I have been doing some reading of late on Ap's and the new skills and abilities, and ran across this old thread of Valg's:

"Which do you think would be more potent? The soul of a hardened, battle-tested paladin who strikes fear into the wicked? Or the soul of a meek guy who couldn't run away quickly enough? All the involved echoes have the weapon absorbing some portion of the victim's essence. A stronger foe lends more potency than a weaker one, and an AP knows this in an IC sense. There's nothing OOC or numbercrunchy about it."

Now this got me to thinking. Right now most AP's seem to have a hit and miss approach, not understanding why one victim gave them three chartges while another gave them none etc. Maybe it could be made so that somehow (via consider, a skill or spell) an AP might be able to determine, in a general sense, how powerful an individual is soul wise. Eg:

con beladorizid
His soul has been tempered in many battles.

This would protect the weak from "let's see" kills, and put more challenege on the people who are better equipped (skill wise) to handle it.

Thoughts?

Right now most AP's seem to have a hit and miss approach, not understanding why one victim gave them three chartges while another gave them none etc

I disagree. There's nothing mystifying about it- a person with a strong PK record is worth more than a person with an unestablished record who is worth more than a person with an established but poor record.

This would protect the weak from "let's see" kills,

Or it would help out the ultra-cowardly Zodrimauk (sp?) types who spent their whole existence identifying and killing the least capable foes they could find, while avoiding anyone tougher.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

<i>Or it would help out the ultra-cowardly Zodrimauk (sp?) types who spent their whole existence identifying and killing the least capable foes they could find, while avoiding anyone tougher.</i>

You're calling unarguably one of the most skilled players to have ever graced CF an ultra-coward? I realise that Aciduar (the character) was well before your time, but damn man, show some respect.

I think the original posters point stands. The weak will be avoided because the AP knows he won't get a charge, so what's the point in taking the risk? Hell, if I had Palan I'd start at the top of the "charge list" and work my way down.

"Once you can accept the universe as matter expanding into nothing that is something, wearing stripes with plaid comes easy."
- Albert Einstein

nt

Bizarro I'm helping!

#### if I know/knew who Zodrimauk (sp?) was played by, but ain't no one before my time, and he didn't get #### of respect from me.

Generally, I try to give characters the respect they're due. A ####ty player with a spotted past can, believe it or not, come up with a great character and earn respect for it. Similarly, a veteran player can come up with jack #### and likewise have that character get the amount of respect from us that it deserves.

with being a cowardly AP. An AP with charges in his axe has a lot more to lose from dying than just gear. All his work up to that point turns to a big fat ZERO except for controls. This being said, dying is not an option the more charges you build. If i played an AP i would be very very careful until i got 100 charges or whatever and then its them who are running. I would lie and cheat people, save my ass and let my group die, bash my hurt groupies, take my groupie to a no exit room and cleave him...do what i gotta do to build my weapon. Sure as hell wont tackle poweful foes until the time is right. I might tackle them if i could trick em or catch em with their pants down.

Just have to play your cards well and pick your fights until you are powerful enough to tackle them without getting raped. Courage is great and all but not when you have an unholy powerful enough to really miss losing it but not powerful enough to rip poeple up.

With AP's i think cowardice should not be an issue, as with Liches, where dying is very very costly. If you lose axe or phylacteries with such a char because of bravery or courage, you will get multikilled as soon as you unghost simply because poeple will not take advantage of your sudden loss of power.

However, logging in, checking your range then logging out is lame and i would call that cowardly. Actually being logged on and running away from gangs is not, nor is killing weaklings building up your axe/phylacteries.
Ciao

You're calling unarguably one of the most skilled players to have ever graced CF an ultra-coward? I realise that Aciduar (the character) was well before your time, but damn man, show some respect.

Sorry, but that character still stands out as the single worst example of 'only picking easy fights' I've seen to date. The fact that the player obviously knew what he was doing made it more pathetic, not less.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

I find that your arguments, and your choices of words (and nepenthe's as well) bring up in me some interesting thoughts.

They are quite complicated, probably more so than I have the skill to put into written words...but I will try.


If we look at just the CHARACTER, in the CF universe, your choice of words such as "Single worst" and "pathetic" seem to put an artificial "value judgement" on the virtues of Bravery and daring.

Both of which, it can be argued...are rarely associated with true "evil".

Which brings up the argument....for an AP, isn't that supposed to be the point? to do whatever is best "FOR YOU" and to hell with any of the hoity-toities who call your actions "worst" or "pathetic".

Aren't they supposed to be "bullies"? And aren't "Bullies" supposed to go after those who are very obviously "weak", and shy away from challenges such as taking on the powerful?


I understand, an evil bastard that is ALSO brave and daring is a neet thing...but it seems to me that it should be rare...and not the standard by which all other evils are measured.

It just seems to me, that (especially with you being an Evil bastard of an imm) the dark forces would more support and uphold and give benefits to those who are closer to the stereotype of "Bully"...as that is the kind of person who weeds out the week ...etc.

But, with you and nepenthe and other imms posting such opinions on the "character" on this board....I'm afraid that I am seeing evidence that You (collectively) as "PLAYERS" of imms are making judgements as to the "OOC" motivations of the "PLAYER" and labling them "cowardice" or "pathetic"...and then taking those judgements over and letting that effect how your "CHARACTERS", your God characters, see and judge the "IC" motivations of the "CHARACTER".


Just some thoughts.


"Death awaits ya all, wit nasteh big pointeh teeth!"

1) Putting arbitrary words in quotes and all-caps makes your post hard to read.

2) Aren't they supposed to be "bullies"? And aren't "Bullies" supposed to go after those who are very obviously "weak", and shy away from challenges such as taking on the powerful?

It's a valid role option. Which is why Zodrimauk received a title that befit it. He was not "punished" in any sort of rules sense. However, titles can and will reflect an IC reputation that you have built for yourself. In an IC sense, they are not commonly "given" by an Immortal. They should reflect the way the character is seen by the public.

And for souls, as has been pointed out elsewhere in the thread, you are free to go after weaker folk. However, your weapon does not profit the way it would from a powerful, battle-hardened soul. This is perfectly sensible IC.

3) You're correct that I don't think Zodrimauk was cleverly roleplaying a cowardly character- his farewell thread confirmed that it wasn't an undocumented role feature.

4) It just seems to me, that (especially with you being an Evil bastard of an imm) the dark forces would more support and uphold and give benefits to those who are closer to the stereotype of "Bully"...as that is the kind of person who weeds out the week ...etc.

Not really. My character is excessively pragmatic. I could get any schmuck to knock off the same character 4 times in an hour, fresh off the ghost timer, with three of his friends. I'd value someone who was willing to get more difficult jobs done much more highly. My character doesn't really view the 'weak' as being worth paying much attention to, and doesn't really care if they live or die.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

> his farewell thread confirmed that it wasn't an undocumented role feature.

Just a short question...was his farewell thread deleted?

I had a hero when he was about in hero range, but never really interacted with him and we never had a fight...but I sure don't remember when he left or remember a farewell thread by him. And searching for "Zodrimauk" or even "Zod" doesn't turn up a thread by him....just a death-angel post about his autodeletion....that shows no replies, so I guess I'll just take your word for it that it wasn't in his role to be a gutless bully.


"Death awaits ya all, wit nasteh big pointeh teeth!"

It would have been lost around the time that we had to reinstall the forums last year, along with all content from that period of time.

Had it been his role idea to play a gutless coward, and he got a title that basically called him a gutless coward, I would argue it should have been received as a compliment.

Example: If you saw the movie Bully, Nick Stahl (most recently of HBO's very nifty Carnivale) plays the titular character, an irredeemably horrible human being. My interpretation of the point of the point of the movie is to present this character, and ask whether or not any retribution that comes to him is deserved in a legal or moral sense, even when it becomes very severe. I'm reasonably confident that if I walked up to him after a premiere and said "Wow. Your character was really spineless.", he'd smile and thank me.

In General Zod's case, however, I think the player (and his pals) took it very differently because he wasn't really roleplaying anything of the sort, and they feel my comments therefore reflect on the player's style of approaching a game. I'm forced to agree.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

In General Zod's case...

Superman reference?

Bizarro I'm helping!

Some get bored with the lack of cabal direction, others become irritated with blatant bias. Jacynth as an evil imm cracked a lot of people up. To each their own, just avoid playing Scions if you don't want to deal with any of it, they put in the time and it's their show.

Easy fix: tweak the way charges are calculated so that crappy kills give *zero* charges. Then the AP who abuses the new "assess" power to only fight sucky people will wind up with jack squat in his weapon.

Personally I don't like the idea, but the above would at least take away that particular opportunity for abuse. Then again, there are more reasons to kill someone than just charges (i.e. gear). The gear-hungry anti-paladin with assess might see a decked guy and attack him if he registers as unskilled, but leave him alone if he registers as skilled. That would suck.

Bear in mind that many players are concerned with pk ratio or pk count.

They'd still check out people to see who is weak, and then whack them if they are.

True. Then again, you could maybe curtail this with a little immtervention. If an imm is snooping an AP and sees him assess someone first then attack them because they suck, maybe have him *subtract* a charge or two from the AP's weapon. He'll get with the program.


Your weapon sighs meekly as it consumes Bob's pathetic soul.
It feels diminished for having co-mingled with the essence of one so weak.

You have to flee in terror from Bob when he tries to spam kill himself to take your power away.

Nonono. It would be an imm-driven deal, not automatic. The imm would have to *see* the AP being chicken####, then take the charges away when he kills the weakling.

The point isn't that A-Ps shouldn't be killing people that suck, it's that they shouldn't use their assess power to identify people who suck just so they can kill them.

But given the effort policing it would require, it's hardly worth it.

But given the effort policing it would require, it's hardly worth it.

My thoughts exactly, especially when the current system handles this well.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

For example:

"Looks like the system is working exactly how we had hoped. Hanging around level 36-40 to build up charges isn't nearly as easy as building up charges in the 47-51 range, 'nuff said."

Another of your quotes, reading that, I could never ever guess that what you said in the above thread is true. based on this actually, one would soften slightly as one played more and more and entered the Hero ranks. I guess I just want to know how to determine who and how I can get the best charges, honestly it's just never been point black said (Unless the thread above this is the complete answer, in which case I don't fully understand the above quote)

P.S. Love all the Imms work and especially yours, so nothing personal

::Or it would help out the ultra-cowardly Zodrimauk (sp?) types who spent their whole existence identifying and killing the least capable foes they could find, while avoiding anyone tougher.

Jeez, that's pretty damn harsh and quite undeserved. You act like he invented that tactic. No he didn't, it was employed by a hundred other A-P's before he ever even got around to rolling one. Ultra-cowardly Zodrimauk? What about Astilamos? Now he was a hundred times the #### that Zod was and ####, the Empire imms made him Emperor and called it smart playing. But i guess it doesn't really matter, you already drove Aciduar away from playing CF.


Cheers.
Jhyrb.

What about Astilamos? Now he was a hundred times the #### that Zod was and ####, the Empire imms made him Emperor and called it smart playing.

I couldn't agree more. What a pathetic whining loser.

nt

Firstly, I think most ap's can quickly work out for themselves what makes someone worth a lot and what makes someone worth bugger all.

I played by three rules of thumb.

1. related to how many charges I last got for killing them
2. related to what I'd done since killing them
3. related to their ic reputation

This very simple set of approximate rules lets you know quite easily who is worth what. Sure, you still whack the semi-naked guy on the off chance he's worth something, but you still know character X is going to be worth several souls. I know when I spotted someone like this I hunted them pretty much exclusively.

I don't think ap's should be able to sense the power of a soul. I think a player should work that out for himself. It, to me, is part of what playing an ap should be about. I like that I learnt by experience that a herald is not worth killing, instead of just using a command to check each herald.

I would also say that while Zodrimauk may have picked weak victims, he also picked the right tactics against stronger ones too. Nothing amazing in doing so (e.g. deafen that mage), but solid tactics if nothing else given the circumstances. I came pretty close to dying to him and his group, I recall.

An easy way for an AP to check and see how skilled a person is in PK, without any risk to himself.
More than a little bit abusable, I think.

Besides, on general principle I don't like APs to pick and choose fights based solely on how many charges they might get.

But it has not yet been determined that charges are a direct reflection of pure pk ability. If it were I would agree with you somewhat.

I like it. And I can't see anything negative about this, but then again, I'm not good at that sort of thing. Thumbs up from me.

==
You get 269938 gold coins from the corpse of Valguarnera.
==