Tarquinus

Happy birthday, Deba.

I'll help.

Happy Birthday, Mike!

Spartan: come home with your shield, or on it. If the arrows of the enemy will obscure the sun itself, then you will fight in the shade. The question for those such as ourselves is not whether we can defeat Eon. The question is whether we are willing to face him in a duel. It is my opinion that both of us, from the perspective of our characters, must always say "yes". Do we know we will lose? Yes. Does that matter? To our characters, no. Eon's not breaking any rules, and indeed has a record of being as polite and helpful as any of the grinders I have known. I do not think you will find much support for your complaint. [i]Go and tell them in Sparta, passerby, that here, obedient to their commands, we lie.[/i]

Spartan: what is your profession?

Felicitations, insane rabbit golem.

Happy birthday to a great conversationalist in this incarnation and others.

[quote name='Ravenstrider' timestamp='1294402159' post='77024'] But one thing is different: No protection on mp5... And most can't handle it... That's what's different... And, no, I don't believe it's a joke, it's just that people get used to one form of training and then, pow, mp5 and it's a different story... And they go: Oh, darn... I'm not protected any more...[/quote] That's an argument against dojos/sparring grounds/etc., though, not an indictment of life at MP5. Many of us who have been around for a long time remember being crushed by vets constantly. If you care enough, you find a way to get your own. Burns, while I like your idea and agree with you, No one, and Chewy on all counts, I do worry that many might suffer at the expense of a few who are likely to find other ways to exert their combat dominance at low Mind-Power levels. When Zlei and Kafuuka* point out that those most concerned about the problem seem to be MP5s like us, they have a point. Frankly I hate these practices and would love to see those guilty of them banned and their houses burned down. But you know, I don't want to see MD become a police state. If dst and I were allowed to ban all the people we would like to see removed from MD, we would probably ban everyone in the game, probably including each other, until you were the only player left. It's not fair to expect Mur to review every damned account in the game until the abusers are rooted out - the task is just too big, and he has far, far better things to do with his time. It's too big for the Council, I suspect, and again, we don't want to turn an experiment like MD into a police state. And even then, it's like trying to squeeze the water out of a teflon balloon. I think it's better to express our displeasure personally, just as individuals and not Burns the Almighty LHO or Tarq the Emperor of The Moon That Really Is There, to people who are being wankers and say: Hey, man. I think you're being a wanker. To everyone who wants to see MD become a better game, I say: try giving a drach or a cool item to someone whose conduct impresses you. From my experience, I doubt you'll regret it. *[size="1"]I do not include Kyphis, who like Keith and Konstantin is my alt.** **no, not really. But hey, K-name, ex-Legend Speaker... you never know.[/size]

Happy New Year, y'all.

I offer a shade.

Happy birthday, Czez.

Thanks again, Mur, for everything.

Happy birthday!

Just to play devil's advocate: [quote name='Burns' timestamp='1292569154' post='75607'] To me, automatisms such as injuries after lost battles or being robbed by someone who is bigger than you is very insensible. Just imagine how easily those systems could, and would, be abused. If anything that goes into the bigger aspects of your character development would be part of a system, you'd soon find yourself ruled by a few people.[/quote] But that's how it is now, no? Battles at MP5 are largely dominated by the wealthy, as you yourself pointed out in one of the last tournaments I sponsored. Apart from the wealthy are those with a large amount of time to spend grinding. Both groups can keep themselves more or less untouchable to the majority of the player populace. We know that if a thing can be abused, it will. But that's not necessarily a reason to kill an idea in infancy. I respect MD a very great deal for being unlike the MMORPG mainstream, but I think some "anchoring" elements would benefit the game. Inventories changed the player dynamic a bit when they were introduced - for the first time, we had items that were indisputably "real" in the game world. I know it's an apples-to-oranges comparison, but the fact is that at least one lethal item already exists in MD. Permanent death? That way lies madness, I agree. Temporary death - and the attendant "ghost" state - has proven amusing on more than one occasion, arguably because of its rarity, but amusing all the same. Stat damage can already be dealt a number of ways, and it's hardly as crippling as it might seem to a neophyte. MD is an evolving game, and Aysun ponders the way it might be encouraged to evolve. When it comes to tying down player characters to the game world - making them [i]responsible[/i] for what happens in it in a systemic way - I agree with her. There are huge risks, sure. People will get discouraged and leave when they find themselves losing things they worked to build. But that's the way of any change. As an example, when the heretic archers' principle-draining test was going on, Keith's Darkness score was completely drained and replaced, involuntarily, with Time, a change that made powerful tokens such as Darksky all but useless to him. People who want to see the game continue to evolve and improve will stick around. People who are going to get upset about trivia will leave. I feel pretty strongly that MD could use encouragement and support for interactive quests. For player-authored quests to be engaging, they must have context and meaning. Without such conditions, they become - at best - an entertaining series of puzzles. I must add that roleplaying is a perilous enterprise for some people. It's analogous to LSD in that some people just shouldn't ever do it. Character roles can become treasured beyond all proportion to their meaning in the scheme of life. That's unfortunate, but it is to be expected (and is actually rather flattering to a writer of roleplaying scenarios; if your adventure/investigation/whatever has that much emotional resonance, you've done something right. But some people will just freak out when their characters die or are maimed, period, and that's unavoidable). That hazard, like some of the symbols Mur employs, is part of the risk of playing the game. I say: let go of the wall and enjoy the sensation of vertigo.

I started to post this on the [url="http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/topic/8711-rebels-being-alts/page__view__findpost__p__75599"]alts being rebels thread[/url] and realized I'd be better served to start a new thread entirely. [quote name='Aysun' timestamp='1292535891' post='75599']The issue right now is that the only thing really player-controlled is quest making, otherwise everything else goes through a really heavy filter before it's even considered being put into action and it's hard to move with that sort of thing. To add, I don't think this is 'robotic automation' either or that it takes away from a single thing, but that it adds more interaction, more goals that can actually be accomplished if an individual or group works towards it without outside influence saying, "You can do this, or not do that," in order for them to proceed- they can just go for it, and others can try to stop them or not. I think that sort of interaction would add not only another dimension to player interaction but kingdom relations as well. [/quote] I wholeheartedly agree, and moreover I have always found it troubling that "quests", "roleplay", and "reality" are often treated by this community as separate things. For this reason I have always wanted to focus on writing "quests" that involve both the roleplay of the characters and the game mechanics of MD (spells, duels, etc.) [i]in the stories of what player characters are doing in the game.[/i] It can be done without a back-end mechanism as you suggest, but it's difficult. You have to have: [list] [*]A story people care about [*]A means of conflict resolution [*]Cooperation from players - I agree that if condition A is met, I will do X, but if condition B is met, then you will do (or submit to) action Y [*]The ability to coordinate players across time zones all over the planet [/list] That's so difficult as to be prohibitive in most cases, but a major source of the problem is that worldwide changes, such as the coronation of monarchs, only occur if they are agreed on by the majority of the player community and have the backing of Mur (and now the Council and other powers that be). However, Aysun, I'm not sure what to suggest from a programming/design standpoint. I have toyed with a system of injuries received from duels and [url="http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/topic/7184-mya-celestia-is-dead/page__view__findpost__p__61418"]other fighting rules[/url], but these ideas haven't gained much traction as I can't think of anything worth fighting over that would involve people willing to stake aspects of their roles - property, freedom, or other details - on a situation whose outcome is uncertain. I welcome other suggestions. In general, I think it's best to try to think of solutions that don't require Mur or Rendril to make code changes: but if code changes are warranted, let them be framed in such a way that coding them will be relatively straightforward. [i]Edited to correct for autism[/i]

For the record, I have no objection to such a rule, though as Rendril points out it's not really necessary. Mur didn't really like the idea of Keith becoming a rebel, so I have adapted his current outlook to suit that of the excommunicate, or exile, rather than that of the rebel citizen. I do think that having two (or more) accounts in the same rebellion would be really asinine. I also think it's... risky at best... to have two characters in one land (to say nothing of one alliance; I don't like multiple accounts for one player in CoE, for example). It's a good idea to keep separate characters as separate as possible. If they do the same things and see everything the same way, they aren't very different, and the player is rightly vulnerable to the charge of alt abuse... and at the very least, bad roleplaying. [i]Edited for clarity[/i]

Happy birthday!

I'm content to let it die, then. I don't grind, and when I am more involved in dueling it is mainly to work my way back toward balance. I don't accept the proposition that no-sanctuary days are 'balanced'. As far as I am concerned the only reason to adopt them is to provide MP5 players with more targets, and as I have said I do think the onus is on those who want more targets to be less ruthless. You might think of it as analogous to responsible hunting in the 'real world' - it is possible to hunt too aggressively, and if you hunt your prey to extinction you have only yourself to blame.

Keith Moon is an excommunicate, and not a rebel, but I wanted to say something tangential to the subject of "rebel abuse" (of which I see no evidence). The rebels are not all whining, and seasonal considerations are slowing the progress of their campaign. I submit to the community that it is still too early to tell whether the partly implemented system treats kings, rebels, and loyal citizens fairly.

[quote name='(Zl-eye-f)-nea' timestamp='1292009724' post='75074']This seems far more an excuse for vet MP5s who want to grind than anything else. [/quote] It does have the seeming of that, I agree. I was thinking earlier that MP5 grinders have done much to create the atmosphere of hit-and-run, scamper-between-sanctuaries tactics. It's conceivable that rather than requesting special free-for-all days with no safe zones, those players might turn their creative energies toward making MP5 more hospitable, or at the very least more fun for a broader spectrum of players. Burns's Fight Club is a good initiative of this sort, and as I think Lightsage noted the majority of MP5 vets do keep simple defensive rituals set. But hospitality does not seem to be what is wanted, and the law of the jungle prevails. I don't have a problem with that, because after all I was hammered into shape by merciless players, and you can learn something from the losses that don't kill your entire ritual in round 0. I don't see the no-sanctuary day proposition as a balancing measure, but rather a potentially fun randomizing occurrence in the MD world. If the player community can be motivated to make it an entertaining occurrence - for example, the 7-heads rule that nullifies sanctuary protection during the HC - it could be a good thing. Plenty of reasons have been offered as to why it very likely would [i]not[/i] be a good thing; I merely wanted to hear more discussion on the topic itself.

I'm glad to hear it. I was responding to what you say here: [quote]So, basically, you want to attract more god-modders who don't care about role playing, puzzles, etc. to MD and scare off people who are into real role playing. Just great... I'm actually one of those who do some role playing in Wind's Sanctuary and I appreciate the fact that I can concentrate on that and socializing without the need to watch out for being trashed by some tokened stat grinder. There is too much fighting in MD already! [/quote] In my view, a good roleplayer can assimilate the grinders as part of the environment. I understand what you mean about the nuisance value of constantly being attacked, but I encourage you to test the limits of your characterization. Really, the idea of a no-sanctuary day shouldn't put you off permanently. The idea is one or two days out of a month. That's not excessive, is it?

Right... back on subject... The idea of a no-sanctuary day has merit. Yes, it would probably drive people to log out. But it might keep players on their toes; it might be fun. I don't think the idea should be discarded out of hand. We can look at Heads and see that player login rate tends to drop during that contest, but that doesn't ensure that a no-sanctuary day would have the precise same effect, especially if it were somewhat random. A little bit of chaos would be good. HeHelpedMe - I am a player who values dueling [b]and[/b] roleplaying. I think the hazardous nature of life in MagicDuel adds something to the in-character experience as long as you are willing to interpret the fighting system as "real" in some sense or another. I get frustrated with people who have no use for roleplaying, but I also get frustrated with people who see roleplaying as something discrete [separate] from the fighting system. MagicDuel is always evolving, but there has been a "sink or swim" aspect to it for the entire time I've been playing, which is about 2.5 years now. If you are polite and earnest, you will find many players willing to help you hone your combat skills. Tokens do change the dynamics of fighting, but there are ways to advance without using them, and if you stick around long enough you're certain to get a usefully tokened creature one way or another. Don't let frustration get the better of you. The combat system is constantly improving, and to me it is a very exciting and constantly evolving process.

[quote name='Curiose' timestamp='1291934032' post='74977'] Some Alliances...are for very specific people who research important things, such as Akasha's alliance. [The name escapes me right now.][/quote] Kelle'tha Order. Each alliance gives different benefits to skills. To say much more would probably be considered a spoiler.

I agree with Strider. I would personally be annoyed to receive such a message, and those I know who have left MD would likely feel the same. I do think Ravenstrider's and Kyphis's respective suggestions are good - if the content is interesting and not purely automated, it would feel less like spam. It is similarly wise to limit such messages to those players with at least a certain number of active days, as some players only try the game for a day or so before deciding they don't like it.

Happy birthday, and enjoy the [s]ball of hash[/s] apple of Discord.