TheHopscotchThe Danger Setting
#11
Disagree with the idea that aggressive should have forced capture rolls. It gives no extra AP like Danger and I like it as an intermediate between fights where there's a genuine desire to severely maim/capture and just a couple of people getting really pissed at each other and having a fight that's going to get out of hand.

If a danger has a capture roll of 0, though, either there's something shady happening or the people fighting just don't know what they're doing.
Reply
#12
The state of the game will drastically change if temps were actually dangerous. 75% medic will make even aggressives kinda spooky. Then safety will truly disappear and the market for elixirs will be on a boom. Right now you get a temp and immediately get smooched on the head like you were never even injured in the first place, erasing the danger in the first place. Only perms are dangerous, tbh. So... if you want something real spicy then encourage medic to work as intended as well.
[Image: guintitus-1.png][Image: rykermatryona.png]
Reply
#13
Thinking back on it (and hear me out!)
I think... Maybe actually coding OUT Cap 0s is a bad idea. Sometimes you just want to hurt someone and not necessarily cap them, but you also want to let the roll of the dice determine if they're hurt or not. Cap 0.
It doesn't have to just be for first encounters.

In fact a lot of first encounters that I've heard/seen of, I was told was suggested cap 1. Not 0.

Edit with further thoughts:
Also expecting admins to moderate any and all fights that may result in death is... Pushing it. A lot.
Not from a "omg they bias!" standpoint but from a standpoint of sometimes an admin just ISN'T bloody available. You can't expect them to hold everyone's hands.

On that same token, I VAGUELY recall admins stating the stance on deaths being poor/iffy is they should have ahelped during the scene, not after? Please correct me if I am wrong.
[Image: qt6dQlw.png]
Reply
#14
I feel like dictating a characters story on weather they can verb or not is...Annoying.
I'm not the best verber, and I often enjoy playing antags.
Whenever you leave home base, you are a target. 
Grime is real, too.
A witch caught by an Osronian? You dead, bro.
Even as an antag, I never forced even dangers on people.
I've learned its not fun if the other person is uncomfortable or not okay with what is happening.
It's called character creation for a reason.

Why is this even an issue....
Who are you trying to cap? XD
[Image: OzJetPV.jpg]
Reply
#15
Please respond with a post, rather than just editing the initial post which everyone will ignore once this gets to page 2. It's a continual discussion, editing your initial post after the fact is annoying. Additionally, I did read your entire post, bold of you to assume I didn't.

My personal issue with the removal of Cap1's is in regards to my very small trust for the community to self-regulate such things. It's ignorant and just plain obfuscation to imply that the community can self-manage and regulate the 'Kill' instinct some players have. It's not necessarily a bad thing to kill a character, the cycling of characters is what allows the plot to continue and branch out into new fields and topics. Thusly, having discussed the nature of how the plot moves with character death, let's move on to the danger settings themselves.

There is nothing -wrong- with an initial Cap1 danger, absolutely not. This is something that his been put into peoples mind's over their course of playing the game. The Cap0 is an expression of a players will to interact, and potentially injure the player, while allowing them to have the agency to develop from this afterwards. Being imprisoned and/or having a counter-expressive plot thrown onto you removes that agency. Some players enjoy such things, some do not. I'm not here necessarily to give my opinion on such things. I personally do not, but that's just because it's not my bag.

Forcing players to take a risk that they might not want to take will, in my opinion, cause players to opt for a cap0 restrained in their first fight, only for the admins to tell them. "No you can't do that." Even if they were just out casually gathering herbs for whatever reason, and some antag just had the raging urge to ruin someone's day. Killing/Imprisoning some random alchemist won't do anything to move the plot, and their likely to just ignore your 'makin u evil' plot. It just serves as an easy, lazy journal entry, which the admins may or may not recognize, they aren't perfect.

Why do you think the 'shonen boy can't feel and/or likes pain' trope is so common in this game. It's annoying, and low quality RP, but it exists as a result of someone being unhappy with the torture they are now undergoing, which will agitate the captor, and result in them just killing them for a feeling of disrespect.

It's because people don't like to lose that agency, which is what happens to someone when you capture them.



All this said, I'm not inherently opposed to the idea of Cap0's being removed from dangers/aggros. I just have an extremely high level of doubt in that such a thing will go well, for every 'Ill just let you go fam.' post that comes from this, I expect two or three 'To the gulag with you.' posts. This isn't a bad thing, I just don't really see it being good for the game. It's a highly competitive near-PvP enviroment, in which you have people who don't necessarily enjoy the PvP fun.

This is what the Cap0 is for.

It's not for danger-farming to players like me who are more passive, it's for players who don't like the idea of losing their character over harvesting some Poppylus in the wrong place, at the wrong time.

Or maybe I'm just a screaming beta-male, who knows.



Also, Ryou makes a good point.


Edit : This posts formatting is a mess. It didn't post and I lost most of the formatting, sorry if the lack of the quote confuses anyone.
Reply
#16
(01-17-2021, 02:10 AM)Milly Wrote: Edit with further thoughts:
Also expecting admins to moderate any and all fights that may result in death is... Pushing it. A lot.
Not from a "omg they bias!" standpoint but from a standpoint of sometimes an admin just ISN'T bloody available. You can't expect them to hold everyone's hands.

On that same token, I VAGUELY recall admins stating the stance on deaths being poor/iffy is they should have ahelped during the scene, not after? Please correct me if I am wrong.

I believe the last part was mentioned in discord when it was brought up, but I'm not sure.

As for the concept, I think that if you can't get ahold of an admin for an iffy scene the rules should be amended to let you leave it without a penalty.
Reply
#17
(01-17-2021, 02:04 AM)ry0un0suke Wrote: The state of the game will drastically change if temps were actually dangerous. 75% medic will make even aggressives kinda spooky. Then safety will truly disappear and the market for elixirs will be on a boom. Right now you get a temp and immediately get smooched on the head like you were never even injured in the first place, erasing the danger in the first place. Only perms are dangerous, tbh. So... if you want something real spicy then encourage medic to work as intended as well.



Adding on this.

While I agree that fights in general should be less safe, there's not much point for me to do cap 1+ for anyone who clearly stands no chance against me (i.e a child), nor I'd be interested in taking them down.

If it's someone who can beat me, and/ or someone who has even done so in the past, I tend to throw anywhere between cap 1-3 and it's also a mutual agreement - both myself and the opponent pose a risk of capture or death, and if it's mutual, it's fine.

Though, forcing it on players who aren't inclined to do much combat isn't the best move.



With that said, when was that rework with temporary nerfs coming?

IMO it should halve the remaining temporary injury time, f.ex if you have 96 hours left - you go down to 48 hours. If you have 48 hours left, you go down to 24 hours, and so on.

Medics should be able to treat same person multiple times (f.ex you can drop 96 hours to 48 hours, then 48 hours to 24 hours) - which represents the way actual medicine works. It's a steady, gradual process of healing, opposed to giving them a brief tap and suddenly they've fully recovered.

This would make even aggressives hold meaning behind them. Recovery from temporary injury might be rough and take a while.
Reply
#18
i'm torn! i really am! on instinct i downvoted when i read the post! i will fully admit that, i have removed said downvote because it just got me thinking is all.

i don't like the idea of first encounters having a cap. that's just me! but..

let's take an example of! A big bad of 220 RPL is in their home city, and some baby spawns in and IMMEDIATELY starts shit talking them. over and over again. they shouldn't be defended by the 0 cap restraint rule regardless of RPL. because that's just

it's stupid? there's leniency then there's

'i have now warned you 50+ times not to talk mad smack icly. like 50+ times. and you're still doing it."

i am someone that prefers 0 cap dangers-aggressive till there's proper buildup. but i also understand that there are people who will.. roleplay some.. uhm. really dumb ideas that destroy any sense of the scene, break immersion, and makes me go "well they only did that cause they know they can get away with a 0 cap."

but i honestly do like the idea of danger cap having to be 1s. aggressives less so since aggressives feel more like 'im going to teach this punk a lesson'. i also like ryo's idea of making injuries actually more PAINFUL. temp ones specifically, since they can just be healed away by medic in a snap of the finger! there are TONS of medics out there. TONS.

i guess i also think aggressives should ALWAYS 100% temp injure the loser. because that's what aggressive feels like. it feels like someone going "Alright. I don't want to kill/cap you. But you've gotten on my nerves and I need to put you in your place." sort of vibe for me. barring situations where the RPL gap is just way too much but yeah.
I swear I'm not...
[Image: 6d7a3f4d84055aacec42e9e916296a47.png]
[Image: f6b263cfa536c446e088c6c6a5d319e7.png]
I'm not owned guys.
Reply
#19
(01-17-2021, 02:18 AM)Sandshark Wrote:
(01-17-2021, 02:10 AM)Milly Wrote: Edit with further thoughts:
Also expecting admins to moderate any and all fights that may result in death is... Pushing it. A lot.
Not from a "omg they bias!" standpoint but from a standpoint of sometimes an admin just ISN'T bloody available. You can't expect them to hold everyone's hands.

On that same token, I VAGUELY recall admins stating the stance on deaths being poor/iffy is they should have ahelped during the scene, not after? Please correct me if I am wrong.

I believe the last part was mentioned in discord when it was brought up, but I'm not sure.

As for the concept, I think that if you can't get ahold of an admin for an iffy scene the rules should be amended to let you leave it without a penalty.

This isn't bad, but the amount of screech from the other party would be overwhelming.
[Image: qt6dQlw.png]
Reply
#20
as for the actual effortpost now that my ishgarde fate is done:

I do not think that this is a solution and it might as well make some problems that currently exist worse.

While I certainly understand the intent to avoiding a cap 0 existing, I believe it does more good than harm for the sake of the plot itself. It might be more of a question of rulings instead of removing that option entirely- A first encounter, specially one against the aforementioned 220 RPL supervillain from Achyon, should not kill someone who is a new character with far more story to develop - Or even, not get the possibility to capture that other character. If the latter ends up captured, they might be either forced to steer themselves towards something that would cause their release, face a few days in prison with no RP at all which quite frankly kills most people's drive, or eventually get killed because they're in opposing factions- What is not IC about killing the son of your opposing faction's leader?

You might cite that deaths should be more moderated and indeed, I agree- There are many options out there instead of killing every single character you oppose and capture, and not everyone is fond of them, usually for a mentality that either boils down to kill = dev = cool new hidden or kill = we win, both of which are... Fine? The game has never worked differently, and I cannot imagine a world that isn't an outright utopia where such isn't the case, even if there are certain bad actors that overdo such.

A cap 0 not existing is a clear step in the wrong direction, to my opinion. It is one that might not matter too much for the people who are already in the upper brackets, competing with people who are around their level and likely with the same amount of hiddens- In those cases, a cap 0 is rarely used. The only thing that the removal of a cap 0 would achieve is getting new characters, who have entire arcs ahead of them, occasionally getting captured in one first encounter that happened at random with someone from the enemy faction and... Dying.

Perhaps it would be healthier to analyze the possibility of making temporary injuries not vanish instantly upon being treated by a doctor, and being instead something that weighs in people's attitude. A temp, as is, is often disregarded by people because they can just either AFK inside their house for a couple days, drink a healing potion, or talk to their doctor friend and get it instantly healed- As if it never happened in the first place. That being said, people often do aggressives because there is just little impact and they get a danger check - Removing that would allow for rivalries to thrive, give an alternative for a massive RPL gap that just isn't fun for the losing side to do a danger on, and not cause the situations where someone's clearly just fishing for that danger check. Of course, this also means that a lower RPL who gets in a disadvantageous fight loses a 'danger check', but I believe it wouldn't be too difficult to implement a system where it only rewards the fighters of an aggressive when they are at a considerable disadvantage.

Maybe bring -20 injuries back. I don't know, really- And I don't want to spitball even more half-assed ideas.

All in all, I believe stronger rules towards kills is a correct step, and ideally the search for alternatives when faced with a potentially good story would come from the players rather than from a rule. Instead of removing the cap 0, leave it up to players- And add a rule that if a player abuses the 'safety net', they can be liable to a cap 1 or something akin to that. We can take a page from many IRL laws and easily establish that doing something in bad faith removes certain benefits - And insulting a much higher RPL in what is a poor taste scene only because the safety net exists is acting in bad faith. Obviously, territory rules should cover those as well- Doing so in the woods is already one thing, but doing it in their very city is insulting even at an OOC level. Of course, a rule about acting in bad faith would also protect those in lower levels from being taken advantage of by higher levels.
[Image: Fky6ssr.png]
Reply
Topic Options
Forum Jump:




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)