I sometimes wonder why there hasn't been a tent outpost outside the actual city proper. Like a sub-slum surrounding the city that is outside of the gates for people to sell and smoke spice that is exposed to the elements and generally lawless, full of banditry, crime, and generally unpleasant ordeals. Think the 'rinth except people actually have to pass through it to get into the city and it's not just a secluded part of the gameworld that being in is entirely a choice.
Quote from: AdamBlue on October 12, 2015, 06:51:29 PM
I sometimes wonder why there hasn't been a tent outpost outside the actual city proper. Like a sub-slum surrounding the city that is outside of the gates for people to sell and smoke spice that is exposed to the elements and generally lawless, full of banditry, crime, and generally unpleasant ordeals. Think the 'rinth except people actually have to pass through it to get into the city and it's not just a secluded part of the gameworld that being in is entirely a choice.
This seems like something an enterprizing PC might be able to get started with enough creativity. Wouldn't be this big, but...
Because anything that isn't codedly locked down will be stolen?
Quote from: Is Friday on October 13, 2015, 12:03:05 AM
Because anything that isn't codedly locked down will be stolen?
Yeah.
You can't get anything real like that going, whether a camp or a clan, without relatively safe storage space. It just won't happen.
Quote from: Is Friday on October 13, 2015, 12:03:05 AM
Because anything that isn't codedly locked down will be stolen?
I've seen recent evidence that points in the opposite direction. If a group of people make enough of a name for themselves and 'where they are staying', people tend to avoid/not steal their stuff for the most part. Which is interesting, and I was a bit surprised to see that, as well.
Yeah, no, not the case.
Even in a well-established camp in the remotest of remotest areas, you'd get people trying to steal everything they could carry while they thought everyone was logged out.
Quote from: Eurynomos on October 13, 2015, 10:02:31 AM
Quote from: Is Friday on October 13, 2015, 12:03:05 AM
Because anything that isn't codedly locked down will be stolen?
I've seen recent evidence that points in the opposite direction. If a group of people make enough of a name for themselves and 'where they are staying', people tend to avoid/not steal their stuff for the most part. Which is interesting, and I was a bit surprised to see that, as well.
I've seen this happen first hand as well. We might even be thinking of the same group/place. I noticed several groups (including the people I was with) skip over taking a single thing because, "No need to take their stuff.".
Really I think it was just an OOC consideration on their behalf and I was glad to see it from the players.
Eventually however, they DID get all of their stuff taken/stolen....it just took a lot longer than I expected (RL months).
I think the issue here/above is, "You can't dependably plan to achieve anything long-term using this method.", and what is being talked about is a long-term thing. For the short-term however, I saw this work for RL months and was pleasantly surprised with how well it went.
Yeah, Eury, but there's always that ONE guy, you know who I'm talking about. Then you've got to kick down doors and use them like a latrine for their insolence.
Also, I've heard the words "Have you seen my couch?" enough to make me a sad panda.
EDIT: Please, do not steal the couch. It is sofa king retarded.
I ... *grits teeth* ... agree with Desertman.
Quote from: Eurynomos on October 13, 2015, 10:02:31 AM
Quote from: Is Friday on October 13, 2015, 12:03:05 AM
Because anything that isn't codedly locked down will be stolen?
I've seen recent evidence that points in the opposite direction. If a group of people make enough of a name for themselves and 'where they are staying', people tend to avoid/not steal their stuff for the most part. Which is interesting, and I was a bit surprised to see that, as well.
Eh, the corollary I'd add is anything that is of perceived value. I've played using areas like this twice, once in a crim-coded active area and once in the wilds. Both times it's stressful to the point of not being worth it. All it takes is one twink who just steals everything rolls up all your tents while you're off line. And it's happened to me in BOTH situations. And for inside a crim-code active area the stress knowing someone can waltz in while you're ONLINE and steal all your shit and there's nothing codedly you can do about it that won't bring crim coded hell down on your head is really crushing.
My point is not that this method doesn't/can't work, my point is it creates an almost unreasonable amount of OOC stress for the players who feel like they have no recourse but to play 24/7 to act as NPC guards for their own stuff. Back in my wilds camp, I literally would have people who would WAIT for me to log off, or play during hours they knew I wasn't around to go and loot my stuff. And that SUCKED.
Any time I've gone out of my way to trust people to have the same general vision or idea about what is "realistic" or "fair play" I have been let down. People just wanna win.
Quote from: Is Friday on October 13, 2015, 10:58:01 AM
Any time I've gone out of my way to trust people to have the same general vision or idea about what is "realistic" or "fair play" I have been let down. People just wanna win.
It's almost as if you trusted humans to not act like humans.
We do have an MMH system in place by which PCs can rent/purchase large buildings for the purposes of commerce... (and ultimately even become a coded clan, with some work and luck.)
Quote from: Mordiggian on October 13, 2015, 12:21:08 PM
We do have an MMH system in place by which PCs can rent/purchase large buildings for the purposes of commerce... (and ultimately even become a coded clan, with some work and luck.)
This only works if you're explicitly playing in Allanak and are pro Allanak. I'm looking forward for a similar structure put in place for potential groups that fall outside of that designation.
Quote from: Mordiggian on October 13, 2015, 12:21:08 PM
We do have an MMH system in place by which PCs can rent/purchase large buildings for the purposes of commerce... (and ultimately even become a coded clan, with some work and luck.)
We know, but this has nothing to do with what they're talking about.
Again, it seems like Staff and players have two completely visions of the game and while Staff tries to convince players that their dreams can become reality with
some work and luck a shitload of work, the remaining players just say fuck it and nothing happens.
Quote from: Mordiggian on October 13, 2015, 12:21:08 PM
We do have an MMH system in place by which PCs can rent/purchase large buildings for the purposes of commerce... (and ultimately even become a coded clan, with some work and luck.)
Which is cool, but it's city based only (rather: Allanak only). That doesn't leave much room for tribes, raiders, rebels... or any form of real conflict or antagonist or non-city clan... to group up. While having everyone together in a city is great, you also need outside conflict and a way for that conflict to survive the immense bootstomp it will receive from players eager to pursue that conflict ... right now there is essentially nothing out there supporting antagonists, Armageddon has increasingly been giving antagonists the short straw and wondered why it's so hard to keep open, engaging conflict going in the game. The only viable way to stay alive for a while as an antag is to play a rogue mage or solo lone ranger archetype. Whcih gets old, fast. No one would group around you for any amount of time unless you are able to offer something, which usually boils down to a place to stay and store their things in relative safety.
Quote from: Ender on October 13, 2015, 12:24:18 PM
Quote from: Mordiggian on October 13, 2015, 12:21:08 PM
We do have an MMH system in place by which PCs can rent/purchase large buildings for the purposes of commerce... (and ultimately even become a coded clan, with some work and luck.)
This only works if you're explicitly playing in Allanak and are pro Allanak. I'm looking forward for a similar structure put in place for potential groups that fall outside of that designation.
My understanding is that some of these policies have been expanded to Red Storm. I know there's a warehouse in Red Storm anyways.
I think this could even have it's own thread, so it doesn't get buried in RAT.
There seem to be a couple of different concepts floating around:
- Ability to have semi-secure storage for new non-MMH PC initiatives (tents outside of Allanak desires)
- Ability to have semi-secure storage in wilds/outlying areas (for antagonist-types who are off in the wilds being scary)
- Expansion of MMH policies to allow for groups that aren't pro-Allanak to have success (or options)
Quote from: Taven on October 13, 2015, 12:34:33 PM
I think this could even have it's own thread, so it doesn't get buried in RAT.
Good idea.
One issue to also consider is how easily tents are destroyed, including by random, wandering aggro mobs.
I wonder if it might not be a solution to connect the availability of theft from certain areas to the online status of a PC. I mean we already need to be online to have things taken from our packs. You could go a step further and make certain areas only accessible when a connected PC is online. For instance having some rent/purchaseable tents in the bazaar, or in the Bailey of Luirs, or just outside of Allanak, or even out in the middle of nowhere that codedly close up when the renting PC logs off.
It sounds unfair to thieves, but honestly it's not much different than making your backpack untouchable when you log off. Particularly if the space available in the tent is pretty limited.
Also, tents left up too long have certain code bugs. They're not coded to be permanent or semi-permanent structures. If you set up a tent city, expect oodles of trouble and weirdness.
#thanksmagickers
Quote from: Narf on October 13, 2015, 12:43:31 PM
I wonder if it might not be a solution to connect the availability of theft from certain areas to the online status of a PC. I mean we already need to be online to have things taken from our packs. You could go a step further and make certain areas only accessible when a connected PC is online. For instance having some rent/purchaseable tents in the bazaar, or in the Bailey of Luirs, or just outside of Allanak, or even out in the middle of nowhere that codedly close up when the renting PC logs off.
It sounds unfair to thieves, but honestly it's not much different than making your backpack untouchable when you log off. Particularly if the space available in the tent is pretty limited.
Unfortunately, that doesn't solve the problem of needing communal space for small groups to form up.
Quote from: Mordiggian on October 13, 2015, 12:21:08 PM
We do have an MMH system in place by which PCs can rent/purchase large buildings for the purposes of commerce... (and ultimately even become a coded clan, with some work and luck.)
Quote from: Ender on October 13, 2015, 12:24:18 PM
This only works if you're explicitly playing in Allanak and are pro Allanak. I'm looking forward for a similar structure put in place for potential groups that fall outside of that designation.
Quote from: Malken on October 13, 2015, 12:26:10 PM
We know, but this has nothing to do with what they're talking about.
Again, it seems like Staff and players have two completely visions of the game and while Staff tries to convince players that their dreams can become reality with some work and luck a shitload of work, the remaining players just say fuck it and nothing happens.
Quote from: The Silence of the Erdlus on October 12, 2015, 06:32:22 PM
We need a whorehouse/gambling casino in Allanak.
I'm being reminded of why I don't like posting on the GDB. Have fun, friends.
(http://media.giphy.com/media/8E1uPDT9gfhJK/giphy.gif)
Quote from: Delirium on October 13, 2015, 12:48:34 PM
Quote from: Narf on October 13, 2015, 12:43:31 PM
I wonder if it might not be a solution to connect the availability of theft from certain areas to the online status of a PC. I mean we already need to be online to have things taken from our packs. You could go a step further and make certain areas only accessible when a connected PC is online. For instance having some rent/purchaseable tents in the bazaar, or in the Bailey of Luirs, or just outside of Allanak, or even out in the middle of nowhere that codedly close up when the renting PC logs off.
It sounds unfair to thieves, but honestly it's not much different than making your backpack untouchable when you log off. Particularly if the space available in the tent is pretty limited.
Unfortunately, that doesn't solve the problem of needing communal space for small groups to form up.
It could.
It can create a living space that's "out in the open." Put a few of these together and you have a communal gathering space. It's all about the location of the place.
Not to squash discussion of new ideas/adaptions of the system/etc, but for the MMH system, you don't have to be pro-Allanak. You do have to play in Allanak, at least to an extent, but paying taxes isn't the same as being pro-Allanak. It should be possible to modify one's concept to fit the MMH model as it exists right now.
I'm thinking of shared spaces, though - communal tents, supply tents. It would also provide a foolproof way of figuring out if someone is online or not.
Not saying it doesn't have merit, just that there's some definite flaws to having everything become completely virtual on logout.
And Nyr, being anti-Allanak and trying to get a MMH-style setup going IN Allanak sounds like the worst kind of sado-masochistic torture that's doomed to failure. It also sounds unrealistic as, if we weren't thinking by the constraints placed on us out of character, the most logical conclusion of an anti-southerner would be to base yourselves anywhere but Alllanak.
Quote from: Delirium on October 13, 2015, 12:58:16 PM
It would also provide a foolproof way of figuring out if someone is online or not.
Yes it would.
ICly people are always online, and you should not be using offline status as a refuge. It is unavoidable that it will become a refuge incidentally, but you should not be intentionally using it as such.
... exactly?
But if you think some players won't abuse the ability to know for sure if you're there or not, I'm sorry to say you've got another thing coming.
You don't have to be pro-allanak, but you need some form of sponsorship from the templarate or nobility. You at least have to look pro-allanak to get your foot in the door over all the ass-kissing slimewads oozing over said noble or templar for that one remaining warehouse. Or I suppose you could kll them all.
Ability to have semi-secure storage for new non-MMH PC initiatives (tents outside of Allanak desires)I'm curious if anyone has a good suggestion for how to do this. One of the generally accepted perks of clan life is that you're part of a massive organization that gives you a number of things. One of these things is secure storage. In a world where making money is very easy, and you can make more as an indie then as a GMH member (which is counter to how it really should be ICly), I tend to think of this as one of the real, serious benefits of being in a GMH.
In the example, you want to have a tent outside of Allanak, and outside of the regular law (thus enabling spice, etc etc so on). In that situation, isn't it designed to enable illegal activities (you mentioned spice smoking)? That sort of reality would make it very possible for people to steal from you, and asides from the player base, there's a lot of vNPCs who would presumably also want to and have reasons to as well.
In a different sort of situation, such as just having a gambling tent, I think this has more somewhat done successfully in the past, though didn't lead to anything permanent. Basically, you can work with realities of the game. If you know people are going to take the tent when you're not there, just pack it up and have a moving gambling tent. Or, make good relationships with those in power. If you're in the rinth, get on the Guild's good side, because they control the area, and they have the vNPC people to back shit up. Likewise, if you want to do something in Allanak proper, or in Allanak-held territories, make good with the templars. They have PC soldiers who can patrol. If you're influential enough, I'm sure staff has ways to make sure people just don't ruin all your shit. Basically, you have to put the RP and time in to make yourself not a nobody, so that you have the influence to do something.
Though a lot of that gets close to MMH stuff anyhow, depending on what you're trying to do.
Ability to have semi-secure storage in wilds/outlying areas (for antagonist-types who are off in the wilds being scary)I'm curious about the issues here. Which of these are people seeing as the most common problem?
- There's not enough obscure save-rooms to put things (or save rooms in general)
- Even when you're in a coded clan, people steal all your shit, or try to
- Even if you have a larger group of people, people try to steal all your shit, taking OOC advantage of playtimes
- Getting enough people to have a reasonable chance of them watching your shit is an issue
- Tents don't work well outside of cities as long-term things
I'm also curious what people think are potential solutions for those issues. I think so far the only suggested solution is limiting IC theft of places to when a person is online, unless I missed anything.
Expansion of MMH policies to allow for groups that aren't pro-Allanak to have success (or options)Quote from: Nyr on October 13, 2015, 12:54:50 PM
Not to squash discussion of new ideas/adaptions of the system/etc, but for the MMH system, you don't have to be pro-Allanak. You do have to play in Allanak, at least to an extent, but paying taxes isn't the same as being pro-Allanak. It should be possible to modify one's concept to fit the MMH model as it exists right now.
Well...
I really can't fathom how hard it would be to make a MMH if you're not pro-Allanak, or at least a group that's significantly serving Allanaki interests. Why would they let you get anywhere in their city if you're not doing something for them? Especially if you have competition from all the other would-be MMH who actually ARE pro-Allanak? The game isn't designed to be friendly to foreigners, especially ones that want to set up shop in your city. That is absolutely intended. If you're a Stormer and try to get far in Allanak, without showing that you're supporting the city-state's interests, expect to be met with suspicion and even hostility. Tek help you if you're a Tuluki trying to do the same thing. Given how the game supports prejudices (that is part of the flavor of the very setting), I don't know that it's fair to say that a concept can be so easily modified.
So a group of Tuluki loyalists, or a tribal clan of raiders, should set up shop in Allanak?
GEE PROBLEM SOLVED.
My goodness, do you people even actually read what is posted or do you just immediately grab on to something to knee-jerk respond to?
I'm out of this thread until I can be a little less frustrated.
At least Taven actually seems to get it.
Quote from: Mordiggian on October 13, 2015, 12:51:29 PM
I'm being reminded of why I don't like posting on the GDB. Have fun, friends.
Don't be like this. We <3 you. They were tougher on you than they had to be but it traces back to other issues that have nothing to do with you.
*nerd hug*
Quote from: Delirium on October 13, 2015, 12:58:16 PM
And Nyr, being anti-Allanak and trying to get a MMH-style setup going IN Allanak sounds like the worst kind of sado-masochistic torture that's doomed to failure. It also sounds unrealistic as, if we weren't thinking by the constraints placed on us out of character, the most logical conclusion of an anti-southerner would be to base yourselves anywhere but Alllanak.
I'm not suggesting you go up to a templar and tell them you want to create Amos's Emporium of Fucking Allanak Over (not to be confused with Amos's Emporium of Fucking Over Allanak, a hang-gliding brothel).
I'm suggesting that one's goals can be adapted to this system, and that with the use of subterfuge/subtlety/bribery, you can achieve several goals mentioned here. It would definitely require willingness to compromise on your specific concept. If your concept is "build desert fortress from which I can destroy Allanakis" but you do not wish to engage in the interim steps needed to get there, you definitely won't like the existing system and will want something different.
Also, talk to staff, we are perfectly willing to give feedback on your idea and offer some tips/suggestions.
Quote from: Delirium on October 13, 2015, 01:10:59 PM
So a group of Tuluki loyalists, or a tribal clan of raiders, should set up shop in Allanak?
GEE PROBLEM SOLVED.
My goodness, do you people even actually read what is posted or do you just immediately grab on to something to knee-jerk respond to?
I'm out of this thread until I can be a little less frustrated.
Considering how I remember when one of the Arabeti/Seik Staff flipped when a tribal PC decided that she wanted to live in an apartment for a while, I can only imagine how great it would look for a bunch of tent-living, desert-dwelling PCs decide that a walled warehouse in the middle of Allanak would look hahah
People say, "It'd be fun to be able to create a small camp of semi-perma tents that can't be picked up for a while" and Staff replies with, "If you want to build a desert fortress to take over Allanak you won't like the answer."
What sort of tips/suggestions would you give to someone who asked you if it was possible for them to create a small semi-perma tents groupings with room-locked tents and such, Nyr?
Quote from: ibusoe on October 13, 2015, 01:12:15 PM
Quote from: Mordiggian on October 13, 2015, 12:51:29 PM
I'm being reminded of why I don't like posting on the GDB. Have fun, friends.
Don't be like this. We <3 you. They were tougher on you than they had to be but it traces back to other issues that have nothing to do with you.
*nerd hug*
I agree. Love the changes. This doesn't mean I support every tiny thing about them, much like, if I had a girlfriend with a temper problem, I'm likely not going to enjoy having the dishes thrown at my head, but it doesn't mean I dislike everything about them.
Tribal stuff is probably the weakest part of the system as it exists right now, I'd agree.
If you can't safely log-out with all of your worldly possessions packed on you and/or your mount, you probably own too much stuff.
Follow that guideline and you'll be able to live like a true nomad, able to set up camp and free-wheel wherever you please.
If I wanted to play a Tuluki doing this, for example, I'd probably play a Tuluki ex-pat that moved South because of (reasons), then set up shop in Allanak. I'd have to bribe Allanakis, and probably try to bring on board some other ex-pats in-game to work on my IC-ly developed, legitimate business venture. I'd need to pay taxes, and lie about how much I thought Allanak rocked, at least to the ones that mattered.
I'd then eventually let the character's motiviations develop towards hatred of his surroundings. This isn't Tuluk. This is Allanak, and I have to live here. Fuck this place, amirite? Hmm...well they sorta trust me enough here. I can probably start funneling some funds towards nefarious ends. Maybe I can send money to this criminal organization I've heard of, and have them take down some folks just because I don't like them, and they're Allanaki.
At some point, I'd need staff support, but I'd already have been sending in reports about my plans, even before the character started. They'd need to sign off on my trading company.
At that level, I have my own compound AND a warehouse AND probably some guards and stuff. All running a seemingly legitimate business, all of which is funding my interests to fuck Allanak over when I'm not just paying the bills. I have a place that is secure that I can bring in cronies and the like. I can set up virtual deals and stuff to get minor things done, like funneling money off to Tuluk, or setting up a virtual spying organization-type deal.
Let's say I want to be a minor merchant house at the very end. Fine, I need support from a group in-game. Who would support me? It needs to be a GMH or equivalent group, or a noble house. Is there one of these groups I can convince? This is where I'd need to be communicating with staff. Assuming success--and this is a big assumption, as all of this so far has assumed absolute success at every turn without true motives being found out, but let's assume it--I am in hoc to whatever group I've convinced to sponsor me, but now I'm able to expand even more, and the organization will persist after I'm gone. This organization is built on a legitimate business, but it is being used towards much more devious ends.
The templarate isn't monolithic. Bribery is possible. Success is not guaranteed, but it's also not guaranteed for those that want to make an MMH without some other purpose to it.
holy shit i make an offhanded fantasy comment about sweet outskirts of the city and it started a huge thread
what the fuck have i done
oh god nyr is even posting
shit shit shit this is where i say something interesting right
right???
HA HA YEAH HANG-GLIDING BROTHELS AM I RIGHT
what the fuck that was so stupid quick quick backpeddle
I MEAN, UH, YEAH, LIKE, SO- TENT CITIES.
Quote from: BadSkeelz on October 13, 2015, 01:43:12 PM
If you can't safely log-out with all of your worldly possessions packed on you and/or your mount, you probably own too much stuff.
Follow that guideline and you'll be able to live like a true nomad, able to set up camp and free-wheel wherever you please.
I think most people could pull off everything mentioned with stuff packed on their mount.
But this means you will never get to enter a building for as long as you live.
I meant to say this earlier before I got distracted by other posts here, but we've actually discussed something along those lines on the staff side of things, AdamBlue. Not necessarily around any one city itself, but the prospect of slums/tents/shanties and how those things could work in a way that is different than apartments.
It's fallen by the wayside a bit but it can probably be picked back up, dusted off, and made viable.
Quote from: Nyr on October 13, 2015, 02:01:04 PM
I meant to say this earlier before I got distracted by other posts here, but we've actually discussed something along those lines on the staff side of things, AdamBlue. Not necessarily around any one city itself, but the prospect of slums/tents/shanties and how those things could work in a way that is different than apartments.
It's fallen by the wayside a bit but it can probably be picked back up, dusted off, and made viable.
That sounds pretty neat.
Is it still in heavy discussion, or can you talk about some of what possibilities have been tossed about?
Quote from: Narf on October 13, 2015, 12:30:57 PM
Quote from: Ender on October 13, 2015, 12:24:18 PM
Quote from: Mordiggian on October 13, 2015, 12:21:08 PM
We do have an MMH system in place by which PCs can rent/purchase large buildings for the purposes of commerce... (and ultimately even become a coded clan, with some work and luck.)
This only works if you're explicitly playing in Allanak and are pro Allanak. I'm looking forward for a similar structure put in place for potential groups that fall outside of that designation.
My understanding is that some of these policies have been expanded to Red Storm. I know there's a warehouse in Red Storm anyways.
So there's no warehouse in Storm? It would seem a good home for non nakki-kankers.
I like the idea of putting together tent villages.
I have no idea how to go about doing that.
But I like the idea of putting that power in the hands of the players. I can't see how it would hurt the game in any way and it would allow people an outlet for creative player-driven fun. Would it most likely die along with the leader of said little "tent-camp"? Yes. But that goes for every player-created-clan-system currently in the game so that would just be following the general theme of the rules.
Should you get NPC's to guard your tent camp and make it safe just because you got four people to buy tents and live with you? Absolutely not. You should have to go through a very lengthy (IC years) and extended process that costs A LOT of money for staff to award you said NPC's. The MMH system requires the same thing already but it is arguably easier because you are doing it inside of an already relatively safe city (compared to random desert tent-camp environments). Doing this in the desert should be MAGNITUDES more difficult up to including the risk of having beasties stomp your shit and random roamers happen through to steal your things.
Come to think of it...really everything exists for you to already do this. Will it be hard and extremely likely to fail? Absolutely. Does that mean you should get staff support right off of the bat while having to deal with NONE of the inherent issues associated with establishing a small community in the middle of the most hostile environment imaginable? No.
In general though, I like it.
Edited to Add:
My post kind of started to ramble slightly as I went.
tldr: You can already do this in game...it just isn't going to be spoon fed to you and it will fail 24/25 times you attempt it...but really, it should. Creating a MMH in game through the current system is also going to fail MANY more times than it succeeds...and that's in a city with crim-code in play and secure warehouses available. Creating tent camps in the desert should be several times harder, which with the current "system", it already is...so really...we already have a pretty good system for that concept. It's even realistic arguably.
Quote from: Nyr on October 13, 2015, 02:01:04 PM
I meant to say this earlier before I got distracted by other posts here, but we've actually discussed something along those lines on the staff side of things, AdamBlue. Not necessarily around any one city itself, but the prospect of slums/tents/shanties and how those things could work in a way that is different than apartments.
It's fallen by the wayside a bit but it can probably be picked back up, dusted off, and made viable.
It seems to be making people -very- excited.
You know, maybe it could be rectified by making certain types of 'make'able items.
Like, if you want to build your own little outpost, what you're gonna want to do is first set up 'fencing'. This way, you have a solid base. Fences could be made of different stuff, but would require a few materials. Sandstone or wood would be fine, probably. The fence would be an 'enterable' room that animals can't really wander into by sheer accident, and also can't wander out by sheer accident. Then make that into a save room of which, depending on how big the fence is, can hold so much stuff. Then make big Tents that function somewhat like immobile argosies, that cost quite a bit, but have up to (GASP) two rooms, with a tent-flap door inside to separate them!
Of course, without the modern joy of 'lockable doors', you'll need to hire some guards, at least a couple to ensure you aren't robbed the second you step away from the screen. Hit the Gaj! You could find a nice PC who wants to help out for stable pay, or if you feel you're too boring, you could grab a casual jerk merc NPC about the bar. Let's start small, with a single guard by the entrance and another guard by the flap inside. You kit them out, and you pay them somewhat how apartments work, and they'll stand guard. You can tell 'em to keep everyone but you out, or you can tell them to let specific people in, one at a time. They're not too bright, you see, but they have great memory, and eventually will remember to let entire clans in.
So, let's cover so far all the maintaining you'll need to do, to make a small tent outpost work.
Fence + Maintaining (MAYBE HIRE A DUDE TO MAINTAIN YOUR FENCE THAT YOU CAN PAY??)
(ALSO MAYBE THE ABILITY TO HAVE A SMALL STABLE THAT YOU ALSO HAVE TO PAY FOR, BOTH FOR FEEDING THE MOUNTS, STORING THE ANIMALS, AND PAYING THE CARETAKER, WITH A LIMITED AMOUNT OF ANIMALS ALLOWED INSIDE?)
Guards + Paying
Buying Big enough Tents that are a one-time, immobile investment
And now you're thinking, probably, 'ALAS, ADAM-SEMPAI, WHAT IF I WANNA BE A HUGE JERK-ASS AND FUCK THESE RICH ASSHOLES UP?'
It's okay, you can do that too. Probably with a timer. You'd hafta first kill the guard inside, then start destroying the fence. Once it's at 'broken', you'll be flagged by all the guards inside as an enemy, and if you and your squadron of gang-bang killas can duke them all out, then GG. If, however, you flee or you get rekt, then the dude can pop on, fix the fence, hire more guards, and enjoy all of your loot you dropped, nerd.
You can already make a tent village with the following steps:
>inv
A few pairs of brown desert tent
>drop tent
>drop tent
>drop tent
>make tent
>make 2.tent
>make 3.tent
Voila, tent camp!
Yes, it's not going to be super permanent nor is it going to be very secure. They're tents. Asking them to be permanent and secure is asking them to be something they're not.
Let's say your silty crew rolls up outside of town with three people. Each of you have a tent on your mount, and a dozen or so items to put inside for trade or flavor. You unpack your mounts, take your stuff inside (perhaps working in shifts so that someone is - gasp - on watch to make sure the fucking dangerous desert doesn't produce some sort of nasty surprise) and arrange it to your liking. Now you're open for business in your tent. When it becomes time to move on (i.e. log out) you can either A) Gamble that you don't get all your shit stolen by PCs or a server crash or B) pack up your life like the nomad you are and ride(quit) off into the sunset.
Temporary campsites are already achievable in game. But I don't think that's what people in this thread want. They want permanent camp "towns" that don't get rolled over by storms, raiders or beasts; that will let them keep all their shit safe in rent-free perpetuity; that will allow them to amass simply ridiculous amounts of items that may or may not get their asses busted in urban centers; that will let them mudsex without fear of burglars and assassins because you're so far from the city you don't reasonably expect them; something they can point to with one hand while stroking themselves with another and say "I built that."
Personally, I think that's an unrealistic desire. But in a game where it takes real-life months to achieve anything, I can understand the desire for that level of safety. I'd certainly be much more keen on making the free-wheeling-tribal if I wasn't looking at a 300-hour-playtime investment to reach a point of not-utter-suckass.
I think the only thing the whole concept needs is for a staffer to say;
"If you put together a tent camp that lasts IC years successfully and pay the right people and do the right things, we will let you hire NPCs to make it more secure and make it less of a camp and more of a tent-town.".
But really, I think our current staff would already do that if anyone ever actually put in the required work successfully.
I just don't recall anyone ever pulling it off to date/successfully putting in that work. But, I think if they did, staff would step up and help them.
The system is already there. This can already be done. I think people just want a staffer to say, "Hey, if you build it, your NPCs will come.".
Quote from: Desertman on October 13, 2015, 02:49:24 PM
I think the only thing the whole concept needs is for a staffer to say;
"If you put together a tent camp that lasts IC years successfully and pay the right people and do the right things, we will let you hire NPCs to make it more secure and make it less of a camp and more of a tent-town.".
But really, I think our current staff would already do that if anyone ever actually put in the required work successfully.
I just don't recall anyone ever pulling it off to date. But, I think if they did, staff would step up and help them.
The system is already there. This can already be done. I think people just want a staffer to say, "Hey, if you build it, your NPCs will come.".
I have done this, and I have been explicitly told no on NPCs. Hence the whole 24/7 paranoia thing because of people raiding my camp when they knew I and other PCs in the camp were offline.
craft 1.log 2.log 3.log 4.log 5.log into a segment of a log wall
craft 1.segment, 2.segment, 3.segment, 4.segment 5.segment into part of a log wall fence
craft 1.part tent into a small enclosed encampment
craft 1.part 2.part tent into a moderately sized encampment
craft 1.part 2.part 3.part 4.part tent into a large, fortified encampment
Bigger = More Space = More Costly = More Fortified
Smaller = Less Space = Less Costly = Harder to find
Maybe slowly increasing security even on the doors. Small encampments just have flaps, medium ones have just straight up doors/small gates, and the big ones have huge fucking gates and armored doors, with higher and higher prices for everything as you really ramp it up.
And, of course, there's no saying you can't have small encampments by eachother. Just not in the same room. You could have two neighbors with small encampments.
They'd just hafta be in different rooms.
Quote from: Ender on October 13, 2015, 02:51:51 PM
Quote from: Desertman on October 13, 2015, 02:49:24 PM
I think the only thing the whole concept needs is for a staffer to say;
"If you put together a tent camp that lasts IC years successfully and pay the right people and do the right things, we will let you hire NPCs to make it more secure and make it less of a camp and more of a tent-town.".
But really, I think our current staff would already do that if anyone ever actually put in the required work successfully.
I just don't recall anyone ever pulling it off to date. But, I think if they did, staff would step up and help them.
The system is already there. This can already be done. I think people just want a staffer to say, "Hey, if you build it, your NPCs will come.".
I have done this, and I have been explicitly told no on NPCs. Hence the whole 24/7 paranoia thing because of people raiding my camp when they knew I and other PCs in the camp were offline.
How many IC years did your camp exist persistently? How many PC's lived in your camp?
I'm just curious because I can't think of any actual player-built tent towns (meaning more than one or two PC's living there) in the last few years in game that lasted for IC years without it getting rolled/falling off the map.
(I'm not saying you didn't. I'm just curious because I would like the story really.)
Quote from: Desertman on October 13, 2015, 02:57:41 PM
Quote from: Ender on October 13, 2015, 02:51:51 PM
Quote from: Desertman on October 13, 2015, 02:49:24 PM
I think the only thing the whole concept needs is for a staffer to say;
"If you put together a tent camp that lasts IC years successfully and pay the right people and do the right things, we will let you hire NPCs to make it more secure and make it less of a camp and more of a tent-town.".
But really, I think our current staff would already do that if anyone ever actually put in the required work successfully.
I just don't recall anyone ever pulling it off to date. But, I think if they did, staff would step up and help them.
The system is already there. This can already be done. I think people just want a staffer to say, "Hey, if you build it, your NPCs will come.".
I have done this, and I have been explicitly told no on NPCs. Hence the whole 24/7 paranoia thing because of people raiding my camp when they knew I and other PCs in the camp were offline.
How many IC years did your camp exist persistently? How many PC's lived in your camp?
I'm just curious because I can't think of any actual player-built tent towns (meaning more than one or two PC's living there) in the last few years in game that lasted for IC years without it getting rolled/falling off the map.
(I'm not saying you didn't. I'm just curious because I would like the story really.)
About a dozen or so PCs at its height, and well over a year.
Quote from: Ender on October 13, 2015, 02:51:51 PM
I have done this, and I have been explicitly told no on NPCs. Hence the whole 24/7 paranoia thing because of people raiding my camp when they knew I and other PCs in the camp were offline.
I think it's pretty safe to say that Staff don't want us creating permanent little villages around the game world. We'd quickly see the world fill up with seemingly-abandoned camps otherwise.
You play ARK, Desertman. Surely you've seen how the world gets slowly built up without actually being lived in.
It's true that without NPCs your options for keeping your camp safe are limited. I can think of four off the top of my head:
1) Have enough people in your group that there's always a chance that one of them will be online, and that you have a bad enough rep that that one is enough. (I can say from my experience that this probably had something to do with why I never tried to raid your camp late at night or something... that, and offline raiding is pretty derp anyhow and not something I condone.)
2) Have such a bad rep that even if someone comes through and cleans you out at night, you could conceivably hunt them down. Staff might even facilitate identifying the perp, if you can argue that your camp has a VNPC presence and someone would have saw Ranger McTheiferson making six trips between camp and town to vendor everything.
3) Limit your possessions, logging out with what you need and treating anything as left in game as expendable. This is how I operate in apartments - furniture, trinkets, anything easily replaceable is left behind, gear and packs are kept on at log-out.
4) Move occasionally. It won't stop the random late-night griefer visit, but a moving target is harder to hit by anyone doing any sort of planning. No one wants to spend an hour riding out to attack your camp only to find you've moved to some unknown location and we gotta reschedule guys sorryface :(
None of them are perfect. At best, they're risk-reducing. And I think that's a better thing for the gameworld than the ability to create an unassailable position.
Quote from: Ender on October 13, 2015, 03:04:11 PM
Quote from: Desertman on October 13, 2015, 02:57:41 PM
Quote from: Ender on October 13, 2015, 02:51:51 PM
Quote from: Desertman on October 13, 2015, 02:49:24 PM
I think the only thing the whole concept needs is for a staffer to say;
"If you put together a tent camp that lasts IC years successfully and pay the right people and do the right things, we will let you hire NPCs to make it more secure and make it less of a camp and more of a tent-town.".
But really, I think our current staff would already do that if anyone ever actually put in the required work successfully.
I just don't recall anyone ever pulling it off to date. But, I think if they did, staff would step up and help them.
The system is already there. This can already be done. I think people just want a staffer to say, "Hey, if you build it, your NPCs will come.".
I have done this, and I have been explicitly told no on NPCs. Hence the whole 24/7 paranoia thing because of people raiding my camp when they knew I and other PCs in the camp were offline.
How many IC years did your camp exist persistently? How many PC's lived in your camp?
I'm just curious because I can't think of any actual player-built tent towns (meaning more than one or two PC's living there) in the last few years in game that lasted for IC years without it getting rolled/falling off the map.
(I'm not saying you didn't. I'm just curious because I would like the story really.)
About a dozen or so PCs at its height, and well over a year.
The current system for convincing an NPC to join you in the safety of a city is already three IC years minimum if everything goes perfectly.
I would imagine getting an NPC to join you out in the middle of a desert would be A) Much more expensive and B) Take much more time to establish your reputation so as to attract them.
But I think your real issue is staff flat told you that no matter what you did it would never happen? (Which does suck.)
Though, back to my original point...I think if staff stepped up and said, "Yeah, if you do this the right way and put in the time we will consider backing you with things like NPCs.", that would make most people happy.
If someone ran a tent camp in the desert for five IC years (minimum in my opinion) that did "well" and attracted players I would be disappointed personally if staff didn't throw them a bone.
Quote from: Desertman on October 13, 2015, 02:49:24 PM
I think the only thing the whole concept needs is for a staffer to say;
"If you put together a tent camp that lasts IC years successfully and pay the right people and do the right things, we will let you hire NPCs to make it more secure and make it less of a camp and more of a tent-town.".
But really, I think our current staff would already do that if anyone ever actually put in the required work successfully.
I just don't recall anyone ever pulling it off to date. But, I think if they did, staff would step up and help them.
The system is already there. This can already be done. I think people just want a staffer to say, "Hey, if you build it, your NPCs will come.".
At least right now, staff will tell you to go through the MMH process to get this done.
Hey, if you build it (it being a rapport with your clan staff, an IC organization that can support such a thing--one that has hit trading co. or higher--and the resources to actually develop and maintain such a thing), your NPCs will come (because they can be moved over from your existing clan compound or hired through the same process you can do with a player-created clan).
This answer will not be acceptable for everyone, but it exists at least.
Quote from: BadSkeelz on October 13, 2015, 03:05:13 PM
None of them are perfect. At best, they're risk-reducing. And I think that's a better thing for the gameworld than the ability to create an unassailable position.
A couple of killeable NPCs hardly make an unassailable position. Demanding people to be online 24/7 is unreasonable.
Desertman, he meant a year in real life time, which is 8 years in-game, and he was force-stored by staff.
I'm pretty sure it was more than a year, even, as I recall spying on it well before a year to the date he was force-stored.
So I don't think it's really fair to try and hold that situation up as "lol do better for longer, bro".
Edit: and before we get too sidetracked, let's remember the focus should be on solutions, not trying to get bogged down in details of past situations.
Quote from: Delirium on October 13, 2015, 03:13:44 PM
Desertman, he meant a year in real life time, which is 8 years in-game, and he was force-stored by staff.
So I don't think it's really fair to try and hold that situation up as "lol do better for longer, bro".
Edit: and before we get too sidetracked, let's remember the focus should be on solutions, not trying to get bogged down in details of past situations.
I don't recall saying, "lol do better for longer, bro". I'm sure that's how you read it in your mind, but that isn't what was said.
With that being said, that does stink Ender. If this is the situation I'm thinking of though that happened years ago. Even years before the MMH system even existed which you could now potentially parlay into building such a camp.
The system didn't exist then, but it just might exist for you now.
This is getting into territory that probably shouldn't be discussed on the GDB unless someone has a good IC story to share and put up as an original submission. I'd be happy to look it over and approve it. It has been long enough and there is quite a bit of cool IC story around the whole situation.
We didn't develop the MMH system until approximately November/December of last year, so whatever was done prior to that wouldn't really apply in terms of "putting in time/effort/etc".
Would a couple of NPCs really help at all? Think who's going to typically visit the camp:
Rangers, who can use archery to kill nearly any NPC in the game as long as they have a two-room Line of Sight and enough arrows.
Magickers of all stripes, who could blow up anything short of a magickal-NPC (and I don't really think those should be on the table for getting added to a player camp, whoever is running it).
Outdoorsy Warriors who may have enough skill to just beat down your (assuming mundane) guards.
Given Staff position and the nature of the game world, for me the unreasonable position is to want to achieve anything lasting in the desert at all. The best you can hope to achieve is a temporary camp that can be memorable and fun to play in, just not a permanent base. That's already achievable and I don't really think we need anything more.
BRB, gonna go wipe out the Sun Runners. It should be easy, they live in the desert!
Quote from: BadSkeelz on October 13, 2015, 03:19:57 PM
Would a couple of NPCs really help at all? Think who's going to typically visit the camp:
Rangers, who can use archery to kill nearly any NPC in the game as long as they have a two-room Line of Sight and enough arrows.
Magickers of all stripes, who could blow up anything short of a magickal-NPC (and I don't really think those should be on the table for getting added to a player camp, whoever is running it).
Outdoorsy Warriors who may have enough skill to just beat down your (assuming mundane) guards.
Given Staff position and the nature of the game world, for me the unreasonable position is to want to achieve anything lasting in the desert at all. The best you can hope to achieve is a temporary camp that can be memorable and fun to play in, just not a permanent base. That's already achievable and I don't really think we need anything more.
It creates at least some barrier to entry rather than just "lol, I know the PCs are offline." How often are the NPCs in the Sun Runner camps killed and that camp looted?
Quote from: Delirium on October 13, 2015, 03:21:56 PM
BRB, gonna go wipe out the Sun Runners. It should be easy, they live in the desert!
I knew someone who could have done that (and should have done that) but they declined. Of course, magicker, so they don't
really count.
You want to talk solutions, Delirium, so I'm presenting the easiest one: curb your expectations and play to what's achievable given the nature of the game world and the code base, not raging against the confines of the system.
Quote from: Ender
It creates at least some barrier to entry rather than just "lol, I know the PCs are offline." How often are the NPCs in the Sun Runner camps killed and that camp looted?
The biggest barrier to entry is knowing who lives in a camp and knowing you don't want to fuck with them, online or off.
Already established tribal camps have dozens/hundreds of VNPCs present outside of the visible NPCs most of the time. Potential serious threats know this and act accordingly. I don't think it's comparable in any way.
By your standards, guys, the Soh Lanah Kah shouldn't even exist. Everyone has to start somewhere. Some of them make it.
The only "barrier to entry" I see is entirely OOC.
Of course they shouldn't! They're elves.
Oh, you mean
that kind of "shouldn't even exist." Right, never mind then.
Buuuuuuut....
Quote from: Delirium on October 13, 2015, 03:28:51 PM
The only "barrier to entry" I see is entirely OOC.
How is knowing IC that BadassMotherFucker has a camp out here and that you shouldn't go poking in random camps on the off-chance that it's THEIR camp and that they might even be around to personally object to your presence an OOC concept? It seems like common in-game sense to me.
"Barrier to entry" as in, "barrier keeping a camp from becoming established", not as in "keeping powergaming jaggoffs out of your camp".
Ah, I see.
Well, let's flip it around. How is "Become a BadassMotherFucker so that people know not to mess with your things" an OOC concept? This is Zalanthas. It's a harsh, unforgiving world where nothing is free. No one is going to leave a weakling alone just because it's the nice thing to do. No, they're going to take his stuff and possibly eat him. If you want to go it alone, you have to prove yourself strong enough.
That's why people don't raid the Coded Tribal Camps. Those tribes are old, large, and dangerous. They've proven that they're strong.
Players can already prove they're strong enough not to fucked with regularly. Ever rogue mage with a known location has done it. Yes, it's going to inevitably happen, whether by random griefer or the powers of the game world aligning to destroy you. That's the nature of Zalanthas. Enjoy the ride while it lasts.
Addendum:
I think we have different definitions in mind as to what's an "established" camp. In my mind, an established camp is already achievable. It's not perfectly safe and it's not perfectly permanent, but it can and has been done.
I suppose it's worth noting that "a camp being established" is synonymous in my mind with "keeping powergaming jaggoffs out of your camp."
At this point you are not doing much but derail the thread to focus on a very specific argument (and you are also avoiding actually responding to my point, which is: all established clans had to start somewhere.) Let's start focusing more on actual solutions to the issue rather than getting into back and forths over specific side tangents.
The currently established clans for the most part didn't have to start somewhere. They were built into the lore of the game. They weren't player created. Holding them up to the same standards or comparing them in any way is really a pointless argument in my opinion on every front.
They exist because OOC'ly they were put there at the beginning of time and that's really all there is to it.
They "started" with hundreds/thousands of members. IC'ly did they? Of course not. But they weren't built IC'ly, and that is what we are talking about doing. Those tribes were built OOC'ly. It isn't relevant in any way on the IC building front.
Yes, yes, it is relevant. It is absolutely relevant. If you are looking at the gameworld and deciding "what is realistic", you have to consider how things came to be.
PCs and (v)NPCs should NOT be held to different standards, from a storytelling standpoint.
How to make the coded reality match up to that is - or should be - the goal.
That is what this thread should be seeking to accomplish.
Allowing camps to establish themselves, create quit rooms, slowly build more permanent (or "moving camp") structures, and gain followers & NPCS would fill that gap.
Would it be difficult? Absolutely! Should it be impossible, like it is now? Absolutely not!
Quote from: Delirium on October 13, 2015, 03:49:39 PM
(and you are also avoiding actually responding to my point, which is: all established clans had to start somewhere.)
They did, but that's not something Staff allow, so why bother getting mad over it? Unless Staff change the rules to allow for self-sustaining tribes self-recruiting tribes (i.e. multi-generational family rolecalls) you're never going to establish a tribe. At least, not under the classic definition.
Personally I think there might be a loop-hole existent in the current player-created clan rules that would allow for self-perpetuating organizations and communities in the wild, so long as you wrote your docs right. But it wouldn't achieve the "established camps" that people want. Even though we can already make camps that are as permanent as any other structure, so long as they're in a save room, and safe enough so long as there's either someone online, your rep is bad enough to protect you, or you just don't care about losing some items.
Quote from: Delirium on October 13, 2015, 04:02:58 PM
Yes, yes, it is relevant. It is absolutely relevant. If you are looking at the gameworld and deciding "what is realistic", you have to consider how things came to be.
PCs and (v)NPCs should NOT be held to different standards, from a storytelling standpoint.
How to make the coded reality match up to that is - or should be - the goal.
That is what this thread should be seeking to accomplish.
Allowing camps to establish themselves, create quit rooms, slowly build more permanent (or "moving camp") structures, and gain followers & NPCS would fill that gap.
Would it be difficult? Absolutely! Should it be impossible, like it is now? Absolutely not!
Salarr didn't have to follow the same steps as current players trying to create merchant houses in game.
The system didn't exist, so it isn't relevant.
The system for establishing a player created tent-camp didn't exist back when Blackwing was established so it isn't comparable or relevant.
If you wanted to grow a forest in game, you couldn't point to the Grey Forest and say, "They had to start somewhere so I should be able to grow a forest because other trees exist already!!!".
The Grey Forest exists because it was written into the game. The Soh exist because they were written into the game.
That's really the end of it.
Making a current system adhere to, "The current system has to also explain why OOC'ly created clans already exist.", doesn't go anywhere. That's a dead end.
I would rather a system be crafted around what is instead of trying to make it explain what has always been especially since what has always been was established OOC'ly with no IC considerations around players creating similar structures.
The T'zai Byn and most of the GMH started IC.
At this point I'm just back and forthing with you guys, so... you know...
(http://media.giphy.com/media/njAjh98E1PUha/giphy-facebook_s.jpg)
The T'zai Byn didn't hire the hundreds of NPC's they have through the same system that currently exists for players to create clans (nor the GMH's).
Not relevant.
A few players WAY BACK in the day when peak-player-times were 20 people (enough people didn't even play the game back then to create multiple player ran organizations at once) got a staffer/some staff on their side and took their IC concept and managed to get it OOC'ly crafted into what it is now.
It was still OOC'ly created to be what it currently is when stacked against the current system that exists now for players to create similar ventures. Comparing them is a dead end and not relevant.
Stop trolling. - D
Mine was a joke about the fruit selling girl in game. I have no idea what the original comment was even about nor do I care.
I edited two posts because they added nothing to the discussion save for ridicule and hearsay, and only served to further tank the thread.
I split this thread off of RAT so a potentially interesting discussion didn't die in there as so many potentially interesting discussions do. Was this a mistake?
MAYBE.
Seriously, could we get back on topic now?
I put it in its own thread anyway :)
If you think that everything used to be awesome and now it's terrible, here (http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,50010.0.html) is where you can talk about it.
guys why are we talking about making your own clan
i just want a fucking cool slums for Allanak that can be player-created and partially made by the admins to provide extra flavor and a bit more danger to the game
and maybe the ability for some enterprising dudes with a shitload of resources to make a little nook for themselves in the world or something
or non-safe housing for people that want to live a bit on the dangerous side
i mean sure it associates with clans and if it was in the game that would be a badass way to start a clan
The West Gate Gallows (MOB JUSTICE HYPE)
The East Gate Waterboys (who buy your water so you don't gotta pay a fee when you walk in with extra water)
North-Side Scummers (generally, criminals, with maybe a way to get into the 'rinth from the outside north wall???)
What I'm trying to tell you, AdamBlue, is that you can already do that.
You want to establish a tent camp in the middle of the desert/outside of Nak/outside of Tuluk/anywhere not in the city?
Fine. You can do that. But do you really want to just walk out into the middle of the desert and establish said camp in an extremely hostile environment without first doing some "ground work" to help ensure you don't get destroyed?
Probably not. I mean you can. Of course you can. Buy a few tents and walk out and set them up wherever you want.
That will give you exactly what you have paid for and invested in. A camp where you have put in no effort/"ground work" to ensure you are any more safe than that meager amount of effort would require.
You don't get something for nothing.
What I would recommend is you start off by getting a location in game where you can amass a lot of materials, wealth, status, and finished goods to help you establish something more permanent.
A process exists for exactly that. (warehouses)
Start amassing your wealth, materials, goods, and status that will allow you to build something more than a shit-tent-base that can be wrecked like a shit-tent-base should.
It will be expensive. It will take allies. It will take time. But, if you do it right what you come out with will be the materials needed to establish a camp that is less likely to get shit-stomped by scrabs or passing thieves/raiders/gith warbands.
You get what you pay for. If you want to pay for a tent-camp that can get easily rolled. That is what you will get.
If you want to pay for one that won't get easily rolled...there is a system in game for that.
I wanted to make a quick note here in case anyone is interested in this.
I actually had a character temporarily hire a few NPCs for an in game week once. I wasn't even really trying to, I was trying to hire PCs and the staff threw in a few NPCs on the side. They weren't permanent fixtures or anything, but temporarily at least they were everything the people upthread were asking for and the amount of paperwork involved was pretty much just a character report and answering some follow up questions.
Soooooooo if anyone was interested in just setting up a temporary thing with some NPC guards, there's a way to do it.
I was going to write a long and thought out post with lots of addendums and provisos to make sure I was being perfectly clear, but... ain't nobody got time for that.
The back and forth and side-tracking and trolling kind of tanked my desire to really participate much further.
So I'll keep it pretty short.
Quote from: Delirium on October 13, 2015, 04:02:58 PM
PCs and (v)NPCs should NOT be held to different standards, from a storytelling standpoint.
How to make the coded reality match up to that is - or should be - the goal.
That is what this thread should be seeking to accomplish.
Allowing camps to establish themselves, create quit rooms, slowly build more permanent (or "moving camp") structures, and gain followers & NPCS would fill that gap.
Would it be difficult? Absolutely! Should it be impossible, like it is now? Absolutely not!
We have a system in place for MMH in Allanak. This is good. I'm saying that "that's great guys, now how about we get a system in place for the concepts that don't fit in this mold, and shouldn't be forced to".
A system in which players can establish camps or groups which don't operate in Allanak, and can go through the proper channels to do so, would be the next step. Whether tribal, raider, etc.
This would have the side benefit of supporting antagonists more as well, which is something I think is sorely needed but on a different topic.
What I miss, are the days - admittedly, the days over a decade ago - when anything felt truly possible, and, probably, when I had the 4-8 hours a day to spend making it happen. These days, it feels like you have to jump through a lot of crazy hoops (and some of them are on fire), and just slave away for a huge portion of your real-life free time for the possibility that you might be able to make some kind of mark. It's probably not that bad, but that is how it feels, especially from the standpoint of a veteran that was used to the more free-wheeling give and take and back and forth in the days of yore.
This was well before the "dark days of Arm 2.0". I was a veteran when that rolled around, so it's likely I have a different perspective than most.
If I've been a voice of support for a more expanded MMH system, well, you better believe I hated the "no building" rule.
I am not fond of the flavor of bureaucracy that has developed in an attempt to be impartially fair, but I do appreciate and agree with the desire to be impartially fair. Perhaps some streamlining could be done.
My desire to spend part-time/full-time job hours stressing myself out trying to create something lasting in the game has gone by the wayside, but I'm sure there are plenty of other players who these systems would benefit. This really isn't about something that I want to accomplish, it's more about my sense of loss when I look back on "the old days" and when I look at things now.
I'm all for new systems.
Quote from: AdamBlue on October 13, 2015, 05:08:44 PM
guys why are we talking about making your own clan
i just want a fucking cool slums for Allanak that can be player-created and partially made by the admins to provide extra flavor and a bit more danger to the game
and maybe the ability for some enterprising dudes with a shitload of resources to make a little nook for themselves in the world or something
or non-safe housing for people that want to live a bit on the dangerous side
i mean sure it associates with clans and if it was in the game that would be a badass way to start a clan
The West Gate Gallows (MOB JUSTICE HYPE)
The East Gate Waterboys (who buy your water so you don't gotta pay a fee when you walk in with extra water)
North-Side Scummers (generally, criminals, with maybe a way to get into the 'rinth from the outside north wall???)
Why would your character want it? I ask this question, because everything you say you want as a result, already exists: the labyrinth.
Why would your character want what is, for all intents and purposes, the labyrinth, except outside the city walls? Why would they want that final loss of physical barrier between themselves and the wilderness? Not why would you want it - it's easy to understand why you want it. You want to be the force behind change. So does everyone. But, given the option of a rinth with a protective barrier between themselves and mekillot #47, and a rinth without that protective barrier - why would your character pick the latter?
The rinth really is a fantastic place for rp. It doesn't need a nonidentical twin.
I recently had a merchant PC who tried to do this (build a persistsnt camp in a remote location) and staffs' response was they weren't interested in helping me.
I'm not sure what the problem is.
You can plant a tent and you can live out of them in just about any area of the game, at least as a ranger.
You can protect them by being
terrifying and making examples of people. It's worked out well for me.
There are some containers in game big enough you can load them with smooth black stones (shifting a thousand or more stones with 'get all' and 'put all' is soul crushing) until they're impossible for anyone except half-giants to move. At that point, the time investment to steal your tent is so ridiculous that non-retards will just pass it by and you can murder the retards to enhance your terror factor.
If you want to make it happen, you can make it happen with some creative thinking and some all-in commitment.
The real problem with these situations is how rare rooms flagged 'save' and 'quit' are. If you aren't a ranger, your options are incredibly limited and the kinds of places you would want to setup are impossible, since you could never log out at your own camp site.
Solutions:
Tents being setup to automatically turn on 'save' and 'quit' flags in the room they're pitched in would be awesome, but I'm not sure how viable it is with Armageddons modified codebase.
An easier but less adaptive solution would be for one or two staff to review each zone in the game and add more save/quit rooms to places that would make good hideouts. Those rooms are out there and could be amazing, but right now they're of no use to anyone except rangers. It takes all of a few minutes to toggle room flags and shouldn't even require a reboot of the game to go live, I wouldn't think.
There could be a subguild option offered, too, one that offers nothing except wilderness quit. That way, anyone who wants to be a 'lives in the boonies' weirdo has an automated option and can pursue it completely independent of staff. The lack of all other 'extra' skills and benefits seems like a fair trade (ie; rogue mage wants wilderness camp, gives up forage food / climb to get it, etc) and rangers would still have full subguild options, so there would be no real loss of 'edge' there.
Quote from: Mordiggian on October 13, 2015, 12:51:29 PM
I'm being reminded of why I don't like posting on the GDB. Have fun, friends.
(http://media.giphy.com/media/8E1uPDT9gfhJK/giphy.gif)
The GDB is the worst part of the Armageddon experience.
Except for that .gif. That .gif is fucking awesome.
Quote from: AdamBlue on October 13, 2015, 02:52:58 PM
craft 1.log 2.log 3.log 4.log 5.log into a segment of a log wall
craft 1.segment, 2.segment, 3.segment, 4.segment 5.segment into part of a log wall fence
craft 1.part tent into a small enclosed encampment
craft 1.part 2.part tent into a moderately sized encampment
craft 1.part 2.part 3.part 4.part tent into a large, fortified encampment
Bigger = More Space = More Costly = More Fortified
Smaller = Less Space = Less Costly = Harder to find
Maybe slowly increasing security even on the doors. Small encampments just have flaps, medium ones have just straight up doors/small gates, and the big ones have huge fucking gates and armored doors, with higher and higher prices for everything as you really ramp it up.
And, of course, there's no saying you can't have small encampments by eachother. Just not in the same room. You could have two neighbors with small encampments.
They'd just hafta be in different rooms.
Bobbuilder extended subguild.
This game needs a camp code. Clan leaders should be able to trot their clan to a remote location and plop down a camp with a bit of requisite roleplay. This CLAN CAMP would include the essentials of a clan compoud, quit rooms. But no storage space. This would allow the whole clan to subsist in the area for an amount of time so they can complete their objectives piecemeal. Instead going out on five hour sorties to accomplish one simple objective.
Kadius wants to explore the far reaches of the grey forest and doesn't want to spend three fucking hours in transit everyday? Do one expedition and then put down a CLAN CLAMP so players could quit out and survive in the camp while they wait for the troop to get sorted for the upcoming kryl slaughter.
Salarr wants to build an outpost across the salt flats? Why not start with a CLAN CAMP as they prospect the perfect location.
Just imagine how happy Mr. Ender would be if he could put down a CLAN CAMP.
That sort of thing can be facilitated by clan leaders working with their clan staff, perhaps. I think it's primarily unclanned people who are wanting for ways to set up shop beyond the city.
Quote from: Jingo on October 14, 2015, 11:57:24 AM
This game needs a camp code. Clan leaders should be able to trot their clan to a remote location and plop down a camp with a bit of requisite roleplay. This CLAN CAMP would include the essentials of a clan compoud, quit rooms. But no storage space. This would allow the whole clan to subsist in the area for an amount of time so they can complete their objectives piecemeal. Instead going out on five hour sorties to accomplish one simple objective.
Kadius wants to explore the far reaches of the grey forest and doesn't want to spend three fucking hours in transit everyday? Do one expedition and then put down a CLAN CLAMP so players could quit out and survive in the camp while they wait for the troop to get sorted for the upcoming kryl slaughter.
Salarr wants to build an outpost across the salt flats? Why not start with a CLAN CAMP as they prospect the perfect location.
Just imagine how happy Mr. Ender would be if he could put down a CLAN CAMP.
Seems plausible any sizeable group with the proper supplies could do this regardless of their coded clan status. The desert and camp supplies don't know what clans are.
I know it's kind of early to be declaring the MMH thing a success, but...isn't it kind of a success? The people who are into it, are exploiting the opportunity and are getting results. They're having fun and achieving lulz.
The people who aren't into it, aren't taking advantage of the opportunity so they're not doing it. They're finding other ways to have fun and achieve lulz.
Given the success of the MMH process...and I invite anyone to challenge that it is successful, I'm not positing this as a fact mind you, more of a theory...but given the success, what is needed is to make a smaller version of the MMH process for someone who wants a fort out in the woods.
It simply shouldn't be that difficult to achieve.
I think a fort should be available to anyone who:
has 10,000 coins to spend
has 8,000 coins and certain of building materials
has 6,000 coins and sponsorship from some level inside of the funnel.
A little fort just isn't that tough to get.
What would this basic fort comprise of?
Two rooms, with walls on all rooms
One lockable door with up to twenty keys for the exterior
One really stupid (non-moveable) minion who would provide very very basic security
Heaven forbid someone would find an additional use for burglars, right?
Once per real life year, staff could run a script and...
Any place that is not being actively maintained, the minion if present could desert
If there is no minion present, the lock could degrade
If the lock is already degradable, the place itself could degrade to ruins
Let's say you didn't like the fact that someone has a little fort? You could destroy it...
By picking the lock on the front door and raiding the place
By spending 5,000 coins on kerosene and a torch
By Spending 3,000 coins on components if you manage to locate a battering ram
By spending 1,000 coins if you have sponsorship from someone inside of the Funnel.
Given that the game is advertised as someplace where "Characters have the power to transform the game world itself", it simply should not be so difficult to get a little fort.
I honestly just want to be able to help create interesting places in the game without having to become a builder. Let's look at what the IDEAL set up would be, the END GOAL maybe of what someone could possibly accomplish
6 Rooms total, including the entrance.
The Entrance
A Barracks.
A Storage room.
A Stable.
A Garden.
A 'Bar'.
The Entrance. Possibly a well also included for water purposes, but in limited amounts under the assumption that there are vnpcs that drink and use most of the water.
Barracks, where people would rest, relax, and treat the injured.
A storage room, where those who had access could store things securely.
A Stable, for keeping creatures, and possibly keeping slaughterable animals for foodstuffs (chalton?)o
A Garden for a few choice fruits, and to forage basic farmstuffs for those good at it.
And a Bar, where people could eat, socialize, prepare meals, and possibly buy some food and drink from an enterprising brewmaster chef who's set up shop.
--
This just seems like the absolute perfection, which would take the efforts of many many people over years IG to accomplish, starting off with tents and eventually building more permanent structures as the 'outpost' grows over time.
In fact, that's actually a very good idea. Start outposts small, maybe a couple of rooms, and then as they grow older, allow more rooms and more features.
Quote from: Nyr on October 13, 2015, 02:01:04 PM
I meant to say this earlier before I got distracted by other posts here, but we've actually discussed something along those lines on the staff side of things, AdamBlue. Not necessarily around any one city itself, but the prospect of slums/tents/shanties and how those things could work in a way that is different than apartments.
It's fallen by the wayside a bit but it can probably be picked back up, dusted off, and made viable.
Yeah.
I think overall, though. The staff ought to considerably liberalize their policy of implementing player-proposed changes in the game.
Consider the following potential model:
Size 6 Change: Changes to the theme of the game, like adding unicorns or flying machines or karaoke machines. Definitely No.
Size 5 Change: Huge Change that will semi-permanently or permanently affect the majority of players. Example: Destruction of a City-State the size of Tuluk
Requirements: Proposing player should need to go on an extensive quest to do the groundwork for this, followed by a huge major HRPT during which most of the remaining players will have the opportunity to directly enter a battle to implement/prevent this kind of change.
Frequency: Once Every Five years
Size 4 Change: Large Change that will temporarily affect a small group of players. Example: Somebody torches the Nobles Quarter in Allanak.
Requirements: Player complete a quest first, followed by RPT during which at least some players have the chance to stop this, unless they're asleep at the wheel or don't otherwise care
Frequency: Two or three times per year, as needed
Size 3 Change: Player sets up a stand in the marketplace, or builds an apartment complex, or builds an outpost, etc.
Size 2 Change: Player slays a Templar from a rival city state, has a street named after them.
Size 1 Change: Player gets mad at House Salarr, burns down a stall in the marketplace belonging to Salarr
Size 0 Change: Player wants scars on their character (currently implemented)
My point is that changes to Size 3 or below, it should probably be rubber-stamped into the game. Things like that shouldn't be so difficult for a player in a fantasy video game to achieve in a "post-apocalyptic fantasy world, where players have the opportunity to affect the game world around them."
Quote from: Jingo on October 14, 2015, 11:57:24 AM
This game needs a camp code. Clan leaders should be able to trot their clan to a remote location and plop down a camp with a bit of requisite roleplay. This CLAN CAMP would include the essentials of a clan compoud, quit rooms. But no storage space. This would allow the whole clan to subsist in the area for an amount of time so they can complete their objectives piecemeal. Instead going out on five hour sorties to accomplish one simple objective.
Kadius wants to explore the far reaches of the grey forest and doesn't want to spend three fucking hours in transit everyday? Do one expedition and then put down a CLAN CLAMP so players could quit out and survive in the camp while they wait for the troop to get sorted for the upcoming kryl slaughter.
Salarr wants to build an outpost across the salt flats? Why not start with a CLAN CAMP as they prospect the perfect location.
Just imagine how happy Mr. Ender would be if he could put down a CLAN CAMP.
This reminds me of how Harshlands handles clan travel to remote locations. That game is ridiculously big, and traders need to travel, so they have a neat tool to help accomplish having your clan travel around. Basically, you get an'encampment' item that you can place anywhere, and as long as your clan PCs log off in the encampment, they will still be in it when it sets back up wherever you arrive. This means it's not necessary for everybody to be online every time you travel.
We kind of have this already with wagons, but generally speaking wagons are incredibly restricted.
Quote from: Erythil on October 16, 2015, 05:02:39 PM
We kind of have this already with wagons, but generally speaking wagons are incredibly restricted.
The tribal camps work this way actually. If you log out in the Arabet camp and it relocates, you move with it...of course the relocation isn't determined by PC's, it's just a set rotation, but still there in concept.
I imagine an encampment (that's really a wagon with non-wagon room descriptions) could work the same way as you described though?
It's a shame wagons are underutilized. But it's no suprise when you consider why.
I think it would be great to have smaller, significantly more vulnerable, craftable wagons... no npcs on board. Are these a thing?
Re: more quit/save rooms wanted
Unfortunately, it's not as simple as just flipping a flag on a room to make it into a "save" room. Save rooms are only found in specific zones (as in, all the rooms in zone X are save rooms, 0 of the rooms in zone A, B, C, D... are save rooms), and that means they are on a different weather system and all kinds of other bizarre behavior that one might not initially take into account. They are also limited in number.
Also please do not go out and fill a crate with a billion rocks just to make your tent OOCly hard to steal. That is very meta-gamey.
QuoteAlso please do not go out and fill a crate with a billion rocks just to make your tent OOCly hard to steal. That is very meta-gamey.
I would consider it more meta-gamey to roll up on a gathering of tents with items set up to show it's an active camp and rolling the tent that probably has people sleeping in it. Hence the discussion of the thread. Which is saying that in order to avoid both of those events happening, there could be other things. Otherwise, players are left with working with what code there is to have possible things be possible.
Quote from: Armaddict on October 18, 2015, 05:11:29 AM
I would consider it more meta-gamey to roll up on a gathering of tents with items set up to show it's an active camp and rolling the tent that probably has people sleeping in it.
I wouldn't consider it meta-gamey at all - perhaps inconsiderate or unrealistic, but not meta-gamey. Additionally, putting a few items in a tent and using 'arrange' on them should also not be a way to declare that forevermore this tent is populated and should be respected as inhabited, virtually. Presumably the inhabitants do leave, from time to time, (beyond when their players are logged in). There's no way for someone stumbling upon the tents randomly to know what their status is unless they have knowledge of the place's specifics, somehow.
Quote from: seidhr on October 18, 2015, 05:21:04 AM
I wouldn't consider it meta-gamey at all - perhaps inconsiderate or unrealistic, but not meta-gamey. Additionally, putting a few items in a tent and using 'arrange' on them should also not be a way to declare that forevermore this tent is populated and should be respected as inhabited, virtually.
This has the added benefit of allowing us to murder your virtual family. We need more of that, right? People like having their virtual family members murdered? That's all I remember from that thread.
Quote from: seidhr on October 18, 2015, 05:21:04 AM
Quote from: Armaddict on October 18, 2015, 05:11:29 AM
I would consider it more meta-gamey to roll up on a gathering of tents with items set up to show it's an active camp and rolling the tent that probably has people sleeping in it.
I wouldn't consider it meta-gamey at all - perhaps inconsiderate or unrealistic, but not meta-gamey. Additionally, putting a few items in a tent and using 'arrange' on them should also not be a way to declare that forevermore this tent is populated and should be respected as inhabited, virtually. Presumably the inhabitants do leave, from time to time, (beyond when their players are logged in). There's no way for someone stumbling upon the tents randomly to know what their status is unless they have knowledge of the place's specifics, somehow.
This, therefore, creates a double standard in terms of what is acceptable. You say it is metagamey to make it take effort to dismantle a camp. But it is not metagamey to ignore efforts required to dismantle a camp. I find this logic terrifying in the hands of a staff member.
Edited to add: Particularly since all that one does is say that you have to take out a bunch of rocks and decide if it's worth it for you. A delay, so that said people in said camp can return from the virtual venture you said they must be on at any given time that they return. There was no talk of it being 'completely untouchable', ever. So I don't know where that came from. What did get said, was that there were measures to make your camp harder to random dude coming along and taking it down in no time flat, giving -some- ability for it to stick around.
And no, I'm not invested in this, but this is one of those cases where people find uses of code to accomplish things that -should- be in someone's grasp...and in a shoddy way even (not very effective)...and you call it meta-gamey?
Reason it's metagamey on the other side (we've already established that it's metagamey to fill a box with rocks and why we should be able to overlook that for the sake of believability):
>A small tent village.
Half a dozen tents in a variety of colors and states of repair circle a broad swath of
the desert here. In the center of the circle, a campfire is kept flickering merrily by
any of the various members of the rag-tag group of wanderers. Etc. etc. etc.
Uncoiled and dragged along the ground, a length of rope is held by a tow-headed toddler.
Twin boys, each with striking blue eyes and gangly limbs, play in and around a tree-carved wooden chest.
A stern-looking half-elven woman watches the children protectively with a chipped obsidian dagger in hand.
>A random wanderer wanders by.
>The random wanderer thinks, "Oooh. Free stuff."
>The random wanderer gets a length of rope.
>The random wanderer gets a chipped obsidian dagger.
>The random wanderer struggles to lift a tree-carved wooden chest.
>The random wanderer walks east, dragging a tree-carved wooden chest behind.
That is why people resort to filling chests with rocks in tent camps: to *reduce* (but not eliminate) the chance that some random wanderer will wander by and ignore the virtual world completely in exchange for grabbing the coded goodies.
I don't think anyone needs to be frightened. :) Putting rocks in a tent is "gaming the game [or code]" because your character is using OOC code mechanics to impose constraints on other players. Now before they can act ICly, they have to figure out what you did OOCly.
It's pedantic, but rolling up someone's camp without emoting isn't "gaming the game" because you're not using OOC code mechanics to impose constraints on what other players can codedly do.
Quote from: CodeMaster on October 18, 2015, 11:32:32 AM
I don't think anyone needs to be frightened. :) Putting rocks in a tent is "gaming the game [or code]" because your character is using OOC code mechanics to impose constraints on other players. Now before they can act ICly, they have to figure out what you did OOCly.
It's pedantic, but rolling up someone's camp without emoting isn't "gaming the game" because you're not using OOC code mechanics to impose constraints on what other players can codedly do.
But by that logic, subdue would be. Just, you're present. Say I have too much stuff, I set it down, elf runs off with it, fine. I rent an apartment, and, here, I'm using what's codedly available to place restrictions on what other players can do. I mean, sure, anyone with a particular skill can overcome this barrier, but you don't even need that skill to move a box of rocks.
I should've written "you're not abusing OOC code mechanics to create IC effects in the game world". Using code stuff for what it's meant for isn't meta at all, but I stop derailing.
get crate
leave
pour crate ground
roll tent
get tent
e (whistling innocently, tent slung over ^me shoulder)
Quote from: Fujikoma on October 18, 2015, 12:35:06 PM
e (whistling innocently, tent slung over ^me shoulder)
Can't use targeting in a move emote. Some people. *shakes head*
Quote from: seidhr on October 18, 2015, 05:04:29 AM
Also please do not go out and fill a crate with a billion rocks just to make your tent OOCly hard to steal. That is very meta-gamey.
I don't think I've ever seen this happen, but it actually seems pretty In-Character to me to weigh something down in order to make it harder to steal.
Makes sense. Never thought about it or used it and likely never will but it's like tent pegs. If there was 4 rocks not a billion.
Peaking of tent pegs... weighing down your tent would help keep it being blowing away by massive sandstorms of doom.
Yeah exactly.
Using a few things to weigh down your tent is totally fine.
It's just that someone earlier in the thread was talking about how you could take a big container and put vast numbers of low-weight objects into it in order to make it too heavy to lift up, as the container, for anyone but a half-giant and a real OOC burden to remove from the tent. That's something I'd hate to see done (though I don't think I have ever seen it done, fortunately!)