No engine death/creation of OOC GM council (auch in deutsch)

[pharse]

(deutsch weiter unten)

Why?

• engine death (clouding) and chaotic storyline (groups fighting against each other wanting to win at all costs) are the main reasons for OOC flamewars and bad behaviour in-game.

what?

• no engine death possible i.e. no clouding. So the players have to roleplay being hurt or dying or the fight lasts eternal or until logout... Big advantage: enough time for emotes.
• a council consisting of the leaders of all important IG groups/guilds and the GMs creates an obligatory storyline. So most players won't know e.g. how a war will end but the leader can tell his followers in the dramatic last moments: "We have no chance... I will announce our surrender."
  No flamewar, it was agreed by all involved leaders. Of course the concerning leader has failed and he can be overthrown or beheaded etc. So a defeat effects mostly a leader - in long-term. That's the price for leading and having a say in the storyline.

How?

• There could be a forced emote which indicates that the char reached this certain health level. So the engine still decides who gets first this emote but actually the players decide who wins the fight (e.g. if it doesn't fit in the storyline), or actually the winner of the fight decides it. If the loser refuses to lose, that is "bad behaviour" and is to be reported to a GM.
• Now the technical part.
  When the engine notices that a char is "dead", there is a forced emote. Now I suggest that the use of the 'alt' and 'ctrl' button are restricted (actually it is only necessary that no damage can be dealt and no XP can be gained) and of course the char can't lose more hitpoints.
  I also suggest that the attributes are all set to 1 until the char visites a holy place (yellow cross), is resurrected (priests) or is attended (druids). (temporal skill decrease is also possible) Then the same script like now is invoked, ending with the "feel reborn" message.
  Best would be if the monsters could check if the char is "dead" and don't attack those (no idea if possible)....that is a weak point in this proposal.
• Now what is with those players who have uber-skilled chars, with wich they always 'technically' win, and do never voluntarily lose?
  * Pity that they exist... but here the GM council idea jumps in.
  
  Firstly, every group will be forced to lose and win from time to time, not every single fight but in general. So everyone gets a sense of achievement which is of course important for the player's mood. Additionally everyone knows that there IS a storyline and the next 'overall' win will come certainly. It promotes the feeling that we all play together, so such a misfitting event loses its severity....(quite difficult to explain especiall in English, but I hope you get what I mean).
  
  Secondly, if such events get out of hand, GM council intervention is needed. The players have to adjust their roleplay for the public welfare, thus loyalty to the leaders becomes more important. If necessary some IC reasons can be created like a curse etc by which the char doesn't leave His/her role.
  In worst case this trouble maker has to be punished with GM means.

I only want to gather some opinions and new impressions. Are you interested or are you against it?


*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

Kein technischer Tod / Bilden eines OOC Gamemaster-Rates

Warum?

• technischer Tod ("wolken") und chaotische Handlungen (Gruppen kämpfen gegeneinander und wollen um jeden Preis gewinnen) sind die Hauptgründe für OOC Flamewars und schlechtes Benehmen im Spiel.

Was?

• Kein technischer Tod, d.h. "wolken" möglich. Somit müssen die Spieler Verletzungen oder den Tod selbst spielen oder der Kampf geht ewig oder bis zum Ausloggen... Großer Vorteil: Genug Zeit für Emotes.
• Ein Rat, der aus den Anführern der wichtigsten IG Gruppen/Gilden und den Gamemastern besteht, entwirft eine verbindliche Handlung. Somit werden die meisten Spieler nicht zB den Ausgang eines Krieges wissen, aber der Anführer kann seinen Anhängern in den letzten dramatischen Momenten sagen: "Wir haben keine Chance... ich werde unsere Aufgabe bekannt geben."
  Kein Flamewar, es wurde von allen beteiligten Anführern beschlossen. Natürlich hat dann der betreffende Anführer versagt und kann abgewählt, geköpft etc werden. Damit beeinflusst eine Niederlage am meisten den Anführer - auf lange Sicht. Das ist der Preis fürs Führen und ein Mitspracherecht in der Handlung.
  Der Rat achtet natürlich auf Gleichheit und wird keine Gruppe extrem bevorzugen. Dadurch spielen wir wirklich miteinander und nicht gegeneinander.

Wie?

• Es könnte ein aufgezwungenes Emote geben, welches quasi darauf hinweist, dass der Char ein bestimmtes Gesundheitslevel erreicht hat (0 Trefferpunkte?) Also entscheidet immernoch die Technik, wer als erstes das Emote bekommt, aber die SPieler entscheiden, wer den Kampf gewinnt (wenn es zB nicht in die Handlung passt) oder eigentlich der Gewinner entscheidet es. Wenn der Verlierer sich weigert, zu verlieren, ist das "schlechtes Verhalten" und muss einem GM gemeldet werden.
• Nun der technische Teil.
  Wenn der Server nun feststellt, dass ein Char "tot" ist, wird dieser zu einem Emote gezwungen. Nun schlage ich vor, dass komplett jede Benutzung der 'Alt' und 'Strg' Taste gesperrt ist (eigentlich ist es nur notwendig, dass man keinen Schaden mehr machen kann und keine Erfahrungspunkte bekommt)Und natürlich, dass der Char keine weiteren Trefferpunkte verlieren kann.
  Ich schlage auch vor, dass die Attribute zu 1 gesetzt werden, bis der Char einen heiligen Ort besucht (gelbes Kreuz), wiederbelebt wird (Priester) oder behandelt wird (Druiden). (zeitliche Senkung von Skills auch möglich) Das gleiche Skript wie jetzt wird geladen, welches dann mit der "wie neugeboren" Nachricht endet.
  Das Beste wäre, wenn die Monster prüfen könnten, ob ein Char "tot" ist und ihn dann nicht angreifen (weiß nicht in wie weit möglich)....das ist ein Schwachpunkt in diesem Vorschlag.
• Tja und was ist mit den Spielern mit Uber-geskillten Chars, mit denen sie 'technisch' immer gewinnen aber nie freiwillig verlieren?
  * Schade dass es die gibt....aber hier kommt der GM Rat ins Spiel.
  
  [[Bin zu müde um den Rest zu übersetzen....morgen dann ]]

Ich möchte nur ein paar Meinungen und neue Eindrücke sammeln. Seid ihr interessiert oder dagegen?

[Pellandria]

Good idea, but I fearit will solve...simply nothing, people will now more than ever stand on their skills like "but I have yellow skills, I want to kill everyone in sight, I'm the hero" roleplay or just start things like they rp to win ..simply forcing other people to loose constantly, there will be lowered rate of flaming, but in the same time the rate of forced rp will raise dramaticly.

[AlexRose]

At risk of being flamed: I oppose.

Means people will get away with rping no fear, not responding to your emotes and such things.

Would monsters be able to kill people?

Yeah, yeah, go ahead, say "Oh, cos you'd LOVE them to keep the system", well yeah, I would love them to keep the system. I don't pk much at all, but I don't think this is a good idea. In fact, without pk I'd have never learned, or cared etc. why you should leave bad guys alone. Plus, someone comes up and annoys you, keeps annoying you, you draw a blade at him or something, he just carries on annoying you, you thrust the blade, he dodges every time successfully, he can do whatever the hell he likes.

It seems truly ridiculous to me to disable pk, and would completely change the game.

Plus, don't even act like wars would work, you wouldn't be able to read each other's emotes with 40 people all rping their personal fights.

So: as I'm sure a lot of you expected, and will be ready to pounce on in the other thread, saying "LOOK HE LIKES PK BURN HIM", I do not agree.

[pharse]

I don't want to deactivate the fighting system. The "dying" player could get a forced emote pointing to his critical health condition - obvious for everybody. This could be an indication, obvious for everybody, who "should" win the fight. If constantly disregarded, GM intervention will follow.

[Kevin Lightdot]

Sorry Pharse, but this will work even worse with Illarion's current situation I am quite sure.

People will likely bicker and moan about who should win.
It might work in a stricter, more mature rp !environment! with more gms, but nah, it won't work here.

[AlexRose]

I don't want to deactivate the fighting system. The "dying" player could get a forced emote pointing to his critical health condition - obvious for everybody. This could be an indication, obvious for everybody, who "should" win the fight. If constantly disregarded, GM intervention will follow.

... So what exactly is the difference? It's exactly the same, except you don't have skill loss, item loss, waiting to feel reborn and walking to the cross.

i.e. it's exactly like dying, but there's no penalty. Oh yes, everyone will be scared of death this way.

[Juliana D'cheyne]

(deutsch weiter unten)

Why?

• engine death (clouding) and chaotic storyline (groups fighting against each other wanting to win at all costs) are the main reasons for OOC flamewars and bad behaviour in-game.

what?

• no engine death possible i.e. no clouding. So the players have to roleplay being hurt or dying or the fight lasts eternal or until logout... Big advantage: enough time for emotes.
  
  I assume you are discussing separating PvP from NPC fighting somehow? If not, that may be a problem in itself. If it can be separated....i.e. PvP vs NPC fighting, that is a good way to handle it, but wouldn't it be similar to games allowing no PvP at all?
  
  What about allowing 2-3 ghostings in a certain time frame before there is skill loss? It may not help with the emotes, but would help as far as the hard feelings.. also that char could leave the area, avoid the other if wanted.
  
  I again, as mentioned in another thread, think it would be helpful to let the other know ooc your preferences on PvP and confrontational RP.
• a council consisting of the leaders of all important IG groups/guilds and the GMs creates an obligatory storyline. So most players won't know e.g. how a war will end but the leader can tell his followers in the dramatic last moments: "We have no chance... I will announce our surrender."
  No flamewar, it was agreed by all involved leaders. Of course the concerning leader has failed and he can be overthrown or beheaded etc. So a defeat effects mostly a leader - in long-term. That's the price for leading and having a say in the storyline.

I like the idea of the leaders deciding ooc the main basics of the confrontation.. even to the outcome. I also like the idea of the players not being aware of this. IMO that presents less opportunities for hard feelings.

How?

• Don't be afraid, I have some ideas for the (mostly technical) conversion.

I only want to gather some opinions and new impressions. Are you interested or are you against it?

[pharse]

It might work in a stricter, more mature rp enviorment with more gms, but nah, it won't work here.

Isn't that what we (most of us...) are longing for?


If someone is constantly forcing his own win, people will avoid this person, hell you could even just shrug and go away if this person always "dodges" your hits.

i.e. it's exactly like dying, but there's no penalty. Oh yes, everyone will be scared of death this way.

Not exactly. It is a "social" punishment and finally a GM punishment. And this proposal is PRO roleplayer (fear of death) and NOT CONTRA powergamer (no fear of death).

/edit: as concerning PvP vs PvNPC came up: when the engines notes that your char is dead, he won't do any damage or learn anything, of course somehow Attrib loss etc can be implemented.

[Kevin Lightdot]

It might work in a stricter, more mature rp enviorment with more gms, but nah, it won't work here.

Isn't that what we (most of us...) are longing for?

Got 20 gms to spare?

[AlexRose]

A social punishment? Not really. It's exactly the same as now, except without the penalties. People rp injuries now, people will rp injuries then.

[Shingo]

PERMA-DEATH

[pharse]

A social punishment? Not really. It's exactly the same as now, except without the penalties. People rp injuries now, people will rp injuries then.

A "bad roleplayer!" news will spread around....and of course GM intervention works only if the players report bad behaviour. So if a GM gets many reports, he should have a closer look at this player. Better a report than flamewars etc.

/edit:

PERMA-DEATH

Off topic.

[Retlak]

One thing i can say to this topic:

It's a start, to try and make something better.

So far, i see not enough bad factors to outweigh the good ones.

[AlexRose]

A social punishment? Not really. It's exactly the same as now, except without the penalties. People rp injuries now, people will rp injuries then.

A "bad roleplayer!" news will spread around....and of course GM intervention works only if the players report bad behaviour. So if a GM gets many reports, he should have a closer look at this player. Better a report than flamewars etc.

Alright then, I guess this skull thing would work. You've swayed me .

I hereby agree with the proposal ^^ .

[jregan91]

hmmm it seems to be brilliant so it will help the new comers not be pked

[pharse]

Thanks for your support. I thought that we had lots of restrictions in the past which also harm roleplayers. So why not trying a pro roleplayer approach with much freedom. As I wrote, it works only if the players report bad behaviour. But because this bad behaviour has no disadvantages for that player (perhaps a short waste of time) there won't be as many flamewars and stuff as now, at least I assume.

/@ jregan91: Actually I have no idea what you mean.

[Nitram]

Sorry, pharse, but i have actually no idea what you try to tell me with that.

[nmaguire]

I hate the idea of "You can't influence the storyline" and I don't get it, instead of clouding we now have neverending fights with "#me catches a bullet and throws it back at the man" "#me dodges it though, and moves at the speed of light, killing the man before he blinks"

[pharse]

Sorry, pharse, but i have actually no idea what you try to tell me with that.

erm, I hope you mean my last post. Just a comment how the idea came in my mind.


@nmaguire: !gm <message>, then go away if you are annoyed. There are some players who will act properly.

[Djironnyma]

Ich halte nix von der Idee, abgesehen da ich glaube das es keinen wirklichen vorteil bringt.

Abgesehen davon würde solch ein rat nicht lange überleben, bevor er inaktivwird, oder sich zerstreitet.....

[Juliana D'cheyne]

edit: as concerning PvP vs PvNPC came up: when the engines notes that your char is dead, he won't do any damage or learn anything, of course somehow Attrib loss etc can be implemented

.

Sorry, still trying to understand, you are saying that with Pvp and PvNPC both, there will be no learning if a char is dead, and will still be attribute loss however, isn't this the same as with ghosting now? Or am I misunderstanding something?

And can PvNPC and PvP be separately recognized by the script? If this can be separated, I think it is a good idea, particularly if PvP has no attribute loss.

[AlexRose]

edit: as concerning PvP vs PvNPC came up: when the engines notes that your char is dead, he won't do any damage or learn anything, of course somehow Attrib loss etc can be implemented

.

Sorry, still trying to understand, you are saying that with Pvp and PvNPC both, there will be no learning if a char is dead, and will still be attribute loss however, isn't this the same as with ghosting now? Or am I misunderstanding something?

And can PvNPC and PvP be separately recognized by the script? If this can be separated, I think it is a good idea, particularly if PvP has no attribute loss.

Like ghosting, but they don't turn into a ghost, they can't fight anyone anymore, they can't get fought, they can't learn anything so there's no use doing anything, and they basically have to rp being severely injured or you can tell your local gm. Turns being clouded into an rp opportunity without you getting pissed off hopefully.

[pharse]

Abgesehen davon würde solch ein rat nicht lange überleben, bevor er inaktivwird, oder sich zerstreitet.....

Deshalb werden die GMs den Vorsitz haben, um zu schlichten und evt Entscheidungen zu treffen. Somit wird der Rat nie wirklich inaktiv (ausgehend davon, dass die GMs nicht ihre Aufgaben vernachlässigen). Wenn ein Anführer sich nicht beteiligt, wird er wohl abgewählt oder ersetzt von seinen Gefolgsleuten.


Vorteil == weniger flamewars etc.

[Retlak]

I honestly really like this proposial.

I mean if someone gets clouded currently, (especially if it's unfair, like a sudden ctrl click with little time to respond) They lose their items, and skills, and end up being pissed for a while and possibly flame, because they had no chance to roleplay in the scenario.

If this system is realised, people won't get clouded and end up being useless without the possibility to emote and have to float to a cross all alone and sigh over their losses, and then complain.

[Shingo]

I mean if someone gets clouded currently, (especially if it's unfair, like a sudden ctrl click with little time to respond) They lose their items, and skills, and end up being pissed for a while and possibly flame, because they had no chance to roleplay in the scenario.

this has never in my entire time of illa happened to me. (except by newbs who can't hurt anyway)

[Retlak]

It happened to a few people (Where i got the examples from).

But either way, have you ever battled in a 'war'? Where there are 5+ people against another 5+ or however many.

No one get's a chance to emote etc, it's crazy.

[Llama]

I lyke this a lot to be honest.

However it would make 'assassinations' and stuff like that rather useless. Perhaps allowing the clouding of certain people (with their permission)

[maryday]

Wub is a . . fla`mee?


Beeing clouded now and then keeps the char flexible.
The fear of item loss gives most exciting adrenaline experiences.


Though i like the idea..a bit. The main problem is, the council would only be able to interchange with key-persons from a quest.
If not, flame would result, as disussion is permitted in public.

Determining key persons. (after a quest (-part) has ended, and the commence is maybe still open)
This would probably shift the entire game into direction of the RPboards.
NOT a bad idea.

Determining the maximal ammount of keyroles per char, per time.


Interesting concept. But you might have to evolve a elaborate points rationing scheme to allocate the places of each char on the ladder of importance, for each quest.


Giving up the fear of death, may lead to a cutification of the entire atmosphere.
Not a promising idea for a place, where on every sqareinch a corpse waits to be risen.






On the other hand it might again strenghten the demand for apple-finish.
Not i have a problem with it, because the wheel succeeds the bullock.

[HolyKnight]

I like this idea a lot! Mainly for the fact that you can RP fighting better and not worry about "oh shit where is my health" and it allows you to RP mortal/near mortal wounds in battle instead of getting ghosted and having to go to the cross before you can emote your injuries.

However, on the flip side I hate the idea that there is ZERO consequence when you are completely out of health. so here are the points:

No permanent skill lose because that is honestly just frustrating
When you health reaches 0, however, temporary skill/attribute lose should occur like the feeling reborn message. This way there is still consequences for being pwn'd
No ghosts and crosses
Your items should still be dropped when reaching zero health because that is just logical.

[Nitram]

I have to admitt that I don't get this proposal. I see some lines of writing, but I don't understand what you say with this.

I guess, in case i understand parts in the correct way, that this is about disableing the death in PvP. And if its really about this, I want to tell you, that his idea plain and simple does not work. All players in Illarion, beside of a very small part, can't loose. So they won't give up, even if the health bar is down. Those who can loose, will always loose, because the other ones never give up.

Well and now we get a new core of flamewars. "xyz did gave up, while he had to be out of health" "abc lies, i had still half of my health"...

Nitram