Game Development: Seated in Valhalla

[azrid]

I beg to differ. Right now we have the option to post Alts at gates and evict if anyone comes near the gate in aggroing people. No it doesn't work 100% but it deters and gives a better chance, a much bigger chance than 5% I can assure you that. Not letting someone through a gate for a chance of safety because some other character aggroed them seems ridiculous in any standard.

Another option to explore in this reply here.
We need gates that autoevict as you enter it.
The noob gets to go home and the attacker might not want to get evicted and rekt.

[Granger]

Just keep gates as they are and just make them block red-handed characters currently in combat, track by which character combat was initiated and skip scent generation from combat for characters that just defend themselves (thus no red-handed for characters that don't initiate combat - even if they win over, and possibly kill, the aggressor).

Eww. Sounds horribly complex. I doubt even more rules and special treatment of redhandedness is what any system related to crimes and visitor debuffs needs right now.

It would in general make sense to not be marked as a criminal (thus no scents/red-handed/outlaw) for defending against the one(s) that started the fight., even if that leads to their premature demise. And not being able to pass through a gate that would give visitor while being red handed and in combat would neither difficult to implement nor any bit more unrealistic than the visitor debuff is in the first place.

What's horribly complex there?

That the usual suspects are against it is certain as they would have to kiss their auto-aggro bots goodby the moment initiating combat is given a downside.

[Ardennesss]

What's horribly complex there?
That the usual suspects are against it is certain as they would have to kiss their auto-aggro bots goodby the moment initiating combat is given a downside.

You're so autistic and out of touch with how the game is currently played that it hurts me physically to try to follow your train wreck of a thought process.

[Granger]

You're so autistic and out of touch with how the game is currently played that it hurts me physically to try to follow your train wreck of a thought process.

With 'how the game is currently played' you refer to the joke of PvP that is caused by the aftermath of the cumulative clusterfuck from quite some broken mechanics festering into a 'normal' (from your viewpoint) character - apart from being able to relieably off every mob (or arbitrary sized groups of them) in the game single-handed - carrying a cubic meter of water so he can benny hill around long enough for the opponent to run dry and slow down?

[Ardennesss]

It would in general make sense to not be marked as a criminal (thus no scents/red-handed/outlaw) for defending against the one(s) that started the fight, even if that leads to their premature demise.

This is already how it works, you don't leave scents for defending someone who aggros you.

And not being able to pass through a gate that would give visitor while being red handed and in combat would neither difficult to implement nor any bit more unrealistic than the visitor debuff is in the first place.

What's horribly complex there?

Nobody gets red handed until the fight is already over, given that the only combat actions that make you an outlaw are KOing and Murder.

That the usual suspects are against it is certain as they would have to kiss their auto-aggro bots goodby the moment initiating combat is given a downside.

This right here tells me you haven't actually played the game in a meaningful length of time, because "auto-aggro" bots are not a thing that anybody uses. The "usual suspects" are against this idea because it's a dumb idea, won't change anything, and will just make the already broken system even more complex to navigate.

carrying a cubic meter of water so he can benny hill around long enough for the opponent to run dry and slow down?

I think you meant to say "long enough for them to run 45 seconds to the nearest safe pali where they can port away."

[Granger]

Nobody gets red handed until the fight is already over, given that the only combat actions that make you an outlaw are KOing and Murder.

My point: a character that didn't initiate combat shouldn't create any scent from combat - while initating should give red handed and outlaw (boils down to making Smell of Assault summonable). Should have worded that clearer in the first place, I admit that I was a bit confused from ringofbrodgar.com/wiki/Scent stating (up to a few minutes ago, fixed that) that leaving any scent triggers red handed.

This right here tells me you haven't actually played the game in a meaningful length of time

You're wrong with that assumption, though I havn't played in a style that would qualify as anti-social (which slaugtering other people is, by definition).

I think you meant to say "long enough for them to run 45 seconds to the nearest safe pali where they can port away."

If this is ruining your fun you should think about petitioning the devs to make creation and maintaining of external (= not the one you actually live on) claims hard to impossible to maintain (eg. by not generating authority/presence when not on the claim and removing pclaim refill from character LP), not being able to sprinkle the map with walled claims should rid the game of visitor based safe palisades (and the recent change to decay should already have turned unclaimed walls into a maintenance nightmare).

Would that (Assault summonable, gates block red handed in combat, increased difficulty for remote claims) solve your problem with people getting away?

[Ardennesss]

My point: a character that didn't initiate combat shouldn't create any scent from combat - while initating should give red handed and outlaw (boils down to making Smell of Assault summonable). Should have worded that clearer in the first place, I admit that I was a bit confused from ringofbrodgar.com/wiki/Scent stating (up to a few minutes ago, fixed that) that leaving any scent triggers red handed.

Assault should not cause Outlaw, that's stupid. So if your village is under siege, and you need to go out to defend yourself, your only choice is to get outlawed in order to fend them off? Or do you also propose that any combat actions initiated from your own claim should absolve you of your crimes?

You're wrong with that assumption, though I havn't played in a style that would qualify as anti-social (which slaugtering other people is, by definition).

So you "play," but are completely clueless on PvP, yet would like to throw your 2 cents into an already overflowing jar of autism. Helpful.

If this is ruining your fun you should think about petitioning the devs to make creation and maintaining of external (= not the one you actually live on) claims hard to impossible to maintain (eg. by not generating authority/presence when not on the claim and removing pclaim refill from character LP), not being able to sprinkle the map with walled claims should rid the game of visitor based safe palisades (and the recent change to decay should already have turned unclaimed walls into a maintenance nightmare).

Arguably, this entire idea of changing Safe Palis could potentially be something that I spawned with a PM that I sent to Jorb on Wednesday the 17th where I specifically specified that Safe Palis are a problem, and they need to be addressed. I'm perfectly fine with making it more expensive to maintain claims, I'd just rather not see an unfortunate side effect of these changes be that it's also absurdly difficult to maintain quest tree claims. You can have your prejudice against PvPers all you want, but not all of us want the community as a whole to suffer.

Would that (Assault summonable, gates block red handed in combat, increased difficulty for remote claims) solve your problem with people getting away?

No, No, yes. Red handed blocking gate entry would require assault causing red handed and outlaw, and it's very biased for you to propose that as a solution because it doesn't effect you at all.

[Pickard]

Remove visitor. It sucks.

[LaserSaysPew]

What about leaving the gates alone and implementing some sort of "pvp state"?

Make a spell that is unlocked by learning rage. Casts 30s(or more), gives you pvp state or, if you already have one, removes it.

Pvp state: you can't enter gates while in combat, no matter who started it.
No pvp state: same as now, you're free to hide behind your gates and visitor debuff even in combat. But you can't aggro other players.

Pvpers get what they want, no safe palis while fighting. Non-pvpers and sprucecaps are still able to hide behind their beloved walls if someone aggroes them.
The state mechanic can actually be expanded later on to include different bonuses and side-effects from different other states which are acquired, for example, by bulding some altar, praying etc. For now it can be a fix for gate situation with a possibility of using the new mechanic for further content updates and additional variance of gameplay.

P.S. Just a thought, I might have forgotten about some other problems that gates solve. And obviously there might be some possibility of abusing I can't think of right now so feedback is always welcome!

[delsus]

LaserSaysPew has a very good idea.