends justify the means attitude.
What Moe said.
I'll go ahead and sort of say it again anyway. Everyone's protagonist is almost certainly an antagonist to someone else, however minor. If your character is a self-serving good-for-nothing, they don't need to show it. Especially not if they're being clever about it. And a coarse and rude character might even err more towards being the good, heroic sort when it comes to actually doing stuff.
Close enough. This topic always comes up once or twice a year. Raiders are cool and all, but they usually aren't sustainable or dangerous. The successful ones are ghosts, lest they be hunted down by a joint effort that'd put NATO to shame.
I've played both with and against one of those successful raiders and I was part of putting together an angry taskforce to end his reign of terror. It wasn't successful, and I'm kind of ashamed to have taken part of it, but I can understand the sentiment. Most people get pissed off when their characters lose power and pull out all the stops to exact revenge.
That character was a lot of fun when he was around, and it's probably one of the main characters that come to mind when people think raider, but I seriously doubt more than a handful of players would be able to emulate that.
Quote from: Marauder Moe on May 17, 2012, 04:41:52 PM
Meh. I think if you're trying to be a villain, then you're probably failing at it.
Good villains don't know/believe that they're villains. They think they're the hero.
Corollary: villainy is in the eye of the beholder.
I think one of the few traits, though, that one could purposefully adopt in order to maximize one's chances at villainy is a sort of selfish and/or ends justify the means attitude.
This is a more sustainable route for most people. A lot of the most famous and praised characters from the past few years were villains in their own right. They just weren't stupid or obvious about it.
Actually, some were pretty obvious about it. Those people (monsters) also got a lot of OOC hate. I joined in on that at times. I'm sorry about that now. I think that definitely contributed to the current lack of overt threats.
Back on the topic of how to be a better villain, this (http://www.armageddon.org/original/showSubmission.php?submission=517) and this (http://www.armageddon.org/original/showSubmission.php?submission=459) are logs that have inspired me.
The 48 Laws of Power (http://www.zalanthas.org/gdb/index.php/topic,29497.0.html) are always something to keep in mind.
You also need to remember that it takes time to get into a position where you can start imposing your will onto others. You need to survive. You need to be imposed upon. You need to brown nose, gain sociopolitical power, friends, and what not. As my characters lifespans have increased I've started to notice a lot of flash in the pan villainy. I've also seen a lot of good villainy.
The good villains are out there. Blending in.
On the main topic, safeness, the wilds are plenty dangerous. Probably more dangerous than any other time in the past five years. There is still a high character turnover rate.
Quote from: Yam on May 17, 2012, 04:58:56 PM
You also need to remember that it takes time to get into a position where you can start imposing your will onto others. You need to survive. You need to be imposed upon. You need to brown nose, gain sociopolitical power, friends, and what not. As my characters lifespans have increased I've started to notice a lot of flash in the pan villainy. I've also seen a lot of good villainy.
The good villains are out there. Blending in.
+1
I am a nobody and somewhat of a recluse and I have notice once you start gaining some power people force themselves into your RP. If you dont know what im talking about try making a character with the sole goal of living awhile and attaining rank or the equivalent in what you do. When people start trying to play with you, you know you are becoming someone important.
You can still be a dick or a cheat or a slimeball before that as long as you don't get in over your head.
On another note, the status quo is usually only maintained for appearances sake. No established clan wants to be seen as a threat to others. Every established clan wants more. You can always find ways to cause conflict and capitalize on it. If your plan is smart, you'll probably get support from your superiors. If they don't think it's smart, murder them.
There is a reason I used words other than just villain. It's important because there are many types of villain. They are not all mustache twirling Dastardly-types. (Especially since some of them are female.)
You can play the bloodthirsty raider (Conan), Or the conniving politician (Sherri f of Nottingham/Prince John), or play a clan leader who just makes their employees lives miserable via incompetence/torture/abuse/insanity/paperwork/etc (Office Space, haha)
Like someone said above, other villains are only villains because they're on the wrong side. The Lawful-Good Paladin working for a Lawful-Evil emperor (The General Leo) Or the super activist that just makes lives miserable with their good intentions (PETA and the Whale Wars douchebags.) You don't have to be EVIL to be bad.
You wanna see conflict/drama/interesting stuff? Create it. It's easy to sit on the sidelines and complain, hike up your pants and go be a pain in someones ass.
You don't have to be a villain, you can just be a threat or a rival.
It hasn't been a year yet but I'll give a vague example. I intentionally chose an active, popular and prolific character and began to harass and creep them out while amassing friends. It wasn't huge and deadly, the character was largely harmless. It was Sitcom level drama. Just some creepy person creeping out someone else, but it stirred up plot and made things interesting and people got involved. It didn't require me eating babies or raping and pillaging, or anything like that.
Someone is important and trying to achieve X. Is your character also passionate about X? Why not compete with them and be their rival?
You don't have to be everyone's enemy, guys.
If you have trouble being a villain, then apprentice to someone. Someone with vision. Someone who offers your poor, illiterate character something to believe in.
Becoming a villain is a lot like becoming the manager of a Kwik-e-mart. Get in there, survive, and you will eventually be promoted.
One of the great challenges of being a villain is a lack of henchmen who are looking to be led. In the movies, henchmen are incompetent, overly greedy, and prone to mistakes that let the hero win.
Forget all that.
Whether you are the faithful lackey or the power-behind-the-throne (not literally), these are the people who do well in life. Wealth. Power. Excitement. Leadership.
A defiler? No biggie. Locate, dog-pile, behead.
A handsome/beautiful, well-spoken defiler with:
- an aide who is actually loyal
- a lieutenant who has few henchmen who are willing to kill at a moment's notice (including maybe an ex-byn and a few independents who have seen the whole world)
- a spymaster with a network of spies who are getting themselves promoted because they are known for results (may double with aide)
Now we are talking
power.
But what that takes is someone willing to be the defiler's aide/spymaster. And someone else willing to be the defiler's lieutenant. With that, we do not have the mad, evil wizard twirling his mustache...we have Duke Paul Atredies.
P.S. Necessary reading: Vanth's Guide to playing a Noble, stickied in the RP Discussion area.
Off-topic: I don't watch the Whale Wars show, but I support their attempts to stop the whalers. Good luck to them.
On-topic: Villains need to be a bit smarter too. I mean, it's not exactly likely that somebody will spare your life if you've been actively taking the lives of others during raiding and the like. Play it smart, get friends in high places, pay off potential sources of trouble, ect.
The sheer volume of wet work I've done keeping others' secrets and covering up their mistakes would chill you to your bones.
The only characters to ever betray me did so at the behest of, "new acquaintances."
So you want to be a villain? Here's my advice : make friends.
Friends you'd die for. Friends you'd kill for.
Quote from: Dalmeth on May 17, 2012, 11:52:25 PM
The sheer volume of wet work I've done keeping others' secrets and covering up their mistakes would chill you to your bones.
The only characters to ever betray me did so at the behest of, "new acquaintances."
So you want to be a villain? Here's my advice : make friends.
Friends you'd die for. Friends you'd kill for.
Truth. Many of my PCs have done some pretty nasty things to protect those important to them. Also convinced a few to help in their own schemes.
Needs troublemaker guild, like the assassin guild but the good stuff such as traps come early.
Maybe toss in a few magick spells.
maybe a couple of OP psionic abilities.
Quote from: Karieith on May 17, 2012, 03:05:18 PM
Rivals and Villains are a necessary component to a good story. If you out and kill your rival/villain you are making the game world a whole lot more boring for yourself and everyone else.
I remember one character of mine eventually removed a very annoying villian, after a month or two of play. And you're right. There was a sudden period of "calm" :)
Quote from: Necro on May 17, 2012, 02:47:29 PM
In regards to what you said, though, Yam, I doubt the pbase really is clamoring for yet another half giant raider that can't be tricked, or a mul with nothing better to do than pkill you for your boots. So you're probably right. Winning AND losing are more fun when the playing field is vaguely level.
I like how Muls and Giants are especially singled out :) Race is such a powerful thing on Zalanthas.
if armageddon is safe and cozy you are doing something horribly wrong.
Quote from: Morrolan on May 17, 2012, 08:24:57 PM
If you have trouble being a villain, then apprentice to someone. Someone with vision. Someone who offers your poor, illiterate character something to believe in.
Becoming a villain is a lot like becoming the manager of a Kwik-e-mart. Get in there, survive, and you will eventually be promoted.
One of the great challenges of being a villain is a lack of henchmen who are looking to be led. In the movies, henchmen are incompetent, overly greedy, and prone to mistakes that let the hero win.
Forget all that.
Whether you are the faithful lackey or the power-behind-the-throne (not literally), these are the people who do well in life. Wealth. Power. Excitement. Leadership.
A defiler? No biggie. Locate, dog-pile, behead.
A handsome/beautiful, well-spoken defiler with:
- an aide who is actually loyal
- a lieutenant who has few henchmen who are willing to kill at a moment's notice (including maybe an ex-byn and a few independents who have seen the whole world)
- a spymaster with a network of spies who are getting themselves promoted because they are known for results (may double with aide)
Now we are talking power.
But what that takes is someone willing to be the defiler's aide/spymaster. And someone else willing to be the defiler's lieutenant. With that, we do not have the mad, evil wizard twirling his mustache...we have Duke Paul Atredies.
P.S. Necessary reading: Vanth's Guide to playing a Noble, stickied in the RP Discussion area.
Agreed support your local villains ;)
Guys. Becoming a villain isn't a problem.
Becoming a villain who survives the subsequent Gemmed SEAL Team 6 air strikes every time they log in is.
I approve HavokBlue's message.
Sounds like somebody forgot to strike a deal with his/her local authority figures, and/or made the mistake of shitting where they eat...
Quote from: Delirium on May 18, 2012, 09:11:25 PM
Sounds like somebody forgot to strike a deal with his/her local authority figures, and/or made the mistake of shitting where they eat...
That's not applicable in a lot of the "villain" roles I can think of.
Besides that, "Gemmed SEAL Team 6" is interchangeable with "Badass 60 dorf ranger party" or "combined unit of Bynners, Salarr, and Insertnoblehouse/militiahere".
The biggest thing we can do as players to support an antagonistic gameworld and allow "villain" characters to crop-up and create fun is to refrain from organizing a skillmax NATO strike force to absolutely obliterate them the first time they cause trouble.
Yeah... if you attract that much attention without being able to deal with it, you've fucked up and deserve it.
I think for the most part it boils down to "How bored is everyone?" I've had PCs that should not have attracted a lot of attention get hunted like they were a defiler just because there was apparently nothing better to do.
Solution: Have so many villians that there's no cohesive response.
Maybe we should all make the effort to be stealthier villains and less hair-triggered good guys?
But I thought everyone else were villains pretending to be good guys?
i dunno guys
playing independent assholes that pick fights with every powerful clan/PC have been some of the more fun characters i've played
being hunted and chased is cool
I recall a time when I had someone I was plotting to kill at my mercy, sick, half crazed and unable to way for help, in a room where I could do anything and get away with it. But then I considered the advantage of the kill versus what I might gain to save them and the political position I would gain from it. So I opted to help them, got my favors then later aided in their death at another's hand.
Quote from: Yam on May 18, 2012, 09:27:20 PM
Yeah... if you attract that much attention without being able to deal with it, you've fucked up and deserve it.
How do you, as a mundane antagonist, deal with four simultaneous mon un invisible scud launcher?
Dealing with the cliche "independent assholes that pick fights with every powerful clan/PC" might seem like a great way to create conflict, but I think it's pretty cliche. It is -a- way to create conflict. But it gets kind of frustrating when everyone who's creating conflict, is playing independent assholes that pick fights with every powerful clan/PC. Sometimes, you just wanna sit down and relax with an ale with friends. You really don't WANT to have to deal with independent asshole #47.
No offense, but that's a stupid hypothetical question. If you're doing something to get that kind of attention, you fucked up. If you don't think you fucked up enough to warrant that kind of attention, file a player complaint to get the staff to look into it. But you probably fucked up. Even if you don't think you did.
Quote from: Lizzie on May 18, 2012, 10:22:55 PM
Dealing with the cliche "independent assholes that pick fights with every powerful clan/PC" might seem like a great way to create conflict, but I think it's pretty cliche. It is -a- way to create conflict. But it gets kind of frustrating when everyone who's creating conflict, is playing independent assholes that pick fights with every powerful clan/PC. Sometimes, you just wanna sit down and relax with an ale with friends. You really don't WANT to have to deal with independent asshole #47.
Yeah. Independent assholes and assholes without any sort of protection or status are just begging to get killed.
The gemmed seal team is often a rogue gemmed seal team. You don't have to fuck up at all, just be in a position or carry a title that they decide they don't like you having. And this happens often.
Insinuating bad things only happen if you do bad things or mess up is very narrow.
That just means you got out-villained.
BRB building legion of doom in the silt sea.
Quote from: Kebron on May 16, 2012, 12:57:44 PM
It seemed for a time to be almost a game of how to survive more than anything else, if you stayed in the city states you risked incurring the wrath of a templar or being noticed by a criminal org. If you went into the wild you were almost certainly going to run into either slavers, magickers, mantiss, gith, halflings, organized raiders, or mul outlaws. The road between the city states were litteraly littered with corpses, there was a while there I had a ranger that pretty much made a fortune simply off traveling between the city states and looting corpses/collecting mounts.
Since I returned it looks like all the 'nasty' organizations are either dead, cut back considerably, or outright closed down
Is this a friendlier more cuddly armageddon?
I'm not trying to be an asshole here, but in this post you seem to be wistfully reminiscing about the good old days, but this post...
Quote from: Kebron on May 17, 2012, 12:17:07 AM
I'm jealous now, I only ever got raided by the:
"an arrow flies in from the west and hits you in the neck"
or the
3 characters ride in, with no emote chop chop death splash...
There was this one defiler that was absolutely crazy though. I was never sure if it was an NPC or a PC. He caught me on my first character sleeping in the desert. Woke me up long enough to make a scary magickal emote, and then knocked me out again. Only to have himself sapped by my mullish friend that was collecting plants the next room over I guess he didn't notice...
Ran into him 3 more times... can't remember if we killed him I know we killed one that tried to raid us but I don't think it was the same one.
definately ran into him several more times though and it became one of those "does this guy ever give up?" kind of things.
... also sounds pretty negative.
So basically, you're saying that in the good old days, the game was more dangerous... but at the same time, you never got raided by anyone cool. All that ever happened to you was you got shot or no-emote splashed by a bunch of dudes. Except for this one defiler who was awesome, who you ran into a few more times.
Was that actually any better?
I guess I'm just not sure if it's a bad thing that the game seems "softer" and you feel safer outside the walls if you think all the deaths you got out there were lame in the first place.
Create a Zalanthanian highwayman.
The figure wearing a black bandana over his face leaps out onto the road, brandishing his bone saber at you, one hand held behind his back.
With a *swish* of his bone saber, the figure wearing a black bandana over his face says, in northern-accented sirishish,
"Stand and deliver!"
Your victim walks north, atop a black-shelled inix.
We need someone like this:
Looking for Group: Slaughter Your World (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=fcbazH6aE2g#t=33s)
Quote from: Malken on May 17, 2012, 04:01:07 PM
Quote from: Necro on May 17, 2012, 02:47:29 PM
Losing is fun.
I stopped reading there.
I win in life, I constantly win on Arm, and that's how I like it baby.
This is either self-deprecating humor, or indicates that you don't like to step out of your comfort zone.
Go read more of Malken's posts it'll be obvious ;)
He's French Canadian.
Quote from: Adj on May 19, 2012, 01:03:41 AM
In all honesty I dont think the game got softer. I think I got a lot better at NOT DYING. Because if I recall I've done some stupid things.
Our player base is also an older crowd now than ten years ago. Sooooooooo maybe we all were young and dumb.
Lol, I remember when entire Byn units would regularly walk off the Shield Wall.
I want to expand on what Marauder Moe and Delusion said earlier in the thread.
I would say the sort of believable "villain" in Zalanthas is more accurately defined as an anti-hero for literary purposes.
In my opinion, the average person that does something bad for badness' sake is probably crazy, and as such, being put down like a crazy Zalanthan should not come as a surprise to them (or their player). A far more believable type is someone who does what he does because he has to do it, especially if the reasons he has to do it are born from their own past mistakes... and is prepared to face the consequences.
A Bynner kicked out by his Sergeant because he slept with the Sarge's girlfriend and stole Byn stuff, then resorted to raiding on the North Road because no one else will hire him = believable.
A Legionnaire kicked out and forgotten because he lost an arm, after all his years of service, decides to become "The One-Armed Cutpurse" = believable.
A random nobody who has never been in any conflict whatsoever decides to up and start stuff with absolutely everyone, Grand Theft Auto-style = NOT believable, or at least, believed to be crazy.
Your PC does bad things because it suits your ultimate purposes, and possibly because he feels he has no other choice. The end justifies the means. Since many of my characters turn out to be anti-heroic in some way or another, I tend to think of a few of my favorites of this type of character: Captain Yossarian, "Dirty" Harry Callahan, Dexter Morgan, Jimmy McNulty, or Walter White. They each have reasons, gripes, and motivations to do things between "mildly annoying" and "very illegal and unacceptable to society", but are ultimately doing it for some arguably good purpose - whether that is solely for themselves, or for other people.
The tricky thing is, having no other choice is entirely subjective. A commoner who barely has food to eat, water to drink, and has no job prospects may have no choice but to steal to support himself. On the other hand, a noble with all her basic needs taken care of could justify "having no choice" but to attack another noble politically and raise her own standing in the city.
I think, whether or not players know it, they tend to fall into this antiheroic pattern in some way or another when starting believable conflict (which has happened often enough for me to observe and appreciate).
Ultimately how you decide to be bad is up to you, but when it comes to answering the "safe and cozy" question, maybe you are spending so much time looking for villainy that you miss the antiheroics that consistently show up in-game.
What Cuttthroat said. The guy is smart.
But as for safe? Hah. No. Take off the rosy glasses and look with a clear perspective: while death may be less 'random' so to speak, its shadow looms over us all and you can invite it in with any number of decisions, good or bad.
That, well, sounds like an improvement to me.
Quote from: WaNoBe on May 19, 2012, 10:25:13 AM
Quote from: Adj on May 19, 2012, 01:03:41 AM
In all honesty I dont think the game got softer. I think I got a lot better at NOT DYING. Because if I recall I've done some stupid things.
Our player base is also an older crowd now than ten years ago. Sooooooooo maybe we all were young and dumb.
Lol, I remember when entire Byn units would regularly walk off the Shield Wall.
I was there for that.... Twice... -.- Nothing is worse than when you're taking a simple trip and suddenly you see yourself going over a cliff... Funny part was, the second time it happened my climb check held... Half-way down... So I watched the entire rest of the unit fall past me...
I'm thinking its a combination of what a few different people have said, both a maturity change in the pbase as a whole with a decrease in super NPC's close to cities. I've started to see more dangerous stuff , I just seem to hafta go further to find it.
Quote from: Kebron on May 19, 2012, 10:19:33 PM
I'm thinking its a combination of what a few different people have said, both a maturity change in the pbase as a whole with a decrease in super NPC's close to cities. I've started to see more dangerous stuff , I just seem to hafta go further to find it.
To be fair, while some people are talking about NPC threats, but what I, and some others are discussing is the lack of PC threats in the world currently. But yeah, the NPCs are still just fine, and most people still playing have a couple years under their belt, so they know how to avoid them. That's where the PC threats picked up the slack for me.
Quote from: maxid on May 20, 2012, 03:05:56 AM
To be fair, while some people are talking about NPC threats, but what I, and some others are discussing is the lack of PC threats in the world currently.
I disagree very much. I keep getting PKed despite playing paranoid careful, not leaving the city, not entering anywhere dubious including unsafe apartments, not pissing anyone important off, offering terms of interest to the opposing party, offering bribes, even playing offpeak.
I'm still waiting to see harassment that doesn't immediately end in PK. As someone else said, there doesn't appear to be anything between 'You poopy head' and 'backstab Amos' and I miss seeing that in between, very much. I've never heard of anyone getting raped, for instance, in several years since the consent policy was put in. Not disagreeing with the policy, but I'm sure enough PCs would play along for it to be tried more often. Just one example off the top of my head, there are many other possible forms of harassment of course.
Quote from: Akaramu on May 20, 2012, 04:25:51 AM
Quote from: maxid on May 20, 2012, 03:05:56 AM
To be fair, while some people are talking about NPC threats, but what I, and some others are discussing is the lack of PC threats in the world currently.
I disagree very much. I keep getting PKed despite playing paranoid careful, not leaving the city, not entering anywhere dubious including unsafe apartments, not pissing anyone important off, offering terms of interest to the opposing party, offering bribes, even playing offpeak.
My bad. I really should stop doing that to you, but it's pretty funny.
We both know it wasn't you! :P
That's just how it is. A lot of my PCs die to PK because they are consistently involved in hurting peoples' feelings.
To Akaramu: Why -would- you have heard about a PC being raped IG? Just because you haven't heard about it, doesn't mean it hasn't happened. In fact, unless your -character- has some reason to know about it, -you- shouldn't have any knowledge of it. And if -you- the player do have knowledge of it, then you wouldn't be posting about it here on the GDB, because that would be IC info. In other words, whether it happens, or doesn't happen, isn't anything you'd discover by reading the GDB.
Regarding villainy in general: what Cuthroat said. In particular, the whole "my characters are all assholes who get in the faces of influential people" thing. If that's what you do, if you do it, simply because that's how you like playing, or because you have determined that the game needs "assholes who butt heads with influential people," then you might be part of the problem. Characters like that, are pests. They're scene-wreckers, plotline-ruiners, disrupters of fun. I know I've had to put plotlines on hold, because "assholes who butt heads simply because their player thinks it's a fun thing to do" have gotten in the way. Plotlines that might have involved a half dozen people doing something interesting, discovering some new place, potentially risking their lives to save someeone or prevent something or other... all because some "asshole butthead" shows up and insists on turning everything into a plotline all about him. And when this happens regularly...
then people stop bothering to try and drive plotlines at all. And THAT is when the game starts to feel too cozy and safe.
With that being said, I've found it a habit of others that if my character has opinions or disagrees, they try to make you a mortal enemy for some reason. Women aren't supposed to think for themselves. ;D
I really don't think any single player can say what the environment of conflict is like on the scale of the entire game. They simply can't be everywhere at once, and experiencing all things themselves.
That said, it's interesting to read each player's personal experience, and recognizing that they are wildly varied from mine. We should all remember that.
Personally, conflict has never been an issue for me, and I've experienced, both from others, and from stuff I've caused myself, plenty of conflict that falls between "doo doo head" and "backstab amos."
If Armageddon was any more harsh I'm not sure I could handle it. It's only with experience I've been able to keep characters alive in situations I wouldn't have been able to handle as a newb.
What Feco said.
I think some people do have a point that PC raiders are unusual and some clans aren't as aggressive as they once more (though I'm really wondering why Kurac was on that list, I've never known them to be random PKers). But then again it all depended on skilled players actually bothering to make a raider PC. I've yet to be raided, whether it was from 2002 to 2006 when I used to play or more recently. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen though.
Just to clarify, the Kurac thing is an old school can of worms and shoulder-chips. Ssshhh...
Quote from: SpyGuy on May 20, 2012, 09:33:13 AM
What Feco said.
I think some people do have a point that PC raiders are unusual and some clans aren't as aggressive as they once more (though I'm really wondering why Kurac was on that list, I've never known them to be random PKers). But then again it all depended on skilled players actually bothering to make a raider PC. I've yet to be raided, whether it was from 2002 to 2006 when I used to play or more recently. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen though.
We're talking like... what... 14 years ago? something like that, there was at times intermitently when Kurac were not the lovable traders they once were but were much more actively doing "Bad things" to general travelers.
There was a pretty good run where the Kuraci military were actually raiders themselves though they didn't dress as Kuraci when they did it. And there were a few Kuraci leaders that were as likely to kill you as talk to you in my experiance.
Remember one of my first experiances with kuraci as a new player was walking into luirs during a sand storm with my hood up. Lowered my hood in the market, and then got stopped, searched, robbed by the person searching me as a "Tax" which pretty means they took everything of value I had, and then told me to hoof it out of town without a mount before they decided to finish me off -.- that happened on more than one occasion :( But like I said, something like 12-14 years ago? Also remember a time when there were more than a handful of magickers working for Kurac and I think they had a pretty good bit of influence in all that goings on... Stopping in luirs during that period was like combining the danger of raiders with magickers and poisoners and the guild all in one.
Oh, also as to the kuraci magickers, there was a period directly following that where the kuraci killed most magickers on sight... So Idk if they belong on that list, Kurac isn't -inately- troublesome, it tends to go in cycles depending on who is in charge.
Actually, now that I've opened the can of worms I seem to remember something about this on the GDB circa 2002. By the time I started actively playing (sometime just after the mantis took Luir's I think) I never noticed it in game.
Quote from: Feco on May 20, 2012, 09:15:47 AM
Personally, conflict has never been an issue for me, and I've experienced, both from others, and from stuff I've caused myself, plenty of conflict that falls between "doo doo head" and "backstab amos."
I envy you. I've tried to set up interesting non-lethal conflict unsuccessfully, it either fell apart without anything happening or was immediately cut off by instagank PK.
I never assumed to know every single plotline ingame. But if I haven't experienced something in several years, I miss it, even if others were more lucky than me and have encountered it while I didn't. Speaking for my own PCs, here. I've heard of others involved in non-lethal conflict between poopyhead and backstab Amos, but not my own characters. Every time I try, it just ends in quick death yet again.
Quote from: Kebron on May 20, 2012, 02:50:34 PM
Oh, also as to the kuraci magickers, there was a period directly following that where the kuraci killed most magickers on sight...
lol
Apart from being pissed on by gith, kryl, spiders, anakores, bahamets, sharps, assholes, whores and gickers?
Yeah.. arms safe..
I'm still waiting for Cyber Patrol to chime in.
Quote from: Tuannon on May 21, 2012, 12:31:18 PM
I'm still waiting for Cyber Patrol to chime in.
Ahh, the "when in doubt, whip it out" guy. Or maybe I got that backwards...
Quote from: zeia on May 21, 2012, 10:27:57 AM
Apart from being pissed on by gith, kryl, spiders, anakores, bahamets, sharps, assholes, whores and gickers?
Yeah.. arms safe..
Don't forget Mekillots, black beetles, storms, the shield wall, 'rinthers, ankegs...
Rantarri, silt flyers, delves, dujat, silt horrors, salt worms, and a goodly amount of "find out IC" monsters and variations ...
Yeah, sure, it's all safe and cozy. Like a pair of spiky underwear. ::)
I think people are bitching because people don't PK as much. No worries, we'll happily oblige you. :D
I don't wanna get PK'd. I just wanna get beat up more. :(
I was just kidding around. I'm certainly not going to be specific, but I know it's happening out there, even if not by me. Arm is as cutthroat as ever, IMO.
Threads like this make me want to app up Richard, the cutesy warlock.
Quote from: Maso on May 21, 2012, 07:27:54 PM
I don't wanna get PK'd. I just wanna get beat up more. :(
+10, because 1 isn't enough.
This is my experience and take it with a grain of salt mixed with some sand:
Safety and coziness in Armageddon is entirely within the perception and domain of the individual player.
Most players that I've seen will reach a point where they will have a string of long lived characters. They have, essentially, reached a point of knowledge of how the game works and how the player community works to be able to live for a long while. When players reach this point, the game changes its dynamic feeling and can start becoming stale. Some players, at this point, will shift focus and start trying to "change the world" and then start "hating" the immortals for being a variety of "bad things." These players tend to complain that the game is rigid and that the immortals don't do anything.
Other players just say that the game gets too safe. That the game is easy and don't look at their own character progression. The game can be as safe or as dangerous as you wish it to be based on how you play your character.
Any role can be full of risk and danger or safe and easy. I've seen people in all roles live forever and a day simply because they didn't do anything risky at all. There is nothing -wrong- with that since it is their choice to play like that. What is wrong is if they ever complain about the game being risk free.
Armageddon gives you what you put into it.
Once a player reaches that state of enlightenment they shift their focus and start playing for their own enjoyment. They create stories and fun for themselves and others. Some players stumble upon this by creating "throw away" characters that seem to survive the craziest thing and these are the characters that they remember with fondness later on.
If the game ever feels stale or static to you take a break and start a risk taker.
As an aside, I won Armageddon years ago. ;)
So, winning isn't an achievable goal anymore since it was done. But, there are plenty of consolation prizes out there to compete for.
I would say if this wasn't a troll thread for "player vs. imm" plots, then marko's got it spot on. Risk nothing, lose nothing. Safe and cozy is relative to what you put into it.
Coming into this thread late, I'd have to say that I have had a very different experience on Arm. I'm still planning my next pc and haven't played one in a few months, but I've been repeatedly frustrated in the last few years because my pcs have been getting ganked more often than they used to.
My answer to the thread title: Fuck no.
When I was introduced to Arm, was a friend in another mud I was playing and was tired of. He told me "do not get attached to your character, cause you will die fast" Not sure if that was cause arm was dangerous, or if he knew I have a habit of playing conflict roles, in either case, as I learn more of the game, I enjoy developing more conflictual actions, beliefs, and such. Though so far, I have to say, its a pretty friendly world, just has a harsh learning curve, ya start out knowing nothing, and it feels like everyone expects ya to know everything (atleast on an IC level, folks are real helpful OOCly)
In my opinion I have to say yes, Arm is safe and cozy.
Currently the game is saturated with a lot of new players. That always makes the environment seem "nicer".
Because my first character was not jumped in the tavern and buttfucked to death (without even first being asked for consent!) within my first 30 minutes of play, I have concluded that Armageddon is irredeemably carebear.
On a serious note, I do rein myself in from murdering newbies. I prefer to rough them up while also giving any syntax help since I know from experience that's the biggest learning curve. May be I'm too nice. Or may be I'm just setting myself up to be zerg-rushed a few months down the road by accomplished warriors and assassins holding a grudge.
I've played on and off for a great many years. And I actually do think death was a greater occurrence "Back in the Day" than it is now. Really, people were dying right and left. Bodies stacked all over the place. It really was a different time.
But there was also a lesser focus on role-play than there is today (depending how far back we're talking). Players and imms alike put less focus on depth than they do now. Compare the fossil that is present day Allanak to New Tuluk today. Compare Allanak's room descriptions, clearly written nearly two decades ago, to the ones in New Tuluk. Where the average item in Allanak has an sdesc as descriptive as: a bone breastplate, its counterpart in Tuluk tends to read more like this: a thick and vibrant kryl shell armlet. I'm not talking about being wordy just for the sake of it. I truly do mean added depth. New Tuluk has a wealth of documentation far surpassing present day Allanak's. The rooms, the NPCs, the objects. All of it, to me, reflect the difference between old school ArmageddonMUD where the primary focus was death, and its present day form where the primary focus is depth.
And it stands to reason if we put a greater effort into breathing life into the game and our characters, we're going to value those characters more. I don't think that makes the game CarebearMUD. I think it makes the game more mature. Having said that, you can still find death aplenty in present day Arm. Exploration and even general hunting has always had its share of hazards. And death via PC to PC conflict still exists, perhaps on a lesser scale only because players aren't desperately LOOKING for a reason to PKill you and are instead only doing it when it's realistic for their character to do so.
Up until recently I'd been offline for roughly two years. And on and off before that during the span of Arm's history. Since my return I'm amazed to see updates to the wilds, the North Road, the clans, the code, etc. And I don't think any of it has implied added coziness to the game. Just depth.
Interesting thread. I think that I fit marko's story to some degree. I had a period of self-perceived boredom and staleness, which I later learned was me not "fitting the mold" of clans and characters I played, not having enough risk, and so on. This was followed by period of "enlightenment" where I play "throw aways" but I wouldn't put that label on it per se, just the general concept of increasing my risk and enjoying it does fit with my experience of learning how to play Arm.
I have yet to "win at arm," whatever that means. However, I have found new ways to have fun with a game I've been playing a long time, and for me, having fun is winning. So you're not the only one.
The peeps that are complaining that the game isn't dangerous just aren't going out looking for danger. If you look: Believe me, you'll find it. That's personally how I play for a lot of my roles and it's exciting.
Quote from: Harmless on June 03, 2012, 03:37:12 AM
Interesting thread. I think that I fit marko's story to some degree. I had a period of self-perceived boredom and staleness, which I later learned was me not "fitting the mold" of clans and characters I played, not having enough risk, and so on. This was followed by period of "enlightenment" where I play "throw aways" but I wouldn't put that label on it per se, just the general concept of increasing my risk and enjoying it does fit with my experience of learning how to play Arm.
I have yet to "win at arm," whatever that means. However, I have found new ways to have fun with a game I've been playing a long time, and for me, having fun is winning. So you're not the only one.
IMO winning arm is only achieved when you have FUN. That is winning in arm as arm is a game that has no end other than death. So if you at any point in arm had fun you where winning.
My thoughts.
First, NPC wise, yes, it is pretty fluffy, but that I think is mostly because some respawns are broken...and other things...but I think staff likely knows about such things and is working on them. So who knows, maybe the desert will become more populated again with eat your face things.
PC wise...well, over the years I've noticed that the people who do cause conflict or do PK don't do it all the time. I am one of them. If I have a successful conflict PC, When he is no more I usually will make something else, and I tend to have VERY long lived PCs. Many other people are the same way. SO, you end up with spikes..as it would be, when people tend to be playing conflict PCs and then non-conflict PCs. And it does not take many people to make these noticed, simply because it only takes 3 or 4 experienced players doing about the same thing to be noticed. While twenty inexperienced players can be doing it as well but they are unlikely to make noticeable waves.
Don't worry, though I have been on a low conflict PC for the last year...it will not last much longer and the conflict, chaos, killing bug will bite again and I will make something to make you all miserable...enjoy the coziness while it lasts.
XD's version of "not safe" is infinitely more fun than randomly spawned tembo's version of "not safe." I completely endorse XD's version.
And miss it :(
Having stepped away from the game for awhile and recently returned I would say that, in my perception at least, it is much safer in many ways. I think that if you never step away, you can't really see a slow-occuring change. From my limited experiences of being back people also seem much more accepting of all sorts of trash like elves, half-elves, 'rinthers, gems, and Byn. There are many more people that want to be 'friends' with everyone and are just generally polite. Sure, they could be being manipulative but...eh.
People seem much faster to use the OOC command as well, which does bother me a bit. When I have seen it used it wasn't for the limited brief comment that I think it was intended for but they seem to carry on a little bit and say things that isn't really needed.
Armageddon seems to have gone a bit soft. I'm hoping to help to bring back a bit more grit. In the few chances I had to attempt to do that, people didn't seem to know what to think. I've been having a lot of fun since returning and I am glad to be playing again so I am in no way complaining, just stating my observations.