Law nosave

[UnderSeven]

Here is a suggestion, from experience I think it might be nice to have a form of nosave that is separate of normal nosave and only means you won't save against enforcers.

Why do I think we need it?  Well I've seen what can happen to you if you arn't expecting to be crim flagged, a guard tries to arrest you and fails.  I lost a pc like that once opun a time and it appears as though little has changed to fix it.  

In most real situations I doubt the pcs would of resisted, but turning off nosave puts you at a whole host of mercy's most people would probably rather not risk.  

Because of this, I suggest a nosave that only works with enforcers.

Now, since I have no idea how hard this would be to code. .

Comments?  Suggestions?

[Dakkon Black]

I can only say that I really think No-save needs to diversify.

It controls way to many checks right now, I would love to see one that was you and the law only. Please!

[mansa]

OR

Nosave vs SPECIFIC CODED CLANS

YAYAYA!

[bloodfromstone]

Yeah, nosave needs some work. This is one of several good suggestions as to how to fix it up.

[spawnloser]

Yeah, this sort of suggestion has been brought up many times.  I'm not one opposing it.

[Hymwen]

I agree.  :?

[jmordetsky]

The worst thing for me, is turning nosave on when I'm going to misbehave, and then forgetting to turn it back off.

Then like two weeks later in some completely unrelated scenario you get subdued in one shot by some crazy n00b warrior who just happens to be eating cheetos..

[Intrepid]

Yeah, nosave needs some work. This is one of several good suggestions as to how to fix it up.

Here is another:

Command: nosave
Usage: nosave OR nosave {option}

Using nosave without options will bring up all the different options you
have and their current settings.  Using nosave and the option will toggle
the use of that specific facet of nosave.

Examples:
> nosave
> Your nosave for law is set to ON.
> Your nosave for climb is set to OFF.
> Your nosave for poison is set to ON.
> Your nosave for magic is set to ON.
> Your nosave for chittychittyboomboom is set to ON.

> nosave law
> Your nosave for law has been set to OFF.

This can be applied to as many applicable uses of nosave as are pertinent
to player customization.

[Pantoufle]

Having lost a shady persona or two to nosave fumbles, I still think the lives of our characters is upon we, the players, to regulate.  If you're planning to go on a little shoplifting spree, simply get in the habit of turning it on while you're being sneaky, then turning it back off when you're finished.  Once this habit is set, you're good to go.  If you botch a steal (or whatever else you're trying to do), you needn't worry about being "insta"mauled by unrealistic NPCs, since you'll be willingly surrendering into their subdue attempt.  

Sadly, the best way to get into this habit is by experiencing the loss of a character through forgetting to turn nosave on or off.  You die once to a silly quirk in the code like that and rest assured you won't let it happen again!  I think it might be particularly daunting to setup a multitude of different nosaves.  For example, why would anyone even want to turn on climb nosave.  I can't think of any possible situation where I would want to deliberately fail a climb check; and even if I did, for roleplay purposes, I would simply emote out slipping rather than relying on the code to demonstrate this.  Similarly, why on earth would I want to deliberately fail a poison nosave?  The only nosave I see useful is regarding subdue, in which case maybe nosave can simply be altered to affect subdue checks only rather than EVERYTHING.

[mansa]

...For example, why would anyone even want to turn on climb nosave.  I can't think of any possible situation where I would want to deliberately fail a climb check; and even if I did, for roleplay purposes, I would simply emote out slipping rather than relying on the code to demonstrate this...

One example would be to prevent people from guild sniffing to try and figure out which class you are.  

As a side note, we should be able to control our skills that we have and choose to be how successful we want to be at those skills.  I think that gives more freedom to the player to demonstrate their character in all form.  That would be a very cool feature.

[Hymwen]

If you're planning to go on a little shoplifting spree, simply get in the habit of turning it on while you're being sneaky, then turning it back off when you're finished

I think that more often than not, it's a matter of people forgetting to turn nosave back on and then meeting a stupid, pointless death. I lost a character who was normally not a criminal at all, but I had tried to steal something for fun, didn't know that I was flagged, and a while later I took a walk. Lo and behold, my skinny fragile little character involuntarily resisted a subdue from a big, trained guard and was killed in one round of combat.

[Pantoufle]

So just emote "slips and falls", then type '!' repeatedly.  It will have the same desired affect.

I don't think we should create a code specifically for the purpose of preventing people from determing what guild you are by observing the very same code.

You can do lots of fun stuff with emotes, shouts, and say/tells, if you really want to dupe someone.  I love shouting "Thief!  Thief!" one room away from other players so when they look in the next room and see me standing there, they think I failed a steal attempt and draw quick conclusions (never realizing that I'm actually a "maxed" sorcerer casually waltzing about town).  I've actually never done this, but one day I will.

Another time, approximately 3-4 years ago now, some twink was spam stalking, spam stealing, and basically all around spam everything-ing me without roleplaying anything out at all.  So to test him I emoted 'has lost link'.  Sure enough he made his move then and only then to attack me (mansa, I know you already know this story but I tell it here again for posterity).  The real irony of it is that I immediately fled and when he tried to attack again, he accidently attacked another 'figure' NPC who fought back with all his NPC buddies, slaughtering my poor assailant in a millisecond.  It was a twinkish thing to do on my part but it can be forgiven for a) being a long ass time ago now and b) being hysterically funny.

Screw the code to hide your guild.  Use emotes that look like the code.

[UnderSeven]

Having lost a shady persona or two to nosave fumbles, I still think the lives of our characters is upon we, the players, to regulate.  If you're planning to go on a little shoplifting spree, simply get in the habit of turning it on while you're being sneaky, then turning it back off when you're finished.  Once this habit is set, you're good to go. .

I disagree on a couple of points.

1:  Your point assumes that all pcs who are arrested by npcs could of seen it coming.  This isn't true.  You can get crim flagged without doing anything wrong and having no reason to expect it.  For one a templar trying to question you could just crim flag you to get you arrested, or maybe a staffer does it.  Icly this makes perfect sense, a templar turns to soldiers and says go get so and so bring them to me.  However with the current flaw in the code, this could lead to an unintentional and buggy death.  The only option a player has there is to have nosave on all the time leaving themselves opened to a whole host of other things.  I'll point out when I lost a char to this bug, over a year ago no less, I wasn't a thief, i wasn't breaking laws, I wasn't doing anything that I would of expected to get me arrested.  I had no reason to think I should of had nosave on period.  

2: I really don't care what a character is doing, the fact is nosave is assuming that you WANT saving throws and that is TRUE in most cases, EXCEPT against law enforcers who currently kill you if you resist.  I think we can safely assume most characters if asked if they would resist if being arrested would reply no.  Therefore nosave is contradictory in that in most cases it is TRUE that someone would want a saving throw except in the circumstance where someone would actually prefer not to have a saving throw.  Furthermore I think someone who IS breaking the law probably might actually WANT to be avoiding soldiers.  The difference?  They'll have weapons out and be fleeing left and right and expecting the soldiers to be aggro to them.  Therefore that person who actually is expecting them to subdue them would probably want a saving throw where as everyone else would not want it.  What's my point?  Your argument is more or less the opposite of how it seems to actually be working.  My char death and the ones I've seen to the nosave flaw has always been a situation where the character would have no reason to suspect a soldier is going to come after them and would under no regular circumstance resist.  

And I'm sorry to pick on you Pantoufle, but I have to say my strongest disagreement with you is that you're supporting the current nosave system at all.  This system takes a great deal of saving throws, some of which I've already pointed out can be contradictory to each other and puts it in one stat, where effectively though rare that something comes up causing a problem in this system, when it does come up, it usually results in a death which is at best ooc.  I think this is something that needs to be changed and needs to be changed as soon as possible.  This game is harsh enough as is and when a long time player dies on something as random like this it really hurts plot lines.  

I might further point out, most of the time (I've seen) it's just plain ooc.  The soldier could be trying to arrest them for the smallest infraction, including a templar simply wanting to ask them about a crime they witnessed and the char ends up dead because the code works that way.  Characters have to adjust their rp to work around this code, templars and soldiers have to pretend as if this somehow made sense and characters who got killed have to pretend, at least their players do, that they didn't just more or less have a soldier walk up behind them and smite them.  

Seriously, this results in a player dead before they can act, in my case I didn't even see what hit me, I think that's the case for most people.  If this has come up many times in the past then it's clearly a persistent problem that needs a fix and the last thing we need is people to take a moderate sort of indifferent approach to it.

I don't mean offense Pantoufle.  I'm sorry for picking on you, I respect your opinions.

[spawnloser]

Command: nosave
Usage: nosave OR nosave {option}

Using nosave without options will bring up all the different options you
have and their current settings.  Using nosave and the option will toggle
the use of that specific facet of nosave.

Examples:
> nosave
> Your nosave for law is set to ON.
> Your nosave for climb is set to OFF.
> Your nosave for poison is set to ON.
> Your nosave for magic is set to ON.
> Your nosave for chittychittyboomboom is set to ON.

> nosave law
> Your nosave for law has been set to OFF.

I would prefer syntax like:

> nosave
You are currently not resisting arrest.
You are currently not resisting subdues.
You are currently not failing climb checks.
You are currently not failing poison saves.
You are currently not failing magick saves
You are currently failing to shake shake shake, shake your booty.

> nosave arrest
You will now resist arrest.

> nosave shake
You now shake shake shake, shake your booty.

[bloodfromstone]

I'm pretty much in full agreement with UnderSeven on this one. The guard code is so lethal that something should be done. A PC can get turned into a fine, red mist in one round because someone else slipped spice into their inventory, when there is no way the PC would have taken up arms to try to protect that grain of spice. Nosave needs some work. NPC guards should also be carrying clubs to make a non-lethal arrest more likely, being the killing machines that they are.

[Larrath]

Honestly, I really feel that adding this is trivial and easy.

IF (subduer is npc AND subduer has act_cityguard)
  dont_resist();
else
  kill (them);

Add it as a completely separate blurb in the Score and give it its own name.  
Make it not confusing, though, like Lawresist.  That way people won't get mixed up too much.

This would help the game so much and save so many newbies...it could toggle on the ON setting to give the newbies a bit of a hand.  Come on, tell me this change would take more than ten minutes from start to finish.

[Fnord]

This has been suggested on the GDB and in meetings more times than I can remember. I really, really hope it happens, as it's a easy way to lose characters for the wrong reasons.

[UnderSeven]

One reason why I think we as players need to do everything we can from preventing this from dying and being forgotten about.  Horra!