[Your View] Metagaming

[LeoRabbit99 360]

I'm going to be honest, sending birds across the map is completely ridiculous. They have this some kinda innate knowledge where everyone is, how do get there and how to get back. Sure, maybe you can teach them to fly city to city but even that's pushing it. Imo birds should be completely removed, period. I also hate those times when your in an rp fight and someone sends off a bird and a bunch of his circle jerk group shows up. Lets put this into perspective. In the span of 4-5 emotes (6-10 seconds) the bird manages to fly across the world, OVER seas sometimes, and still give the receiver time to get ready for a journey and travel what is at least 100s of miles usually. Distance is poorly taken into account in LOTC, something that should be more often addressed.

[Temp 2006]

To be outright, there is no accidental situation in which 6 dudes, all in the same garb as the victim of an attack, just happen to run into their friend under attack out in no man's land or some location they have no real business being. Be it half-assed 1-2 lines birds, skype screeching or TS screaming, there's really just no way that most folks should have been able to react to their buddy on the receiving end of an attack.

As we don't outright utilize a turn structure, we can't say that new comers must wait X turns before they can MCly or RPly partake and setting a time limit just encourages painfully slow responses. Blatant meta instances, even without substantial proof, should be met with light handed punishments upon administrative review and the punishments for repeat offenders should climb over time. Folks that regularly partake in the meta instances would become known as reports climbed. 

An issue with this, however, is war. When war breaks out folks already try to inch over the rule breaking line and any staff member that upholds any form of ruling that deters meta is going to be harassed and **** on basically any LoTC outlet used by the victim(s).

[winterblood 11181]

Whenever I RP sending messages, I don't do that lame **** where you whistle and a bird suddenly appears that can also track down whoever you want to get to the message. I usually ask  in RP where a letter can be sent for the person to receive and emoting the message going to that location to wait for them. I normally emote couriers seeking out another player if it is important, but that person is free to deny being found by them if they wish. 

 

Just make strict rules rules about messaging so people stop the meta and PG

[LeoRabbit99 360]

1 minute ago, Temp said:

As we don't outright utilize a turn structure

We should.

[Harri 4815]

44 minutes ago, Pyro™ said:

Not allowing skype rallying is idiotic, its a part of LoTC, a practice that's happened for years. Guards should be able to log in to defend their own city and the rule is so unenforceable due to the ability to pm individual guards. Also I must say the wording for the polling is very biased " Must roleplay happen on the server" and Should Rule-Breaking skype rallying be allowed" are examples of very suggestive questions, you won't get anything of use from them

0

Upvote

 

It's not idiotic whatsoever. Spamming an entire chat of people that an orc is enslaving someone a little bit outside Adelburg shouldn't be allowed. If it's a common practice, it should never have been in the first place. It's metagaming.

The way the poll is worded that way is because, as of right now, the previously 'allowed' practice of Skype rallying is now against the rules from this post going up, making it fall under rule breaking rather than the allowed form of it outlined in the post.

If the community express serious disdain for that change, then it will be changed accordingly.

29 minutes ago, Mj. said:

I'm gna meta anyway lol

0

Upvote

 

then you'll get banned ?

[Pureimp10 5691]

1 hour ago, Harrison said:

as well as giving players a reason to stay logged in/patrolling their settlements.

If anything, these rules would do the exact opposite. Defenders in a losing situation where they're outnumbered or outgeared will be more inclined to simply log off than deal with raiders. You've basically stripped the defenders of anything they could do in the event of a losing situation and left them with two options: log off, or fight and die.

[dogbew 267]

For Skype rallying it should really be a situational thing, but I think rule wise it would be easiest to just say that it is allowed before a roleplay begins, but not during the roleplay.

[Harri 4815]

7 minutes ago, Pureimp10 said:

If anything, these rules would do the exact opposite. Defenders in a losing situation where they're outnumbered or outgeared will be more inclined to simply log off than deal with raiders. You've basically stripped the defenders of anything they could do in the event of a losing situation and left them with two options: log off, or fight and die.

0

Upvote

 

The last thing I want to do is try to remove a Defender's ability to defend their settlement as best they can - however, at the same time I think it's extremely unfair that very low raid caps force attackers to always be outnumbered within five minutes from shadow soldiers.

 

Something we could try instead, is that you're allowed to call for reinforcements in Skype/Discord for a raid, but that's about it. And, at the same time, better define what a raid is and what random acts of villainy/strife are. That might be a better compromise on the situation.

[Pureimp10 5691]

1 minute ago, Harrison said:

Something we could try instead, is that you're allowed to call for reinforcements in Skype/Discord for a raid, but that's about it.

This would be a lot better. Of course for small crimes going on you shouldn't be allowed to call for people, but I do believe that it should be allowed to rally members of a guard force to defend against a raid on your settlement.

[Temp 2006]

7 minutes ago, Harrison said:

The last thing I want to do is try to remove a Defender's ability to defend their settlement as best they can - however, at the same time I think it's extremely unfair that very low raid caps force attackers to always be outnumbered within five minutes from shadow soldiers.

 

Something we could try instead, is that you're allowed to call for reinforcements in Skype/Discord for a raid, but that's about it. And, at the same time, better define what a raid is and what random acts of villainy/strife are. That might be a better compromise on the situation.

0

Upvote

 

Any attacks on the settlements themselves absolutely should result in alarms of some variety. These alarms however, aren't subtle. They should be shouted emotes that are done throughout the town prior to calling for help in skype, discord or TS. That said, attacks in the forest just outside the town where no one should see them, well beyond the horizon or etc shouldn't result in the town's alarms going off and folks being rallied. I'd say use common sense but that'd be abused.

[Harri 4815]

2 minutes ago, Temp said:

Any attacks on the settlements themselves absolutely should result in alarms of some variety. These alarms however, aren't subtle. They should be shouted emotes that are down throughout the town prior to calling for help in skype, discord or TS. That said, attacks in the forest just outside the town where no one should see them, well beyond the horizon or etc shouldn't result in the town's alarms going off and folks being rallied. I'd say use common sense but that'd be abused.

0

Upvote

 

I'd like to say use common sense but certain players and groups like to take advantage of that or just don't possess the same common sense as others, thus needing something to be written down on paper.

[ski_king3 0]

2 hours ago, Sky said:

Also as for 'roleplay must be done in the server' (apart from the obvious ecksdee cybering on skype) what about people who are learning a magic and their teacher is unable to be on the server for prolonged periods of time but are more than able to be on an IM software?

1

Upvote

 

 

The lore team doesn't like it when lessons happen off of the server, and by and large doesn't view them as legitimate. We're pretty loosey goosey about that rule since it's a) hard to enforce and b) not usually an issue, but we prefer that to be the case so we can find lessons in logs and correct issues.

[Harri 4815]

2 minutes ago, Dewlox™ said:

enters into incertsettlementnamehere, spotting a single guard and no one else, obviously being a cancerous RP'er he'd beat said guard up. Five minutes later while looting the guard's corpse, five more show up, weapons out "Well ****." -LoTc Metasquad adventures 

 

They'll never die no matter how much you try to enforce it.

0

Upvote

 

Doesn't mean we shouldn't try. If some people are punished for it, it would most likely dissuade others to follow suit. We'll most likely also be harsher when looking at stuff about metagaming. If it's blatantly obvious, it'll probably get punished.

[Archbishop 1784]

Fairly certain Jistuma said an avairy plugin was being coded but all we're seeing is nexus changes despite the fact nobody wants nexus :(

[Temp 2006]

2 minutes ago, Dewlox™ said:

I sure hope that it ends up working then. The only reason why i don't go around doing any and all villain RP within settlements/near settlements it's just the fact that the moment i so much as threaten him, i can be prepeared for minimum three other guards showing up, weapons drawn, claiming to have either patroled there just at that time or simply have been passing by. Which is obvious metagaming but the amount of modreq's i've did proved worthless and nothing was done.

0

Upvote

 

To be fair, strolling into a populated city or town and expecting folks to stay quiet isn't the brightest idea. You're in what's effectively the home of the guardsmen. You should expect opposition, announced or otherwise.