Armageddon General Discussion Board

I'm starting up this thread as a discussion topic for a certain pervasive problem where you'll follow your leader into what is probably certain death like you're a brain-dead lemming, and likely subsequently die/be horribly injured through no fault of your own besides incidentally poor clan choice. I'd suggest a mod move the posts from the other thread into here, but aren't they spread out over multiple pages and a pain in the butt to do? Whatever.

Anyway, I suggest code like the merchant's gate that is added to climbing and falling code. If following someplace would put you over a fall, you stop and think about it. If following someplace would make you climb, you stop and think about it.

Quote from: myselfJust make it default behavior for followers to automatically unhitch when the person they're following makes a climb check/enters a climb room. After all, you see them make the climb check before they enter that room. Then add nosave follow: "Your character will follow someone into a room with a climb check automatically."

Desired Solution: Make it so you cannot follow people into climb/fall rooms.

I have no idea what kind of code that would need and don't want to presume what it'd look like or how easy it'd be to implement.




This seems like a good place to ask: anyone have a MUSCHClient trigger to automatically unhitch yourself if you see someone in the room fail a fall check?

Following someone is instantaneous. Triggers wouldn't help except to unhitch in the room before they move.

One may argue that no one would ride or walk to some location in which there is a certain fall. Not just the followers I mean. If there would be some code(This was implemented in game by the way), I think it should be something like; When you type north to a fall, system should respond like: "If you want to go north, type -Walk North-."

By the way, I like this kind of game twiks. Our PCs travel miles and miles of empty desert in minutes.  A few coded dangers, even though they are somewhat unrealistic, make those travels more dangerous and a bit realistic. I like the idea of sink holes, sudden falls, hidden NPC warbands attacking, etc. There can be situations you can only save yourself with sacrificing your mount, etc.

Why just following?

>north

You will fall if you go that way.  Are you sure?

>north

You walk north...
[SD] Over the edge of a cliff
  This is the air above a steep fall, just over the edge of a rocky cliff.  You're an idiot for going here.

You lose your grip and fall...
And, like the merchant's gate, every follower has to be individually explicit about it.

Or if the code isn't quite up to a prompt/response like that, make it like every fall room is "guarded" and you can never walk into one under normal circumstances.  You have to run to bypass it.

(Abnormal circumstances that should possibly still have a chance at falling: poor riding skill, poor piloting skill, fleeing, sandstorm, carru'ed)

I kind of question the realism of having all these dumbass fall and climb rooms, in the first place.

I usually play classes with the climb skill, and I know it feels cool to be the guy who can climb and get to the neat stuff that nobody else in the party can, but coooome oooooooon.  It's all a bit ridiculous.

For an easy, non-code intensive option you can change all obvious fall rooms to just have an unusual direction coded to them. Like "Down" for instance. So instead of going "North" and falling off the edge, you have to type "Down."

This won't stop fleeing off a cliff on accident, or stumbling off during a sandstorm, but so what? There's no reason why those wouldn't be legitimate dangers.

It also requires no work on the coder's part. Just need a Builder to go in and change the directions.

Quote from: Narf on June 10, 2015, 03:29:15 PM
For an easy, non-code intensive option you can change all obvious fall rooms to just have an unusual direction coded to them. Like "Down" for instance. So instead of going "North" and falling off the edge, you have to type "Down."

This won't stop fleeing off a cliff on accident, or stumbling off during a sandstorm, but so what? There's no reason why those wouldn't be legitimate dangers.

It also requires no work on the coder's part. Just need a Builder to go in and change the directions.

Brilliant.

Quote from: nauta on June 10, 2015, 03:30:32 PM

Quote from: Narf on June 10, 2015, 03:29:15 PM
For an easy, non-code intensive option you can change all obvious fall rooms to just have an unusual direction coded to them. Like "Down" for instance. So instead of going "North" and falling off the edge, you have to type "Down."

This won't stop fleeing off a cliff on accident, or stumbling off during a sandstorm, but so what? There's no reason why those wouldn't be legitimate dangers.

It also requires no work on the coder's part. Just need a Builder to go in and change the directions.

Brilliant.

+1, good idea.

Quote from: Synthesis on June 10, 2015, 03:19:12 PM
I kind of question the realism of having all these dumbass fall and climb rooms, in the first place.

I usually play classes with the climb skill, and I know it feels cool to be the guy who can climb and get to the neat stuff that nobody else in the party can, but coooome oooooooon.  It's all a bit ridiculous.

I understand them in the sense that the landscape might just be hard to see ahead in a particularly perilous part of the world, or the hole might be hidden, or whatever, but when it's basically described to be "A MASSIVE HUGE GIGANTIC TEAR IN THE EARTH OVER A STEEP VERTICAL CLIFF!!" there's just no way anyone would just... ride right over the edge. Even less so if they saw someone go straight in ahead of them.

There has to be some kind of improvement available that makes sense. The above suggestions all seem very good.

North vs North !

That's what SoI did.

Quote from: Case on June 10, 2015, 04:07:37 PM
North vs North !

That's what SoI did.

Care to elaborate? Did you have to put a space at the end of the direction when heading in to a fall/climb room?

Quote from: Marauder Moe on June 10, 2015, 03:31:23 PM

Quote from: nauta on June 10, 2015, 03:30:32 PM

Quote from: Narf on June 10, 2015, 03:29:15 PM
For an easy, non-code intensive option you can change all obvious fall rooms to just have an unusual direction coded to them. Like "Down" for instance. So instead of going "North" and falling off the edge, you have to type "Down."

This won't stop fleeing off a cliff on accident, or stumbling off during a sandstorm, but so what? There's no reason why those wouldn't be legitimate dangers.

It also requires no work on the coder's part. Just need a Builder to go in and change the directions.

Brilliant.

+1, good idea.

Some falls/cliffs already have something similar to this. If you go north to go over the edge is says something like "Are you crazy? You might fall if you go that way. If you really want to go there, go in the direction again."

or n vs north for all climb rooms that are enterable that way, like if you try to type sle it'll say "you need to type 'sleep' to sleep."

Making all climb rooms require a full word would do wonders; d vs down, u vs up. If it could be toggled as a nosave option that'd be good too.

Or yeah, n vs n!. A lot of the suggestions in this thread so far are good.

Quote from: BadSkeelz on June 10, 2015, 04:09:17 PM

Quote from: Case on June 10, 2015, 04:07:37 PM
North vs North !

That's what SoI did.

Care to elaborate? Did you have to put a space at the end of the direction when heading in to a fall/climb room?

Had to have ! to attempt a voluntary fall.

I agree with the follow code point.  Make only one person go over climb checks at a time.

I do not agree with putting a safeguard in for climb checks altogether.  You -should- be wary around drops. You -should- watch carefully, rather than have a safety measure just so that you have to pay less attention.

Usually a regular horse (one that isn't specially trained to do so) won't go over a cliff. Horses don't want to fall. I wonder if mounts in Zalanthas should be as intelligent.

Quote from: Molten Heart on June 10, 2015, 04:21:55 PM
Usually a regular horse (one that isn't specially trained to do so) won't go over a cliff. Horses don't want to fall. I wonder if mounts in Zalanthas should be as intelligent.

The beetles know they have vastly more HP than you.

Quote from: Synthesis on June 10, 2015, 04:23:31 PM

Quote from: Molten Heart on June 10, 2015, 04:21:55 PM
Usually a regular horse (one that isn't specially trained to do so) won't go over a cliff. Horses don't want to fall. I wonder if mounts in Zalanthas should be as intelligent.

The beetles know they have vastly more HP than you.

Beetles are so smart.

I like the fact that the code does not hold our hand and prevent us from falling down these holes. This is Armageddon! I think the warning room echo goes far enough to prevent it.

This a RPI mud with hard coded actions that require a bit of RP creative license to decide what is really going on. In the sink hole example, it is a crumbling bit of rock that isn't stable at all. Don't view following the leader down a hole like lemmings jumping over the edge without thought. Instead think of it as if you followed a leader who got close too the edge of an unstable cliff that gave way and you all slipped over the edge with the collapse.

Moral of the story: Don't want to fall down holes, don't follow leaders who will take you that close to unstable ground.

Quote from: Flying Erdlu on June 10, 2015, 04:58:25 PM
I like the fact that the code does not hold our hand and prevent us from falling down these holes. This is Armageddon! I think the warning room echo goes far enough to prevent it.

This a RPI mud with hard coded actions that require a bit of RP creative license to decide what is really going on. In the sink hole example, it is a crumbling bit of rock that isn't stable at all. Don't view following the leader down a hole like lemmings jumping over the edge without thought. Instead think of it as if you followed a leader who got close too the edge of an unstable cliff that gave way and you all slipped over the edge with the collapse.

Moral of the story: Don't want to fall down holes, don't follow leaders who will take you that close to unstable ground.

Sinkholes aren't the only climb rooms in the known world, you know.

Quote from: Flying Erdlu on June 10, 2015, 04:58:25 PM

Moral of the story: Don't want to fall down holes, don't follow leaders who will take you that close to unstable ground.

That's not a good moral to be teaching, since it basically says "don't join any clan where you might theoretically be put under someone who will walk into a hole."

My code suggestion is that if you're following someone over a cliff you get a massive +climb bonus based on your wisdom score. I only have a tenuous grasp on coding but I don't think that would be /too/ hard to put in?

Quote from: Narf on June 10, 2015, 05:17:11 PM

Quote from: Flying Erdlu on June 10, 2015, 04:58:25 PM

Moral of the story: Don't want to fall down holes, don't follow leaders who will take you that close to unstable ground.

That's not a good moral to be teaching, since it basically says "don't join any clan where you might theoretically be put under someone who will walk into a hole."

Actually, yes this is exactly what I'm saying. If you are in a clan that likely will take you near crumbling, unstable rock, you are in a very dangerous situation. And in that case, then you are right, don't join that clan if you have concerns about being put such dangerous situations.

But my stance is predicated on not looking at this as a "Lemmings incident" but rather a broader ICly explained roleplay of something such as what I described. E.g. the cliff edge crumbled away, causing a massive collapse.

Pretty sure every clan in the game has had a group or wagon or baby carriage go off a cliff at some point.

Quote from: Flying Erdlu on June 10, 2015, 05:34:22 PM

Quote from: Narf on June 10, 2015, 05:17:11 PM

Quote from: Flying Erdlu on June 10, 2015, 04:58:25 PM

Moral of the story: Don't want to fall down holes, don't follow leaders who will take you that close to unstable ground.

That's not a good moral to be teaching, since it basically says "don't join any clan where you might theoretically be put under someone who will walk into a hole."

Actually, yes this is exactly what I'm saying. If you are in a clan that likely will take you near crumbling, unstable rock, you are in a very dangerous situation. And in that case, then you are right, don't join that clan if you have concerns about being put such dangerous situations.

But my stance is predicated on not looking at this as a "Lemmings incident" but rather a broader ICly explained roleplay of something such as what I described. E.g. the cliff edge crumbled away, causing a massive collapse.

You can literally explain anything away like that. That doesn't make it fun, or logical, or interesting, or compelling in any way. And this is a game we're playing, and a story we're trying to tell. And what you're suggesting never happens. People don't come up with clever IC reasons when stupid shit like this happens. They ignore it, avoid the topic IC, and pretend that shit never happened. When people talk about or describe the event it's always just "The crew fell into a hole and died, it fucking sucks." not "The crew got to close to a cliff, and I swear by my balls, Amos, a fucking Roc flew down from the sky straight at us and the power of whira comin' of his wings was so strong it blew us all off the edge!"

And there's a reason for that. Everyone can't make up their own special narrative for what happened, because they might conflict, and there's no DM to tell you "This is the fun story-telling version of what happened to your characters!"

The whole "let's explain this flawed OOC code implementation through some creative IC narrative" only prolongs and enables these sorts of situations.

No matter how hard you try: you know, staff knows, and every other player knows that the IC reasoning you're trying to sell is a convenient lie.

I'm pretty sure the first time I was taken outside the gates by my Corporal, she pointed up the North Road and said "there's a sinkhole that way. If you fall in you'll die."

Taught me to avoid that side of the City, yup yup.

teh old north rode is totally safe, u can speedwalk it and u will end up in loorz, the dirs are n;n;n;n;n;ne;n;n;n;enln;;nlnl lololol     

just trying to counter all the free IC sekrits being given away lately lol. bootstrapz ppls!


(sorry, couldn't resist)

Guise I been whining about this for like years an' years.

Quote from: MeTekillot on June 10, 2015, 02:50:38 PM
I'm starting up this thread as a discussion topic for a certain pervasive problem where you'll follow your leader into what is probably certain death like you're a brain-dead lemming, and likely subsequently die/be horribly injured through no fault of your own besides incidentally poor clan choice. I'd suggest a mod move the posts from the other thread into here, but aren't they spread out over multiple pages and a pain in the butt to do? Whatever.

Anyway, I suggest code like the merchant's gate that is added to climbing and falling code. If following someplace would put you over a fall, you stop and think about it. If following someplace would make you climb, you stop and think about it.

The best solution to this problem is to not follow anyone around the wastes who doesn't know what they're doing. And certainly don't stake your life, and those of others on it, unless you're all good climbers. And remember you can 'dismount beetle' in midair.

That said. Making it ask for confirmation before lurching over an obvious death fall, would not be entirely amiss. But then, it seems to happen regardless, even in places where that coded request for confirmation exists.

This is a perfect example for how players and characters, who can keep their heads in the wastes and know the terrain, are a god send to any clan.

The problem with the "easy fix" solution of making all the fall exits "down" is that then, even if your character can't see the room description, s/he'll never fall down the hole (unless it's perfectly dark).  It also devalues the "climb" skill and subsequently the guilds that come with it.

These rooms aren't littered around in the city, or the merchant's quarter.  They're scattered across what is described as an unforgiving, desolate landscape.  There should be some element of danger, even to a PC whose owner can grab a coffee during a fight with a mekillot.

To me, walking a character out along a cliff face when you know you're one typo away from death is as chilling as a ballsy journeyman steal attempt on a nobleman.  It makes your hands sweat IRL, keeps your fingers light on the keys.  This is a good thing, in my opinion.  But I know it's not for everyone. :)

Nevertheless, it breaks my heart to hear about people who died because they followed their leader off a cliff.  It happened to me!  It may not be the leader's fault OOCly (a mistake is a mistake) but it is the leader's fault ICly for not establishing a better protocol for navigating these areas.  Unhitch everyone or tell them to break off (to signify breaking stride, spreading out, or whatever) and move room, by room, by room.

If you're a follower, ask your leader if you can break stride near those perilous cliffs he's speedwalking you past.  If he says no, I recommend mutiny. :)

Quote from: CodeMaster on June 10, 2015, 11:24:37 PM
 Unhitch everyone or tell them to break off (to signify breaking stride, spreading out, or whatever) and move room, by room, by room.

If you're a follower, ask your leader if you can break stride near those perilous cliffs he's speedwalking you past.  If he says no, I recommend mutiny. :)

This is also great advice, and something I forgot to mention in my own post. People get too used to 'following' each other around. You can and should learn to operate together, while not having to be in each other's pockets.

I have a decent solution for this:

nosave ride off
You will not follow the leader into climb-check rooms
BUT
You will not get the automatic benefit of the leader's direction sense

nosave ride on
You will automatically get the benefit of the leader's direction sense
BUT
You will also follow the leader into climb-check rooms

This will give each individual follower the choice to decide whether s/he want to blindly follow the leader or not.

Seems like a fair trade off too - if you can ride well enough - you won't blindly follow the leader and consequently won't follow into a climb-check room. Alternatively, if you are a sucky rider and NEED the leader's guidance to traverse the terrain - then you will follow the leader into a climb-check room.

I play the game for fun, such as dying an interesting death possibly with some fun rp.

"You plummet to the ground" out of nowhere because you forgot to look north just that one room isn't fun. I Could get into how unrealistic it is but the baseline is that I want to play a fun game, not desertwank simulator: sandy crack and death pits ahoy.

Sure, you should be able to fall into a pit if the sandstorm means you can't see the room or if you fail direction sense but I'm not going to walk into a pit when I can see 10' ahead.

I finally have a character with whom I enjoy falling down 6 room drops.

Quote from: Incognito on June 11, 2015, 06:06:25 AM
I have a decent solution for this:

nosave ride off
You will not follow the leader into climb-check rooms
BUT
You will not get the automatic benefit of the leader's direction sense

nosave ride on
You will automatically get the benefit of the leader's direction sense
BUT
You will also follow the leader into climb-check rooms

This will give each individual follower the choice to decide whether s/he want to blindly follow the leader or not.

Seems like a fair trade off too - if you can ride well enough - you won't blindly follow the leader and consequently won't follow into a climb-check room. Alternatively, if you are a sucky rider and NEED the leader's guidance to traverse the terrain - then you will follow the leader into a climb-check room.

I like the idea, but would say "nosave follow" instead of "nosave ride" because elves.

There is no reason to propose a tradeoff-type solution, here.

It's a stupid, pointless problem that only needs to be fixed.  There's no reason to make people "pay" to avoid it.

I actually like this a lot.  I don't see it as a trade off solution. If you're relying on someone to lead you through a sand storm and they lead you off a cliff, so be it. But if you're just following them across the desert, you should see that cliff coming up. The storm has to be pretty egregious for you to be relying on someone else's direction sense, anyway.

It doesn't make a lot of sense if you're not riding.  It actually makes no sense at all.

I should add that I don't think we should ruin one of Armageddon's best tropes.  The Shield Wall is famous for dead Bynners and wagon crashes.  :D

Quote from: Synthesis on June 11, 2015, 11:11:19 AM
There is no reason to propose a tradeoff-type solution, here.

It's a stupid, pointless problem that only needs to be fixed.  There's no reason to make people "pay" to avoid it.

So, this would translate to something like - your PC is unable to navigate the terrain on his/her own, and you need someone to explicitly guide you through it, but, when the leader who has you in tow makes a wrong turn somewhere, you somehow manage to not follow the leader......

Quote from: SuchDragonWow on June 11, 2015, 11:27:44 AM
It doesn't make a lot of sense if you're not riding.  It actually makes no sense at all.

If you're following someone - to make use of their Direction Sense, then you are in fact blindly following them - and deserve to follow them if they head into a climb-check room.

On the other hand, if you're not following someone for their Direction Sense, then you're realistically following at a safer distance - and should not follow them into a climb-check room.

The logic behind proposing a trade-off here - is to allow PCs to choose one way or another.

If I have a PC who has a decent grasp of finding my own way around the terrain and am not relying on the leader's guidance - then I shouldn't realistically fall off a cliff just because the person ahead of me decided to leap off.

If I have a PC who can't navigate the terrain for shit - and am relying on someone to explicitly guide me - then realistically I should follow him off a cliff.

You can't have it both ways.

I think this should be valid regardless of whether you're riding or not. Either you are having the leader guide you or not. That's the basic point.

Of course - the alternative is to keep things as they are - and carry on.

This was just a proposed alternative, that could work and be fair to all around - at the same time AND be realistic at the same time as well.

Quote from: valeria on June 11, 2015, 11:22:36 AM
I actually like this a lot.  I don't see it as a trade off solution. If you're relying on someone to lead you through a sand storm and they lead you off a cliff, so be it. But if you're just following them across the desert, you should see that cliff coming up. The storm has to be pretty egregious for you to be relying on someone else's direction sense, anyway.

Yes, it's a trade-off.

Benefit:  you don't -automatically- go over the cliff.

Risk:  you might -accidentally- go over the cliff if you fail your direction sense.

Quote from: IncognitoIf I have a PC who can't navigate the terrain for shit - and am relying on someone to explicitly guide me - then realistically I should follow him off a cliff.

Yeaaaaah.  No.  Going to have to agree to disagree, here.

Makes me wonder if many of you have ever been near cliff in real life. You've got to do something pretty fucking stupid to fall off one. Even more so if you just watched someone else fall off first.

Quote from: RogueGunslinger on June 11, 2015, 12:41:51 PM
Makes me wonder if many of you have ever been near cliff in real life. You've got to do something pretty fucking stupid to fall off one. Even more so if you just watched someone else fall off first.

Does it count as really stupid if you want to get a good look at the dust cloud rise as they land? Cause Idaknow, I think that's legit.

Quote from: Synthesis on June 11, 2015, 12:35:12 PM

Quote from: IncognitoIf I have a PC who can't navigate the terrain for shit - and am relying on someone to explicitly guide me - then realistically I should follow him off a cliff.

Yeaaaaah.  No.  Going to have to agree to disagree, here.

Quote from: RogueGunslinger on June 11, 2015, 12:41:51 PM
Makes me wonder if many of you have ever been near cliff in real life. You've got to do something pretty fucking stupid to fall off one. Even more so if you just watched someone else fall off first.

Following a leader off a cliff - on Zalanthas - is a combination of various conditions:
Weather
Terrain
Your riding skill level
Whether you have Direction Sense or not, and if yes, how high of a level

I agree with RogueGunslinger - in RL, falling off a cliff is something that can be pretty much avoided.

When I think of following someone off a cliff on Zalanthas though - I see it as being in a low visibility/high wind situation, with lack of knowledge of said terrain, and then following someone off a small sand dune that has a huge crevice or sharp fall on the other side.  - i.e. - a situation where you can't actually see/know that there's a sheer drop off the other side.

If you were on a mesa - and could see the edge of the mesa - then I'd agree that you probably shouldn't ride off the mesa's edge with the leader.

Maybe this could be something Staff might want to look into and bifurcate :-
a) Clearly demarcated and visible falls - that can be avoided - even while following a leader.
b) Not clearly visible and avoidable pitfalls - that can't be avoided - if you're following a leader.

Having said this - I dont realistically see this happening coz it'd be a pretty huge and cumbersome exercise.

I've been thinking about it, and this is my problem with how code works around pitfalls:

It feels like a punishment to the player, rather than a believable IC consequence.

More to the point, it feels like a snickery "gotcha". "LOL he didn't pick up on the hints in that description! GOTCHA!"

There are also cases where the room has been built improperly, such as a lack of indication in the direction or night-time description, when it is even more of an OOC issue. There are also cases where rooms that LOOK like they should be climb rooms aren't - and vice versa.

Adding a confirmation for any climb/fall room would fix that problem. >n! vs >n works great.

Then, if you truly do get swept off the edge, thrown off the edge, or climb over the edge... it's an actual in-character consequence.

Quote from: BadSkeelz on June 10, 2015, 05:37:21 PM
Pretty sure every clan in the game has had a group or wagon or baby carriage go off a cliff at some point.

The most maddening was when it was a room that wasn't very obvious it was a pitfall ahead - just a vague hint at the end of the description. Having the PC suffer in-character consequences and slander ("they crashed it on purpose!") because the PLAYER didn't understand a vague hint in a previously safe location was pretty sour.

Still a straight no to any sort of coded protection for entering climb or fall rooms.  I didn't even realize that we did it for the shield wall, and -that- is ridiculous to me.

Still a pretty cool yes to making it so that no one follows into one and people have to enter it one at a time.

Edited:  The current line of thinking from people seems to be 'I, the player, should be allowed to make mistakes of what I do in game without suffering consequences.' or 'I, the player, should have coded safeguards against making mistakes.'  You use different words, but...that is, essentially, what you're saying, right?

What's more ridiculous, a misplaced keystroke sending you over the edge of a massive cliff, or coded protections in place against OOC mistakes?

Coded protection wouldn't stop you from:

a) Being disoriented in a storm and going over the edge
b) fleeing in the wrong direction and going over the edge
c) various magickal attacks
d) being subdued and thrown over the edge
e) a crit-failed ride attempt sending you over the edge
f) I'm sure the list goes on

It would simply protect you against meaning to type "l n" and typing "n" or a lack of OOC understanding that it was a climb room.

I -might- be okay with being able to walk yourself into a pit.

Definitely not okay with being able to walk yourself and every one of your followers into a pit.

Walking yourself into a pit/off a cliff and then needing to recovered or rescued by those left topside will promote more RP than walking yourself and your entire clan off a cliff.

Quoteagainst OOC mistakes?

This isn't an OOC mistake.  Unless you count not bowing to a PC as an OOC mistake.  Or not bowing enough times to a Red Robed templar an OOC mistake (happened to me here).  Or not knowing that gith throw things at you an OOC mistake.  Or that you get thirsty faster outside the gates an OOC mistake.  Or not knowing that crim code works in this place an OOC mistake.  Or that this room has a climb che---wait.

This is a mistake...just like any other mistake made in the game that you have to deal with the consequences of.  It is, indeed, part of learning and respecting the game.

You're not getting what I'm saying. I'm takling about a misplaced keystroke or the room description being too vague.

If you accidentally target the hook-nosed elf instead of the hook-nosed templar, nobody's going to kill you for that (and if so they're a jerk), because everyone knows it was a mistake.

Or a cleverly placed assassin trying to curry favor? Can't be too sure.

Mistakes are a part of the game and should remain a part of the game. It isn't right to make scores of other players pay for your mistake. That's why I support stopping followers from going down drops.

Quote from: Armaddict on June 11, 2015, 01:34:54 PM

Edited:  The current line of thinking from people seems to be 'I, the player, should be allowed to make mistakes of what I do in game without suffering consequences.' or 'I, the player, should have coded safeguards against making mistakes.'  You use different words, but...that is, essentially, what you're saying, right?

Maybe some people, but my line of thinking I is entirely different from this.

"Is the coding simple enough to get done in a reasonable amount of time?"

With the direction changes, the answer is yes. Any builder can do that. With all the suggested code changes the answer seems to be no.

People need to put a lot more emphasis on the feasibility of their suggestions, and the opportunity cost of their "harshness." I'm not saying the game should be less harsh. I'm saying the types of harshness chosen should be less costly in resources.

(http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/pls.gif)

I hope you're joking.

I think our characters can tell the difference between an elf and a blue-robed templar.

There are certain things that happen because this game is text-based and have absolutely no basis in reality, and you guys are really just splitting hairs at this point.

Quote from: Delirium on June 11, 2015, 01:56:46 PM
I think our characters can tell the difference between an elf and a blue-robed templar.

If you can't be arsed to type "backstab hook.elf" instead of "backstab hook" ... I'm not sure your character can.

QuoteIt isn't right to make scores of other players pay for your mistake. That's why I support stopping followers from going down drops.

That's where I already agreed that there should be some evaluation of where code could be tweaked.

But I am not for more coded safeguards against mistakes of the self, as well.  Because making the game mistake proof is pretty anti-hostile-world as a whole.

QuoteIf you accidentally target the hook-nosed elf instead of the hook-nosed templar, nobody's going to kill you for that (and if so they're a jerk), because everyone knows it was a mistake.

And if you accidentally target the hook-nosed templar instead of the hook-nosed elf, you're probably going to die.  And you won't get a resurrection, either.

A vague description means exactly that...the danger isn't clear.  A misplaced keystroke...-seriously-?

"You're moving into a room adjacent to a hostile creature, are you sure you want to to do this?"
"You're leaving the city, where things are hostile and conditions are set to make life harder, are you sure you want to do this?"
"You're about to engage in combat, are you sure you want to do this?"
"Theft can result in a criminal flag, which often has unforeseen consequences, are you sure you want to do this?"
"You're about to enter patrolled territory of this desert elf tribe which attacks people on sight, are you sure you want to do this?"
"This item isn't spice, but is treated like spice because it behaves like spice, and you're a half-giant, which means they won't take you to jail, they'll just kill you, are you sure you want to pick that up?"

Mistakes -are- part of the game.

Oh my goodness.

I'm saying that planting an elf with a similar keyword in the room in an attempt to cause the player to mistarget is absolutely ridiculous.

The ability to add multiple keywords is because of that mis-targeting issue, and was a wonderful addition to the game. Yes, you should be making ample use of that where necessary.

That has NOTHING to do with how easy it is to realize belatedly that your l key is sticking and you've just sent your entire fucking troupe over the cliff.

You guys are being really hyperbolic about this harshness thing.

It would be much easier to implement a keystroke safeguard than it would to code in some elaborate follow/nofollow stuff which I'm not against but seems rather unecessary.

Try slowing down and actually typing out "look <direction>"?

that's crazy. we live our lives in the fast lane. come back when you're done spouting nonsense

(http://i.imgur.com/gpVGz9V.gif)

I always do a knot of spice 'fore riding along the North Road old skool style.



I don't want to fall. Your followers don't want to fall. They (probably) don't want to see you fall, either. I think we could all use a slow down. We should be taking more time to look around, AND dangerous terrain that should be obvious to spot should be made more obvious where it isn't. Followers shouldn't follow leaders off cliffs blindly. Wagons should still be able to be driven off cliffs cause they give us something to do and it makes a teeny bit more sense, being big unwieldy contraptions.

The game commands and environment should facilitate more meaningful conflict and RP, not constantly recovering from dumbass static archaic GOTCHA pits.

Quote from: Is Friday on June 11, 2015, 02:18:05 PM
The game commands and environment should facilitate more meaningful conflict and RP, not constantly recovering from dumbass static archaic GOTCHA pits.

The idea that players should only die in player conflicts and not to the deadly world is decidedly anti-armageddon, in my opinion.  Are you for removing the increased thirst rate outside the gates, as well?

I fell off the shield wall once (didn't die.) It wasn't in a storm. I just...completely misinterpreted the room desc. It didn't feel "harsh"; it felt cartoonish, like a Wile E. Coyote moment.

Quote from: Delirium on June 11, 2015, 01:40:21 PM
What's more ridiculous, a misplaced keystroke sending you over the edge of a massive cliff, or coded protections in place against OOC mistakes?

Coded protection wouldn't stop you from:

a) Being disoriented in a storm and going over the edge
b) fleeing in the wrong direction and going over the edge
c) various magickal attacks
d) being subdued and thrown over the edge
e) a crit-failed ride attempt sending you over the edge
f) I'm sure the list goes on

It would simply protect you against meaning to type "l n" and typing "n" or a lack of OOC understanding that it was a climb room.

I think this draws the right distinction: there are IG dangers that are coded (a-f are great examples).  Then there are OOC dangers (typos and poor room descriptions).  I suppose I'd be of the camp who would like to eliminate OOC dangers from the game.  Sure having OOC dangers helps to 'simulate' a dangerous hostile world, but that's by accident, not design, and, for me at least, it is always pretty dubious, jarring, and immersion breaking.  There is no way, for example, I can understand why my PC would literally walk off a rooftop, or why my PC decided to sap their mount instead of that jozhal.  In such cases, I (and others) have to go back and do post hoc explanations, which are often super flimsy.  (By analogy, I remember a while back someone suggesting that the wall-of-spam effect in bars 'simulates' how noisy a bar is - in a sense this is true, but that's by accident, not design.)

Implementing Narf's suggestion (or something of the sort) on places where the drops are obvious makes sense.  Maybe not -all- of them -- you can still have those hidden drops, which require you to read the room descriptions carefully and tread lightly.  But at least the ones that any non insane PC would reasonable not walk off of (unless conditions [a-f] are present)... It'd also be the least intrusive code-wise.

Hehehe... slippery slope arguments.  Ironic.

What would be nice here is if someone from staff would definitively say "No, we are doing nothing about this, please stop talking about it."

Or.

"We are considering a mechanic that will alleviate this in some way for either future or recently affected players, or both."

Until that happens, you're all just beating a dead horse at this point.

Armaddict: are you supporting lemming deaths? That's all I'm against. There's a dozen good suggestions to keep the pits while removing the retarded pit genocide.

For everyone else: if this isn't changed by the time my PC is a leader I'll lead a group of no less than 10 over the edge and OOC "My bad" just before you see mantishead. Hope you guys are looking forward to that plot.

No, he's said he's against lemming deaths.

... And now I forgot what I came here tos ay.

Quote from: Is Friday on June 11, 2015, 02:24:52 PM
For everyone else: if this isn't changed by the time my PC is a leader I'll lead a group of no less than 10 over the edge and OOC "My bad" just before you see mantishead. Hope you guys are looking forward to that plot.

I would

emote air guitars on ^me way down, shredding to oblivion

myself.

I'll make sure to build up the plot with 15 red herrings involving a nilazi hideout, gith radicals, Tuluki spies, and a new elemental plane. Then you'll all fall into a hole while following me because HARSH DESERT WORLD.

Quote from: My Byn Sergeant Character Report from about two years ago
;-; I fell down my first hole this week. It was terrible. I cried. I was going to be the first sergeant not to do that and now I failed! (It was actually pretty fun to RP, but still)

Quote from: Xalle


It's a right of passage.

Yeah I'm sure it was fun to RP in your biography entries because everyone died to the fall of wait...

Quote from: Is Friday on June 11, 2015, 02:36:22 PM
Yeah I'm sure it was fun to RP in your biography entries because everyone died to the fall of wait...

No one died. It was the same hole.

Yeah no one cares.

Congratulations on having a group with a lot of stun and hp. Maybe that's what we're doing wrong, guys. Just keep rerolling until you have enough stun and hp to RP out these great scenarios.

I think there are merits to this discussion but if this thread is going go the same route the resurrection thread dead, it's going to get killed.

Quote from: Narf on June 10, 2015, 03:29:15 PM
For an easy, non-code intensive option you can change all obvious fall rooms to just have an unusual direction coded to them. Like "Down" for instance. So instead of going "North" and falling off the edge, you have to type "Down."

This won't stop fleeing off a cliff on accident, or stumbling off during a sandstorm, but so what? There's no reason why those wouldn't be legitimate dangers.

It also requires no work on the coder's part. Just need a Builder to go in and change the directions.

I suppose the problem with this is when there are multiple exits that are falls (rooftops) and where 'down' is already taken up.

Quote from: nauta on June 11, 2015, 02:23:11 PM

Quote from: Delirium on June 11, 2015, 01:40:21 PM
What's more ridiculous, a misplaced keystroke sending you over the edge of a massive cliff, or coded protections in place against OOC mistakes?

Coded protection wouldn't stop you from:

a) Being disoriented in a storm and going over the edge
b) fleeing in the wrong direction and going over the edge
c) various magickal attacks
d) being subdued and thrown over the edge
e) a crit-failed ride attempt sending you over the edge
f) I'm sure the list goes on

It would simply protect you against meaning to type "l n" and typing "n" or a lack of OOC understanding that it was a climb room.

I think this draws the right distinction: there are IG dangers that are coded (a-f are great examples).  Then there are OOC dangers (typos and poor room descriptions).  I suppose I'd be of the camp who would like to eliminate OOC dangers from the game.  Sure having OOC dangers helps to 'simulate' a dangerous hostile world, but that's by accident, not design, and, for me at least, it is always pretty dubious, jarring, and immersion breaking.  There is no way, for example, I can understand why my PC would literally walk off a rooftop, or why my PC decided to sap their mount instead of that jozhal.  In such cases, I (and others) have to go back and do post hoc explanations, which are often super flimsy.  (By analogy, I remember a while back someone suggesting that the wall-of-spam effect in bars 'simulates' how noisy a bar is - in a sense this is true, but that's by accident, not design.)

Finally, someone who gets it.

"I, the player, shouldn't be subject to flawed construction of the in-game world environment where, communicating through a text parser, and observing the world through text, arbitrary and illogical flaws from a system made by an amateur coder years ago can insta-kill my character and everyone else around him."

I agree with you, Delirium. Like I said, it didn't feel "harsh" or "gritty" when I walked off the edge of the Shield Wall; mostly, it felt like slapstick comedy. I had to make up some silly reason why he had done that, (namely, "the sun was in my eyes!") It made everyone treat him like he was stupid for the rest of his life, when it was really just my dumb OOC mistake, since I forgot which room desc indicated the very edge, and second-guessed myself. I wasn't blown away by how unforgiving and dangerous the desert environment was. I just felt like I was screwed over by an OOC thing that my character would have never realistically done, and was forced to make up a shitty way to explain it IC.

I get that same feeling when my character randomly decides to walk out into the desert without mounting his beetle, or when some House  aide is wearing gloves and silks and I bow to them.

At the end of the day there's a million different OOC mistakes you can make that will affect your character. That's just kind of how the game works.

You can fix some of that stuff more easily than others. You can't fix the beetle thing. The House aide thing can be an IC mistake as easily as an OOC mistake.

edit: Was side-trackign the thread.

Yeah, those are haha funny mistakes. Things that are whipped away with an OOC wink and a nod.

Running your entire clan off a cliff is haha funny, too. Except, there's no agency to laugh it off because you've sealed the book-end of your character and multiple others.

Can you recognize that these things cannot be equated? It's the difference between getting shot by a BB pellet and a .50. "Well you got shot both times! Builds character!" That's pretty nonsense.

Bootstraps though.

I am with you all the way, Asanadas.

QuoteHehehe... slippery slope arguments.  Ironic.

I think you're misinterpreting.  I wasn't saying if this happens, these other things will happen.  I was drawing comparisons to other areas of the game where a similar sort of problem exists.  OOC mistakes that have IC ramifications, to demonstrate that this is not a secluded bastion of nonsense that is refusing to be fixed, it's part of how the game functions.

Some of those things are things that I, the player, have felt wronged by.  I have my own 'oopsie deaths' to my name.  This is, however, a -raw- topic having to do directly with recent events...things are always far more pressured when they're -raw-.

What I am arguing against is the idea that the playerbase feels that their behavior should be safeguarded by code to allow them to take some risks but not others.  If this static danger is always there...why are you skirting right by it?  If you're in unfamiliar ground...why are you not checking things out very carefully?  People fall off cliffs in Real Life, as well, you know.  To say it would never happen because <this> is wrong.  When people give you explanations of why it could have happened, you say no, because you're in direct control of your character and that's not how it happened.  Yet you, under direct control of your character, make a mistake, and it's tossed as a code misgiving.

I have been in situations where I have led people off a cliff.  It is a giant 'Oh.  Shit.'  I came up with an IC excuse, dealt with ramifications, and moved on.  The first step of it, though, was accounting for the fact that I could have done things very differently and avoided the situation entirely.  It wasn't the code's fault I went off a cliff.  I literally put myself into the position where I could slip.  The poor decision was being in that position in the first place, where a slip-up could occur.  PC safety comes through PC action, PC risk also comes through PC action, which is dictated by the player, not the code.

Quote from: Asanadas on June 11, 2015, 03:22:17 PM
Yeah, those are haha funny mistakes. Things that are whipped away with an OOC wink and a nod.

Running your entire clan off a cliff is haha funny, too. Except, there's no agency to laugh it off because you've sealed the book-end of your character and multiple others.

Can you recognize that these things cannot be equated? It's the difference between getting shot by a BB pellet and a .50. "Well you got shot both times! Builds character!" That's pretty nonsense.

Bootstraps though.

First off, we were were discussing falling in holes, not leading others into holes. Secondly traipsing out into the wilderness without a mount can be just as deadly as falling off a cliff. And theres plenty other ways a simple OOC mistake can get you killed. Mistargets being one of the better examples. My whole point is there's little difference between accidentally typing a direction, and falling off a cliff, and the numerous other ways you can make an input error and die.

I don't want the danger of falling off things to go away completely. I like that that fear causes people to slow down, take their environment into consideration and interact with it. Some of the ideas in this thread to limit the possibility of falling off things comes off kind of like lifting the gutter bumpers in bowling.

Quote from: RogueGunslinger on June 11, 2015, 03:50:08 PM

Quote from: Asanadas on June 11, 2015, 03:22:17 PM
Yeah, those are haha funny mistakes. Things that are whipped away with an OOC wink and a nod.

Running your entire clan off a cliff is haha funny, too. Except, there's no agency to laugh it off because you've sealed the book-end of your character and multiple others.

Can you recognize that these things cannot be equated? It's the difference between getting shot by a BB pellet and a .50. "Well you got shot both times! Builds character!" That's pretty nonsense.

Bootstraps though.

First off, we were were discussing falling in holes, not leading others into holes. Secondly traipsing out into the wilderness without a mount can be just as deadly as falling off a cliff. And theres plenty other ways a simple OOC mistake can get you killed. Mistargets being one of the better examples. My whole point is there's little difference between accidentally typing a direction, and falling off a cliff, and the numerous other ways you can make an input error and die.

I don't want the danger of falling off things to go away completely.

I don't, either, but I want to be sure they're 'OH HIGHLORD GOTTA GET AWAY--OH SHIT' falls instead of 'dum-diddly-dum OH SHIT' falls.

Don't treat the wilderness as a place you can just diddly-dum your way around and be safe, and it's not a problem. I can't be the only person who spams look in every direction after I move a room?

If you sit in the Gaj your entire life, you'll never fall down a hole.

This is not an optimal solution.

I wonder if it's possible to make the fall rooms only fit one PC at a time much like certain tunnel rooms. This would prevent train wreck lemming RPTs. I'm fine with the leader / guide going down, but unless they're riding nut-to-butt I don't see it as being defensible.

I always spam look and try to be careful, and it happened to me. I felt the room desc was misleading at the time, when I didn't know better, and it still felt dum-diddly dum.

Since I return to Armageddon after an extended hiatus, I can say with absolute certainty that a hole in the ground is the most dangerous force in the world for PCs.  More PCs have died to a hole in the ground than all of the absolutely insane shit that's been going on since October 2014.    I won't go into what that insane shit is, for IC reasons, but when a hole in the ground tops all of that in terms of PC death counts there's a problem...and it isn't "harsh desert world" it's an OOC error, with no IC explanation for it whatsoever.

Sorry, but a hole in the ground doesn't make me think its a harsh and gritty world.  If you want to keep the same harsh, gritty feel, go make tons of other IC desert threats.  Roving packs of gith, or flying fucking spiders, but don't tell me that a hole in the ground is the IC fear we should all have when leaving the city.

Quote from: Beethoven on June 11, 2015, 04:29:31 PM
I always spam look and try to be careful, and it happened to me. I felt the room desc was misleading at the time, when I didn't know better, and it still felt dum-diddly dum.

No doubt, there were times rooms could be misleading, I've done that too in times past, but I think they've mostly been fixed them and give fair warnings. Or even, in the case of the shield-wall, stop you completely. The recent additions to the sinkhole freaked me out at first because they're very blatant.

Quote from: wizturbo on June 11, 2015, 04:54:41 PM
Since I return to Armageddon after an extended hiatus, I can say with absolute certainty that a hole in the ground is the most dangerous force in the world for PCs.  More PCs have died to a hole in the ground than all of the absolutely insane shit that's been going on since October 2014.    I won't go into what that insane shit is, for IC reasons, but when a hole in the ground tops all of that in terms of PC death counts there's a problem...and it isn't "harsh desert world" it's an OOC error, with no IC explanation for it whatsoever.

Sorry, but a hole in the ground doesn't make me think its a harsh and gritty world.  If you want to keep the same harsh, gritty feel, go make tons of other IC desert threats.  Roving packs of gith, or flying fucking spiders, but don't tell me that a hole in the ground is the IC fear we should all have when leaving the city.

I seriously have no sympathy for someone who misses the blatant warnings around those rooms. For the people following them, absolutely, that's idiotic. But the more ways the environment punishes the unprepared and inattentive, the better in my book.

I've got no sympathy for people who aren't as in-tune to the threats of the world as I am.

I've got my map with all the hazards listed out, and I just stay far away from anything that has the chance to hurt me. Even if I somehow make a mistake and get close to a hazard, my arranged database of "this will kill you" triggers will light up my page and play a tiny siren so that I can stand clear. There's no reason for newer players to be cut a break for not having the collective years of experience with this game. Characters dying in OOC ways is what causes the harsh, gritty atmosphere I love!

You're being ridiculous. Expecting people to check their inputs and look around their environment in an incredibly deadly world really isn't asking too much.

What the difference between walking off a cliff, because you didn't look to see where you were. And walking into a room right with a Mekillot, because you didn't look to see where you were. What's the difference between accidentally typing "n" instead of "l n" and typing "fele" instead of "flee".


Not to mention vets, with maps and triggers, still fall off stuff because they weren't paying attention.

Quote from: Asanadas on June 11, 2015, 05:03:39 PM
I've got no sympathy for people who aren't as in-tune to the threats of the world as I am.

I've got my map with all the hazards listed out, and I just stay far away from anything that has the chance to hurt me. Even if I somehow make a mistake and get close to a hazard, my arranged database of "this will kill you" triggers will light up my page and play a tiny siren so that I can stand clear. There's no reason for newer players to be cut a break for not having the collective years of experience with this game. Characters dying in OOC ways is what causes the harsh, gritty atmosphere I love!

I hope you realize just how asinine that is.  I have no databases.  I have no map.  I have no triggers.  I just realized, at a certain point that 'All is well' can turn into 'oh shit' very quickly for very many circumstances, and outside the city, those circumstances are amplified to include that the world itself is treacherous.  I am a flurry of activity out there, most of which does not have an echo, because the world can and will bite you in the ass.

Going over a cliff is not ooc.  Everyone following after someone over a cliff is easily readable as ooc.  This has already been shown through examples and correlations enough that it is now just a stubborn cling you're holding.  If I could properly convey and transfer the apprehension and care I take when moving about anywhere near the vicinity of a described cliff in the game, I would, but unfortunately that is something that people seem to learn through character loss.  It's not that we have maps and diagrams of threats.  It's that we have come to a healthy respect for the dangers that are there.

Risk-reduction in the game is counter-intuitive to the game itself.  It's a dangerous place to the unwary.  So...be wary.

Quote from: Is Friday on June 11, 2015, 04:22:07 PM
I wonder if it's possible to make the fall rooms only fit one PC at a time much like certain tunnel rooms. This would prevent train wreck lemming RPTs. I'm fine with the leader / guide going down, but unless they're riding nut-to-butt I don't see it as being defensible.

I'm in favor of things like this, because I also thought it was strange that fights could erupt on cliffs.  That's some skills right there.  Though there might be other issues involved in that specific solution since it would 'block' a cliffside.

Quote from: RogueGunslinger on June 11, 2015, 04:05:17 PM
Don't treat the wilderness as a place you can just diddly-dum your way around and be safe, and it's not a problem. I can't be the only person who spams look in every direction after I move a room?

I favor this.  Seriously.  This game reaches out and bites you.  Zalanthas reaches out and bites your characters.  They're often intertwined.

And again:

QuoteTo say it would never happen because <this> is wrong.  When people give you explanations of why it could have happened, you say no, because you're in direct control of your character and that's not how it happened.  Yet you, directly controlling your character, make a mistake, and it's tossed as a code misgiving.

Quote from: Is Friday on June 11, 2015, 04:22:07 PM
I wonder if it's possible to make the fall rooms only fit one PC at a time much like certain tunnel rooms. This would prevent train wreck lemming RPTs. I'm fine with the leader / guide going down, but unless they're riding nut-to-butt I don't see it as being defensible.

That seems like a pretty elegant solution that shouldn't take too much coding. I wonder if the code would allow you to enter with your mount though, or if it's hard set to only let one creature at a time?

Quote from: Is Friday on June 11, 2015, 04:22:07 PM
I wonder if it's possible to make the fall rooms only fit one PC at a time much like certain tunnel rooms. This would prevent train wreck lemming RPTs. I'm fine with the leader / guide going down, but unless they're riding nut-to-butt I don't see it as being defensible.

This is an excellent idea. In fact, make all climb rooms no follow, unless you are hitched (ie: mounts). Also make Ll instant death rooms the same , such as the Sea's deeper rooms. This preserves the 'pay for your own mistakes', and eliminates 'pay for other guy's mistakes'.

... I'm pretty sure that hole is both gritty and harsh ...

Meanwhile, it's very easy to say something "shouldn't take too much coding," but if you've ever looked at stock ROM code and then imagined various people taking onto it for 20+ years, that line will make you laugh your head off.  Or possibly cry.

Edit to add relevant grumpy cat:

(http://img-9gag-fun.9cache.com/photo/aGwRXOZ_700b_v1.jpg)

Quote from: RogueGunslinger on June 11, 2015, 04:59:42 PM
I seriously have no sympathy for someone who misses the blatant warnings around those rooms.

You keep mentioning 'blatant warnings', are you referring to the lines in the roomdesc or what?

Quote from: aeglaeca on June 11, 2015, 05:25:03 PM

Quote from: RogueGunslinger on June 11, 2015, 04:59:42 PM
I seriously have no sympathy for someone who misses the blatant warnings around those rooms.

You keep mentioning 'blatant warnings', are you referring to the lines in the roomdesc or what?

That one isn't blatant - a lot aren't.  Staff implemented some echoes about three days ago though.

Quote from: Is Friday on June 11, 2015, 02:32:49 PM
I'll make sure to build up the plot with 15 red herrings involving a nilazi hideout, gith radicals, Tuluki spies, and a new elemental plane. Then you'll all fall into a hole while following me because HARSH DESERT WORLD.

This sounds like one of the tamer Armageddon plots!

If Armageddon were a cRPG, this would have been patched 20 years ago.

If Armageddon were a sit-down tabletop game, the DM would be shamed to Hell and back because he keeps allowing entire campaigns to die due to this fascination he has with cliffs.

"You find yourself in the desert wastes... there's a cliff to the west."
"A cliff? Alright, I look west at the cliff."
"You see nothing."
"Let's move closer to the cliff and see if we can look down..."
"You fall and die. Everyone who was behind you falls and dies. Come back tomorrow with a new character sheet."

This might be funny the first time it happens (keyword: might). But, if over the course of fifteen-odd years, untold hundreds of characters are claimed by this fascination, there's no way to get around it -- the DM is an asshole.

The least I expect from a decent DM is a, "Are you sure you want to go over that cliff?" Is there something about Armageddon as a MUD where I can't expect at least that much decency involved?

Quote from: aeglaeca on June 11, 2015, 05:25:03 PM

Quote from: RogueGunslinger on June 11, 2015, 04:59:42 PM
I seriously have no sympathy for someone who misses the blatant warnings around those rooms.

You keep mentioning 'blatant warnings', are you referring to the lines in the roomdesc or what?

They pop up in the move direction title I think? They're not in the description. You see them whenever you move into a room close to the cliff.  They added them longer than three days ago. I think it's been around a month. I remember making posts about it.

Quote from: nauta on June 11, 2015, 05:29:11 PM

Quote from: aeglaeca on June 11, 2015, 05:25:03 PM

Quote from: RogueGunslinger on June 11, 2015, 04:59:42 PM
I seriously have no sympathy for someone who misses the blatant warnings around those rooms.

You keep mentioning 'blatant warnings', are you referring to the lines in the roomdesc or what?

That one isn't blatant - a lot aren't.  Staff implemented some echoes about three days ago though.

For that "one" hole, Staff added echoes over a week ago saying "You move perilously close to the edge of a chasm!" when you move into adjacent rooms. It flashes when you enter the room and can be missed in follow spam. Probably isn't too noticeable unless you're running Brief Room (which removes the room description) either. It's about as blatant as any warning you'll get in the current state of the game.

Room descriptions also include things like "The ground slopes towards a chasm to the north" but aren't quite so noticeable, especially if you have Brief Room toggled on. Even without it, it's just one line appended to a bunch of other lines you've seen a thousand times before.

The OTHER warnings people see are, if you look in the direction of a hole, you'll see notes at the very top saying "To the <direction> you see a hole" or something like that.

Yeah, okay. Re: the sinkhole in particular, there wasn't anything like that, at least not for the followers. So uh, maybe someone should check that out and make sure all the exits got covered.

Quote from: aeglaeca on June 11, 2015, 05:46:09 PM
Yeah, okay. Re: the sinkhole in particular, there wasn't anything like that, at least not for the followers. So uh, maybe someone should check that out and make sure all the exits got covered.

Worth a bug check. I first noticed the warnings when I followed someone into a nearby room, so it ain't that.

I keep brief room on to reduce spam. Use look room "l r" to check out the description when I feel you need to. Entering a new type of area, for instance.

I have logs, I just checked. There wasn't anything.

I don't really know why they wouldn't pop up, even to a follower. That sounds wonky. If I was near the area and didn't see it I'd assume I wasn't near the cliff, and since its implementation wouldn't double check and probably just walk right the fuck off. Which would make it prime example of a case that merits resurrection.

I bet you if a PC led a plot NPC off a cliff they would get rezzed.  ;D

File a bug or suggestion report. Warning like that should fire to every PC that enters a room surrounding the drop, imo. It's how I'd know to use my brand new "Follow me" (key: fme) alias.

Quote from: aeglaeca on June 11, 2015, 05:49:57 PM
I have logs, I just checked. There wasn't anything.

I think it happened after the, um, IC thing you aren't referring to:

http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,31255.msg890399.html#msg890399 (http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,31255.msg890399.html#msg890399)

It didn't, Nauta. The echos are at least a week old. i hav teh timestampz 2 proov

That said, they don't seem to be quite 100% yet.

Quote from: Is Friday on June 11, 2015, 05:56:50 PM
I bet you if a PC led a plot NPC off a cliff they would get rezzed.  ;D

NPCs just respawn.

There's a buggy thing going on about changes to rooms saving, even if they were done a month ago, and some of the echoes had disappeared. They're back now - please send in an unclanned request with attn Xalle if you ever notice they're missing. Followers get them too. This isn't the cause of that that recent IC thing we aren't talking about on the gdb tho are we. STOP and bring it up in requests please, if you need to.

Quote from: Asanadas on June 11, 2015, 05:34:24 PM
If Armageddon were a cRPG, this would have been patched 20 years ago.

If Armageddon were a sit-down tabletop game, the DM would be shamed to Hell and back because he keeps allowing entire campaigns to die due to this fascination he has with cliffs.

"You find yourself in the desert wastes... there's a cliff to the west."
"A cliff? Alright, I look west at the cliff."
"You see nothing."
"Let's move closer to the cliff and see if we can look down..."
"You fall and die. Everyone who was behind you falls and dies. Come back tomorrow with a new character sheet."

This might be funny the first time it happens (keyword: might). But, if over the course of fifteen-odd years, untold hundreds of characters are claimed by this fascination, there's no way to get around it -- the DM is an asshole.

The least I expect from a decent DM is a, "Are you sure you want to go over that cliff?" Is there something about Armageddon as a MUD where I can't expect at least that much decency involved?

"That DM sure is an asshole."
"Yeah, but the sex scenes are fucking amazing." *lights cigarette*

While this was in the character theme song thread, I'm also going to post this here

KEEP ON TUMBLING DOWN TUMBLING DOWN TUMBLING DOWN

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUFWXpYJKaI

Ever seen 15 people follow a leader off a cliff?  I have.  It was stupid 10* years ago.  Years have passed.  Still stupid now.

Lots of great suggestions in this thread.  There has to be one that's relatively easier to implement to solve this long standing issue.


* give or take 10 years

Quote from: Clearsighted on June 10, 2015, 08:50:36 PM

Quote from: MeTekillot on June 10, 2015, 02:50:38 PM
I'm starting up this thread as a discussion topic for a certain pervasive problem where you'll follow your leader into what is probably certain death like you're a brain-dead lemming, and likely subsequently die/be horribly injured through no fault of your own besides incidentally poor clan choice. I'd suggest a mod move the posts from the other thread into here, but aren't they spread out over multiple pages and a pain in the butt to do? Whatever.

Anyway, I suggest code like the merchant's gate that is added to climbing and falling code. If following someplace would put you over a fall, you stop and think about it. If following someplace would make you climb, you stop and think about it.

The best solution to this problem is to not follow anyone around the wastes who doesn't know what they're doing. And certainly don't stake your life, and those of others on it, unless you're all good climbers. And remember you can 'dismount beetle' in midair.

That said. Making it ask for confirmation before lurching over an obvious death fall, would not be entirely amiss. But then, it seems to happen regardless, even in places where that coded request for confirmation exists.

This is a perfect example for how players and characters, who can keep their heads in the wastes and know the terrain, are a god send to any clan.

It's not necessarily about them not knowing what they're doing. Most of the several falls of one of my characters were the result of following an experienced player/character, always with a high clan ranking.

Quote from: Rolav on June 14, 2015, 10:56:33 AM

Quote from: Clearsighted on June 10, 2015, 08:50:36 PM

Quote from: MeTekillot on June 10, 2015, 02:50:38 PM
I'm starting up this thread as a discussion topic for a certain pervasive problem where you'll follow your leader into what is probably certain death like you're a brain-dead lemming, and likely subsequently die/be horribly injured through no fault of your own besides incidentally poor clan choice. I'd suggest a mod move the posts from the other thread into here, but aren't they spread out over multiple pages and a pain in the butt to do? Whatever.

Anyway, I suggest code like the merchant's gate that is added to climbing and falling code. If following someplace would put you over a fall, you stop and think about it. If following someplace would make you climb, you stop and think about it.

The best solution to this problem is to not follow anyone around the wastes who doesn't know what they're doing. And certainly don't stake your life, and those of others on it, unless you're all good climbers. And remember you can 'dismount beetle' in midair.

That said. Making it ask for confirmation before lurching over an obvious death fall, would not be entirely amiss. But then, it seems to happen regardless, even in places where that coded request for confirmation exists.

This is a perfect example for how players and characters, who can keep their heads in the wastes and know the terrain, are a god send to any clan.

It's not necessarily about them not knowing what they're doing. Most of the several falls of one of my characters were the result of following an experienced player/character, always with a high clan ranking.

<there was definitely a post here at one point>

Dunno, that borders on IC information I didn't want to learn on the gdb.

The GDB is not an appropriate place to discuss the intricacies of very specific things you might fall off of in Zalanthas.

Pick people to follow that won't lead you off cliffs and into holes.

Quote from: Mordiggian on June 14, 2015, 11:45:14 AM
The GDB is not an appropriate place to discuss the intricacies of very specific things you might fall off of in Zalanthas.

I apologize. I thought it was common, non-specific knowledge.

Quote from: Desertman on June 14, 2015, 11:49:02 AM
Pick people to follow that won't lead you off cliffs and into holes.

The problem with this approach (and also the unfollow-when-nearing-a-cliff strategy) is that while OOCly you might be flipping out at how incompetent/newbie-ish the one you are following is, ICly, especially granted the military structure of certain clans, it'd be implausible to fall out of rank, or question your leader in such situations.  Sometimes, even subtle hints don't make sense ICly, e.g., Runner Goof gently suggesting to Lord Templar Noobiepants that he should 'go slow and be careful'.  (Here I feel for giants, who fortunately can survive stuff like that.)

The ideal solution, I'd think, would be to

(a) implement a modest codefix to simply never allow followers to follow a leader down a fall, full stop, period

and

(b) fix the descriptions / change the direction to 'down' on falls that are just so patently obvious it'd bully disbelief to walk into, even if alone.

(Remember, there are coded ways to make you fall that do not bully disbelief, see Delerium's post above.)

Quote from: Desertman on June 14, 2015, 11:49:02 AM
Pick people to follow that won't lead you off cliffs and into holes.

You really don't understand the IC/ OOC issue, huh?

I wonder how desertman suggests picking the right people to follow. If IC rank and apparent experience with the game doesn't work, what does? Do I player-sniff the characters I choose to follow and decide if they're worth following in dangerous areas? That might be what some people do, but I have a special place in my heart for those kinds of players. It's not a pleasant place.

You know, if you just play indie rangers in their entirety and never choose anything else, you don't really have to worry about this issue.

Quote from: Harmless on June 14, 2015, 04:19:47 PM
I wonder how desertman suggests picking the right people to follow. If IC rank and apparent experience with the game doesn't work, what does? Do I player-sniff the characters I choose to follow and decide if they're worth following in dangerous areas? That might be what some people do, but I have a special place in my heart for those kinds of players. It's not a pleasant place.

IC rank is a perfectly good indicator, regardless of what was said in this thread. The vast majority of 'sergeants' know more or less, exactly what they're doing. At least if they were promoted into the position naturally.

On occasion being an experienced player works against you. I've followed some that knew the game world IC and OOCly vastly better than me. However, when there was a change to the game world, they were just so used to having an exact memory of the map they would on occasion jump into stuff. Doesn't affect me as much personally because I don't memorize directions, just landmarks.

I also have a theory that following a leader with 'climb' is more dangerous than following a leader without. Why? The leader without climb will definitely not go near holes as much.

Quote from: KankWhisperer on June 14, 2015, 06:46:17 PM
On occasion being an experienced player works against you. I've followed some that knew the game world IC and OOCly vastly better than me. However, when there was a change to the game world, they were just so used to having an exact memory of the map they would on occasion jump into stuff. Doesn't affect me as much personally because I don't memorize directions, just landmarks.

I also have a theory that following a leader with 'climb' is more dangerous than following a leader without. Why? The leader without climb will definitely not go near holes as much.

This is true. But as I described before in a way that apparently contained too much detail, there is a difference between the occasional inconvenience (falling into a random pit), and falling to your death.

I would hazard a suggestion that everyone, even veterans, fall into pits and little holes now and then if they spend a lot of time in the wastes. Often just from sheer laziness or misclicking. But it is much less common for a veteran to fall to his death.

In that sense, I think people are pretty much safe, 99% of the time, following their superiors.

Generally nobody is following anything but superiors. I'd say 99% of the example I can think of recently people were following their superiors into holes...

Quote from: RogueGunslinger on June 14, 2015, 08:26:37 PM
Generally nobody is following anything but superiors. I'd say 99% of the example I can think of recently people were following their superiors into holes...

Same for me, can't think of a time when it wasn't an experienced leader/superior leading folks into a hole. After all, if it wasn't an ICly experienced person, nobody would follow them, OR they were nobodies and nobody heard of or ever learned of their deaths. So the sample may be skewed. In any case, this point stands.