Previous
>>Also, nothing personal, but I feel like a player on the tier of Mazrian's character commenting that social interaction is more important than being able to be competitive is a bit biased. Like a 1% standing on his soapbox saying you don't need money to be happy in front of a soup kitchen. Love ya Maz, just the feel I got from your comments. If the experience system isn't going to change, policy needs to. Something needs to happen. After all, your train of thought focuses, again, on keeping those new players that come to the game only for RP, and not on keeping the competitive players or those that like to write scripts, optimize, etc. There is a whole thread that shows the diversity of the people playing the game, and why they play it. Stop ignoring the other half.<<
Maz is in the...umm...I think like 6th percent according to the last census! I've been playing off and on for a long time and over the years I've been at the bottom, in the middle, on top, in the middle again, etc, many times as I've taken breaks and other characters have kept training. If anything I think I am in a really good position to talk about the dynamics because I've been in and out of the DR rat race in many different roles over a really long period of time. I've spent time training a ton, RPing a ton without training, doing some of both, being burned out, etc. So I'm trying to draw lessons from that experience.
Let's step back for a minute, because you're saying that I think social itneraction is more important than being able to be competitive and I don't think that. I think asking which is more important is like asking whether your heart or your brain is more important. I don't know which one is more important or how you'd figure that out, but take one away and the other doesn't much matter.
Set RP aside for a second because that's a different kind of thing. How many people in the other half, as you call them, would be happy playing DR with no interaction? I'm guessing not many. The Discord community (and others like it) that people use to stay in touch depends on people who like interacting IG as well. The economy around DR (item sales, character sales, etc) depends on people who want to play the game with other people. If someone's training characters to sell they need to have buyers - and who is going to buy a character just to train it themselves? Who cares about buying fluff if no one will ever see it? There is already an instance where RP is not a concern and people can AFK as much as they want and it has like 10 people in it.
I agree there needs to be a change, but I don't think a policy change is going to cut it. The structure of the game needs to change.
Mazrian
JULIAN
RIGHTEOUSFURY
Re: What do the players want?
03/08/2018 08:43 AM CST
>> How many people in the other half, as you call them, would be happy playing DR with no interaction?
That's the thing, no-one advocating for a policy change is saying that all they are ever going to do is afk script and not talk to anyone ever. Interaction has to happen at some points, even if only out of need for goods and services, generally. On the flipside, most of the people on the other side of the fence are screaming 'Send anyone that gets caught scripting to TF and tell them to sub there or not play at all' and similar, extreme courses of action. By targeting people that script, you are not going to make the game more social, as a previous poster mentioned, but just make it look like more of a ghost town.
>>The economy around DR (item sales, character sales, etc) depends on people who want to play the game with other people.
The game is played with other people by 'the evil scripters' as well. At their discretion. No-one is required to jump to and talk to you because you felt like striking up a conversation, scripting or elsewise.
>>If someone's training characters to sell they need to have buyers - and who is going to buy a character just to train it themselves?
Yeah, you'd be surprised. I've never bought a character, but there are absolutely those who buy characters for the sole purpose of training them.
>>Who cares about buying fluff if no one will ever see it?
The people who own every major auction sale item, only to have put them in their vault never to be seen again.
>> There is already an instance where RP is not a concern and people can AFK as much as they want and it has like 10 people in it.
The problems with that instance of DR have been hashed out many times, even in this very thread.
It seems we're back to just throwing assumptions around as fact, and that doesn't help anyone.
>>I agree there needs to be a change, but I don't think a policy change is going to cut it. The structure of the game needs to change.
The game is woefully understaffed, as developments that have been slated as 'ready' or 'soon' are taking years to release. A rewrite of something as major as the entire experience system to facilitate a shift in the population of the game and their desires is not something reasonable to request in any semblance of soon, and a policy change to suppliment could be a band-aid while bigger changes are in the works.
JULIAN
Re: What do the players want?
03/08/2018 09:06 AM CST
>>That's the thing, no-one advocating for a policy change is saying that all they are ever going to do is afk script and not talk to anyone ever. Interaction has to happen at some points, even if only out of need for goods and services, generally. On the flipside, most of the people on the other side of the fence are screaming 'Send anyone that gets caught scripting to TF and tell them to sub there or not play at all' and similar, extreme courses of action. By targeting people that script, you are not going to make the game more social, as a previous poster mentioned, but just make it look like more of a ghost town.<<
I can only speak for myself. =) I don't think scripters are evil or that scripting is bad. I honestly would not play DR if I had to do everything by hand.
Buuuuuuut let's not be naive. If there were no scripting enforement that would have a hugely negative effect on interaction. If there were more scripting enforcement some people would leave but other people would pay more attention.
>>The game is played with other people by 'the evil scripters' as well. At their discretion. No-one is required to jump to and talk to you because you felt like striking up a conversation, scripting or elsewise.<<
But people are more likely to respond if they're sitting there looking over every now and then. Compared to like...if they went to bed and are scripting overnight or something, or are doing yard work, or etc, if that is ok according to policy.
>>Yeah, you'd be surprised. I've never bought a character, but there are absolutely those who buy characters for the sole purpose of training them.<<
Probably surprised but not that surprised. The market would get a lot lighter, that is for sure.
>>The people who own every major auction sale item, only to have put them in their vault never to be seen again.<<
Mostly people are buying for resale.
>>The game is woefully understaffed, as developments that have been slated as 'ready' or 'soon' are taking years to release. A rewrite of something as major as the entire experience system to facilitate a shift in the population of the game and their desires is not something reasonable to request in any semblance of soon, and a policy change to suppliment could be a band-aid while bigger changes are in the works.<<
The policy change isn't reasonable either. It wouldn't fix anything, it would just break other things.
Mazrian
I can only speak for myself. =) I don't think scripters are evil or that scripting is bad. I honestly would not play DR if I had to do everything by hand.
Buuuuuuut let's not be naive. If there were no scripting enforement that would have a hugely negative effect on interaction. If there were more scripting enforcement some people would leave but other people would pay more attention.
>>The game is played with other people by 'the evil scripters' as well. At their discretion. No-one is required to jump to and talk to you because you felt like striking up a conversation, scripting or elsewise.<<
But people are more likely to respond if they're sitting there looking over every now and then. Compared to like...if they went to bed and are scripting overnight or something, or are doing yard work, or etc, if that is ok according to policy.
>>Yeah, you'd be surprised. I've never bought a character, but there are absolutely those who buy characters for the sole purpose of training them.<<
Probably surprised but not that surprised. The market would get a lot lighter, that is for sure.
>>The people who own every major auction sale item, only to have put them in their vault never to be seen again.<<
Mostly people are buying for resale.
>>The game is woefully understaffed, as developments that have been slated as 'ready' or 'soon' are taking years to release. A rewrite of something as major as the entire experience system to facilitate a shift in the population of the game and their desires is not something reasonable to request in any semblance of soon, and a policy change to suppliment could be a band-aid while bigger changes are in the works.<<
The policy change isn't reasonable either. It wouldn't fix anything, it would just break other things.
Mazrian
JULIAN
Re: What do the players want?
03/08/2018 09:07 AM CST
Though yeah I agree there are absolutely several problems that need resolving and there don't seem to be resources to tackle them.
Mazrian
Mazrian
RIGHTEOUSFURY
Re: What do the players want?
03/08/2018 09:13 AM CST
>>Buuuuuuut let's not be naive. If there were no scripting enforement that would have a hugely negative effect on interaction.
To be clear, I am not advocating that afk scripting be completely legal in prime. I am just saying that the policy/definition/methods needs some updating to fit more with the times.
JHALIASCLERIC
Re: What do the players want?
03/08/2018 09:42 AM CST
To repeat the point, 'people who script 24/7' is NOT a good indicator of 'people who have no interest in RP'. Just like 'people who log off every night' is not a good indicator of 'people who love to RP and are involved in events'.
>Though yeah I agree there are absolutely several problems that need resolving and there don't seem to be resources to tackle them.
Nevertheless, we should talk about what those problems are and maybe come up with solutions to tackling them.
JHALIASCLERIC
Re: What do the players want?
03/08/2018 09:51 AM CST
I'll just say this again - I personally think checks should be ABUNDANTLY visible, they should include messages that show up in the Convo/Thought windows, maybe be monster bolded, be spammed, and they shouldn't be easy to generate auto responses to. Something like "That kitty is cute you should P_e_T the kitty!" is a bad check. Something like "That kitty is cute, you should say something sweet to the kitty!" is a great check.
I don't think there's anything wrong with a check that notifies the player that they're being checked and should thus respond. I think there's something wrong with a check that is easily lost in scroll, or so subtle that it appears to be atmo. Because I think at the end of the day the question seems to be 'Do we want to bust people who aren't staring at their screen and reading every single line' or 'Do we want people to be responsive to an environment that is often really spammy'.
In full disclosure, I am currently looking at the game window and concerned that I'm going to miss a check, because I often hunt with other people, and many of my actions generate 6+ lines of scroll (Appraisal, Hunt, AoE Debil, AoE TM, Perc). If checks can be lost in the super scroll that is combat in DR, they're not good checks.
JULIAN
Re: What do the players want?
03/08/2018 10:02 AM CST
If we're talking about reforming checks, I think they should just be conversational. Someone comes into your room (someone not obviously a GM) and talks to you for awhile, shadowing you if you move. If you respond like a human you pass. If you don't, you fail. Very clear and visible and also hard to automate a response to. I'm not sure if people would consider that more or less fair than the way it's done now.
Mazrian
Mazrian
RIGHTEOUSFURY
Re: What do the players want?
03/08/2018 10:07 AM CST
>> Someone comes into your room (someone not obviously a GM) and talks to you for awhile, shadowing you if you move. If you respond like a human you pass. If you don't, you fail.
I disagree with this wholeheartedly. Some of the player populace tries to enforce scripting policy on their own by questioning you while you hunt, like it is their duty to police, and they want to get you penalized. I often ignore them intentionally because of this, and just pass any script check their reporting gives me. Like I mentioned earlier, I don't owe anyone anything, and do not feel the need to respond to a random stranger that thinks they can script check me themselves. Changing things along these lines will only empower and give weight to the players that do it, which I personally don't think should be a thing.
JULIAN
Re: What do the players want?
03/08/2018 10:08 AM CST
If we're talking about "how do we reform the system so people don't afk as much" then IMO it's about reforming the grind.
I think the relatively expedient way would be to implement a mandatory form of Alternate Experience System where you lock your skills then drain full pulses over a 24 hour period but you can't gain new field experience in the skills you locked until the 24 hours are up. Adjust pulse sizes so the gain isn't too large. Then you've basically removed the grind and the only reason to keep training is for money.
Mazrian
I think the relatively expedient way would be to implement a mandatory form of Alternate Experience System where you lock your skills then drain full pulses over a 24 hour period but you can't gain new field experience in the skills you locked until the 24 hours are up. Adjust pulse sizes so the gain isn't too large. Then you've basically removed the grind and the only reason to keep training is for money.
Mazrian
JULIAN
Re: What do the players want?
03/08/2018 10:10 AM CST
>>I disagree with this wholeheartedly. Some of the player populace tries to enforce scripting policy on their own by questioning you while you hunt, like it is their duty to police, and they want to get you penalized. I often ignore them intentionally because of this, and just pass any script check their reporting gives me. Like I mentioned earlier, I don't owe anyone anything, and do not feel the need to respond to a random stranger that thinks they can script check me themselves. Changing things along these lines will only empower and give weight to the players that do it, which I personally don't think should be a thing.<<
I mean, it would be a GM but not someone obviously identifiable as a GM so there'd be nothing to trigger off of. The side effect, yeah, would probably be you'd want to pay attention to more conversation. Which is not a bad thing.
Mazrian
I mean, it would be a GM but not someone obviously identifiable as a GM so there'd be nothing to trigger off of. The side effect, yeah, would probably be you'd want to pay attention to more conversation. Which is not a bad thing.
Mazrian
RIGHTEOUSFURY
Re: What do the players want?
03/08/2018 10:12 AM CST
>>The side effect, yeah, would probably be you'd want to pay attention to more conversation. Which is not a bad thing.
No, it would force me to respond to every player trying to play GM and script check someone, which happens a lot. I have zero obligation to respond to a random stranger wanting to strike up conversation, especially one only doing it to try and script check me themselves, and your method would give no way of differentiating a player from a GM.
APATHETICSMILE
Re: What do the players want?
03/08/2018 10:17 AM CST
>>I disagree with this wholeheartedly. Some of the player populace tries to enforce scripting policy on their own by questioning you while you hunt, like it is their duty to police, and they want to get you penalized. I often ignore them intentionally because of this, and just pass any script check their reporting gives me. Like I mentioned earlier, I don't owe anyone anything, and do not feel the need to respond to a random stranger that thinks they can script check me themselves. Changing things along these lines will only empower and give weight to the players that do it, which I personally don't think should be a thing.
A check of this style could easily escalate to the GM just whispering you "hey, script checkin' here. start talking to me or it's a fail...". Allowing people to continue to ignore one another in peace without the worry of also missing a check when atk.
A check of this style could easily escalate to the GM just whispering you "hey, script checkin' here. start talking to me or it's a fail...". Allowing people to continue to ignore one another in peace without the worry of also missing a check when atk.
TEVESHSZAT
Re: What do the players want?
03/08/2018 10:18 AM CST
>>I see now that the people advocating the policy don't see how draconian it is
I'm not sure how me getting script checks means I don't understand "how draconian" it is. Other/competitor games like World of Warcraft do bot checks all the time.
That said, it looks like you're shifting from "not letting people afk script is bad" to "the penalties for afk scripting are too severe." I'm totally fine shifting gears in the conversation, if you've decided to discuss penalties over policy.
>>As has been mentioned, a big part of the problem with the culture is people like to point fingers and say others are playing the game "wrong."
If I play basketball using a football, I'm playing the game wrong. Similarly, if you're afk scripting in DR you're playing the game wrong. If you tell everyone you are a flying dragon and use the ACT verb to breathe flames and cook townsfolk, you are also playing the game wrong. Games have rules. You can't just go "but this is my unique way to play" and use it as an aegis against following policies and rules.
>>So let's say you're ATK, but chatting on lnet/discord/slack/reddit/gweth or watching Netflix, and you don't see the script check spam amidst the other spam on your other monitor.
I sincerely believe people don't understand how severe script check spam gets at some points.
>>People said they're easy to miss, and I tend to agree.
The initial checks are subtle, to avoid making them excessively jarring. They're often "In Character." The line between "This is an initial script check" and "this is a roleplay opportunity" is very thin, to the point where a "roleplay hook" can (and does) end up becoming a "script check" because players just don't respond to GMs trying to engage them in an event.
Latter script checks are a level of severity that compare more to being in the 490-499 range of your inventory limit, only more often/shouty.
>>A few minutes go by, and you notice the scrolling stopped and you're in the infamous cell.
It is more than a few minutes. You have to be afk a notably long time. We're talking 10-15 minutes. Not noticing someone trying to engage with you for 1-2 minutes isn't something that gets you in the penalty box. You have to be gone for awhile.
>>People like to think it's only the 24/7 scripters that get checked, but it's absolutely not the case. Script checks aren't only happening between the hours of 2-4 am.
I think people are well aware of this. Most of my checks happen on weekend afternoons, and I definitely not script 24/7.
>>They want to see some kind of progress, and the 2-3 hours they get between getting home from a long day of work just feels like you're spinning your wheels once you move past the initial rush.
I think part of the problem is that people need to figure out what the actual problem they have with the game is, and then focus on addressing that. Is the problem "I want to mindlessly script 24/7 and not risk being punished" or "the game progresses too slowly at some point, which makes it less fun"? If the problem is really the latter, then solution isn't the former. If my apartment door sticks, I don't complain to my landlord that I get in trouble for using a crowbar to open it every night, I ask my landlord to fix my door.
Uzmam! The Chairman will NOT be pleased to know you're trying to build outside of approved zones. I'd hate for you to be charged the taxes needed to have this place re-zoned. Head for the manor if you're feeling creative.
I'm not sure how me getting script checks means I don't understand "how draconian" it is. Other/competitor games like World of Warcraft do bot checks all the time.
That said, it looks like you're shifting from "not letting people afk script is bad" to "the penalties for afk scripting are too severe." I'm totally fine shifting gears in the conversation, if you've decided to discuss penalties over policy.
>>As has been mentioned, a big part of the problem with the culture is people like to point fingers and say others are playing the game "wrong."
If I play basketball using a football, I'm playing the game wrong. Similarly, if you're afk scripting in DR you're playing the game wrong. If you tell everyone you are a flying dragon and use the ACT verb to breathe flames and cook townsfolk, you are also playing the game wrong. Games have rules. You can't just go "but this is my unique way to play" and use it as an aegis against following policies and rules.
>>So let's say you're ATK, but chatting on lnet/discord/slack/reddit/gweth or watching Netflix, and you don't see the script check spam amidst the other spam on your other monitor.
I sincerely believe people don't understand how severe script check spam gets at some points.
>>People said they're easy to miss, and I tend to agree.
The initial checks are subtle, to avoid making them excessively jarring. They're often "In Character." The line between "This is an initial script check" and "this is a roleplay opportunity" is very thin, to the point where a "roleplay hook" can (and does) end up becoming a "script check" because players just don't respond to GMs trying to engage them in an event.
Latter script checks are a level of severity that compare more to being in the 490-499 range of your inventory limit, only more often/shouty.
>>A few minutes go by, and you notice the scrolling stopped and you're in the infamous cell.
It is more than a few minutes. You have to be afk a notably long time. We're talking 10-15 minutes. Not noticing someone trying to engage with you for 1-2 minutes isn't something that gets you in the penalty box. You have to be gone for awhile.
>>People like to think it's only the 24/7 scripters that get checked, but it's absolutely not the case. Script checks aren't only happening between the hours of 2-4 am.
I think people are well aware of this. Most of my checks happen on weekend afternoons, and I definitely not script 24/7.
>>They want to see some kind of progress, and the 2-3 hours they get between getting home from a long day of work just feels like you're spinning your wheels once you move past the initial rush.
I think part of the problem is that people need to figure out what the actual problem they have with the game is, and then focus on addressing that. Is the problem "I want to mindlessly script 24/7 and not risk being punished" or "the game progresses too slowly at some point, which makes it less fun"? If the problem is really the latter, then solution isn't the former. If my apartment door sticks, I don't complain to my landlord that I get in trouble for using a crowbar to open it every night, I ask my landlord to fix my door.
Uzmam! The Chairman will NOT be pleased to know you're trying to build outside of approved zones. I'd hate for you to be charged the taxes needed to have this place re-zoned. Head for the manor if you're feeling creative.
JULIAN
Re: What do the players want?
03/08/2018 10:19 AM CST
>>No, it would force me to respond to every player trying to play GM and script check someone, which happens a lot. I have zero obligation to respond to a random stranger wanting to strike up conversation, especially one only doing it to try and script check me themselves, and your method would give no way of differentiating a player from a GM. <<
If the checks were the way I described you would probably want to change your habits and respond to people talking to you. Which is not a bad thing.
Look at it this way - you'd only have to set a speech alarm and you could do whatever you wanted within hearing range, more or less. If you came back and responded whenever someone spoke around you you'd be responsive to the environment and there'd really be no reason to bust you in the first place.
Mazrian
If the checks were the way I described you would probably want to change your habits and respond to people talking to you. Which is not a bad thing.
Look at it this way - you'd only have to set a speech alarm and you could do whatever you wanted within hearing range, more or less. If you came back and responded whenever someone spoke around you you'd be responsive to the environment and there'd really be no reason to bust you in the first place.
Mazrian
RIGHTEOUSFURY
Re: What do the players want?
03/08/2018 10:26 AM CST
>>If the checks were the way I described you would probably want to change your habits and respond to people talking to you. Which is not a bad thing.
Again, you're dictating that I have to talk to every Tom, Dick and Harry that strolls into my room with this method under fear of failing a script check. On top of that, players already take it unto themselves to try and police this policy, which is obnoxious, and usually because you're hunting in a room they want to themselves, or some other personal grudge. This will make their attempts at checking you no different than a GM's, and I have ZERO obligation to respond to any player, for any reason.
You're literally telling me I should to change the way I play the game and respond to everyone that speaks to me. Not that only my scripting methods are wrong, but I should socially interact in a manner you find more acceptable. Let's just not do that.
IVORYTOWERNECRO
Re: What do the players want?
03/08/2018 10:30 AM CST
>>>I disagree with this wholeheartedly. Some of the player populace tries to enforce scripting policy on their own by questioning you while you hunt, like it is their duty to police, and they want to get you penalized.
Even worse is the passive-aggressive method of talking about presumably afk people in a crowded room or on the gweths, referring to them as sleepwalking or otherwise. If you think someone is afk scripting and it's affecting you, sack up and report them. Then move on with your life.
[General] XXXX: XXXXXX, I am going to hurt you if I don't get my ammo back. I'm standing right next to you and trying to get your attention.
JULIAN
Re: What do the players want?
03/08/2018 10:32 AM CST
Deleted response for being too snarky.
Yes, you might have to change the way you play. That is not necessarily a bad thing for the game even if it seems annoying to you.
>>[General] XXXX: XXXXXX, I am going to hurt you if I don't get my ammo back. I'm standing right next to you and trying to get your attention.
LOL
Mazrian
Yes, you might have to change the way you play. That is not necessarily a bad thing for the game even if it seems annoying to you.
>>[General] XXXX: XXXXXX, I am going to hurt you if I don't get my ammo back. I'm standing right next to you and trying to get your attention.
LOL
Mazrian
TEVESHSZAT
Re: What do the players want?
03/08/2018 10:32 AM CST
>>You're literally telling me I should to change the way I play the game and respond to everyone that speaks to me. Not that only my scripting methods are wrong, but I should socially interact in a manner you find more acceptable. Let's just not do that.
You can't take half a second to whisper "If you're not a GM and can indicate yourself as such go away"? And, if the same person keeps bugging you, warn interact them for harassment. It's not a complicated situation. No one is expecting you to engage in a five hour conversation with someone under the fear that they might be a GM secretly testing you.
There are only so many ways to test and see if someone is scripting. It's going to require some kind of response at some point, and the frustration of "but what it's really a player trying to trick me into responding to them" is a very odd path to take.
Uzmam! The Chairman will NOT be pleased to know you're trying to build outside of approved zones. I'd hate for you to be charged the taxes needed to have this place re-zoned. Head for the manor if you're feeling creative.
You can't take half a second to whisper "If you're not a GM and can indicate yourself as such go away"? And, if the same person keeps bugging you, warn interact them for harassment. It's not a complicated situation. No one is expecting you to engage in a five hour conversation with someone under the fear that they might be a GM secretly testing you.
There are only so many ways to test and see if someone is scripting. It's going to require some kind of response at some point, and the frustration of "but what it's really a player trying to trick me into responding to them" is a very odd path to take.
Uzmam! The Chairman will NOT be pleased to know you're trying to build outside of approved zones. I'd hate for you to be charged the taxes needed to have this place re-zoned. Head for the manor if you're feeling creative.
JHALIASCLERIC
Re: What do the players want?
03/08/2018 10:33 AM CST
>I disagree with this wholeheartedly. Some of the player populace tries to enforce scripting policy on their own by questioning you while you hunt, like it is their duty to police, and they want to get you penalized. I often ignore them intentionally because of this, and just pass any script check their reporting gives me. Like I mentioned earlier, I don't owe anyone anything, and do not feel the need to respond to a random stranger that thinks they can script check me themselves. Changing things along these lines will only empower and give weight to the players that do it, which I personally don't think should be a thing.
The check itself should be clearly a check. I.e., not just some character trying to engage you in conversation, but rather, something that is clearly, specifically, a script check.
I think it's annoying as hell that some players have taken it upon themselves to effectively script check people who are non-responsive for teh lulz. I also think you as a player, while having no obligation to respond to anyone who talks to you, do have an obligation to respond to script checks.
Imagine you're sitting in combat, and suddenly your convo window gets a "The fuzzy pink monkey says, "Hey dude, I'm here to make sure you're paying attention, how you doing today dude?". That's visible, and that's clear, and you can respond to that however you want. Maybe after a minute your convo window gets a "The fuzzy pink monkey says, "Comon man, talk to me, I'm just trying to be friendly and make sure you're around! How are you?"
RIGHTEOUSFURY
Re: What do the players want?
03/08/2018 10:34 AM CST
>>Yes, you might have to change the way you play. That is not necessarily a bad thing for the game even if it seems annoying to you.
To be clear: What you're saying is that while my style of play is not directly bothering anyone or breaking policy, I should change it to suit what YOU feel my style of play should be, to make you happy, in a game I pay to play. Is that the general gist of it?
TEVESHSZAT
Re: What do the players want?
03/08/2018 10:36 AM CST
>>Imagine you're sitting in combat, and suddenly your convo window gets a "The fuzzy pink monkey says, "Hey dude, I'm here to make sure you're paying attention, how you doing today dude?". That's visible, and that's clear, and you can respond to that however you want. Maybe after a minute your convo window gets a "The fuzzy pink monkey says, "Comon man, talk to me, I'm just trying to be friendly and make sure you're around! How are you?"
I think it's worth recognizing a "What if it is in monsterbold and flashing and blinking and sirens are going off" style check, despite being a good one, can also pretty easy to avoid if you know how to script.
The sad/frustrating reality is that many checks that would make things easier for ATK players to notice are also easier for the scripts of AFK players to also notice. I think it's important to recognize this situation when considering how to do script checks "differently," and that may include adding something like "if you suddenly stop scripting/log off/run away/etc instead of respond to the check appropriately, that counts as violating policy and can get you penalized."
Uzmam! The Chairman will NOT be pleased to know you're trying to build outside of approved zones. I'd hate for you to be charged the taxes needed to have this place re-zoned. Head for the manor if you're feeling creative.
I think it's worth recognizing a "What if it is in monsterbold and flashing and blinking and sirens are going off" style check, despite being a good one, can also pretty easy to avoid if you know how to script.
The sad/frustrating reality is that many checks that would make things easier for ATK players to notice are also easier for the scripts of AFK players to also notice. I think it's important to recognize this situation when considering how to do script checks "differently," and that may include adding something like "if you suddenly stop scripting/log off/run away/etc instead of respond to the check appropriately, that counts as violating policy and can get you penalized."
Uzmam! The Chairman will NOT be pleased to know you're trying to build outside of approved zones. I'd hate for you to be charged the taxes needed to have this place re-zoned. Head for the manor if you're feeling creative.
JTIZEL4SHO
Re: What do the players want?
03/08/2018 10:37 AM CST
>I mean, it would be a GM but not someone obviously identifiable as a GM so there'd be nothing to trigger off of. The side effect, yeah, would probably be you'd want to pay attention to more conversation. Which is not a bad thing.<
This is a terrible thing your trying to integrate into the system. As a whole you don't have to respond to anyone if you don't want I don't respond to people all the time. I RP how I want when I want not on their terms. That is why DR is a great game you can RP when you want. The way you are suggesting this Mazrian will make more trolls IG is all.
" Its like when I'm right I'm right, when I'm wrong I could been right, so I'm still right cause I coulda been wrong, you know, and I'm sorry cause I could be wrong right now, I could be wrong, but if I'm right... "
This is a terrible thing your trying to integrate into the system. As a whole you don't have to respond to anyone if you don't want I don't respond to people all the time. I RP how I want when I want not on their terms. That is why DR is a great game you can RP when you want. The way you are suggesting this Mazrian will make more trolls IG is all.
" Its like when I'm right I'm right, when I'm wrong I could been right, so I'm still right cause I coulda been wrong, you know, and I'm sorry cause I could be wrong right now, I could be wrong, but if I'm right... "
RIGHTEOUSFURY
Re: What do the players want?
03/08/2018 10:37 AM CST
For the record, I agree with something clearly not a player striking up conversation. 100% fine with that.
TEVESHSZAT
Re: What do the players want?
03/08/2018 10:39 AM CST
>>To be clear: What you're saying is that while my style of play is not directly bothering anyone or breaking policy, I should change it to suit what YOU feel my style of play should be, to make you happy, in a game I pay to play. Is that the general gist of it?
I think it means that improving things may sometimes have to be a two way street. If people dislike ambient script checks and want more overt ones, they may also have to "risk" sometimes interacting with someone during something that isn't a script check.
Uzmam! The Chairman will NOT be pleased to know you're trying to build outside of approved zones. I'd hate for you to be charged the taxes needed to have this place re-zoned. Head for the manor if you're feeling creative.
I think it means that improving things may sometimes have to be a two way street. If people dislike ambient script checks and want more overt ones, they may also have to "risk" sometimes interacting with someone during something that isn't a script check.
Uzmam! The Chairman will NOT be pleased to know you're trying to build outside of approved zones. I'd hate for you to be charged the taxes needed to have this place re-zoned. Head for the manor if you're feeling creative.
JTIZEL4SHO
Re: What do the players want?
03/08/2018 10:39 AM CST
>I mean, it would be a GM but not someone obviously identifiable as a GM so there'd be nothing to trigger off of. The side effect, yeah, would probably be you'd want to pay attention to more conversation. Which is not a bad thing.<
This is a terrible thing your trying to integrate into the system. As a whole you don't have to respond to anyone if you don't want I don't respond to people all the time. I RP how I want when I want not on their terms. That is why DR is a great game you can RP when you want. The way you are suggesting this Mazrian will make more trolls IG is all.
" Its like when I'm right I'm right, when I'm wrong I could been right, so I'm still right cause I coulda been wrong, you know, and I'm sorry cause I could be wrong right now, I could be wrong, but if I'm right... "
This is a terrible thing your trying to integrate into the system. As a whole you don't have to respond to anyone if you don't want I don't respond to people all the time. I RP how I want when I want not on their terms. That is why DR is a great game you can RP when you want. The way you are suggesting this Mazrian will make more trolls IG is all.
" Its like when I'm right I'm right, when I'm wrong I could been right, so I'm still right cause I coulda been wrong, you know, and I'm sorry cause I could be wrong right now, I could be wrong, but if I'm right... "
JHALIASCLERIC
Re: What do the players want?
03/08/2018 10:40 AM CST
>I think it's worth recognizing a "What if it is in monsterbold and flashing and blinking and sirens are going off" style check, despite being a good one, can also pretty easy to avoid if you know how to script.
I don't agree, and am specifically giving requests that are not possible to automate responses to. "Hey there, please S_N_E_E_Z_E" is something that can be easily automated. "Hey there, what would be a really gross kind of ice cream?" is not. I agree with the notion of generating checks that are effectively conversations with the players, so long as it is abundantly clear that you're being checked.
My point isn't to make the checks themselves easy to pass, but to make the checks impossible to miss if you're able to see your convo or thought window. Excessive scroll is the issue, not easy of passing checks.
JULIAN
Re: What do the players want?
03/08/2018 10:41 AM CST
>>To be clear: What you're saying is that while my style of play is not directly bothering anyone or breaking policy, I should change it to suit what YOU feel my style of play should be, to make you happy, in a game I pay to play. Is that the general gist of it?<<
It's really the same to me whether you change your style of play or not.
I think there are good reasons to check people differently, in ways that are hard to script around and also hard to fail if you're actually atk. If it was decided to do that and you felt a way about it that would equally be the same to me.
Mazrian
It's really the same to me whether you change your style of play or not.
I think there are good reasons to check people differently, in ways that are hard to script around and also hard to fail if you're actually atk. If it was decided to do that and you felt a way about it that would equally be the same to me.
Mazrian
TEVESHSZAT
Re: What do the players want?
03/08/2018 10:41 AM CST
>s a whole you don't have to respond to anyone if you don't want I don't respond to people all the time. I RP how I want when I want not on their terms. That is why DR is a great game you can RP when you want. The way you are suggesting this Mazrian will make more trolls IG is all.
The OOC whisper verb exists. Your character doesn't have to be friendly to someone waving at them or asking if they have a moment of their time. Hell, use the ACT verb to show you're clearing ignoring them. Yes, you may have to actually engage with someone on some level or another, but your character can be as antisocial or shy or uninterested as they always were.
Uzmam! The Chairman will NOT be pleased to know you're trying to build outside of approved zones. I'd hate for you to be charged the taxes needed to have this place re-zoned. Head for the manor if you're feeling creative.
The OOC whisper verb exists. Your character doesn't have to be friendly to someone waving at them or asking if they have a moment of their time. Hell, use the ACT verb to show you're clearing ignoring them. Yes, you may have to actually engage with someone on some level or another, but your character can be as antisocial or shy or uninterested as they always were.
Uzmam! The Chairman will NOT be pleased to know you're trying to build outside of approved zones. I'd hate for you to be charged the taxes needed to have this place re-zoned. Head for the manor if you're feeling creative.
JULIAN
Re: What do the players want?
03/08/2018 10:45 AM CST
I think it's ok if policy forces people to separate "I play an antisocial character" from "I don't respond to anyone I don't have to" if a lot of the latter category is just people being afk and not seeing what's going on.
Mazrian
Mazrian
RIGHTEOUSFURY
Re: What do the players want?
03/08/2018 10:45 AM CST
>>I think it means that improving things may sometimes have to be a two way street. If people dislike ambient script checks and want more overt ones, they may also have to "risk" sometimes interacting with someone during something that isn't a script check.
I 100% get what you're saying, and to an extent I agree, but this wouldn't be as much of an issue if players didn't already do exactly this to script check you on their own, trying to enforce policy themselves. It is obnoxious, and happens often, and GMs disguising as regular characters to do script checks will only encourage more of the same behavior, lending gravity to their actions that deserve zero weight. I would be 100% ok with a GM using some type of send to get your attention, and require you to actually have a conversation in order to pass the check, responding to a couple quick questions, etc. Something that would be 100% not scriptable without some Tay AI going on, which is beyond the realm of reasonable. Also, you said it takes *a long time* to fail a script check and catch a penalty. It's 5 minutes. In all reality, not that long.
JTIZEL4SHO
Re: What do the players want?
03/08/2018 10:53 AM CST
>Also, you said it takes *a long time* to fail a script check and catch a penalty. It's 5 minutes. In all reality, not that long.<
Agreed if someone has eet out for that five minutes could be getting your daughter another bottle or going to the bathroom and wham your screwed because someone is hating.
" Its like when I'm right I'm right, when I'm wrong I could been right, so I'm still right cause I coulda been wrong, you know, and I'm sorry cause I could be wrong right now, I could be wrong, but if I'm right... "
Agreed if someone has eet out for that five minutes could be getting your daughter another bottle or going to the bathroom and wham your screwed because someone is hating.
" Its like when I'm right I'm right, when I'm wrong I could been right, so I'm still right cause I coulda been wrong, you know, and I'm sorry cause I could be wrong right now, I could be wrong, but if I'm right... "
JULIAN
Re: What do the players want?
03/08/2018 10:59 AM CST
A send can be scripted around.
The way to do it would be to have a script wait like 30 seconds or so then REPORT "Oh hey I'm here! What's up?" Then like 15 seconds later REPORT "Oh sorry have to (run to the bathrom|my planet needs me|my cat's on fire)" and log out. They'd have to give the player the benefit of the doubt and if the player laid low for awhile and changed the messages / timing up it'd be very hard to catch them.
A player could do that for any conversation but then anyone could trigger their script bugging out so it'd be much less reliable.
Mazrian
The way to do it would be to have a script wait like 30 seconds or so then REPORT "Oh hey I'm here! What's up?" Then like 15 seconds later REPORT "Oh sorry have to (run to the bathrom|my planet needs me|my cat's on fire)" and log out. They'd have to give the player the benefit of the doubt and if the player laid low for awhile and changed the messages / timing up it'd be very hard to catch them.
A player could do that for any conversation but then anyone could trigger their script bugging out so it'd be much less reliable.
Mazrian
RIGHTEOUSFURY
Re: What do the players want?
03/08/2018 11:05 AM CST
>>A send can be scripted around.
You seem to only read what you want to read. I said specifically engaging in the conversation and answering questions or failing. Not excusing themselves and bugging out. Responding and exiting would not be fulfilling these conditions, and thus be failing. And in that regard, your excuse could be applied to your own idea as well. Script yourself to ooc whisper to whatever is talking to you in your room that an emergency just came up and you have to run, and logging out. Let's not argue just for the sake of arguing, and actually think all this through. If it becomes bickering, the GMs will just shut this conversation down, and it is a conversation that needs to be had.
DR-PERSIDA
Re: What do the players want?
03/08/2018 11:09 AM CST
Since it's pertinent to the current thrust of the conversation, the reason that GMs do not do conversation script checks is because they are EXTREMELY easy to set triggers for. It's the same reason why SEND is not used for normal script checks.
Both anything that mimics an actual IG conversation, and anything using SEND have type-characters attached to them that can be easily triggered off of. In the case of a conversation, it is the quotation mark. In the case of a SEND it is the asterisk. While we can absolutely ask the player to give us information that can't really be scripted for (and we do actually already use that as one of the many types of checks we do), we absolutely would not want to do it via a regular-looking conversation or via SEND. That makes it far too easy for people to set triggers to log out the second that type-character hits their screen.
If we were just looking to auto-drop anyone who might be afking, we have a tool we could use for that. That's not what we want to accomplish, though, and that would also be amazingly trivial to account for in a script that could then just log you right back in a short bit later. We'd never be able to enforce anything related to the scripting policy then, because the player could just claim to have an unstable internet connection.
-Persida
Both anything that mimics an actual IG conversation, and anything using SEND have type-characters attached to them that can be easily triggered off of. In the case of a conversation, it is the quotation mark. In the case of a SEND it is the asterisk. While we can absolutely ask the player to give us information that can't really be scripted for (and we do actually already use that as one of the many types of checks we do), we absolutely would not want to do it via a regular-looking conversation or via SEND. That makes it far too easy for people to set triggers to log out the second that type-character hits their screen.
If we were just looking to auto-drop anyone who might be afking, we have a tool we could use for that. That's not what we want to accomplish, though, and that would also be amazingly trivial to account for in a script that could then just log you right back in a short bit later. We'd never be able to enforce anything related to the scripting policy then, because the player could just claim to have an unstable internet connection.
-Persida
JULIAN
Re: What do the players want?
03/08/2018 11:11 AM CST
>>You seem to only read what you want to read. I said specifically engaging in the conversation and answering questions or failing. Not excusing themselves and bugging out. Responding and exiting would not be fulfilling these conditions, and thus be failing. And in that regard, your excuse could be applied to your own idea as well. Script yourself to ooc whisper to whatever is talking to you in your room that an emergency just came up and you have to run, and logging out. Let's not argue just for the sake of arguing, and actually think all this through. If it becomes bickering, the GMs will just shut this conversation down, and it is a conversation that needs to be had.<<
Well, so think it through. If the GM SENDS you initially and you log out with some excuse, are they really going to warn you? No, of course not. That would be unreasonable. You could have legitly been atk and legitly had an excuse and they had only just then tried to get your attention so there's no evidence at that point that you'd been afk. If you have to explain yourself later when you log back in you stick to your excuse and whether they believe you or not they are not going to reasonably be able to punish you.
The same can apply for conversation, yes. I wrote that and you apparantly didn't read it. =P But if the check is conversation and you bug out when someone talks around you then a LOT of text is going to make you bug out. It´s a lot less attractive as a strategy.
Mazrian
Well, so think it through. If the GM SENDS you initially and you log out with some excuse, are they really going to warn you? No, of course not. That would be unreasonable. You could have legitly been atk and legitly had an excuse and they had only just then tried to get your attention so there's no evidence at that point that you'd been afk. If you have to explain yourself later when you log back in you stick to your excuse and whether they believe you or not they are not going to reasonably be able to punish you.
The same can apply for conversation, yes. I wrote that and you apparantly didn't read it. =P But if the check is conversation and you bug out when someone talks around you then a LOT of text is going to make you bug out. It´s a lot less attractive as a strategy.
Mazrian
JTIZEL4SHO
Re: What do the players want?
03/08/2018 11:17 AM CST
>The same can apply for conversation, yes. I wrote that and you apparantly didn't read it. =P But if the check is conversation and you bug out when someone talks around you then a LOT of text is going to make you bug out. It´s a lot less attractive as a strategy.<
Your idea of the situation would cause a lot of people to make f2p's and run around typing ****** Send or wahever the messaging is and also just randomly saying stuff people could even send a familiar in the room and say eet. Very bad idea for the trolling world Mazrian I'm sorry I completely disagree.
" Its like when I'm right I'm right, when I'm wrong I could been right, so I'm still right cause I coulda been wrong, you know, and I'm sorry cause I could be wrong right now, I could be wrong, but if I'm right... "
JULIAN
Re: What do the players want?
03/08/2018 11:18 AM CST
>>Your idea of the situation would cause a lot of people to make f2p's and run around typing **** Send or wahever the messaging is and also just randomly saying stuff people could even send a familiar in the room and say eet. Very bad idea for the trolling world Mazrian I'm sorry I completely disagree.<<
If they do that and you're ATK, though, there's no issue.
Mazrian
If they do that and you're ATK, though, there's no issue.
Mazrian
RIGHTEOUSFURY
Re: What do the players want?
03/08/2018 11:22 AM CST
>>If they do that and you're ATK, though, there's no issue.
A- it's obnoxious.
B- it's a pretty clear violation of policy.
C- it encourages people to use free to play characters for harassment, eating up both game and personnel resources.
So I mean, there's just a few of the issues.
Also, thanks for the insight, Persida. I was more leaning on penalizing people for just exiting on the onset of a script check, I didn't see that as being unreasonable, maybe a lapse in my judgement. Also, we appreciate very much the staff input on this, and for allowing this conversation to continue, in hopes something good can come from it.
JULIAN
Re: What do the players want?
03/08/2018 11:24 AM CST
All those trolls running around talking to people. Shameful. =P
Mazrian
Mazrian
