Armageddon General Discussion Board

I'm excited about the changes to PvP policy announced today and detailed here: https://www.armageddon.org/help/view/PvP

As staff, I saw some good kills and bad kills. Reprimands were rare, required lots of staff discussion, multiple player warnings, and still didn't feel right. 

I was hoping to see the possibility of a Rez for a ridiculously poor PK, but I understand that's going to lead to having to say no a lot. 

Any thoughts? Will this improve gameplay? Limit it too much? Change nothing? Is it far enough? Too far?

I see a lot of people justifying it with "They were in my territory" or "Well I'm an elf that hates humans". With this new documentation, considering how few of our newer people understand the documentation and how few of our veterans CARE about the documentation, I don't see it changing.

But giving staff a place to point to when someone really does a shitty kill will be nice. Unfortunately, a very high percentage of the players I know only care about winning the scene.

Good change. I hope it goes well.

Quote from: Agent_137 on May 21, 2024, 06:27:32 PMAny thoughts? Will this improve gameplay? Limit it too much? Change nothing? Is it far enough? Too far?

Its really a wait and see.

After all its not low karma indies randomly killing a PC's lover and friends. In the past, its often been sponsored(non-templar) roles, played by high karma players with the blessing and encouragement of staff just acting totally psychotic and going for the easy kills.

This problem has existed for a very long time and is rooted in Armageddon's community, its culture and even its code.

For example, it would be fairly possible for the combat code to be tweaked to promote coded conflict that is meaningful but not always deadly. For example, allowing more knockouts or  perhaps cause temporary injury if you were severely beaten.  Mercy does not have to be so damn bad and regening to full from certain fights doesn't have to be so instant with just sleep.

First step in the right direction. I know older players are going to have trouble adjusting but I honestly don't have much empathy for selfish players who'll kill other PCs just for the thrill of it, if this fucks them over then I'm honestly happy. That honest pettiness aside, It's a very good change, I know Armageddon was originally a hack and slash but everything that points towards more quality and focus on Roleplay is a good thing.

Quote from: Agent_137 on May 21, 2024, 06:27:32 PMI was hoping to see the possibility of a Rez for a ridiculously poor PK, but I understand that's going to lead to having to say no a lot. 

I was hoping for this as well. I get why such a decision would be rare if it was a possibility at all, but not making it even a possibility seems like an error. Pre-determining this lack of arbitration may backfire if or when a situation arises where this pre-determination does more harm than good. An example would be a PK that is somehow the result of a typo or mistarget. It's currently not grounds for a resurrection, but at the same time, I wouldn't say that letting such a death stand always shows respect to the storytelling process. It might make storytelling sense in a messy brawl, but not so much if a templar is trying to execute someone and forgets that both the criminal and the templar's aide have obsidian hair.

I'm also assuming/hoping that griefing, while rare, falls under player cheating, which the "help resurrection" file says is potentially grounds for a resurrection.

It's otherwise a great addition to the game's rules and roleplaying standards.

I find it weak and disappointing.

There is no suggestion of RoE. There is no responsibility for powerful characters to avoid abuse.

Quote from: Master Color on May 21, 2024, 08:37:37 PMI find it weak and disappointing.

There is no suggestion of RoE. There is no responsibility for powerful characters to avoid abuse.

I wrote mine in haste, but this has the spirit of what I wanted to get to.

The rules are great, for people who care about following the rules. While the abuser will be punished, the one who gets abused must simply grin and bear it. With no Rules of Engagement or anything codedly preventing anything, it will always end up with "oops sorry".

Whenever a PC dies, there is a bit of information logged at the time of death. I have seen players move incapacitated PC bodies to a different room just so the kill-room logs as something different. These are the people who "might lose a karma".



Frankly, with staff not playing their own PCs and hopefully spending more time monitoring and playing alongside, this won't be as much of an issue. Its still a wait and see, since most staff are 'new' (or old staff taking new names to cleanse the pallet)

I like the new rules are written...However, if they implemented RoE, way overboard.

QuoteThe rules are great, for people who care about following the rules. While the abuser will be punished, the one who gets abused must simply grin and bear it. With no Rules of Engagement or anything codedly preventing anything, it will always end up with "oops sorry".

I'm not even talking about cheaters (though I found out later that most of them were).

Frankly the players that I found to be the most abusive were the ones that were permitted to be so with with explicit staff support.

Quote from: Krath on May 21, 2024, 09:17:31 PMI like the new rules are written...However, if they implemented RoE, way overboard.

I tend to agree.

Heck, the game would be a tremendously better place if asshole A just stuck to trying to kill asshole B whom they actually have beef with. Instead of using the conflict as a lame reason to go kill that newbie crafter/newbie recruit who smiled to their enemy once in passing.

That and a hard change to mercy, full prevention of any sort of damage (including spell and poison) to hp beyond 0 from a player who has this toggled on.  Toggled on should be the default and should be reset to default after every login. Oddly I feel a change like this would promote much more conflict and violence in the game, while preventing death. Its win-win.

Yes and yes. 110% yes to the second paragraph.

I agree with the mercy ideas too.  We'll do -something- with it at some point, hopefully not too far away.  I liked @mansa 's idea of "Tell mother I'm dead", a sort of quasi-dead state where you can still roleplay via say/emote, but can't use the way or move.  You -will- die, but it gives you a few mins to finish out your death scene (or you can opt out with quit death).

It's really a coder bandwidth/priority issue more than anything.  We'll get there!

I'm so sexually pleased at the idea of mercy actually working and forcing someone to actually try and kill a PC.

Unless someone has a problem with the post-kill lag they would have to experience ... but at that point you already won!

Agreed, we have more ideas we want to work on, but policy and help file changes are things that we can push through ahead of code changes while we wait for code resource and energy on things. Unfortunately the code backlog is always the longest!

The resurrection policy is unfortunately just a result of viability. We have expanded the resurrection policy significantly over the last couple of years and I am always keeping an eye out for opportunities to improve it, but we do have to be very careful with it. In this instance, we simply cannot open the door to staff being expected to be the 'RP judge' on every single PK, it's just not feasible, there is no way for us to be able to make consistent and fair calls on something like that, people would constantly be dead and alive again and dead again, we would be asked to make calls on things we didn't witness or don't have all the information on, we would constantly be trying to assess shades of grey and so on.. it simply isn't possible. Resurrection policy is a tough one, it's something I have spent countless hours thinking about and countless hours debating with fellow staff over (we all care about getting it right). When you really tangle with it objectively from every angle, you can quickly understand how complicated it becomes.

My hope is that, while it might take a little while to fully come into effect, the policy changes alongside the karma changes and general RP expectation across the board will elevate the style of play and attitudes across the game and community and create an overall better environment where having that policy *is* enough.

Quote from: Riev on May 21, 2024, 08:55:21 PM(or old staff taking new names to cleanse the pallet)

Riev please. This is not a thing. ::)

I like it, I too throughout the years have seen entirely too many paper thin PK's, I myself tend to PK when required (Ordered by my boss/templar or someone discovers I'm a sekret witch and can't be trusted).

Hopefully this will limit the instances of "I'm a raider, they didn't do what I said, so I killed them." "I'm an elf, they looked at my ears funny." and other silly excuses.  I much prefer to just loot the unconscious body and see what happens to them when they are far from civilization and beat to shit with just their boots.

I prefer to keep the "I'm a raider, they didn't do what I said, so I killed them" aspect of the game. It's what I signed up for. It was in the docs and has been in them for decades. I've found too often that people come here thinking "oh they don't really mean that, everyone will roleplay perfectly, we'll get the exact scene we want before death, we'll be able to have closure and if not I'm sure they'll change things for us when we tell them how unfair it is."

That's WAY too high of an expectation for a game that started out as a hack-n-slash and is advertised heavily as an unforgiving world with permadeath.  People should expect the worst *for their characters* and then be happily surprised if their PC's lives exceed those low expectations. It says so in the docs.

I expect my character to be killed, somehow. The moment they show up into the game world they're fair game.  There's no "if/and/but" in that.  I might not like how Amos didn't let me SEE how he was roleplaying my character's death. But the fact that he killed her is fine by me. Apartment-killing is lame, but I figure they would've gotten me on the street instead if that was when they had their opportunity. So again - legit kill, lousy RPed circumstances.

The more we make excuses for the victims, the easier it is for everyone to play the victim and justify their way out of bad behavior, twinkishness, bullying, changing plotlines to suit their own interests, and circumventing the theme of the game to turn it into something it's not.

@Lizzie for most people this game is too much work for that low of an expectation for every pc. 


It could be different.  It's why I have long advocated for faster learning and wider advanced start.

Hold on, hold on, hold up.

Quote from: Usiku on May 22, 2024, 02:49:40 AMIn this instance, we simply cannot open the door to staff being expected to be the 'RP judge' on every single PK, it's just not feasible, there is no way for us to be able to make consistent and fair calls on something like that

I distinctly recall past staff members telling us that PK was a once-in-a-week kind of event. With the rules you've made currently, it'll likely be even less. Even if every single PK ended up contested - and they won't - you'd talk about this once a week at the absolute very most.

Is that really the realm of the impossible? One such a talk a week, at absolute most?

Quote from: Lizzie on May 22, 2024, 08:19:53 AMI prefer to keep the "I'm a raider, they didn't do what I said, so I killed them" aspect of the game. It's what I signed up for. It was in the docs and has been in them for decades. I've found too often that people come here thinking "oh they don't really mean that, everyone will roleplay perfectly, we'll get the exact scene we want before death, we'll be able to have closure and if not I'm sure they'll change things for us when we tell them how unfair it is."

That's WAY too high of an expectation for a game that started out as a hack-n-slash and is advertised heavily as an unforgiving world with permadeath.  People should expect the worst *for their characters* and then be happily surprised if their PC's lives exceed those low expectations. It says so in the docs.

I understand wanting to keep things harsh and lethal, but consider three things.

1. The world is plenty lethal without rocket-tag PvP. Mansa a while ago posted player death causes and PvP was a massive minority, with Carru being the big bad iirc.

2. Armageddon PvP is just plain bad, without even talking about balance it's very easily abusable for the person who instigates. Stealth, magick and even the crimcode (which honestly protects criminals more than victims) can be abused to screw a player who's not playing in an extremely paranoid manner. This isn't even counting the times where I've seen instigators completely ignore both the virtual world and NPCs just because they know staff can't always react. On more than one occasion while playing Two Moons elves, I was attacked in the room right outside the camp, which should have resulted in like 50 elves ganking these raiders.

3. Generally in game-design philosophy, you match high-lethality with short-term character progression. There's a reason why roguelikes are a popular genre, because you go in, level up fast, experience a lot of stuff and die fast. Having high-lethality with a game that expects progression in the days upon days of playtime on a singular character is honestly just incompatible on a fundamental game-design level. Also note that I don't think this means the lethality of Armageddon overall should be reduced, because outside of PvP, I honestly think death is incredibly avoidable once you learn the game and it's dangers. The game is still stupid lethal, but it's more 'play stupid games win stupid prizes' sorts of lethal rather than being completely unfair like PvP.

Quote from: Agent_137 on May 22, 2024, 09:16:37 AM@Lizzie (https://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3378) for most people this game is too much work for that low of an expectation for every pc. 


It could be different.  It's why I have long advocated for faster learning and wider advanced start.

This was posted while I was writing and I just thought it'd be a valid reference of someone else's opinion. Armageddon can be far too much work to also expect people to be ok with dying so easily to PvP. I understand that Arm has a die-hard fanbase of people that play every day and having it be the only game they play, but this isn't a good experience for new players or for players who want to play Arm more casually.

I do think the new advanced start will be nice, we'll have people who don't have to go through the vulture/chalton/scrab and so on up the line gauntlet for weeks to get survivable.

My only concern is the extreme players, there are some that view PK as something that should never happen, they are too soft, then there are those that think if they type think I want his boots and he doesn't hand them over, they deserve to die, too hard.  But I have faith that we have more people in that "Goldilocks" zone than the polar opposites.

Quote from: Patuk on May 22, 2024, 09:18:24 AMHold on, hold on, hold up.

Quote from: Usiku on May 22, 2024, 02:49:40 AMIn this instance, we simply cannot open the door to staff being expected to be the 'RP judge' on every single PK, it's just not feasible, there is no way for us to be able to make consistent and fair calls on something like that

I distinctly recall past staff members telling us that PK was a once-in-a-week kind of event. With the rules you've made currently, it'll likely be even less. Even if every single PK ended up contested - and they won't - you'd talk about this once a week at the absolute very most.

Is that really the realm of the impossible? One such a talk a week, at absolute most?

I would assume if someone is getting talked to about PK frequency, they are probably doing it too much, but that's just a guess.

Quote from: Pariah on May 22, 2024, 09:22:58 AMMy only concern is the extreme players, there are some that view PK as something that should never happen, they are too soft, then there are those that think if they type think I want his boots and he doesn't hand them over, they deserve to die, too hard.  But I have faith that we have more people in that "Goldilocks" zone than the polar opposites.

Yeah I do think most people have pretty reasonable views on PKing. I would say both the 'Pks should never happen' and 'Pking should be a core part of the game' crowds are loud minorities. I still think if you mess with the wrong person, get caught up in a plot or have some other good motiviation to kill or be killed, it should be completely fine. But I want something more than 'you didn't empty out your bag for me in the wavy dunes, now I'm gonna kill you on my 3 months played half giant raider'.

Quote from: Lizzie on May 22, 2024, 08:19:53 AMI prefer to keep the "I'm a raider, they didn't do what I said, so I killed them" aspect of the game. It's what I signed up for. It was in the docs and has been in them for decades. I've found too often that people come here thinking "oh they don't really mean that, everyone will roleplay perfectly, we'll get the exact scene we want before death, we'll be able to have closure and if not I'm sure they'll change things for us when we tell them how unfair it is."

If the person doesn't do what the raider says, the raider can beat them to an inch of their life and strip them naked. Its up to the person's abilities and luck to make it back somewhere safe after that. Or the raider could find themselves in an equally tough spot. There is still meaningful consequences that don't always have to devolve to murder.

I think this is enough for most situations but to your point Lizzie, its up to the raider to decide and then justify that repeatedly to staff. I believe murder will still happen in this game, frequently at that, for example if you spit on a templar or noble, expect to die. But i think the biggest change is it should become much more clear on why you died.

Additionally, I think mercy should be split between PC and NPCs at the very least to avoid people forgetting to toggle back after hunting. It also keeps it from being something annoying you have to keep track of. If mercy PC is toggled off, death would happen as it is currently. The choice of killing a PC really happens at that point where you toggle it off.

In terms of resurrection policy, I am actually okay with keeping it as is, it is unfortunately a two way street of abuse here. Its jarring to the narrative to see people who died be rezzed for whatever reason, and I can only see the people getting rezzed are the people that some staff is heartbroken to see die.

This is a note to state that I removed a post that was off-topic. Please continue this discussion on a very important game policy change. Thank you!

It is concerning that PCs dying at the hands of other PCs is anticipated to be so frequent that staff won't have time to fairly review it.

We all know about the string of dwarf PCs emerging from the dormitory in the Gaj to kill the first PC they saw sitting at the bar. No amount of karma deductions or bans will stop that style of griefing. The integrity of the game world is damaged more by nonsensical killings than by resurrection. In one case everyone has to awkwardly play around the nonsense and often adjusts their behavior based on the OOC knowledge that the griefing can happen and on what ways. In the other, everyone can accept that an event was retconned and the players of the killer dwarfs won't get the same kick out of it.

Quote from: Delusion on May 22, 2024, 11:00:47 AMWe all know about the string of dwarf PCs emerging from the dormitory in the Gaj to kill the first PC they saw sitting at the bar. No amount of karma deductions or bans will stop that style of griefing.

It should be a bit harder for that style of griefing to occur now.  Dwarves are now 1 karma, so a brand-new account cannot play one (this is a big reason WHY dwarves are now 1 karma).  Someone engaging in such obvious griefing will be banned.  We would -consider- a resurrection in this specific instance you mention when it's obvious, blatant griefing like that.

As for @Lizzie 's example, the raider could still kill someone for not obeying when they have them in such a situation.  The expectation however would be that the raider gives the victim a "good scene" to the best of their ability as the situation allows.  And if the raider displayed a pattern of this, we'd have a chat with them.  It would all depend on the specifics of the scene.  Ideally the raider would beat the victim to unconsciousness or incapacitate them if said victim wasn't being cooperative.  Maybe leave them for dead and let fate decide their outcome.

These new rules aren't meant to remove PK and danger.  They are meant to expect players to be considerate of each other from an OOC perspective, and work together to create more interesting scenes and stories.  Sometimes death IS the interesting scene or story, but it doesn't have to be.  The ask is that people think "Is killing the other person the only option here, or is there alternatives?" and "If I must kill them, is there a way for me to make it more interesting or meaningful for them?".  There will be times when a sudden, quick death is required, though the expectation is those will be unusual.

This is all going to be a bit of a change for everyone - staff and players alike.  We are going to have to work together to elevate the community's qualify of Role-Playing, and be understanding and patient with each other as we figure it all out.

Quote from: Delusion on May 22, 2024, 11:00:47 AMIt is concerning that PCs dying at the hands of other PCs is anticipated to be so frequent that staff won't have time to fairly review it.

We all know about the string of dwarf PCs emerging from the dormitory in the Gaj to kill the first PC they saw sitting at the bar. No amount of karma deductions or bans will stop that style of griefing. The integrity of the game world is damaged more by nonsensical killings than by resurrection. In one case everyone has to awkwardly play around the nonsense and often adjusts their behavior based on the OOC knowledge that the griefing can happen and on what ways. In the other, everyone can accept that an event was retconned and the players of the killer dwarfs won't get the same kick out of it.

I think steps have been taken to mitigate dwarves from one shotting PC from happening. More common and egregious is powerful PCs targeting non-combat PCs such as aides, newbies, crafter and other non-combat PC for lame reasons because they are easy kills. This is what I am hoping the policy and the changes to code begin to better address.

Again with Rezz, a general no resurrection policy is systemically much more fair than anything else. Where if there are any exceptions(e.g staff accidently kills entire clan), they should be announced to the community with reasonable justification.

As a side note about Raiders, if we're going to look at it from an RP/Realism perspective, Raiders killing people is actually a terrible 'business' practice. Victims killed by raiders can't be robbed a second time and killing merchants means a worse economy which also means worse opportunities for raiding in the future. Otherwise I pretty much completely agree with what Halaster said. Also, if mercy is made so you can guarantee not killing someone as long as you're using blunt weapons or something, that'd be awesome for people just wanting to rob others without becoming a murderer.

Quote from: Patuk on May 22, 2024, 09:18:24 AMI distinctly recall past staff members telling us that PK was a once-in-a-week kind of event. With the rules you've made currently, it'll likely be even less. Even if every single PK ended up contested - and they won't - you'd talk about this once a week at the absolute very most.

Is that really the realm of the impossible? One such a talk a week, at absolute most?

Yes, it is in the realm of impossible. Not due to how often it may or may not occur, but due to the nature of the required decision making. Armageddon is a coded game. Whether or not the death happened is based on the code. We will consider resurrections based on what is outlined in the helpfile. What gets added there are instances that we can assess that are basically black and white, was it a bug, were they cheating, did a staff member royally screw up and set a bahamet to have 1,000,000 strength by accident, did that person die of dehydration with a full waterskin in their hand and so on. There is simply not a chance in the burning firepits of Suk Krath that I am opening up staff to have to mediate over every PK that happens on the basis of 'was their RP good enough' where the progress of the story and life of a PC one way or another hinges on that decision. I'm sorry, but that is a fast track to a high stress, no win scenario for staff where whatever they decide, someone will be angry and it would ultimately chip away at the relationship we are trying to restore between players and staff and almost certainly cause higher staff turnover. So no. Draw a line under that. I can understand why people wish this was a thing that we could do, but unfortunately it simply is not.

This might lead to the birth of actual group vs group fighting.

If staff had the ability to change and lock the mercy toggle during certain events two groups could go ahead and just fight it out with skills, poison and spells. One groups would eventually be knocked out, and the winner could capture the leader/captain as well as tend to their wounded before running off.

It would be fun and meaningful to both winner and losers, with only casualties perhaps being only NPCs(who could also have mercy toggled for PCs during this time).

Quote from: Dresan on May 22, 2024, 11:31:53 AMThis might lead to the birth of actual group vs group fighting.

I think the only way you could really fix group v group fighting is to limit how many people can attack the same target at the same time. Group combat usually becomes an 'assist amos'-fest that results in one poor sod getting massive debuffs from fighting multiple enemies and nigh-immediately dying one-by one. This is also a problem with AI and PvE group fighting, not sure how'd they fix it but even when you're in a group, fighting groups of enemies can be super dangerous. I remember the time I went into a silk spider cave to gather silk and four of the five spiders were attacking me when we had a group of six.

I think it is just as easy to not PK, as it is to PK. It depends on the situation though

Going on a hunt for a noble or bastard in the sands? OOC: Everyone turn Mercy on.
I want your boots and you will not give them to me? Mercy On, PK, steal boots, wait for them to wake up, talk shit and leave
Trespassing onto elven lands? Peraine/Heramide/Grishen - KO, steal boots, scar them, subdue, toss outside of the lands

You murder my best friend: Mercy off

ALL THAT BEING SAID - Mercy needs to be fixed like the suggested post above. Accidents do happen. There was a Bastard noble that was in the sands, we got information he was out there with a group looking for us. We all rode out to meet him and his group. Before the battle I had OOCd "Everyone, mercy on please", with full intention of KOing them, scarring and sending them back to nak naked. We had a mul that attacked after he was damaged and mantis head. No KO, nothing. It was not what I had hoped for and OOCly i was disappointed. A fix of the Mercy On code would be great. Heck, just changing  combat to once a pc hits 0 or goes negative instantly moving them to the knocked out state and ending combat, rather than them dying. At that point the PC can "Kill Joe" and end the PCs life, or let them live.

Mercy being fixed would be paramount. Secondary is just changing attitudes across the board. Sap vs Backstab ... Sap had always been something you branched and was an advanced technique because of its ability to knock someone out FAR easier than it is to damage their HP.

Unfortunately, the way the code works, being knocked out is basically a free kill and losing stun CAN BE easier than losing HP. So the non-lethal combat methods the game allows are basically "get the opponent into a position where I can kill them faster".

Attitude wise, I mean the people that feel you have to kill a PC because they looked at you and see your description. Because being anonymous means you can still socially roleplay with people back in the city. Because once you know Green-eye Amos is the raider, every templar and Bynner in the game will be contacting green.eyed.amos and hunting him. Once we can collectively get over the idea that a PC raider in the sands doesn't need the other 120 people in the game hunting them, we'll be closer to allowing more fun raider RP.

Again, with staff focusing more on the players and plots, hopefully there can and will be more opportunity to play things out, rather than "win".

I believe up until now, characters log into the game with mercy OFF being the default.  Perhaps that toggle could be switched, so everyone who logs in, starts out with mercy ON, and they have to turn it off intentionally if they are consciously planning on killing someone.

Quote from: Riev on May 22, 2024, 11:56:12 AMAttitude wise, I mean the people that feel you have to kill a PC because they looked at you and see your description. Because being anonymous means you can still socially roleplay with people back in the city. Because once you know Green-eye Amos is the raider, every templar and Bynner in the game will be contacting green.eyed.amos and hunting him. Once we can collectively get over the idea that a PC raider in the sands doesn't need the other 120 people in the game hunting them, we'll be closer to allowing more fun raider RP.

Staff could bring back the mask that hide mdesc to solve this issue.

Quote from: Riev on May 22, 2024, 11:56:12 AMAttitude wise, I mean the people that feel you have to kill a PC because they looked at you and see your description. Because being anonymous means you can still socially roleplay with people back in the city.

Actually, this is the importance of making sure the different areas (redstorm, rinth, luirs and allanak) are somewhat autonomous to each other. Fucking up in one location shouldn't ruin your ability to live in all locations but we will see how this is managed.

This allows people to practice the age old art of 'Not shitting where you eat'. It was one of the purposes to my thread here: Closure vs Unsupported (https://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,60345.0.html)

If you choose to not follow this rule, there should be IC consequences to personally killing/attacking your neighbor like needing to leave find a new neighborhood. And with the policy changes, some OOC consequences if you keep using anonymity as an excuse to repeatedly murder people especially when you had the option of just going to live somewhere else or hire someone else to send a message.

Quote from: Krath on May 22, 2024, 12:04:07 PMStaff could bring back the mask that hide mdesc to solve this issue.

This should be an ability linked to assassination techniques(backstab or sap) which only lasts for a couple minutes after performing the attack or be an assassin skill that activates for a limited time after attacking from stealth.

It should not be an item that freely allow people to act like fools without IC consequences.

Quote from: Usiku on May 22, 2024, 11:21:31 AM

Quote from: Patuk on May 22, 2024, 09:18:24 AMI distinctly recall past staff members telling us that PK was a once-in-a-week kind of event. With the rules you've made currently, it'll likely be even less. Even if every single PK ended up contested - and they won't - you'd talk about this once a week at the absolute very most.

Is that really the realm of the impossible? One such a talk a week, at absolute most?

Yes, it is in the realm of impossible. Not due to how often it may or may not occur, but due to the nature of the required decision making. Armageddon is a coded game. Whether or not the death happened is based on the code. We will consider resurrections based on what is outlined in the helpfile. What gets added there are instances that we can assess that are basically black and white, was it a bug, were they cheating, did a staff member royally screw up and set a bahamet to have 1,000,000 strength by accident, did that person die of dehydration with a full waterskin in their hand and so on. There is simply not a chance in the burning firepits of Suk Krath that I am opening up staff to have to mediate over every PK that happens on the basis of 'was their RP good enough' where the progress of the story and life of a PC one way or another hinges on that decision. I'm sorry, but that is a fast track to a high stress, no win scenario for staff where whatever they decide, someone will be angry and it would ultimately chip away at the relationship we are trying to restore between players and staff and almost certainly cause higher staff turnover. So no. Draw a line under that. I can understand why people wish this was a thing that we could do, but unfortunately it simply is not.

Okay then.

Quote from: Krath on May 22, 2024, 12:04:07 PM

Quote from: Riev on May 22, 2024, 11:56:12 AMAttitude wise, I mean the people that feel you have to kill a PC because they looked at you and see your description. Because being anonymous means you can still socially roleplay with people back in the city. Because once you know Green-eye Amos is the raider, every templar and Bynner in the game will be contacting green.eyed.amos and hunting him. Once we can collectively get over the idea that a PC raider in the sands doesn't need the other 120 people in the game hunting them, we'll be closer to allowing more fun raider RP.

Staff could bring back the mask that hide mdesc to solve this issue.

Exactly this. Anonymity actually promotes the ability to be an antagonist in between the 0 (don't do anything conflict related) and 100 (instant PK before you can get desc sniped). There is so much more hoop-jumping, workarounds, and abuse potential that comes about because people try to avoid the consequences of getting look-ID'd than the downside of someone running around incognito. It opens up many more avenues of roleplay (infiltrating, cults, subterfuge) that the absence of being able to obscure identity actively stifles.

And no, people aren't going to act like fools without IC consequences. There are very easily enforceable IC consequences to being masked up all the time, the Guild boss can kick you out, the Templar's can have you seized and searched, etc. What exactly are people worried about? That someone in a mask will PK them or steal from them? I mean, that's exactly what's going to happen without mdesc obscuring ability, because that's what happens now. There's really much less room for you being left alive, and frankly, I'd rather have a raider leave me bruised and wondering than dead with a glimpse of who it was.

Atonement, Shadows of Isildur, Harshlands, essentially every other RPI could cloak up. It didn't break the game. It in fact led to some of the coolest reveals and situations I can remember. Sure, there might be some edgelord who wears a greathelm literally every second in game, but there's ways of discouraging that. (Needing to remove to eat / drink, etc).

---

The ways of addressing mdesc obscuration also opens up a good avenue. Basic information is already available with assess -v, and sdesc. But many of the muds I listed above had a 'study' command, where you could obtain things like eye color, build, hair color, etc, which could be set in character generation. It's something that could potentially be piggybacked of watch, or a new skill that could serve as a boon to the subterfuge / noncombat roles branching from it.

This doesn't seem like a huge departure from the status quo, but it does seem like a good change. Clear expectations are always welcome.

Quote from: Bogre on May 22, 2024, 01:08:16 PMAnd no, people aren't going to act like fools without IC consequences. There are very easily enforceable IC consequences to being masked up all the time, the Guild boss can kick you out, the Templar's can have you seized and searched, etc. What exactly are people worried about?

If you play elves this is a moot point since people just search the ground, see the tracks and contact the only elf in the game. 

Conflict is better promoted with autonomy of regions, allowing people to work as a villain in one place while being a saint in the other.

I admit that having some anonymity when performing high risk actions(assassinations/attacks from stealth) makes some sense but this should be very very limited.

If done incorrectly it has the potential to prevent meaningful RP because its harder to hold people accountable for their day to day behavior due to the fact they can become anonymous/someone new whenever the heck they want. It will lead to pure foolishness.

That said, if staff are not able to properly maintain autonomy of regions then perhaps this might be the only possible solution.

imo its important to note that staff don't actually have a way to do the right thing by everybody.

If they start giving themselves more rules to be able to restore dead PCs, and some are going to get that rule applied and some aren't, so then that looks like favoritism, which is so rampant a problem in RPI staffing that it always looks sinister to the outside eye. Further, it's not just a once a week review it's a long conversation w/ embittered passionate ppl that are going to flip out arguing back and forth, then try to quit if they don't get their way and drag all their OOC friends with them. They don't want to have to be run through the court of public opinion over every little thing every time they have to make a call like that. They want to run the game, have fun, and make fun for other people.

But when they have to make judgment calls and they have the weight of the absolutely nutty rpi community on them over every little thing it's not even nearly so easy's some of you try to make it sound. :P So they make the rules more conservative and try to let the code handle it, but of course they get dragged over that too.  That hasn't worked in the past so they're moving in a direction. If even it's just in writing now, it's movement in a direction I believe we can see is the right one.

Anyway whatever but my point is, there's not really a totally winning answer. At the end of the day most of us are tired of the same crap everyone else is tired of, and we're probably in agreement over it. These rules at least to me read like they're giving the staff a clear pathway to doing something about crappy behavior and that's a good direction.

TLDR i'm glad to see that direction being headed in. Let's do so bravely, and supportively.

mdesc-hiding masks were silly because they weren't head-to-toe disguises, but acted as such, even though only worn on the face.

So a guy with two extra fingers on one hand, who was hunchbacked - would APPEAR to be whole just because the mask's mdesc implied as such. Or the guy with thick hair down below his back in knotty dreadlocks would APPEAR to be short-cropped - just because the mask's mdesc specified as such.  Or the guy with the barrel chest would APPEAR to be wide in the hips with a caved-in chest, because the mask's mdesc indicated as such.

A mask should ONLY obscure the face, but that's not how mdescs in this game work. Because of that, mdesc-hiding masks don't fit.

Quote from: HalasterWe would -consider- a resurrection in this specific instance you mention when it's obvious, blatant griefing like that.

That's what I was hoping to see. Griefers don't care about being banned, we all have and use VPNs these days.

Quote from: Lizzie on May 22, 2024, 02:00:28 PMmdesc-hiding masks were silly because they weren't head-to-toe disguises, but acted as such, even though only worn on the face.

So a guy with two extra fingers on one hand, who was hunchbacked - would APPEAR to be whole just because the mask's mdesc implied as such. Or the guy with thick hair down below his back in knotty dreadlocks would APPEAR to be short-cropped - just because the mask's mdesc specified as such.  Or the guy with the barrel chest would APPEAR to be wide in the hips with a caved-in chest, because the mask's mdesc indicated as such.

A mask should ONLY obscure the face, but that's not how mdescs in this game work. Because of that, mdesc-hiding masks don't fit.

True. But a cloak that covers your body head to toe with hood up should solve most of the trouble. Put a facewrap or mask on, then your mdesc should become just a short/tall, thick/thin figure with a facewrap/mask whose hood is up.

As long as someone can identify me just by looking at me when I only want to rob them, I would probably kill them to save me from future troubles. Because that is what I do, if I ever manage to avoid PK'ed, I just go and spread the word that there's such and such person who's raiding people out there. And also that is what a normal PC/NPC would do in the harsh world we call Zalanthas. If you don't want to be PK'ed, stay alert all the time.

Quote from: Lizzie on May 22, 2024, 02:00:28 PMmdesc-hiding masks were silly because they weren't head-to-toe disguises, but acted as such, even though only worn on the face.

So a guy with two extra fingers on one hand, who was hunchbacked - would APPEAR to be whole just because the mask's mdesc implied as such. Or the guy with thick hair down below his back in knotty dreadlocks would APPEAR to be short-cropped - just because the mask's mdesc specified as such.  Or the guy with the barrel chest would APPEAR to be wide in the hips with a caved-in chest, because the mask's mdesc indicated as such.

A mask should ONLY obscure the face, but that's not how mdescs in this game work. Because of that, mdesc-hiding masks don't fit.

I hear what you are saying and if we are going to go down that road, then anyone that has equipment on, their mdesc should be hidden.

Quote from: Krath on May 22, 2024, 04:13:37 PM

Quote from: Lizzie on May 22, 2024, 02:00:28 PMmdesc-hiding masks were silly because they weren't head-to-toe disguises, but acted as such, even though only worn on the face.

So a guy with two extra fingers on one hand, who was hunchbacked - would APPEAR to be whole just because the mask's mdesc implied as such. Or the guy with thick hair down below his back in knotty dreadlocks would APPEAR to be short-cropped - just because the mask's mdesc specified as such.  Or the guy with the barrel chest would APPEAR to be wide in the hips with a caved-in chest, because the mask's mdesc indicated as such.

A mask should ONLY obscure the face, but that's not how mdescs in this game work. Because of that, mdesc-hiding masks don't fit.

I hear what you are saying and if we are going to go down that road, then anyone that has equipment on, their mdesc should be hidden.

No, because my greaves and plate-horror breastplate doesn't obscure my face. Only sunslits obscure eyes at close range, only face coverings obscure faces, only hats and hoods and helmets and such can obscure the top of the head.

Again - individual pieces of gear shouldn't ever obscure the entire mdesc, because in -this- game, mdescs aren't the summary of coded individual body parts.  There have been games in the past, where body parts could be obscured from the mdesc, because they were coded that way. Your description would be things like - a sentence for your hair, color, texture, length. Another for your face - oval, square, heart-shaped, etc. Another for eyes, another for nose, another for mouth, overall body build, another sentence for each limb, and so on and so forth.

Those were coded. So if you wore a facewrap, then every reference to your face, in your mdesc, was obscured - but the rest of the mdesc remained and stood as complete. Totally different code.

Quote from: Lizzie on May 22, 2024, 05:29:04 PM

Quote from: Krath on May 22, 2024, 04:13:37 PM

Quote from: Lizzie on May 22, 2024, 02:00:28 PMmdesc-hiding masks were silly because they weren't head-to-toe disguises, but acted as such, even though only worn on the face.

So a guy with two extra fingers on one hand, who was hunchbacked - would APPEAR to be whole just because the mask's mdesc implied as such. Or the guy with thick hair down below his back in knotty dreadlocks would APPEAR to be short-cropped - just because the mask's mdesc specified as such.  Or the guy with the barrel chest would APPEAR to be wide in the hips with a caved-in chest, because the mask's mdesc indicated as such.

A mask should ONLY obscure the face, but that's not how mdescs in this game work. Because of that, mdesc-hiding masks don't fit.

I hear what you are saying and if we are going to go down that road, then anyone that has equipment on, their mdesc should be hidden.

No, because my greaves and plate-horror breastplate doesn't obscure my face. Only sunslits obscure eyes at close range, only face coverings obscure faces, only hats and hoods and helmets and such can obscure the top of the head.

Again - individual pieces of gear shouldn't ever obscure the entire mdesc, because in -this- game, mdescs aren't the summary of coded individual body parts.  There have been games in the past, where body parts could be obscured from the mdesc, because they were coded that way. Your description would be things like - a sentence for your hair, color, texture, length. Another for your face - oval, square, heart-shaped, etc. Another for eyes, another for nose, another for mouth, overall body build, another sentence for each limb, and so on and so forth.

Those were coded. So if you wore a facewrap, then every reference to your face, in your mdesc, was obscured - but the rest of the mdesc remained and stood as complete. Totally different code.

Closed and hooded up ankle-length djellebah. All mdesc is gone.

Yeah I don't think a mask alone is 'enough'.  Maybe (and this is just me theorycrafting, no promises or commitments) if it was a mask + a longcloak + hood up then it hides the mdesc.  Or something like that, where it's a combo of items that "make sense".

Quote from: Halaster on May 22, 2024, 07:09:53 PMMaybe (and this is just me theorycrafting, no promises or commitments) if it was a mask + a longcloak + hood up then it hides the mdesc.

Well, you're the one who can make that happen, and I think you should.

Not related to the masks but back to the PK discussion...   I once had a Templar light the side of my head on fire.  It was terrifying - it was traumatizing to my character - because it hurt and it affronted her dignity - and it set her on a whole new course of life that wound up being awesome.   It was still brutal. It still got my heart racing IRL.   

We need to be more like the Count of Monte Cristo.  He wasn't just satisfied to kill his enemies.  He wanted to ruin them.  That's way more fun.

Quote from: Athapaxis on May 22, 2024, 07:49:50 PMWe need to be more like the Count of Monte Cristo.  He wasn't just satisfied to kill his enemies.  He wanted to ruin them.  That's way more fun.

This is what I mean by changing the player perspective a little, because it still sits far too much on the side of "I need to kill people to avoid trouble down the road".

Burn your enemies. Break their legs. Cause temporary but debilitating injuries. Take a finger, disfigure an ear. We have a Consent file for far more than just "hey wanna sex". Its there for the brutality and gruesome nature of torture.

Unless its just easier to type "kill riev" than it is to "ooc consent for torture"

Quote from: Dresan on May 22, 2024, 01:45:29 PMConflict is better promoted with autonomy of regions, allowing people to work as a villain in one place while being a saint in the other.

This is in direct conflict with one of the stated goals of the seasons, in that the playerbase is going to be more focused in a central location. And anyways, why not both? Being able to do something secretively in the place you live is important.

QuoteIf done incorrectly it has the potential to prevent meaningful RP because its harder to hold people accountable for their day to day behavior due to the fact they can become anonymous/someone new whenever the heck they want. It will lead to pure foolishness.

Again, having played multiple RPIs with desc obscuring ability, it really won't. It's not something that just leads to pure foolishness because there's a lot of PC-PC regulation.  PCs are not really able to do more crimes codedly than they could otherwise do with near invis stealth and maxed subterfuge skills. Plus, maybe at the hoity toity bar the guard screens for masks/hoods, makes people remove them, etc.

 Do you have an example of exactly what you worry is going to happen? Like your clan mate is gonna show up wearing a mask and rob you and you won't have any idea? I mean that, to me, just sounds like conflict/plot. Maybe you should be worried that the person skulking around you has the exact same build and boots as your newly hired hunter.

Quote from: Riev on May 22, 2024, 07:53:52 PMUnless its just easier to type "kill riev" than it is to "ooc consent for torture"

kill riev

Hmm - yeah that's pretty easy.

I really think the jump start rules are going to make for amazing changes in some of this.  Something about grinding for endless hours to get your skills to a certain level can sometimes make you feel like you have to use those skills.  Being competent with less time involved feels like its going to really shift things toward story telling.  Hope so anyhow.

Quote from: eska on May 22, 2024, 06:15:28 PMClosed and hooded up ankle-length djellebah. All mdesc is gone.

Which would be fine, IMO. My issue with mdesc-hiding masks is that the description is -replaced- with the mdesc of the mask. So the green-eyed barrel-chested man, wearing the mask, appears to be a purple tregil with floppy ears, complete with a 6-line description of his smooth skin and tail.

That's why -masks- specifically - are a bad idea.  If the mask resulted in
The masked humanoid

and look masked returned

This person is disguised from the neck up to look like a purple, floppy-eared tregil. His shoulders are narrow, he has a barrel chest and long limbs. His left hand is missing a pinky and he has big feet with delicate ankles.

If that happened, then masks would work great. But that's not what happens, and that's why masks don't work.

Would be 100% fine with someone wearing an ankle-length cloak/cape, head covering, face covering, and gloves, to show "the tall humanoid" and an mdesc that says:

This humanoid is covered head to toe, it's impossible to see beyond their attire.

Quote from: Halaster on May 22, 2024, 07:09:53 PMYeah I don't think a mask alone is 'enough'.  Maybe (and this is just me theorycrafting, no promises or commitments) if it was a mask + a longcloak + hood up then it hides the mdesc.  Or something like that, where it's a combo of items that "make sense".

100% yes please!

Quote from: Lizzie on May 22, 2024, 08:53:36 PM

Quote from: eska on May 22, 2024, 06:15:28 PMClosed and hooded up ankle-length djellebah. All mdesc is gone.

Which would be fine, IMO. My issue with mdesc-hiding masks is that the description is -replaced- with the mdesc of the mask. So the green-eyed barrel-chested man, wearing the mask, appears to be a purple tregil with floppy ears, complete with a 6-line description of his smooth skin and tail.

That's why -masks- specifically - are a bad idea.  If the mask resulted in
The masked humanoid

and look masked returned

This person is disguised from the neck up to look like a purple, floppy-eared tregil. His shoulders are narrow, he has a barrel chest and long limbs. His left hand is missing a pinky and he has big feet with delicate ankles.

If that happened, then masks would work great. But that's not what happens, and that's why masks don't work.

Would be 100% fine with someone wearing an ankle-length cloak/cape, head covering, face covering, and gloves, to show "the tall humanoid" and an mdesc that says:

This humanoid is covered head to toe, it's impossible to see beyond their attire.

Okay. So masks won't work. Is the core idea of hiding the mdesc a problem, or just using an implementation from 2002 that you take issue with?

Quote from: Lizzie on May 22, 2024, 08:53:36 PM

Quote from: eska on May 22, 2024, 06:15:28 PMClosed and hooded up ankle-length djellebah. All mdesc is gone.

Which would be fine, IMO. My issue with mdesc-hiding masks is that the description is -replaced- with the mdesc of the mask. So the green-eyed barrel-chested man, wearing the mask, appears to be a purple tregil with floppy ears, complete with a 6-line description of his smooth skin and tail.

There are a lot more ways to facilitate it sensibly than just blanket-hand waving that it wouldn't work.

>look figure

You see a very tall, obese humanoid wearing a faceless obsidian mask.
(Tdesc) Their hair has been bound back and pinned with a length of thin engraved bone, and their blue eyes are hard and purposeful.

Gear: They are wearing <X,Y> - normal
Tattoos: standard

>study figure

You look at the very tall, obese humanoid wearing a faceless obsidian mask. They notice you studying them!
You notice they have watery blue eyes.
You notice they have dark black hair.
You notice they are armed!

>draw sword

>You notice the very tall, obese humanoid wearing a faceless obsidian mask trying to slip into the shadows!
------------------------------------


Yes, this would require player buy in - to adequately set temp descs. Again, this is a game that the latest push (and this very thread) is about collaborating even in conflict. Players that do their best to leave breadcrumbs, not try to game the system, etc, or do foolish things would be appropriately noted by staff - in the same way that they are proposing to monitor magick, karma races, sponsored roles, etc.

And yeah - it would perhaps be a fantastic code project for coded additions to char-gen that add particular descriptors that are hard to conceal, or findable. And you have those be reviewed in approval so the hard blue-eyed, stocky man doesn't give descriptors of having green cat-eyes and a purple tregil tail. Like - we have code to summon magickal stuff of all sorts out of thin air, NPCs that will spar you, entire ecosystems - we trust players with near instakill buttons in spells, big clubs, crim code- a mask that blanks your description is not going to like suddenly have the entire PBase be spree Pkillers and running around emoting farting on nobles, no more so than that already occurs.


My thoughts:
Hood > obscures sdesc like current, M-desc visible to look. Closed cloak obscures some of the equipment, just like current.
Mask > obscures main desc, but eyes / hair / ears easy or moderately easy to notice
Facehelm > obscures main desc, hair / ears hard to notice, eyes moderately hard to notice. (person wearing helm might have downsides of their own perceptive abilities though)
Mask or helm + hood up> Makes hair, ears harder to notice. 

Quote from: Bogre on May 22, 2024, 10:00:34 PMStuff 

I do have some hope that redstorm will be able to support small time troublemakers and villains, but that could just be wishful thinking on my part given the state of places like luirs and the rinth. Since I lack faith, I do feel the need for some ability to provide anonymity to promote non-lethal conflict. However, it should be in a limited and skill oriented way to prevent a ton of problem for the game. In the hands of someone who understands this game, anonymity is potentially more powerful than stealth, spells or assassination techniques.

If this is to be implemented, simplicity works best. You look at a person, the description should read that their m-desc is obscured. Anything more will just lead to cookie cutter looks and features just so people can blend in with a majority of the population when wearing these items. After all, people will continue to use things to their advantage because historically they have a lot to lose.  This is not going to change overnight.

I also fear that wide spread anonymity will result in bias or outright cheating by both players and staff to help learn or identify m-desc hidden players. This type of cheating is pure poison for the game and is best avoided all together. Equally, limiting the gear to certain clans for special purposes defeats the entire purpose of having them at all since clans should have less need for anonymity. 

That said if this goes in, I can't wait to see unconscious nobles lying naked on the ground. Probably not the intended outcome, but utterly hilarious none the less.  ;D

(https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/325/699/4fc.jpg)

Quote from: Dresan on May 23, 2024, 12:28:17 AMI also fear that wide spread anonymity will result in bias or outright cheating by both players and staff to help learn or identify m-desc hidden players. This type of cheating is pure poison for the game and is best avoided all together. Equally, limiting the gear to certain clans for special purposes defeats the entire purpose of having them at all since clans should have less need for anonymity.

This seems to suggest that you think we have a high proportion of players who simply exist to grief and want to run around causing mayhem or otherwise winning at hurting other PCs. In fact, a lot of this thread does. This honestly is not the case. Most, if not almost all, of our players are here to roleplay, create characters and tell stories. Not all of them are great at stopping to put a bit more thought into their PK attempts or their conflicts though and that's what these guidelines are about. But these are the hardest times to remember to take a pause. We will continue to weed out the genuine griefers, but they are few and far between and things like the 1k requirement for dwarves will help a lot to prevent situations like the great dwarven massacre of I'm not sure when because I wasn't on staff yet. Lots of our players care about their skills, progress and PCs prowess and ability, because it's a game and that's natural, but there isn't really a theme amongst our players of people who actively want to cheat to win, it's just the occassional very few who then stand out in our memories.

QuoteThis seems to suggest that you think we have a high proportion of players who simply exist to grief and want to run around causing mayhem or otherwise winning at hurting other PCs. In fact, a lot of this thread does. This honestly is not the case. Most, if not almost all, of our players are here to roleplay, create characters and tell stories.

I feel like I'm being gaslit.

I've been burnt enough times to know that players in this game arn't curious about stories other than their own. They will seek out positions of power in game and they will use them to clique, cheat and grief. And then staff will punch down on the victims when they complain about it.

Quote from: Master Color on May 23, 2024, 03:14:45 AM

QuoteThis seems to suggest that you think we have a high proportion of players who simply exist to grief and want to run around causing mayhem or otherwise winning at hurting other PCs. In fact, a lot of this thread does. This honestly is not the case. Most, if not almost all, of our players are here to roleplay, create characters and tell stories.

I feel like I'm being gaslit.

I've been burnt enough times to know that players in this game arn't curious about stories other than their own. They will seek out positions of power in game and they will use them to clique, cheat and grief. And then staff will punch down on the victims when they complain about it.

I don't think you are necessarily. I've seen this from the top down with a larger playerbase even. All it takes is 3 or 4 people that you neither curtail nor speak with to ruin the fun for everyone. Remember, these are people who will run off into the silt sea specifically to get better stats. Probably people who exploited that spice stat character creation bug. I honestly think that making dwarves require karma is gonna do a lot but so would stuff like flagging people to have X or Y guild not be available if they're griefing with it. It would only need to be an extreme minority to fit this as long as their respective playtimes were high enough there'd be someone on most to all hours of the day with it just a handful of people. I'm sure it will result in something greater at this point and they've now made rules about stuff they'll even have something specific to point at for the why. It could feel like a lot more and worse than it really is if that person's current grief puppet is spamming around your area. It only takes 1.

The code abusing lolcows arn't even the worst offenders.

This game has a history giving leader characters to players who will "play the system" but will still make the game fucking miserable to other players.

This is a problem that has yet to be addressed.

The PvP documentation puts a shared responsibility on all players to respect the storytelling process. I think if a sponsored role goes off and starts to disrespect that dynamic, they will stick out like a sore thumb even more than usual because there will be a significantly higher share of players following the guidelines.

If the concern is that staff won't intervene even when it is highly obvious that they should, that comes with its own risk. Other players will start to see that following the PvP documentation is no longer necessary because it's not being enforced, and the game will see players leave, which I don't think is an outcome anyone wants.

Viewed from the standpoint of a staff team that can be characterized by their statements and actions as clearly trying to improve the game and pull players back in, I have no doubt that they intend to take the PvP standards seriously.

I think the most important things that players of sponsored roles will need to understand are alternative conflict resolution and conflict escalation. And I think this game has a history of many leader characters that already voluntarily followed those guidelines because they had a natural understanding of what it meant to play a leader PC in a storytelling focused game. To see the behavior of long-feuding nobles and conniving templars codified into the game's documentation is a really big change for this game's culture.

Quote from: dumbstruck on May 23, 2024, 03:39:14 AMI don't think you are necessarily. I've seen this from the top down with a larger playerbase even. All it takes is 3 or 4 people that you neither curtail nor speak with to ruin the fun for everyone. Remember, these are people who will run off into the silt sea specifically to get better stats. Probably people who exploited that spice stat character creation bug. I honestly think that making dwarves require karma is gonna do a lot but so would stuff like flagging people to have X or Y guild not be available if they're griefing with it. It would only need to be an extreme minority to fit this as long as their respective playtimes were high enough there'd be someone on most to all hours of the day with it just a handful of people. I'm sure it will result in something greater at this point and they've now made rules about stuff they'll even have something specific to point at for the why. It could feel like a lot more and worse than it really is if that person's current grief puppet is spamming around your area. It only takes 1.

This. I'm not trying to diminish your experiences. Just reassure the general playerbase at large, that the vast majority of players are not griefers and are not out just to harm other players. The griefers are rare and few and far between but their actions stick in our memories and cloud our experiences so much more. There are also cases of good players or very new players getting things wrong once or twice so that most players may have felt attacked by a griefer when actually it was a decent player who mucked up or did something out of character or that they regret. We have a different perspective from where we are and I promise you, most of our players are awesome and we do shuffle out the genuinely bad ones as quickly as we can weed them out. With this in mind, we do not need to approach our policy or game design choices from the perspective of needing to predict the expected behaviours of griefers and cheaters. They will generally surprise us with new things anyway.

Quote from: Dresan on May 23, 2024, 12:28:17 AMI also fear that wide spread anonymity will result in bias or outright cheating by both players and staff to help learn or identify m-desc hidden players. This type of cheating is pure poison for the game and is best avoided all together. Equally, limiting the gear to certain clans for special purposes defeats the entire purpose of having them at all since clans should have less need for anonymity. 

That said if this goes in, I can't wait to see unconscious nobles lying naked on the ground. Probably not the intended outcome, but utterly hilarious none the less.  ;D

I'm really puzzled by the above comments. Why would players suddenly be cheating to find mdescs anymore then they currently 'cheat' to find out sdescs or 'cheat' by remembering perfectly every detail about someone who had a mask and hood on. Also- why would staff be cheating to find out...? They could just pinfo or stat check or whatever to know.

There aren't typically unconscious nobles lying around everywhere, assassinations of nobles is exceptionally rare. Why exactly do you except the streets to suddenly be littered with them ? Players had access to stealth, invisibility spells, sap, half giants with clubs...and it didn't happen. But changing the look desc of people- it's  suddenly going to be mayhem...?

Quote from: Bogre on May 23, 2024, 08:17:41 AM

Quote from: Dresan on May 23, 2024, 12:28:17 AMI also fear that wide spread anonymity will result in bias or outright cheating by both players and staff to help learn or identify m-desc hidden players. This type of cheating is pure poison for the game and is best avoided all together. Equally, limiting the gear to certain clans for special purposes defeats the entire purpose of having them at all since clans should have less need for anonymity. 

That said if this goes in, I can't wait to see unconscious nobles lying naked on the ground. Probably not the intended outcome, but utterly hilarious none the less.  ;D

...

There aren't typically unconscious nobles lying around everywhere, assassinations of nobles is exceptionally rare. Why exactly do you except the streets to suddenly be littered with them ?

When I read that, I understood it as /the noble was wearing the mask, and pretending to be batman/, because of the anonymity... Rather than people attacking the noble.

Quote from: Usiku on May 23, 2024, 07:31:09 AMthe vast majority of players are not griefers and are not out just to harm other players. The griefers are rare and few and far between but their actions stick in our memories and cloud our experiences so much more.

Two different points here.

The first point  is that the community has different definitions of what a griefer is exactly. Someone who PK like a psychopath, using lame excuses to go after newbie or non-combat characters not directly related to the conflict was not a griefer about four week ago. For example, raiders and muggers are not griefers in my books, especially if they are only looting virtual goods but not everyone agrees. Ultimately, the majority of people do only care about their stories and that includes people in staff. And to be perfectly clear there is nothing wrong with this either, no one should be forced to play something that find unfun, they should play as they want as long as it is within the rules and coded framework of the game.

The second point is that when rules, code or lore are at times ambiguous or left to interpretation (eg. backstabbing animals, frequency of steal mechanics), it has  lead to staff intervention at some point. This has been historically toxic for the game, because staff are people/former players of this game and have their own biases. People naturally side with those they like regardless of the reason. This is just being human, sure does suck the person on the other side and the game in general but its just reality and this is historically what has happened.

Something like anonymity granting items or skills removes the ability for players to decide what appropriate action to take in response to IC behavior.  It is a very powerful tool in the hands of someone who understands the gameplay mechanics. Unless staff intervenes or players cheat can be impossible to identify these people.  Regardless of the reasons or outcome of these interventions, these are potentially poisonous situations for the game. It will only take a couple semi-active mugger/raider, who aren't griefers in my books, to potentially force a toxic situation that will hurt the game. 

Again, despite that,  i fully see a need for anonymity to promote conflict but it needs to be handled with care and have well defined limitations. This isn't a Mush so both rules and gameplay mechanics need to be taken in consideration when making these types changes. Players supported by game mechanics should continue to have a role in determining appropriate action for IC behavior, even if that unfortunately means that the entire mud is after one lone raider who mugged a few coins off someone.

I both agree with Dumbstruck and Usuki. The average Armageddon player is kinder than you think, you just need a little more faith in people. But at the same time, I does only take a small handful of people to ruin the game, doubly so if you get those players in a high karma role or a sponsored role, which I have seen both happen and the consequences of it.

The addition of the PK rules is good because as long as the rules don't exist you'll get players who specifically look for opportunities to pk other players just for the fun of it. Even if people deny these players exist, PvP is it's own reward and the popularity of PVP games proves this. Not only this, I've actually seen in the past a good few long-time community members in this forum admit that they enjoy killing other players, I'm obviously not going to name names but I think it's more a less a fact that people do play Armageddon specifically to ruin the game for other players, whether this is from being a borderline griefing Pker or a sponsored leader who doesn't put the enjoyment of the players who play their subordinates first.

I'm thinking in the future I'll make a post about playing sponsored roles and antags in a way that's fun for the players involved. I know I haven't played many of these in Armageddon, but my time as a Dungeon Master for around 10+ years gives me a good idea I'd like to think, it's very much in the same area of the DM vs Players debate. And I just think it'll be a good discussion to have because it's important to see other perspectives on these things, especially staff.

I understand why some players feel that a majority of others are inherently selfish players or that staff are the same way. I am looking forward to doing my part to prove that peoples' time and energy will be valued in Season 1. Creating memorable rivalries and scenes is my favorite part of this game that is very unique, because of the stakes involved.

QuoteI'm thinking in the future I'll make a post about playing sponsored roles and antags in a way that's fun for the players involved. I know I haven't played many of these in Armageddon, but my time as a Dungeon Master for around 10+ years gives me a good idea I'd like to think, it's very much in the same area of the DM vs Players debate. And I just think it'll be a good discussion to have because it's important to see other perspectives on these things, especially staff.

@Kavrick That sounds like a lovely idea.

I have experienced everything from players/groups having access to weapons or items they should not have (and staff EVENTUALLY stepped in and removed the item), to people Mortally Wounding someone in a public room, then performing the kill in another room so that the log shows they were killed in a 'better area', to people leading their would be attackers into Red Storm Alleys or other "bad areas" so that NPCs will help them out.

The simple fact is that the code won't matter, and a help file won't matter. It will be up to staff doing the things they're promising (not playing PCs themselves, actually observing things in game, and being available to intervene when things are needed). It only takes one player to "do whatever the game's code LETS them do" to ruin people's stories. And staff's only recourse is to punish the one doing the abusing (who will just use a VPN and make a new account), while the 10 days played PC's owner has to deal with it.

I don't think the help file will change anything. I don't think "requiring a wish up" will change anything. And having your mdesc hidden will just allow people to feel better about NOT killing immediately, because we can't shake the idea that "Perma-death PK is allowed" seems to mean "Fortnite in text"

To be clear this has nothing to due with players being inherently selfish but rather people have difference of opinions to what good and bad is for the scenes and for game. I too doubt few players and staff come here to purposely grief but their actions may still be interpreted differently by others or have unexpected harmful outcomes.

All I am saying is when it comes to a new powerful mechanic like anonymity, both rules and gameplay need to be taken into account. Some events, both good and bad, have been rare in the past because people cannot escape IC consequences very easily. This may unintentionally change that with unexpected outcomes. Again, even then I admit we may need more anonymity abilities at this point, but I still think it should handled with time limited skills that require time to improve.

This thread has gone sooo far off piste.. But anyway... just hypothetically, if we were ever going to implement mdesc covering masks, I feel like they could not and should not be infallible. Like there's always a chance other people might catch a glimpse of your eyes, hair, a tattoo and so on.. and you shouldn't know. That's how I would want it to be implemented anyway. But we have a whole trello board of coding backlog already, so you know, pipe dreams.

Quote from: Usiku on May 23, 2024, 01:38:16 PMThis thread has gone sooo far off piste.. But anyway... just hypothetically, if we were ever going to implement mdesc covering masks, I feel like they could not and should not be infallible. Like there's always a chance other people might catch a glimpse of your eyes, hair, a tattoo and so on.. and you shouldn't know. That's how I would want it to be implemented anyway. But we have a whole trello board of coding backlog already, so you know, pipe dreams.

The answer to this question is Peek

I now see why veteran players tend to stay away from GDB. This thread started as discussing Changes to PK guidance and now we are talking about why we should bring or not mdesc hiding masks or why people PK.
As a over 20 years Armer, I had some PCs PKed in some shitty ways. It's Zalanthas and there's always death at the corner. So I learnt not to whine and to move on.
ArmageddonMud has always been a harsh game. I don't see any reason to change Zalanthas into a meek world. There is perma-death and PK. There are rules. Just trust the staff.

Amen!!!

Quote from: eska on May 23, 2024, 05:26:31 PMArmageddonMud has always been a harsh game. I don't see any reason to change Zalanthas into a meek world. There is perma-death and PK. There are rules. Just trust the staff.

This.

I just want to say that I don't feel like making sure that people properly roleplay out motivations and being at least be considerate of the players that they are being antagonistic towards = making the game meek. Nobody is arguing that PKs should never happen, people are just saying that it should be properly roleplayed out, and that it shouldn't just be a first resort. After all, Armageddon is a roleplaying game.

For example, what would you say is more "harsh and brutal"?

A. A character doesn't give a raider the Sid in his bag, and the raider immediately does "kill amos", causing him to die and reroll a new character. (Not even going to bring up how this sort of experience might just put people off the game, which I know it has.)

B. A character disrespects a Templar, rather than the Templar outright killing the person, they use magick to burn and maim half of their face, scarring it irreversibly. This character now has to go on to roleplay this experience and use it to develop their character further.

I'd say that the second option is not only more brutal, it's more memorable and enjoyable for both sides. Everyone enjoys having some sort of event that changes their character. Perhaps Amos goes on to hate templars and plot against them. Or maybe they develop a crippling fear of templars and become meek and subserviant.

Either way, the second option allows the player to continue playing the game and develop the character in a way that is plenty "harsh". Not only this, but it gives better atmosphere to new characters/players, because that scarred Amos can go on to talk about and share his experience IC.

Even if you want to roll an "Evil" character, I would like to say that you should still respect the fact that this is a collaborative experience. The more people who actually are kind specifically oocly to other players, the more enjoyable experience it is for everyone. When I say "oocly kind", I mean remembering that there is a person behind every PC. The best sorts of antagonists are ones that people love to hate, even more so than this is an antagonist that people can empathize with. Maim, kill, pillage, or whatever you want to do, but roleplay .

Honestly that's the biggest issue I have with people rolling characters in "as an antagonist". Like sure, antagonize when it makes sense but in a shades of grey grimdark crapsack world, no one should be leaned more than 80% antagonist nor protagonist and the terms lose meaning anyway because in a mud no one should be "the protagonist" so when you make "an antagonist" you basically pit yourself in auto friction against most of the player faction then wonder why they don't want to engage with that. Because you're low key playing someone psychotic. I mean, the NPC humanoids in the Rinth are still humanoids. And it's fine if you want to have a rich inner life. But people don't typically enjoy encounters with psychopaths and arguably avoiding that is perfectly in character. (General you in all instances here).

"Properly roleplay out motivations..."

"no one should be leaned more than 80%"

Sounds like some players want to dictate roleplay to the rest of the playerbase.

What constitutes "proper" roleplayed motivation? Whatever any on particular player requires it to mean? What about what I require it to mean? What about what a new player requires it to mean? How about what the current Producer requires it to mean?

And what does 80% look like, exactly? And who gets to make that decision of what it looks like?

Seems like some players want to create slippery slopes, so they have someone to blame when someone goes down it.

What I consider "proper" roleplayed motivation: when a player gives his character a motivation. Whether they use thinks or feels is up to them. Whether they give me a "scene" or not is a mutual decision, because I might not have time for a scene, or might not be enjoying the scene they're providing. Or maybe I'm satisfied with the PK and don't need a scene at all that day.  Just because you think everyone should provide a scene, doesn't mean everyone should. It just means you think they should.

The PvP guidelines state:

"Use the roleplaying tools provided to disclose your character's motives, where appropriate, and enhance the narrative, fostering a respectful and collaborative environment despite in-character conflicts.  These roleplaying tools can include emote, think, feel, and all forms of communication. Note that just because you are extensively using think and feel, the other person will not see that, so be mindful of what the victim might experience or see."

I think it is fair to say that the staff are defining proper roleplayed motivation, and the above is how it's being defined.

I want to focus on one thing in particular:

Quote from: Lizzie on May 23, 2024, 08:53:38 PMSounds like some players want to dictate roleplay to the rest of the playerbase.

Lizzie, Armageddon is an RPI. The I in there stands for something, and it is oft forgotten about. Dictating RP is absolutely for the community to do, and leaving it up to everyone to judge for themselves is how we got in bad situations in the first place.

Quote from: CirclelessBard on May 23, 2024, 09:31:32 PMThe PvP guidelines state:

"Use the roleplaying tools provided to disclose your character's motives, where appropriate, and enhance the narrative, fostering a respectful and collaborative environment despite in-character conflicts.  These roleplaying tools can include emote, think, feel, and all forms of communication. Note that just because you are extensively using think and feel, the other person will not see that, so be mindful of what the victim might experience or see."

I think it is fair to say that the staff are defining proper roleplayed motivation, and the above is how it's being defined.

Right. That's my point. Nowhere in there does it say the player is required to use thinks and feels. Nor are they required to emote, or tell their intended victim of their intentions, or give themselves away, or reveal their motives to their victims.

And that's fine by me. As long as staff is able to look back and see that it was a legit kill, I'm satisfied that it was a legit kill. I might not have enjoyed the ending. But no one "owes" me a fun ending, or resolution, or closure, or a satisfying scene. It's nice to have, but it's not obligatory.

Quote from: Patuk on May 23, 2024, 09:55:17 PMI want to focus on one thing in particular:

Quote from: Lizzie on May 23, 2024, 08:53:38 PMSounds like some players want to dictate roleplay to the rest of the playerbase.

Lizzie, Armageddon is an RPI. The I in there stands for something, and it is oft forgotten about. Dictating RP is absolutely for the community to do, and leaving it up to everyone to judge for themselves is how we got in bad situations in the first place.

It's not -your- place to dictate what I "should" or "should not" consider fun, or "proper" roleplay. Just like it's not my place to dictate what you should/shouldn't consider fun, or proper roleplay.  The game is laid out how it's laid out, with rules that the staff have made available for us to follow. How we choose to perceive the result of that through our gaming time, is up to us as individuals.

Quote from: Lizzie on May 23, 2024, 10:01:24 PM

Quote from: Patuk on May 23, 2024, 09:55:17 PMI want to focus on one thing in particular:

Quote from: Lizzie on May 23, 2024, 08:53:38 PMSounds like some players want to dictate roleplay to the rest of the playerbase.

Lizzie, Armageddon is an RPI. The I in there stands for something, and it is oft forgotten about. Dictating RP is absolutely for the community to do, and leaving it up to everyone to judge for themselves is how we got in bad situations in the first place.

It's not -your- place to dictate what I "should" or "should not" consider fun, or "proper" roleplay. Just like it's not my place to dictate what you should/shouldn't consider fun, or proper roleplay.  The game is laid out how it's laid out, with rules that the staff have made available for us to follow. How we choose to perceive the result of that through our gaming time, is up to us as individuals.

The GDB exists for many reasons, and the forum names speak for themselves; general, world, roleplaying discussions. I get to have a voice, just as you do, and if all you have to do is veil a 'shut up' in busybody language I see no reason to entertain any of what you're saying.

Quote from: Lizzie on May 23, 2024, 09:59:03 PMBut no one "owes" me a fun ending, or resolution, or closure, or a satisfying scene. It's nice to have, but it's not obligatory.

No one "owes" anyone respect, consideration or kindness, and yet, you (again, general you) are much more likely to seek out the company of those who do. Yes, the IN GAME world is a terrible bad world. But wouldn't it make your time investment nicer if you knew that people would treat you, the player, with kindness and consideration, even while seeking out enmity between your mutual characters? Would that not be the preferable end for most people?

Yes, no one is obligated to give someone and end to their story. But for those who value the story above the win, seeing an abrupt end to it alongside their character, is something that eventually makes them stop seeking to tell stories, and have the sort of consideration I believe most people would desire, in scenes where there is a hard winner and loser. No one likes a sore loser, or a gloating winner.

I do have to say, the weird mantra of 'I owe no one anything' that I've heard from people in the community is probably the most unhealthy, deconstructive, nihilist outlook ever. Yes, technically you do not owe anyone anything, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't try to be kind to your fellow player. What do you think will have the more enjoyable game? The community full of people who use 'I don't owe anyone anything' as a mantra to avoid personal responsibility, or a community full of people that are considerate of other players and approach the game with 'I want everyone to have a good time'?

Even if you're someone who's not altruistic and doesn't believe in that sort of thing, it's practical to want the latter. Unless you're someone who unironically reaps joy from lessening other people's joy (which in my opinion is the kind of person who should never be welcomed into any community), wanting the community overall to be better is something that you will benefit from.


Edit: I wrote this up without fully reading everything. I think everyone should step back and remember that we're all here to share opinions and discuss a topic, I'd like to think no one is trying to say "everyone should think exactly the way I think" or dictate how people should play/think or anything like that. We're all here to have a good time, and I think we should aim to have that good time together rather than trying to tear each other down.

While some people here maybe taking it too far into carebear land. I have zero tolerance for the people that have been targetting non-combat and newbie characters over the years because they are easy kills with the pettiest of IC reasons.

No amount of RPee makes this any better. Its not harsh or gritty to keep punching down with murder while playing powerful classes or roles, its lame from both RP and gameplay stand point.

You want to murder someone even with little rp, go for it, the game still encourages instant murder but if asking for reasonable justification for your character's actions is too 'hard' then yes, you need re-evalate your character or just your damn self.

Pychopathic behavior was not supposed to be tolerated even when i started playing decades ago, its just that finally the entire community (yes we are all guilty) is coming around to finally enforcing it.

Quote from: Dresan on May 23, 2024, 10:32:55 PMWhile some people here maybe taking it too far into carebear land.

I do genuinely want to ask, what do you consider 'carebear land'?

Quote from: Kavrick on May 23, 2024, 10:41:53 PM

Quote from: Dresan on May 23, 2024, 10:32:55 PMWhile some people here maybe taking it too far into carebear land.

I do genuinely want to ask, what do you consider 'carebear land'?

Lately? Any change that isn't in line with someone's idea of how to be "harsh".

Non-killing is "carebear". For a time, Tuluk was considered "Carebear" because the people who played there weren't "dirt and sand Allanakis with blood on their face" they were "carebear weaklings with facepaints and flowers".

Let's have the people talk for themselves. They might as well make clear what they mean if we're gonna disagree with them.

I don't fully disagree. While I am indifferent to the carebear comment, the thing about punching down when you instagank minions and noncombat types sucks and is punching down. It's real cool and all that Lord Fartypants has a mortal enemy in Lord Templar Medallionface. But if it basically consists of snipping at each other like petty frivolous fops and nuking each others minions, that's just a really good way for neither party to wind up with minions because people don't like being nuked. Unless they have some special mental or emotional stuff going on that makes them an exception, most people will avoid getting invested in that after seeing 2-3 rounds of that, but by that it'll be too late for the half a dozen people who's time was wasted to not even defeat but merely /inconvenience/ someone else that their character is too weak to target personally. Being fallout damage sucks, and it sucks worse when it's <normal screen> <your prompt> <mantis head> with nothing in between.

Quote from: Dresan on May 23, 2024, 10:32:55 PMNo amount of RPee makes this any better. Its not harsh or gritty to keep punching down with murder while playing powerful classes or roles, its lame from both RP and gameplay stand point.

Actually, that's absolutely harsh (gritty is an entirely other matter not really related to this subject imo).

Which is why I think that as a community we should try to find a better balance of harshness and the other end of the spectrum. Stories about hope, triumph, and community can indeed be more interesting than 'The land of grimness where everything is awful 24/7 and everyone dies all the time for stupid reasons.' I have said too much and will probably be called a carebear now.  :P

The motto for this game is still: Murder. Corruption. Betrayal.

Conflict should be encouraged, and murder should still be expected. And there are plenty of justifiable reasons to kill someone.

If the murderer can give the victim a good scene; that's great, please send them kudos. However, it is unreasonable to always expect a well RPed scene or understand the reason why you died or even fully agree with that reason if you learned it. I do believe that if people are forced to justify themselves to staff then the reason for their death will be a bit more obvious and perhaps be even better RP to the victim whenever possible. After all, there is a lame reason why assassinating nobles and templars is rare in this game, despite how easily justifiable those deaths could be.

This game  at times tends to overcompensate with some of its issues and that might be the case here but seeing the same vulnerable players continuously get targeted because they are easy marks rather than any good IC reason has  been so revolting that I don't care about the extreme swing as much with this issue.

That said, this isn't Carebear Mush, everyone who plays this game should still expect to die at some point but it feels a bit like some people are trying to purely limit 'PK', even if it makes no sense to spare someone.  Instead, the community should try to improve its storytelling skills and further encourage the types of glorious conflict that better promote justifiable murder between two individuals. 

For the record, someone disrespecting a templar is grounds for a gory death, and its the fault the game and the entire community if this is not perfectly clear upon character creation.

Quote from: Dresan on May 24, 2024, 12:44:48 AMIf the murderer can give the victim a good scene; that's great, please send them kudos. However, it is unreasonable to always expect a well RPed scene or understand the reason why you died or even fully agree with that reason if you learned it. I do believe that if people are forced to justify themselves to staff then the reason for their death will be a bit more obvious and perhaps be even better RP to the victim whenever possible.

I feel like it's a little far-fetched to say that it's unreasonable to expect a decently RP'd scene in a scene where you're dying. Without even talking about how many hours you lose when you die, Armageddon is an RPI, which stands for either Roleplay Intensive or Roleplay Enforced, I've heard both uses of it. Roleplay to a high standard should always be expected. This isn't me saying that you should get up in-arms about bad RP, but to say it's unreasonable to expect good RP from an RPI is a little bewildering to me.

Quote from: Dresan on May 24, 2024, 12:44:48 AMFor the record, someone disrespecting a templar is grounds for a gory death, and its the fault the game and the entire community if this is not perfectly clear upon character creation.

Is it justified? Yes. Is it the only option? No. Is it the first option? Debatable.
Honestly any Templar player who goes straight to death penalties to solve issues is just going to shoot themselves in the foot. Nobody is going to want to interact or be around a kill-happy templar. As Dumbstruck said; It should be expected that people avoid sociopathic, murderous characters, both from an ooc and ic perspective.

That aside, I think calling anything which is critiquing PKs and putting on a spotlight on it 'carebear-y' is degenerate in the sense that it does nothing for the conversation. It just feels like a completely unnecessary insult to people who don't feel the same as you. Yes the tagline of Armageddon is 'Murder, Corruption, Betrayal', but Murder is one of three words, if the only way to make a game harsh and unforgiving to you is to send people a mantis head, then I don't know what to tell you.

If reviewing PK logs is too cumbersome then it is because staff lack the correct tools to accomplish such a task efficiently. From my experience on APC I believe this to be the case.

Murder. Corruption. Betrayal.

More of a tagline than a motto but that's beside the point. Where has this ideal gotten us? A toxic playerbase, a terrible reputation amongst the greater RP community, unsustainable staff turnover, and a dying MUD.

When you make your world the worst kind of place, is it really any wonder that you're going to attract the worst kind of people to play in it? I don't think so.

To be clear, I don't mind someone creating a raider and going on to kill a bunch of people. What I do mind is someone accepting a sponsored role and going on to kill a bunch of people. Though my experience playing a templar has shown me that in that particular role you can't really avoid killing a bunch of people - there's always another fool that insists on throwing themselves on your blade even when you weren't initially planning to kill them.

I agree with the changes in PK guidelines, but I think we need to go farther and change our entire community from a murder culture to one that embraces alternate punishments.

While killing someone is the best way of eliminating their negative influence on my plans for world domination, I will do it.

When I can trust people to get the hint that maybe they should stop pushing their luck, I won't have to kill them.

To the point, I applaud the dialogue of more closure around role ending scenarios, it was about fifteen years over due really. I'm not really a fan of a full post death report, but something like 'Amos was paid to kill you' is much better than absolutely nothing, or absolutely nothing and a reference to a helpfile.

I'm standing on business at killing one role off every eight years of game play. There are people who kill more people in one week than I have in my entire 'career'.

Quote from: EvilRoeSlade on May 24, 2024, 03:14:13 AMTo be clear, I don't mind someone creating a raider and going on to kill a bunch of people. What I do mind is someone accepting a sponsored role and going on to kill a bunch of people.

I was about to say this. What do you guys mean, when you're talking about PK.
Every player's first concern is their own story. And everyone wants their story to go on. It is easier for a templar to keep their story go on, because they can easily get away with torturing/murdering people. But a raider will have hard time with that, since the victim will have no problem finding some support to take vengeance. Easiest way for the player of the raider is to silence the victim. So, a raider killing someone with just some interaction should be understandable by the victim as well.
On the other hand, Allanaki Templars are known for their short temper. Some could be easy-going on the outside, some could be sociopaths. If you know the temper of a Templar, you can shape your RP accordingly. I find it lame to say I don't want sociopath PCs/NPCs in Zalanthas. I expect harsh environments grow mentally instable people. There will always be such characters in the world.

Edited to add: You cannot label a player a sociopath just because he plays a sociopath PC. Also it is more toxic to call the playerbase of Arm toxic.

I think Templars are also inheritors of a brutal regime, you kind of have to be brutal to survive being a white robe. Not sure whether it's institutionalized or whatever but previous experience suggests there is a level of urging that used to prevail.

QuoteWhile killing someone is the best way of eliminating their negative influence on my plans for world domination, I will do it.

When I can trust people to get the hint that maybe they should stop pushing their luck, I won't have to kill them.

Knowing this and knowing that this is the attitude of some players: Why the fuck should I put any time into this dead game?

Quote from: Kavrick on May 24, 2024, 01:23:57 AMStuff

I don't agree with many of your point.

I understand and appreciate the sentiment but the expectations don't really match with reality of the game.
 
There is also the assumption that 'PK' is the only thing that can 'ruin' a player's experience but a number people do store or suicide when their character has been full looted or has been horribly humiliated. The 'no rape' policy is there for a reason and people have been asking for the ability to take an eye, ear, and probably a left nut for years, lol. ;D

Ultimately, I am okay with the hard swing at the moment because from experience its fairly easy to course correct as needed later with in the game. The PK rules are not 'new', they have existed in principle for a long time but have historically only been enforced by staff for a small group of players like sponsored roles. The hope is for that consideration and care to be extended to everyone, particularly the most vulnerable in our community.

If you play long enough you generally don't care about being killed and many of us do play characters which certainly deserve being hunted and killed.People should still expect to die and sometimes it will suck.

Quote from: Master Color on May 24, 2024, 08:23:04 AM

QuoteWhile killing someone is the best way of eliminating their negative influence on my plans for world domination, I will do it.

When I can trust people to get the hint that maybe they should stop pushing their luck, I won't have to kill them.

Knowing this and knowing that this is the attitude of some players: Why the fuck should I put any time into this dead game?

Setting aside that the quote is taken out of context (Tuannon goes on to write "To the point, I applaud the dialogue of more closure around role ending scenarios, it was about fifteen years over due really"), that's rather the point of the PvP guidelines: to ensure the players of those killed in PvP situations don't feel like their time has been wasted, and do feel like the ending of their character's story is satisfying. To achieve that, the guidelines offer a means of pushing that ending out as long as possible by instructing players to find alternative means of conflict resolution and/or escalation before they decide to have their PC murder another.

Nothing was taken out of context. I'm responding to the words on the screen.

The only context here is that there are people here bending over backwards to try to assure to me that the players here are mature and responsible. That they will try to roll with the punches and tell stories with me. Meanwhile, I'm seeing posts that are telling me the opposite.

Murder-Corruption-Betrayal and PK

One on one confrontations on the sands is a great place for mercy, maiming or whatever.

Murder for hire.  Twenty large to kill an aid.  No further info as to why.  Bad place for mercy.

The boss told me to the "kill the fecker, so I did".  I don't know why I did it, I did as I was told.  Bad place for mercy.

Expect death.  Mistakes you make.  Mistakes other make.  Death traps.  Two meks.  Once I started to understand character deaths as new starts for other characters, it became easier to not take it personal.  Nor waste time ruminating about it.

Quote from: Cowboy on May 24, 2024, 09:41:16 AMMurder-Corruption-Betrayal and PK

One on one confrontations on the sands is a great place for mercy, maiming or whatever.

Murder for hire.  Twenty large to kill an aid.  No further info as to why.  Bad place for mercy.

The boss told me to the "kill the fecker, so I did".  I don't know why I did it, I did as I was told.  Bad place for mercy.

Expect death.  Mistakes you make.  Mistakes other make.  Death traps.  Two meks.  Once I started to understand character deaths as new starts for other characters, it became easier to not take it personal.  Nor waste time ruminating about it.

Yup. Pretty sure your character killed mine because of a "boss told me" situation, back in the days of Special Ops.  I absolutely never took it personally and thought the whole situation was crazy (and fun in a "my character is gonna die no matter how far I try to run" kind of way).  The mdesc masks - I wish weren't mdesc masks. But it didn't take away from the death at all.

Quote from: Master Color on May 24, 2024, 08:23:04 AM

QuoteWhile killing someone is the best way of eliminating their negative influence on my plans for world domination, I will do it.

When I can trust people to get the hint that maybe they should stop pushing their luck, I won't have to kill them.

Knowing this and knowing that this is the attitude of some players: Why the fuck should I put any time into this dead game?

Noone forces you to put any time into this game.

Quote from: Master Color on May 24, 2024, 09:25:00 AMNothing was taken out of context. I'm responding to the words on the screen.

The only context here is that there are people here bending over backwards to try to assure to me that the players here are mature and responsible. That they will try to roll with the punches and tell stories with me. Meanwhile, I'm seeing posts that are telling me the opposite.

In my case, I am not trying to assure you to anything. We are all trying to create our -own- stories. If our stories go in the same path, we are good IG, if not, bye bye to one of us IG. Even though you as a player are not happy with that, it is not your place to call me immature and irresponsible.

Mod note:
I removed a post that was breaking the Community Rules (https://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,60332.0.html).
Please carry on with the discussion. Thank you!

I think it's all a matter of the game's general culture, and the issue can be fixed that way. Not to heap all the responsibility onto staff, but for a long time, it seemed like they didn't care very much when someone was being really "unsporting" in PvP. People simply got away with it consequence-free. On top of that, I believe it's fair to say that Armageddon sucked as a game for quite a while, and this exacerbated people's lack of respect for their fellow players. If a lot of players feel like the game has let them down, it's easier for them to justify being a brat and disrespecting other people's time and effort.

If seasons live up to what's being promised, these things will probably change. Staff has said in no uncertain terms that they'll care about the way players conduct themselves in PvP, and their general approach to running the game should bring sweeping improvements to the playerbase's general enjoyment of it. Provided that this becomes reality and not just empty promises, I think there'll be a marked reduction in people who seemingly play only for the joy of PKing and don't care if their methods ruin the game for others.

This game accommodates methods of PvP that don't really leave room for much of a scene. You can't expect someone to send out a bunch of cinematic emotes before backstabbing you from stealth, and if someone's shooting at you from a distance, they don't have the option to interact with you at all. In such cases, there can be no burden on the killer to provide a fun scene for the victim. What's much more important is restraint, and having a meaningful reason for killing someone in the first place.

If I'm going to lose my character in a minute, it really doesn't matter to me if it's prefaced by a pretty emote or some dramatic last words. What matters is that it was a believable consequence of something that actually happened and could realistically make my character a target for murder, not just somebody who enjoys the act of ending other players' characters and does it for little to no reason. The latter has been far too common in recent years, and it hasn't felt like staff cared a whole lot about that.

When people are frustrated and ask something like "If this is the case, why should I put my time into this game" I think it should absolutely be taken into consideration that we all enjoy and want to play this game.

Telling someone that "nobody forces you to play" and "if you don't like it, don't play" is the absolute worst way to respond to people.

Can we keep the PvP in game, please, and not on the discussion board?

So I'm pretty sure I've been vocal enough about my stance that it goes without saying, unpopular as it is; death is good for the game.  The longer your PC lives, the worse the death is, almost unilaterally unless you get extremely lucky.  That isn't because of griefers, or bad roleplayers, or murderhobos, or any of that labeling that gets thrown around.  It's because this game, by design, does not make room for the 'glorious' death, or 'hopeful' death.  You have oppressive regimes, you have strong npcs, you have other players, and you have code mistakes that you make.  None of those are going to by nature, give you strong scenes in coded death.

So we, as a community, try to control what we can, to make it better. But make no mistake, in a permadeath game, -every character you apply for is also an application to lose that character.  It's a healthy thought to have in mind.  Anyway, as far as making it better, the natural focus is on PvP.

PvP is not -terrible- in the game, it's actually comparable to other games.  The difference is that it's not 'highly discouraged' or 'regulated', like in many RPIs who don't want to deal with this exact fiasco and worry about combat balancing this heavily, but it's still permadeath, unlike other games where the common behavior becomes to sit on your death cam and teabag you just to make it known that they outplayed you and you suck.

However.  Just because it isn't -terrible- doesn't mean it doesn't have -really big shortcomings-. 

When you go to a business meeting in the game, you enter the apartment, and then a hooded figure you weren't expecting to be present closes the door behind you and locks it, does your adrenaline start pumping?  Do you start using the Way to find out who you can tell, so that if they -do- kill you, at least someone knows?  Do you immediately enter into high-gear roleplaying mode when your fingers start shaking?

When you're sitting at a table with a templar and they order their half-giant to guard the exit, and starts talking about the things you've done and twisting them up into their reasons for why you're going to die, but you agree with none of them, does anything they say make it justified and feel good?  Does it feel like a better scene when it's clear that some politicking happened to pin a bunch of really bad things you didn't think you had anything to do with on you?

These are both opportunities for the killer to have to give you a real scene, but that bar of 'making your death feel better' is a -really high bar- by nature of the game. 

When you flip it around, and you realize that in case A, maybe-killer is now worried about whether he has the time to give you a scene before you alert the entire known...or maybe you're a -way- better fighter and he needs the jump on you to even have a chance to succeed.  Maybe his fingers have been shaking from the moment that you said you'd be arriving.  Maybe right now, he's actually terrified that -he- is making the big fuck-up that will result in -his- death, either now or in the near future.

In case B, that templar has a serious risk/reward dilemma going on.  They don't KNOW that you did these things.  Or they might be completely in the dark, being manipulated themselves.  They've tried to communicate the motivations before you die.  They, too, are worried about making a large mistake, but from what they've heard and been reported...there is a strong possibility of x things, and just leaving you alone is a serious hole in their plans if they're true.  That's a ton of risk for -their- story.  So they end yours.

And such is how deaths occur often in real life.  Such is how death, by nature, is.  The only place where this really steers away from that is in the retelling of stories as far as histories, the movies, and literature, which are kind of the same thing.

I apologize for the long windedness, but let me bring this back around.  So in terms of this documentation, if you were looking for less death, or good death, I don't think this is really it.  I think it urges players to not feel that fear as strongly as impulse tells them to so that they can take measured responses instead of knee-jerk ones.  But more than anything, I think it's saying 'If at all possible, make it so that they could have their death story retold'.  It doesn't mean it's always possible.  It doesn't mean that story will spread like wildfire.  It doesn't mean death will suddenly feel good.

But it means try to make death scenes better.  That's it.  I think higher expectation has a whooooole lot of baggage that gets carried on with it and will require a lot more than just some documentation and casual turd-slinging (by vagueness or direct) by the community.

I think making this always-present-but-now-documented idea known and what small changes we can make, like better recourses for combat (i.e. the mercy discussion) are big deals in themselves, and you shouldn't really knock them so hard for what they are.  Big steps.

Quote from: eska on May 24, 2024, 05:40:01 AMAlso it is more toxic to call the playerbase of Arm toxic.

Ah yes, pointing out the problem is of course the real problem.

Quote from: Dresan on May 22, 2024, 12:29:11 PM

Quote from: Krath on May 22, 2024, 12:04:07 PMStaff could bring back the mask that hide mdesc to solve this issue.

This should be an ability linked to assassination techniques(backstab or sap) which only lasts for a couple minutes after performing the attack or be an assassin skill that activates for a limited time after attacking from stealth.

It should not be an item that freely allow people to act like fools without IC consequences.

Thats an awesome idea.  It makes more sense too.  If you only get the chance to glance at someone you may not recognize them if they are masked and cloaked, but if you are around them for any length of time, you would notice their mannerisms and the way they move and recognize them as someone you know or have seen before.

One of the big problems with combat is that if you can't either instakill someone or actively prevent them from getting away, it's far too easy for the target to just type flee and run way the hell away before anyone can do anything about it. In nearly all cases, as soon as someone flees, they are 100% safe and their opponent has no chance of catching them again. If someone backstabs you down to 1 health, you can flee and run from one end of Allanak to the other before the attacker can act again. For all intents and purposes, we all carry The One Ring and the only way we die is if we don't have a chance to slip it on our finger.

Due to the near-impossibility of killing anyone without either huge bursts of damage that end them before they can react or a locked door to keep them from getting away, players will always resort to one of those things, and they're both kind of unsatisfying. It reduces the list of "things that are viable" to a very small number. Without one of those modi operandi available to you, you pretty much can't kill anyone. As such, players tend to design their characters with this in mind, at least when they're playing a concept that might end up having to kill somebody for one reason or another.

Over the years, various changes to the code have made it exceedingly difficult to become exceptionally skilled in the conventional DIKU melee combat skills. It is still possible, but most characters never have the opportunity to pursue it because they simply don't happen to be clanned with some old badass who's willing to spar them up (which will be even more rare in seasons, don't forget) or have knowledge of - and willingness to abuse - some very twinky methods that will get you in trouble if caught.

But you know what's pretty easy? Maxing out sap or archery or fireball, or rolling absolutely incredible strength and etwo'ing a club, or whatever else the "PvP meta" revolves around. So people resort to these, because they're accessible and they work even if you got stuck at journeyman weapon skills. And when you kill someone that way, they're not very likely to feel like it was a cool death. They probably died faster than they could type out a response.

Meanwhile, if you did make an effort to make it cinematic and go "Harhar, time to die! I've got you now! Revenge is finally in my grasp!" they will, in my experience, usually respond with: west west west west north north east east north north close door lock door. So, this game barely leaves room for cinematic deaths.

Quote from: Roon on May 24, 2024, 12:35:08 PMStuff

I agree there are a number of improvement that the game can make in terms of code to further support the RP and gameplay, however I have to admit that in the last couple years a number of significant changes to code have been made that have left me rather impressed. For example, the combat changes including those made to to stun weapons were very important for future improvements to overall experience. 

Unlike other games, code is often where this Mud has excelled at a bit more than other places and where I am often least concerned about. I think to both its merit and demerit this game tends to move slower in terms of policy and culture changes. I have faith as time passes more improvements will come that will address concerns around mercy and consequences of deadly combat beyond just full out knock out or death.

Some of those things mentioned here on issues with health regen and overall combat discussed further here:

• Health regen idea (https://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,60285.msg1102442.html#msg1102442)
• Legacy combat system (https://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,60316.0.html)

Quote from: Dresan on May 24, 2024, 08:35:25 AMIf you play long enough you generally don't care about being killed and many of us do play characters which certainly deserve being hunted and killed.People should still expect to die and sometimes it will suck.

I think this is very untrue. Many of us who have played an exceptionally long time, who play characters that are often long lived and definitely have a lot of work put into them creatively generally care a lot about being killed. I might not care that it ends in a sensible manner, or that occasionally it is senseless or you might not know all the details. But that's not really the issue- it's that many times recently I have felt like there was zero consideration on the other player's part - the max karma race PC that subdued my 3 hour old char still wearing newbie clothes and started hammering into them, getting clan dumped and initiated on so NPCs could kill my character, in absentia incrimination...and in this thread you can see a lot of people who feel similarly.

I'm not against PVP, conflict, or PK. But when it's the first, fast, and most common options players choose, it's really a driver to either avoid interacting with other PCs, figuring out some other way to avoid the grief, or, like some have posted, not feeling a desire to play because of the concern some members of the community don't care about how they kick around in the sandbox.

I'm with ERS on this - yeah, you can play a raging sociopath who PK's everyone they see indiscriminately, and gloat in how 'IC' that is. But should you? That's the real question here. Is that useful for the game? Is it fun for someone on the receiving end? What does it add to a collaborative story other than one person's 'I wanted to play a serial killer and it was IC for me to PK lots of people'.

It is kinda sad to see that there's pushback against the idea of 'be considerate to your fellow players'. I understand a lot of people who seem to not like the idea of PK rules are some of the more dug-in, long-time players, but whether you agree with it or not, there are reasons why Armageddon has a reputation for being toxic among the mud community. This game is a collaborative effort, 'love thy neighbour' is an attitude that benefits literally everyone who plays the game. This coarse, un-empathetic attitude towards other players is self-destructive and does nothing but push people away from the game, old and new.

I keep seeing the strawman that's supposed to imply that people don't want PKing to exist, but nobody in this thread once has said that they think PKing shouldn't be apart of armageddon. People are just saying that you should look for alternative answers to a problem first, and that if you do decide to PK someone, at least make the roleplay experience on the receiving end be a good one.

And to add onto the above, I don't know how many Armageddon players have played other RP games that have PvP, but this is basically the standard in all of them. The idea that you should be responsible and think about the person behind the character you're killing when you do it is only a completely alien idea to the Armageddon playerbase, and even the staff have acknowledged this when you read through the new rules. The new rules are incredibly reasonable and well-written.

Quote from: Bogre on May 24, 2024, 02:21:59 PMI'm with ERS on this - yeah, you can play a raging sociopath who PK's everyone they see indiscriminately, and gloat in how 'IC' that is. But should you? That's the real question here. Is that useful for the game? Is it fun for someone on the receiving end? What does it add to a collaborative story other than one person's 'I wanted to play a serial killer and it was IC for me to PK lots of people'.

This is an excellent way to word the spirit of what we're trying to accomplish.  It is consideration for other players' stories and their time, but it doesn't mean you can't kill them.

Quote from: Armaddict on May 24, 2024, 11:43:24 AMa measured response

Well put. And Usiku said this was the 1st step and the easiest step because it doesn't require code changes. The level of interest in improvements and change on the staff side is noticeably higher than even when I was staffing in 2023.

One thing that you and Roon both touched on is the prisoner's dilemma. And I saw it a lot staffing Crimson Wind. Putting your character at a coded disadvantage in the hope the other party will do the same for mutual benefit is precisely the prisoner's dilemma. And the key assumption in the prisoner's dilemma is that the prisoners cannot communicate with each other before they make the decision.

One good way to break that limitation is giving everyone threaten and evade https://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,58925.0.html so players can queue up their action and be safe to type out emotes and says. Another way would be some way to communicate an OOC truce that pauses coded actions. And something I've seen in other muds is an engagement system such that being in a room isn't the same as being in melee with everyone else in the room. I'm happy that coded improvements here sound like they're now on the scale of sometime instead of on the scale of never.

Quote from: Kavrick on May 24, 2024, 02:28:09 PMThe new rules are incredibly reasonable and well-written.

That is why I said there are rules and trust the staff.

Even though I sound like a player who kills other PCs, in my many years of playing time I killed less PCs than the count of my PCs which ended up PKed.
I am not arguing that one should kill in every opportunity. But when I read posts in this thread, I kinda feel that there are people who support the idea in every situation one should give the other party another chance first. There are situations where you can choose to do it. However, this should not become a rule for PK. If you need to die and you die, just go with it.

In one case, a red robed killed my Guilder PC in a locked room using his half-giant guard to subdue me. I was furious like hell, because I was loyal and other shit and he gave me lame excuses for the murder. He probably had his own reasons. I just gave a quick break to smoke a cigarette and started creating the next character. Did I do so because I was satisfied with how well the scene played? No. My PC was supposed to die sooner or later, or I was gonna store it at some point. So I didn't report this PK.
Another hunter I played was killed at Abili Pah by two desert elves when resting. They jumped at me out of the blue and I had no weapons drawn. I panicked, instead of fleeing I drew my weapons, got bashed and mantis head in a minute. They probably planned their attack, wayed their timing, used thinks and feels. I never saw any part of it. For them it was a well-played scene. For me it was mantis head in a minute. I was furious and angry. Smoked a cigarette and went for the next character. I didn't report this PK as well.

What my point by giving these examples is, we shouldn't restrict PK in game. If one thinks that they got killed by a "toxic" player, they can report it and let the staff take care of that player. Most of those "toxic" players and staff has already be driven away. So trust your staff now.

We all want this game to continue and grow. We cannot succeed it, if we cannot trust each other and the staff.

Quote from: eska on May 24, 2024, 03:17:13 PMWe all want this game to continue and grow. We cannot succeed it, if we cannot trust each other and the staff.

It doesn't help the trust situation when you have some people in the community that say 'as long as pking is an easy solution to my problems, I'll do it'.

Quote from: Kavrick on May 24, 2024, 03:22:47 PM

Quote from: eska on May 24, 2024, 03:17:13 PMWe all want this game to continue and grow. We cannot succeed it, if we cannot trust each other and the staff.

It doesn't help the trust situation when you have some people in the community that say 'as long as pking is an easy solution to my problems, I'll do it'.

Don't just read the last sentence please.

On the other hand, what is wrong with 'as long as PKing is an easy solution to my problems, I'll do it'? This is the main reason for a death in Zalanthas, and this is valid RP.
Is there someone causing me problems? Yes.
Will they stop anytime soon? No.
Can I kill them or get them killed? Yes.
Mantis head for them, no more headache for me. The problem is solved.

Quote from: eska on May 24, 2024, 03:33:10 PMDon't just read the last sentence please.

On the other hand, what is wrong with 'as long as PKing is an easy solution to my problems, I'll do it'? This is the main reason for a death in Zalanthas, and this is valid RP.
Is there someone causing me problems? Yes.
Will they stop anytime soon? No.
Can I kill them or get them killed? Yes.
Mantis head for them, no more headache for me. The problem is solved.

I read the entire thing, I just didn't have anything to say about the rest. I'm not looking to talk in circles, and I'm not trying to be rude on that, I've just already talked a lot in this thread.
Also valid rp isn't always good rp, you should always strive to be better, especially if the bare minimum of being 'valid' creates a negative experience for other people. It's valid for me to swear at a child who's being annoying, that doesn't mean I should do it.

Just because you can, doesn't mean you should!!! My wife's go to saying.  Works well in real life as well as Armageddon.

Quote from: eska on May 24, 2024, 03:17:13 PMWhat my point by giving these examples is, we shouldn't restrict PK in game.

Well that seems a little-

Quote from: eska on May 24, 2024, 03:17:13 PMIf one thinks that they got killed by a "toxic" player, they can report it and let the staff take care of that player.

Oh, so it should have some restrictions. Cool. Now we're just discussing the particulars, which is part of what's been going on in this thread.

Quote from: eska on May 24, 2024, 03:17:13 PMMost of those "toxic" players and staff has already be driven away. So trust your staff now.

Get me a piece of that crystal ball of yours, man, because I'd love to be as much of a psychic as you are. How do you know this? How does anyone?

I do not believe that Armageddon would exist long without PK.  PK (permadeath) adds that dimension that sets us apart. I will trust the staff to keep an eye on things and sort out players that abuse PK.  All loving and respecting each other isn't a realistic answer nor likely to ever happen.  Trust but verify.  The staff sees the big picture.

Ugh, some things never change. Fundamentally, this shouldn't be a problem for seasons- except that it is. If Armageddon is generally considered a collaborative experience where the playerbase gets involved with a broader story together, it makes sense to structure character approvals and groups so that psychopathy is strongly discouraged. Just about every functioning society has taboos and laws against similar pathologies, whether you call them wendigo sickness or cyberpsychosis. Maybe the Red Fangs didn't, but there's a reason they got stamped out by the other elves. Antagonist PCs can exhibit such behaviors, of course, but after rare approvals they should expect short lifespans and relatively limited success. Most RPI muds have some sort of protection against this, actually, and I'm surprised Armageddon doesn't.

Conversely, you can say "hey, solve it IC scrub" and maybe the players in Allanak will enforce the no-PK rule. Possibly with PK, if we get right down to it. But at that point you have to be honest about the broader point of your setting, and be very good at balancing your codebase. There's a reason gameplay functions are most hotly contested in heavily competitive PVP servers.

Quote from: Patuk on May 24, 2024, 04:14:18 PMOh, so it should have some restrictions. Cool. Now we're just discussing the particulars, which is part of what's been going on in this thread.

It is not restricting the PK, it is restricting the so-called "toxic" player you all talking about. If your PC got PKed and it is against the rules, your next PC will still be able to get PKed, but not likely by the same player.
I thought it was easy to understand. Sorry about it, if it was not. English is not my mother language.

Quote from: eska on May 24, 2024, 04:27:49 PM

Quote from: Patuk on May 24, 2024, 04:14:18 PMOh, so it should have some restrictions. Cool. Now we're just discussing the particulars, which is part of what's been going on in this thread.

It is not restricting the PK, it is restricting the so-called "toxic" player you all talking about. If your PC got PKed and it is against the rules, your next PC will still be able to get PKed, but not likely by the same player.
I thought it was easy to understand. Sorry about it, if it was not. English is not my mother language.

This is what the nerds like to call a distinction without a difference. If staff say you can't do a thing, and will tell you off for it, and (hopefully) offer some means of restitution to discourage the griefers, those are in fact restrictions. I have no idea why you'd argue against anything else, when I see nobody in this thread trying to propose different systems.

6 pages now of:

"Is our new helpfile decent at guiding PK and PC conflict?"
      I don't like my PC being killed when it feels meaningless.
      Just because you don't see the meaning, means it was meaningless.
      Ok, I just want to be sure it IS meaningful and this helpfile doesn't fix that.
      Git gud, skrub.
      Maybe we can fix PK a little bit, codedly, so it isn't all on staff?
      *4 pages of a mess*
      Okay we all agree that we like that the game has PK, we just want there to be story-fulfilling alternatives thought of instead of immediate killing of people.


Zalanthas is a harsh place. Personally, I disagree that the inhabitants are all "I will kill another living being because its easy to do", but you do you.

I would just prefer that calling some rag-clad elf a "thieving rat" to not be thought of as reason enough to be killed. I would prefer that a non-affiliated commoner disappointing (not pissing off, just disappointing) a Templar doesn't lead to summary execution.

But more than that, guys? I would prefer that my preferences and ideas weren't shouted down by those who "know better" or "are more correct". We've all got our ideas and preferences, and tearing each other apart is neither advancing the discussion or making the game better. Its just shouting to be the loudest.







Now, that said? Open up this damn game so we can stop complaining about the same 4 topics every day.
     

Quote from: Riev on May 24, 2024, 05:29:41 PMNow, that said? Open up this damn game so we can stop complaining about the same 4 topics every day.

Three weeks is gonna feel like a year.

Yeah, you're a raider, and the guy refused you so you killed him. That's fine, but how did you kill him? Did you roleplay out the incident or did you just type kill noob? The world can be harsh and satisfying in a roleplaying way. I argue that a well roleplayed out pk makes the world seem more gritty and real than hack/slash cartoonish instant code only pk.

I read the guidance doc and I don't see a difference, it seems pretty consistent to staff expectations for the last few years.

It's tough to get these elaborate scenes folks are talking about unless you're able to completely incapacitate or trap your target. Not always gonna happen! Backstab, for example, is a very legit way to PK but will very likely be executed by a hidden PC with very little visible rp for the target to enjoy.

Orrr

"A black-fletched, obsidian-headed arrow flies in from the south" may be what you get, and it may be completely justified for IC reasons.