Charon
(enthusiast)
11/21/07 10:35 AM
Castle Raiding

Darke has gone soft. Let me tell you a story.

A group of people go castle raiding, 4 of them and find people inside the castle whom they kill but the raid is thwarted.

Said people then try to loot another castle owned by the same group. That group has a couple members unhiatus and kills the castle looters as a deterrant to not come back.

The would-be looters then whine and cry and say they are quitting the mud.

People.. if you have the nerve to jump into people's castles uninvited, you have to be prepared to suck up a death or two. That's how life on darke works.

What did this group expect? "Haha! We caught you.. here's our stuff.. good one!" Much like in real life actions have consequences and if you arne't prepared to face possible consequences don't do the action.


Kim
(enthusiast)
11/21/07 11:14 AM
Re: Castle Raiding

You shouldn't t try to loot until you know you can handle the consequences \:\)

(The consequence being me or Luna being upset with you \:\) )


Muod
(member)
11/21/07 01:39 PM
Re: Castle Raiding

I have to agree, in the old days people had more backbone, sucked it up, hell now you dont even loose your armour if you get killed, so you can still play you just have a dc which only takes a few hours to go away.

when i first joined darke i was killed non-stop for weeks by some AM who didn't like my name, then i remade only to be hunted again for seperate reasons, now people automatically assume they are safe and shouldn't be touched.


sabu
(journeyman)
11/21/07 02:28 PM
Re: Castle Raiding

I find it funny at the fact that there was that many people on at the same time, but shrugs. But as it has been said, you got what you had comeing and if you cannot take the consequesnces have fun playing a some place else.

Charon
(enthusiast)
11/22/07 11:33 AM
Re: Castle Raiding

Yeah, a whole two in the castle.

Oh well. I remember the old days when thieves and nightblades hid their guild for as long as possible to avoid getting killed off.

When you looted somebody's castle you fully expected your castle to be empty and aggro runed the next time you logged on so you hoped that nobody knew who it was!

But now it's almost no consequence since you can log off with all of your equipment (instead of dropping it all on logoff), you can't be looted when killed and you can't aggro rune a castle. I think the pussification, for lack fo a better word, has gone a little too far.


carmy
(member)
11/22/07 04:26 PM
Re: Castle Raiding

Especially since it isn't appealing to new players in the least. If it was a matter of the game being too hard that was stopping people from playing, we'd have a larger pbase by now.

Muod
(member)
11/22/07 06:32 PM
Re: Castle Raiding

I agree

CerberusAdministrator
(addict)
11/28/07 11:32 PM
Re: Castle Raiding

Waxing nostalgic for times gone by aside, what should we be doing? I played extensively in the "good ol' days", participating in castle raids; taking over enemy castles; murderous streaks and the like (with the former two being much less likely for me than the latter... but that's neither here nor there), and what I remember of it is that once equipment was made to work people began complaining of the mud's wussification.

Since that time it's been going down hill. I haven't been particularly outspoken against any of it because I'm getting old and soft, but there is something to be said for a mud which has danger as a side effect of living. So what are our outs in this situation? Putting things "back the way they used to be" is going backward, and while it's the knee-jerk response, it's not at all useful to the growth of the mud as a whole.

I propose we take these things as given:
1) Eq loss is the most painful thing a character experiences
b) As risk goes up, so too should reward

So, to return to the original topic, castle looting has a high risk (mostly from being caught and hunted down eternally) with low reward (notably that the target won't lose their primary eq, nor will they log on to find themselves in the unenviable position of fighting a room full of pets they don't own on a rune that hates them without any chance of survival). I personally believe the risk is right - there should be a substantial difficulty associated with entering another's well defended domain - but that the reward should be increased.

Just as an initial thought, could we modify save on body to the old "protect" style (note: style, not functionality!) For those of us who aren't old enough to remember the protect command, you could save a number of items on your body as your entire inventory does currently (I believe the number was four) and log on with them as we are used to. While this would drastically increase the potential reward, with items like backpacks to keep the rest of essential gear hidden, it wouldn't hobble players who don't have easily accessable save rooms too terribly. Also, it would provide for another route to harm a player logging into what they thought was a safe area - namely, they'd have to spend at least one round to unpackage and equip their gear.

In the same vein, the fact that characters regularly carry unlimited amounts of money on their persons is pretty rediculous. If characters were limited to carrying 5,000 coins in their pockets, and required to carry strong boxes or safes, or other as-of-now-obsolete items to pay for big ticket items, there would be the opportunity to rob those same items of money.

I'd like to hear everyone else's feelings on these thoughts. It would be more useful if we avoided the tales of times gone by and focused on theories dealing with what the real "problem" is, and potential solutions... Or at least change for the sake of change.


carmy
(member)
11/29/07 12:43 AM
Re: Castle Raiding

I think if players are only allowed to carry a certain amount of coins, maybe make a pouch in the backpack for coins, and increase the amount that banks can hold, but they charge a fee over time for their use. Let's say 5% per month or something.

And, save on body isn't bad, I think the no-loot thing that's been in for like 7 months now needs to go. I never walked around with laen armour when I was level 6/6, that was just absurd. Now, people feel safe botting in laen armour. Jesus Christ.

I don't see anything wrong with castle raiding. If there was a decent pbase, people would have shit, and they'd have shit worth looting. So, looting a castle has, as a reward, keeping the crap that people had. When my castle was looted, I had like 1.5 million mcgrail stolen from me. If that wasn't a good reward, I don't know what was...


Kim
(enthusiast)
11/29/07 11:16 AM
Re: Castle Raiding

I don't mind save on body. I quite mind save on ghost. Especially with castle looting...For example, you catch some people in your treasury... they do #20 get bag... Now, they have the 20 bags that were on the floor.... And you can kill them silly, and they will STILL have your bags.

Without save on ghost, there would be a greater need for spare armour and weapons, since you run a real risk of losing what you wear, and so castles might be used more... Not to mention a greater demand for tinkers and enchanters (player interaction...).

Oh, and coins on your person is limited.. the limit is a bit high though... 5,000 would be a bit low, you would have to run to your safe several times per hour...


CerberusAdministrator
(addict)
11/29/07 12:33 PM
Re: Castle Raiding

I didn't realize we had a save on ghost feature. It seems not only counterintuitive, but a little drastic to boot. Was there ever discussion on why this was changed (something I could hopefully read myself, rather than hear second or fifth hand)?

Numbers are always a problem when suggesting things, but I would hope to have open dialogue on the topic. Realistic overtones aside, what would be a workable amount of money to max on a person? 100,000?

I'm sure there's a number of opinions. Wouldn't you be so kind as to voice those opinions and justify them? I went with the lowballed 5,000 because you could realistically carry, and buy a shop-set of new equipment with that amount. There's no reason to buy shop-sets of gear though, and realism is less than admirable in a computer game of this caliber, so what should we be able to do?


sabu
(journeyman)
11/29/07 12:58 PM
Re: Castle Raiding

What I have always found that was odd, is that the rate you could get money was increased, but the bank size wasn't. I would like to see the amount increased in banks and make their be bank guards, lets say 2-3 about the same level as guild guards are. Make the bank tellers be useless and once the guards are killed you would need a thief to open up lock boxes. This would add a lil more player interaction.

I would also like to see lets say players get 1 bank to access, their guild city bank. Their is a 50000 mcgrail cap on this bank. Now if players want to access other city banks, they have to pay a fee just like they would for castles and mines. Something fair but not too much like 5-10% what they had in the bank at the time. Their would also be a 50000 mcgrail cap on these banks also. So for a month it would cost 2500-5000 mcgrail to keep the money in the bank at max. Money is so easy to get, that wouldn't be to outragious an amount, since you already have 50k in 1 bank already...sheesh.

I would then limit the amount of money being able to be caried to 5000 without help being needed. Now if you needed to carry large sums of money you would need a money bag of holding(new item). These would have the same affects as bags of holding have as far as dropping off the player when they quit.


Kim
(enthusiast)
11/29/07 01:33 PM
Re: Castle Raiding

"I didn't realize we had a save on ghost feature. It seems not only counterintuitive, but a little drastic to boot. Was there ever discussion on why this was changed (something I could hopefully read myself, rather than hear second or fifth hand)?"

I have yet to hear an even half decent argument for why it was introduced...

"Numbers are always a problem when suggesting things, but I would hope to have open dialogue on the topic. Realistic overtones aside, what would be a workable amount of money to max on a person? 100,000?"

25,000 or so I would say...


Muod
(member)
11/29/07 06:43 PM
Re: Castle Raiding

yea and there was no discussion about save on ghost being added or no loot other then it just being there and not going away.

CerberusAdministrator
(addict)
11/30/07 08:32 AM
Re: Castle Raiding

If there is not currently a written statement for the direction the mud is taking, I think it should be considered. Something like 'save on ghost' fundamentally changes the way business is done in the player run economy, significantly alters the resources players have to (for instance) oust disreputable or undesirable guildmasters, and is in all ways a sign (to me, anyway) that the mud is changing courses.

A single document that states a few truths and then continues to make broad statements open to interpretation but with specific meaning at the time of writing would go a long way toward a unifying idea of the mud's future (think... Declaration of Independence). If there is already such a document at a level players aren't privvy to, then maybe something as easy as news on a change would allieviate some woes.


Charon
(enthusiast)
11/30/07 10:52 AM
Re: Castle Raiding

The general consensus seems to be that save on ghost is stupid. I have yet to hear one person suggest that it should be here for good.

As Harold stated it does ruin the economy which has already been disrupted a fair bit by the new runes and tinker reincs. Now everybody needs new armour to complete.

Oddly enough the new armour system also makes anybody but laen totally worthless as adding protection runes actually LOWERs the AC granted.


CerberusAdministrator
(addict)
12/01/07 10:43 AM
Re: Castle Raiding

It's hard to refute a system's usefulness when there's no information available on why it was supposed to be a good idea. Even so, it's obvious that there are (hopefully) unintended consequences from save on ghost. I'd be surprised to see it stick around exactly as is if anyone with the time and ability to make the change is reading this thread. Being unable to retrieve stolen goods or perform a hostile takeover on a dictator of a guildmaster in particular seem like they were just unnoticed side effects.

I didn't know there was an entirely new armour system. Is that the case, or is it secondary to the tinker remake?


Muod
(member)
12/01/07 11:39 AM
Re: Castle Raiding

the new armour system is just the new runes, if you add a new rune to anything but laen it adds neg ac in some places. but no, new armour is much stronger now because of all the runes.

mathias
(newbie)
12/10/07 04:22 PM
Re: Castle Raiding

 Originally Posted By: Kim
I have yet to hear an even half decent argument for why it was introduced...


If you get warped and then killed in warp you can log out, log in, and pray in the temple if there is no warp clearer (which is usually the case) or rezzer.


Kim
(enthusiast)
12/10/07 04:35 PM
Re: Castle Raiding

"If you get warped and then killed in warp you can log out, log in, and pray in the temple if there is no warp clearer (which is usually the case) or rezzer."

I still have to hear a half decent argument for why it was introduced...


mathias
(newbie)
12/10/07 04:39 PM
Re: Castle Raiding

 Originally Posted By: Kim
"If you get warped and then killed in warp you can log out, log in, and pray in the temple if there is no warp clearer (which is usually the case) or rezzer."

I still have to hear a half decent argument for why it was introduced...


Yeah I still see no point as to why save on ghost exists, but at least that is one use I found out for it. :p


carmy
(member)
12/10/07 06:48 PM
Re: Castle Raiding

The warp is such a great place to jump some people too, especially spell casters. It's crappy that you can't loot them.