Go back to previous topic
Forum Name The Battlefield
Topic subject(AGE DEATH) [TRIBUNAL] Kaazra Shaheen the Spectre, Marked of the Indigo Triangle, Provincial Magistrate
Topic URLhttps://forums.carrionfields.com/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=4&topic_id=42214
42214, (AGE DEATH) [TRIBUNAL] Kaazra Shaheen the Spectre, Marked of the Indigo Triangle, Provincial Magistrate
Posted by Death_Angel on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
Sat Oct 22 20:59:11 2005

At 6 o'clock PM, Day of the Moon, 7th of the Month of the Spring
on the Theran calendar Kaazra perished, never to return.
Race:human
Class:necromancer
Level:47
Alignment:Evil
Ethos:Orderly
Cabal:TRIBUNAL, the Blood Tribunal
Age:78
Hours:404
42318, RE: (AGE DEATH) [TRIBUNAL] Kaazra Shaheen the Spectre, Marked of the Indigo Triangle, Provincial Magistrate
Posted by Baltherias on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
I just read the role, and it's a VERY well-done descent-into-darkness sorta role. Course...I suppose being an evil druid, I feel sorta associated, hehe. However, reading the role has inspired me to actually *WRITE DOWN* Balth's. I think Eshval knows what's going on, but I shudder to think what the other Imms'll say of ME.

Anyways, to keep the topic on YOU, I know what you mean about people inspiring frustration and rage. I came close to doing you in a time or two, but never managed it, where you always had the sleep ready, and that spells the end. I hated you with a passion, but thought you were well done. Anyways, back to work. See you again soon hopefully.
42317, Ouch
Posted by Gondrak on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
I loved our discussions, and occasionally hunting/trading with you. Yeah, I've been wanted alot...though most of it came when I had the numbers behind me not to worry about tribs.

Looked like you did a great job in trib, too. Come on back, maybe to scion this time.

Ps when I saw age-dead at 404 I almost crapped my pants, since my hour count is about like that lol.

good job
42314, Nice character
Posted by nepenthe on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
I've been up to some things IRL and haven't even had internet access for a couple days, and it's a shame that I missed the lichquest completely. I liked this character and would've been rooting for you to make it.
42306, A shame to see her go.
Posted by Salvator on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
I logged on Sunday night expecting to see my favorite super-villain, but she was nowhere to be found. I understand now, and I am sad to see your character go.

Salvator absolutely hated this person, for she was the worst evil imaginable--an evil person who thought she was doing good. We had a few brief rp sessions, a few individual scrapes between us that resulted in one or the other of us getting away, and a few gank wars where each of us had ended up as daisy chow. It was all good.

I'm looking forward to your next.
42217, The rooster crowed at dusk & the fat lady cried and sang her song.
Posted by Kaazra on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
Well, it was a good run and I have only one regret. I killed a lot of people and died a whole lot of times, staying alive as a necromancer can be quite challenging. The one thing I would have done differently with this character is altar my choice of Becoming. I am fairly sure that all of my items were correct but the quest simply came too late and I age died from the potion. Quite disappointing and If I had to do it all over again I would have tried to mummy as soon as I hit 47. In any event on to good byes.

Imms:

Trabryn: I went to your shrine at level 1 and only saw you once. I understand if you’re busy, but perhaps you should label your religion dormant?

Flaming Voice: thanks for the immteraction, I really appreciate it, livened up otherwise dull days.

Innis: That really sucked when you killed me in market square.

Tribunal:

Falun: You were my best and closest ally in the later stages of my life. I hope you go all kinds of places. I also want to thank you a lot for all the help you gave me in trying to lich, I never could have made the attempt without you.

Ixullathan: My next best and closest ally. I said pretty much all I had to say in my response to your battlefield post. I missed you after you were gone.

Seiichi: I thought you were a good leader who made a few bad policies. I thought and still do think that all of your non-aggression schemes were bad news for the spire at large. Aside from that you were an inspiring leader and made the average joe magistrate look up to you. Well done.

Whelan: You were great and consistent presence, the spire needs more people like you.

Fendracorl: Another great magistrate, there is nobody who could do your job better than you.

Jaraffazar: You are just a beast, your attitude is gay beyond belief, but you may be the most brutal vindicator ever.

Ornerne: Another great vindicator, seems to me you were loosing interest at the end?

Other:

Gondrak: For a warrior I never saw with a wanted flag you had a terrible record. A pity we never finished our business.

Forsk: I hated your guts. You were without a doubt the most infamous criminal of recent times and you made my life miserable – in a good way.

Xilla: Talk about a pest, you made a good one to my character. Again, well done.

Ulothrye: Good job on those last few kills, I deserved what was coming to me both times.

Meakanera/Bracktinsi: Never saw you guys much after I spectred but when I did, things always went south for me.

Arminas: You are a great enemy and I’m sorry you haven’t seen more success recently. Don’t disappear on the poor tribs ;)

Faltarn: Beast, I’d leave you to Jaraffazar to deal with ;) all your preps + eyes + humansunder made for a lot of pain for this necro.

Well, I’m getting tired of naming names, I know I’m forgetting a lot of people here, but if you respond I’ll certainly reply.

Thanks for all the good times and I will probably see you in the fields.
42218, Wtf happened?
Posted by GoodieHater on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
You get the wrong item or did the elixir age die you?

If it age died you, as it looks now...Why in the hell would imms make you wait SO LONG before giving it to you, KNOWING, given your char's age it has a high chance of age killing you?

Sounds like a really bad practical joke. I really hope for their sake, that you got the wrong items.
42219, I always had the option to go Mummy...
Posted by Kaazra on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
It is my fault I chose to wait. I am almost 100% sure I got all of the items right.
42223, I think that
Posted by GoodieHater on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
imms should have some lich quest preset items. Why is it so hard to give a guy a lich quest before he puts in 400 f*cking hours? I guess thats the stuff you get when you have a free game, bad customer service.
42239, It works like this
Posted by Daurwyn on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
You can have your items 100% right and still age die without being old at all.

I know, because Scarab came to see my char as a ghost, that I got Baendra's items right.

I know, based on imm pbf comments, and Scarab's, that even with correct items there is still only a percent chance of success (and this can be altered by imms). I think mine was bumped from 75% to 85% but the RNG still screwed me and I age died (without being all that old).
42262, Personally I think thats huge bull
Posted by Xaannix- on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
Speaking from a funness and reasonable point of view, I agree with Enbuergo there. If it is a well RP'd character, deserving of a lich quest, at least give them the chance to become a lich. Falling victim to the RNG isnt a very nice way to go and its an extremely frustrating way to go.

Dont you guys think you should review that becoming thing? If the guy is worthy enough to get a lich quest and good enough to get the items right even if its a VERY tough quest, at least dont let the RNG kill him. Its a bunch of cheap "####" Thats just my opinion.
42272, RE: Personally I think thats huge bull
Posted by Valguarnera on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
Speaking from a funness and reasonable point of view, I agree with Enbuergo there. If it is a well RP'd character, deserving of a lich quest, at least give them the chance to become a lich.

He had a chance. It wasn't a 100% chance, but he had a chance.

Falling victim to the RNG isnt a very nice way to go and its an extremely frustrating way to go.

It's also part of the risk of trying the Becoming-- the same one I took, and the same one however many other liches (and/or dead Spectres) did. That won't be changing-- necromancy is a dangerous art.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com
42278, RE: Personally I think thats huge bull
Posted by Xaannix on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
You seem to be missing my point.

Qualifying from an RP point of view is the hardest part. There shouldnt be such a HUGE RNG factor. The RP factor should be the main qualifying requirement and the quest they receive.

Would you consider CF to be an RNG driven mud?

42282, RE: Personally I think thats huge bull
Posted by DurNominator on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
>Would you consider CF to be an RNG driven mud?

Yes I would. RNG is the tool that makes any decisions where danger is involved, such as your enemy's sword hitting you or your liching success. So, instead of being DM-driven MUD, CF is RNG-driven, as RNG makes all the decisions, exept those where an Imm chooses to play DM to some extent and pull the strings.
42284, Thats not what I mean, but anyway, forget it. nt
Posted by Xaannix on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
nt
42286, Skill vs. chance:
Posted by Valguarnera on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
There's plenty of skill involved. You need to get a quest, which is at the discretion of the staff. You have to get the items correct.

All of that gives you a chance, more than 0% and less than 100%. I'm 100% comfortable with that.

I'd also place a bet that if we decided whether or not your quest failed..... there'd be 700 "favoritism" posts. Right now, if you reach the bar, you get a shot.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com
42336, RE: Skill vs. chance:
Posted by DC on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
Don't you still have to get the question?

How is that immune to favoritism? ...I'm so confused.
42337, Quest, not question. n/t
Posted by DC on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
n/t
42342, RE: Skill vs. chance:
Posted by Valguarnera on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
Well, there's always a few people that will bitch about any degree of quality control. Often repeatedly! We don't really make decisions to make that sub-crowd happy. It's just not possible, and I sure don't lose sleep over the conspiracy theorists.

So we've tried to set the bar at a comfy level (most sufficiently long-lived Spectres eventually get quests), and give each of those people a fair shot.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com
42344, Hehe. So which is it?
Posted by DC on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
Do you 'make things as fair as possible by having the RNG in action' or is its involvement completely secondary? I'm not complaining about needing Imm-involvement in liching. I'm just pointing out that if there's imm involvement, there's the potential for bias and therefore 'The RNG is in there to make things fair' argument doesn't hold a lot of weight.

From my own perspective as made evident elsewhere, I just don't agree on a cost versus reward level that anyone's personal happiness at surviving the RNG outweighs the downs of having your char hosed despite you doing everything right. Is anyone that happy when someone's necro gets waxed by the RNG as to make the general consensus that this is 'fun'? It seems kinda non-vital when you can just let the guy not become a lich and lose his shot at any sort of undead-dom.
42345, RE: Hehe. So which is it?
Posted by Valguarnera on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
I guess we'll have to disagree then. I don't foresee any changes, but thanks for the input!

valguarnera@carrionfields.com
42352, You got it chief.
Posted by DC on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
I'll make sure to offer my input as often as possible since you enjoyed it :D. I'm alls about lovin teh Valg.
42312, Here's the REAL reason, Mulder:
Posted by Enbuergo1 on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
No Imm wants to be responsible for 'destroying' a character, so they pin the blame on the one patsy that they know will never rat on them: the RNG.

Imagine this pbf post:

Sebeok: Extremely well-played character, but since nothing should be 100%, I made the potion not work and age-deathed him. Too bad, I enjoyed watching him!

vs.

Sebeok: Extremely well-played character. Unfortunately, the RNG struck again. Too bad, I enjoyed watching him!

Which do you think the Imms are going to get behind?
42315, Which is it?
Posted by Valguarnera on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
Are you claiming:

1) The Elixir Moment is random, but it would be better if we just chose whether would-be liches lived or died.
2) The Elixir Moment isn't random. We're making up the whole RNG thing, and we secretly hosed Kaazra.
3) The Elixir is random, and that's the way you'd prefer it.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com
42322, RE: Which is it?
Posted by Enbuergo1 on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
What is easier to deal with:

"The RNG screwed me!"

or

"That cocksucker Valg DESTROYED MY CHAR FOR NO F##ING REASON!!!!!"

I'm assuming the RNG is real, and the elixir relies on it to determine the chance of success.

All I'm saying is it's set up to rely on the RNG because although not perfect, it's better for Imms than having to take personal responsibility/deal with the public outcry of otherwise good characters being destroyed "because the process shouldn't be 100% safe." It might even be better for the playerbase, because I know if I had a char good enough to lich and completed the quest, and you or Sebeok or someone decided to destroy my char "because the process shouldn't be 100% safe," I wouldn't be coming back (not that I'm even here).
42323, Allriiiight
Posted by Khasotholas on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
So we've established the RNG is real and we use it for certain things. For the lichquest, it's set up the way it is because it's fair. It doesn't have anything to do with shielding us from a public outcry, because pretty much 90% of everything we do causes a public outcry.

It's pretty cut and dry. A well played necromancer can get a lichquest. If he gathers the proper items he has a chance at success. He knows this going in. That chance is based on the RNG. To us, and to you apparently, this seems fair.

The idea that imms go around looking to destroy characters is kind of ridiculous. We try to keep it fair. The lichquest is just another case of this.
42331, RE: Allriiiight
Posted by Enbuergo1 on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
>The idea that imms go around looking to destroy characters is kind of ridiculous.

It would be ridiculous if it never happened, but it has. In any case, folks are determined to misunderstand my posts, so I'm done for another month or so.

*yaaay!*
42329, Im not saying
Posted by Xaannix- on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
that you went out of your way to destroy a char. Im saying that the RNG for this particular purpose and after SO much work and RP from a character, is uncalled for. Its lame, its low and its a cheap way to go. All im saying is to up the chances to 95% or something. Having 2 out of 4 liches get age dead cuz of the RNG is dumb.
42367, RE: Im not saying
Posted by Khasotholas on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
- All im saying is to up the chances to 95% or something.

When the correct items are given, the % is higher than you think. Keep in mind, two out of four is a tiny test group. I think the overall percentage of those who have given the correct items, and survived the becoming is right about where it should be. It is an awful way to go. Agreed. But I still think it's important there be nasty repercussions for failing something as dangerous as that process.
42387, RE: Im not saying
Posted by Xaannix on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
Yes I understand your point. However, this is a game, played by people who devote hundreds and thousands of their hours to try to have fun, making it possible for IMMS to have fun and for the others to as well. Things like this tend to make the game no fun, especially when being killed by the computer randomness. THe way it is, i know its realistic but its costing RL hours of RL people in something that is JUST a game.

What im suggesting is to at least give the people a shot at controlling the process. Make the quest bigger, more items, harder, more stringent RP, whatever, take your pick. BUT...Take the randomness out of it, especially after so much devotion to a char. If we take it IC, a master lichmaker should know exactly what hes doing.

As for the %, how many people in the last, say, 3 years have gotten the correct items and got killed? How many liches were made? Just so we can get a larger test sample. I can only remember 2 liches in the past 3 years. Specters giving wrong items dont count.
42335, RE: Allriiiight
Posted by DC on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
The point is why does it have to kill the character? Why not just fail and that's that. Does it deter anyone from trying for a lich quest? Absolutely not. Does it piss people off and potentially lend credence to the 'the time and effort just leads to getting screwed' mentality? Sure does. What exactly is accomplished by age-deathing someone's character compared to say, just not letting them lich?
42366, RE: Allriiiight
Posted by Khasotholas on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
- The point is why does it have to kill the character?

It doesn't always kill. But if you fail, yes, odds are you're going to age die. I believe the risk of ultimate failure vs the reward of incredible power is important. I think most imms agree on this. It's gut wrenching when it happens to players, it's gut wrenching for immortals as well. Kaazra was an excellent all around player, and fun to watch. Did most of us root for her? Sure. Did it make us want to tweak the system? No.

This is the process of the becoming. It's a gameplay as well as a roleplay issue. This is the legendary lore of the necromancer's guild, and is an important part of many characters I've seen roleplay. Turning the becoming into 'no big deal' is a bad idea.
42400, RE: Allriiiight
Posted by Eskelian on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
Not to beat a dead horse, you guys know my opinion, but I don't think removing age-death as an option for people who have done everything else right is a broad enough or significant enough change to constitute as the becoming being 'no big deal'.

Its been stated elsewhere on this thread that its a rarity that it happens in that manner and that the chances are pretty good if you do everything right.

I'd even suggest some sort of lesser bonus if you get that far, with severe hindrances/vulns elsewhere. Its an impressive accomplishment to last long enough to attain a lich quest and succeed in it, one which should be rewarded in some manner and moreso you most likely won't have much life in the character anyway if you didn't die from it. I'd wager most age-death lich victims don't wind up that way 100% from the RNG, their chances decrease due to the factors involved in lich quests.

That very specific, very rare punishment seems extraneous and harmful to the game and overall happiness of higher end players. It shouldn't be an instant victory but given the complexity, difficulty and logistics of making it that far I think the game as a whole only suffers by giving out the impression 'you were damned from the get go'. If nothing else, it gives the impression that if you try hard enough good things will happen as opposed to feeling its utterly pointless to even go out of your way.
42292, You mean we got you simply because of the RNG?
Posted by Pro-Man on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
Did you Imm by accident or were you dead set on it?
42294, Yup.
Posted by Valguarnera on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
No one imms by accident. If you can get a character to hero, you can read the helpfile on how things proceed.

I considered applying with a previous character, but figured it would be better to get more experience under my belt first and never did.

Had Valg been killed by the Elixir (a significant possiblility, and one I thought about before attempting), I would have applied as the next character. People are evaluated for immship more as players than characters, then and now, so this sort of thing doesn't really impact the overall process, even if it can delay it.

That said, the randomness of the process is what makes it exciting. There's a very cool moment where you're holding the Elixir and haven't downed it yet. I wouldn't trade that for something bland and predictable.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com
42384, The one thing I wasn't keen on
Posted by Daurwyn on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
...was the enforced period of not being able to log on (which has the additional drawback of making it tempting to start another char, which either has to be abandoned or will end up running concurrently with your mummy).

But a week's anticipation only to get perma-killed on log on was a bit much. I would personally prefer knowing that I'm dead and gone right away. Again, the issue of another character comes into it.

Admittedly anticipation for the playerbase at large is heightened, I suppose, but when you're the guy dying it isn't so great to have a week to build up your hopes.
42243, RE: Wtf happened?
Posted by Valguarnera on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
From Kaazra's original post:

I age died from the potion.

That had nothing to do with his character's age. As noted in nearly every piece of text that mentions the Becoming, it comes with certain unavoidable risks. If you don't like that, you are never forced to attempt one, and at least one alternative exists.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com
42248, Criticism of that approach
Posted by Enbuergo1 on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
>As noted in nearly every piece of text that mentions the Becoming, it comes with certain unavoidable risks. If you don't like that, you are never forced to attempt one, and at least one alternative exists.

Very true. Nobody is twisting a spectre's arm to force them to go lich.

However...

...let's take this within the confines of CF as a game. The player knows there is some risks, and I assume from your post that there are references in-game to the potion's ageing affects. However, I also assume that the references do not describe the specific extent of the affects, or Kaazra, whom I assume is a reasonably smart person, would not have undertook the liching process if he knew it meant a 'dead' end. Although the risks were apparent, this seems like a trivial issue that could easily be done away with in favor of other 'more fun' risks.

My opinion is that if you as the imms give Kaazra a lich quest knowing that the quest is pointless by default because of the ageing affects of the elixir, then it's basically messing with an otherwise well-played character for no reason. I would say it's your duty to step in & make the elixir have a different adverse effect in a character that is about to age die. Otherwise it's akin to waiting until someone con dies to grant them that vitality quest.
42249, RE: Criticism of that approach
Posted by Enbuergo1 on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
The above is applicable if, in fact, the potion's ingredients were correct. If they weren't, then bleh.
42250, Umm.
Posted by bal on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
You do realize that EVERY spectre that dies as a result of a bad elixir shows up as "Age Death," right? Look at Baendra, Isefru (sp - whatever) - it doesn't matter if the necro is 100 hours old, 300, or in this case, 400. If they quaff a bad elixir, it's an "Age Death." As for making necros aware of the risk, what could be more clear than:

"The transformation is not without risk, however. Many that quaff the elixir have been permanently crippled or have utterly destroyed themselves in the process."
42254, RE: Umm.
Posted by Enbuergo1 on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
My point:

A->B

Your point:

C
42258, RE: Umm.
Posted by Your point on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
1. There is no prefix for "Elixir Death."

2. Every time a lich dies by elixir, it reads as "Age Death."

3. You stated that Kaazra's quest was "pointless by default because of the aging effects of the elixir."

4. Your statement is incorrect (see 1 and 2). There are no "aging effects of the elixir."

5. You then stated that the Imms could have given a different "adverse effect" than aging.

6. Your statement is again incorrect (see 1 and 2). The effects are these: Death (which shows as an "Age Death") or Crippling. Again, there are no "aging effects of the elixir."

7. You no longer have a point.
42265, Reading is fun
Posted by Enbuergo1 on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
My point:

IF (a conditional; "If") the elixir has an ageing affect ("A"), then (consequential adverb; "->") the Imms should create a different effect for characters nearing age-death (a consequence; "B").

If A->B

Your point:

A fatal elixir shows up as an age-death ("C").

Now you can go back to taxing yourself with Travel Boggle.

On another note, I'd be interested if an imm, or someone more reliable than an anonymous know-it-all vets #4 above.
42273, OK.
Posted by Balrahd1 on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
Nowhere in your post(s) do you mention a "conditional IF". Nowhere. I can quote it if you want. You can pretend you put it in there, but you didn't. Personally, I think it's #### that you would lie rather than admit you were wrong, but that's OK.

Now that you've made that addition, I understand your point. Nonetheless, your "IF" is irrelevant. Which was MY point. Because there is no "aging effect," which you would have realized if you'd taken the five minutes it took you to make your post and instead did a quick search for spectre. I'll leave a seat at the Travel Boggle table for you, though! :)
42276, I'm never wrong.
Posted by Enbuergo1 on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
Except for when I am, like now.

My point was IF it was that way, it shouldn't be. I didn't claim to know the way it actually was.

Actually, I just wanted to see if I could get Valg to brand me a 'complainer,' and I win again!
42285, Yes, your "IF" is very true
Posted by DurNominator on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
Since A is false(the statement which you claimed as C), the value of your if is always true, no matter what the value of B is. Your if is also very irrelevant sentence, due to A being false.
42290, You're Smart.~
Posted by Enbuergo1 on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
~
42269, This is correct. (n/t)
Posted by Valguarnera on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM

valguarnera@carrionfields.com
42271, This is correct. (n/t)
Posted by Valguarnera on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM

valguarnera@carrionfields.com
42338, Difference in viewpoints.
Posted by DC on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
You hold the opinion that so long as its known, its alright. Something like, if you know that if you touch my arm, I'm going to stab you three times in the eye, its ok for me to do so. Personally, I question why the whole thing is necessary in the grand scheme of what is fun and what is not. I think liching is enough of an accomplishment in and of itself. I don't particularly see the value in age-dying the char based on the RNG. Imagine if instead of being booted from cabals you got con-deathed instantly. It might throw some scare at you, or make you proud of not having it happen to you personally, but more likely the overriding all consuming effect is that the cost in fun isn't worth the return in 'thrill'.
42251, You're assuming something that shouldn't be assumed.
Posted by Splntrd on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
Had he succeeded, the aging affects of the potion wouldn't have affected him, being a lich. It isn't a lose/lose situation. They didn't just eff with his character, giving him the quest knowing he was going to fail. It's an RNG thing. It was a risk, not a guarantee. He just happened to fall victim to the risk.
42257, I think they came pretty close.
Posted by Kaazra on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM

The character wasn't far from con death and they gave me a monster of a quest. I never would have found two of the items if I didn't have years worth of logs at my disposal. But in the end you're right, I wasn't forced and I don't think i had a 0% chance of success. I would warn any potential lich that after I - think - I successfully solved my quest yours will be beyond hard. None of my items were in Hell but I wouldn't be surprised if the next lich has to go there to get his. I definetly recommend mummy to any spectre now.
42270, This is correct. (n/t)
Posted by Valguarnera on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM

valguarnera@carrionfields.com
42274, Huh?
Posted by Valguarnera on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
You're complaining about things that don't exist.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com
42256, It was never my intention to come across as though I was bitching.
Posted by Kaazra on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM

I am glad I got the chance, and for that I thank you and the rest of the staff. Thank you.... thank you? err thank you? I only said I age died because that's what I felt happened when I read what crossed my screen when I drank the potion. While it is nice to know that people care enough about me to bitch for me, this is a case where I'd rather they didn't.
42324, Understood.
Posted by Valguarnera on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
It was never my intention to come across as though I was bitching.

Understood. I was replying to GoodieHater/Xaannix's claim that the process shouldn't be random, and subsequently both GoodieHater/Xaannix's and Enbuergo's misperception that you were doomed to fail. (You certainly weren't.)

Other than that, I think everyone's in agreement: Kaazra was a well-played character who completed the quest and got his fair roll of the dice... it just came up snake-eyes.

Thanks for a cool character, and for being amongst the many non-bitchy participants in the thread. :)

valguarnera@carrionfields.com
42220, well i'm pissed
Posted by Falun on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
Funny you mentioned mummy, because I was going to suggest to you just taking a shot at the mummy after the first few weeks of you not hearing anything. BUT, then things came together so quickly the last couple nights that I started planning ahead and got my hopes up..

I was thinking..okay ranking for a few days..I'll watch his back..then he'll need corpses..that's not a problem...but then..dead

*sigh* What can you do?

I'll setup an email account if you want to shoot me an email or anything.

GL with your next and great job with this one

42221, Im definetly disappointed.
Posted by Kaazra on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM

This was my first trib, I had a lot of fun and will almost certainly be back. My email address is jwabraham@gmail.com
42222, Knew you with more than just Ulothrye.....
Posted by Ulothrye on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
And my overall comment is : You have too much time on your hands :)

Over the past month, I think everytime I logged on Kaazra would be there, doing your thing. Anyway good fights mostly, except that last one which was crummy. Being warranted totally sucks but if I got a kill on you when you'd always have the shawtabby mask, it'd make Ulothrye feel like it was worth the oncoming crappiness to get that out of your possession.

Anyway, shame about the elixir, would've made the spire even more powerful than it already is, and dare I say give Fort some real issues with evils running things in town.
42224, RE: Knew you with more than just Ulothrye.....
Posted by Kaazra on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM


Ulothrye: And my overall comment is : You have too much time on your hands :)

Kaazra: That I do, but a lot of the time I was sitting on my ass in guild, I wasn't exactly active. I should definetly and very well may take a break and have more of a life.

All the best to you and yours.
42225, Too bad.
Posted by Whelan on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
I really liked you, everyone would always say that you were the worst of the worst but you were really good to me. Sucks that the elixir failed, i think that your character in particular was like a counter leader to Seiichi in the spire. I think without you, that aspect of things is lost.

Good Character, and i hope youll be back soon.
42226, Ha! - Worst of the worst?
Posted by Kaazra on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM

I'd love to hear about that sometime. Yes it sucks that the elixir failed, but I wasn't too far off from con_death anyway. I never really thought of myself as a counter leader to Seiichi, though I certainly was hoping I'd lich and Seiichi would age_die so that I could have a shot at the spot. Sad as it is, I will probably be back sooner than is good for me, but I'm definetly watching football tomorrow... so maybe monday ;).



42227, Damnations
Posted by Harkan on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
I had high hopes for you. Didnt realize how old you were. Gave me something to do, helping with your items. I enjoyed the terminology you use for diferent people, ect. Nice job.

I really wish you had gotten this going last week. It would have been interesting.

42229, RE: Damnations
Posted by Kaazra on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM

I had high hopes for us. I was dreamin of you flying around and spotting people for me to kill. I think we could have had a lot of fun with the maran, alas. Thanks for the compliment, an index of sorts is included in my role so you can see it if my pbf gets posted. I will probably buy it sometime next week myself if nobody gets it by then.
42228, Might just be but failed elixir comes up as age death, and
Posted by Wondering on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
Just cause you have right items doesn't mean it will work. there is still a chance it will fail. so Not sure if you actually age died.
42232, Thanks for letting me help get you that last item.
Posted by Kruuank on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
We had an interesting relationship. Sucks that it had to end this way.

Good luck on your next.
42234, Shiiiiiiieeeett!
Posted by Cuucqa on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
Like the rest of the evils I was pluggin for you.
I can imagine your hands trembling as you typed quaff elixir and then to croak......GAH!

Anyway good job with Kaazra, We talked a few time sorry mino speech is a pain. Ya coulda been something...ya coulda been a conteda!
I do think the elxir failed for you to hit the age death, but then again I don't really know the ins and outs of the process. I'm sure your pbf will say something.

I'll say more when I croak. Roll another evil for the love of the baby Jesus!
42259, RE: Shiiiiiiieeeett!
Posted by Kaazra on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM

Thanks for the moral and physical support :) And my fingers weren't shaking but I had to lower my eyes for a second while I typed quaff elixir. I looked up to see that it didn't work :P and you gotta drink that thing asap so I banged out drink elixir with nervous fingers and watched as I went up in smoke. Alas. Another evil? - Maybe.
42238, Good riddance!
Posted by Atchertene on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
There was nobody Atch loved to hate more than Kaazra. You were pretty much his antithesis, and you killed me over and over. That one time in seantryn was kinda wack, but ICly unsuprising. Good job all around, luck with your next.
42260, RE: Good riddance!
Posted by Kaazra on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM

Thanks, I think? :) About that one time in Seantryn I submitted myself to Trib judgement immediatly, and I was punished with a two hour lecture from Seiichi, which I assure you was quite painful. Here's hoping you have fun and find more success with Atch.
42244, RE: The rooster crowed at dusk & the fat lady cried and sang her song.
Posted by Forsk on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
You Son of a bitch.. I swear I hated your guts so much. Everytime I wasnt wanted and sitting in town youd come in and say something smart and I'd be wanted all over again. Ofcourse you would come in and see if I had eyes up everytime I was in town too.. and you got me with that hella lot of times. All in all we were bitter enemies but I wouldnt have traded that in for anything. You were actually one of the few evils that openly hunted me without crazy numbers, big up to you for that. Nice char all around man.



Parv
42261, RE: The rooster crowed at dusk & the fat lady cried and sang her song.
Posted by Kaazra on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM

I assure you, the feeling was mutual! I had a tough time dealing with you and you can't believe how glad I was to see Jaraffazar whenever you were around and wanted. I definetly had more courage than was healthy. Hope you're still in the fields and playing an evil now, team evil really needs help.
42245, The only lame thing I noticed from you was....
Posted by tanr on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
The same thing I think is lame about similar tactics:
c 'power word kill' Tanr

*damn didn't work*

Flee, flee, flee

c 'power word kill' Tanr

*damn, didn't work

flee, flee, flee

c 'power word kill' Tanr
Tanr... is DEAD!!

Yeehaw!

It's an overused tactic by several classes and is just sad.

Otherwise it was fun to come in and c'pillar of heavens' and watch all the zombies and guards take unspeakable damage.

I thought for a time that you were being very cautious because I'd go try and raid alone and you wouldn't even bother to come defend and to be honest, I wasn't that scary a pk'er.
42247, I don't like the tactic but
Posted by Daurwyn on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
can't you just buffet his ass so he can't cast the spell? Necros don't get dash.
42255, RE: The only lame thing I noticed from you was....
Posted by Kaazra on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM

I only employed that tactic when someone was fighting the captain directly. Any one of my other spells would make anyone in your situation flee, and no one spell of mine would give me a shot at killing you beyond that.
42266, Well well
Posted by Faltarn on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
I didn't like you a lot because of full looting my crap (I don't mind when someone full loot me but hell it was 3 or 4 try to regear during hour or two ;)). That death piss me off. That's why I was hunting you some time after that.

Anyway you were expirience necromancer. At least it seems so after I looked in your corpse ;) all these wands and eq.

Be well and good luck with your next.
42291, Bummer eh?
Posted by Muuloc on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
I really enjoyed your role and the way you played it. Kaazra was a fairly three dimensional character from my perspective, and that made me want to interact with her. I was sorry to see you fail the lichquest, even if I wasn't able to twist you much.

Muuloc
42293, The thing was...
Posted by Kaazra on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM

Kaazra still thought of herself as mostly a 'good' person and still held to what she considered noble ideals. I was planning to spend the week during incubation writing a few additional role chapters that I had been putting off, notably her war with the fortress and a weakening of her original resolve to put Order over everything. If I had liched I would have been far more susceptible to your manipulations. Too bad all around says I.
42296, RE: The rooster crowed at dusk & the fat lady cried and sang her song.
Posted by Sylentia on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
I enjoyed reading your chapter that was devoted to our little conflict. It was good having some necrotic competition. I knew you were a competant player, so I went after you as hard as I could. One thing I have to say is that you played an amazing amount of hours at a time. It was like you were ALWAYS on. Anyways, well played and no hard feelings.
42299, Err...
Posted by Kaazra on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM

I can see how there would be no hard feelings on your end, you never died! ;) It irked me that after you killed me and had all my good #### I could never find you to fight outside of town. I was also very disappointed when you deleted as I was looking forward to more fights with you. The thing with a necro is that it is such a pain in the ass to get an army that you want to stay on as long as you can so that the time building it wasn't wasted. I will tip my hat though, that last time you got me I royally screwed up and deserved to die.
42415, Well then
Posted by Arminas on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
I have to admit, you were a huge thorn in the side. I was not afraid of any single necromancer, and even the one lich, that I fought over the course of Arminas' life, however you were capable of some downright dirty and unpredictable moves. Which made you way more dangerous than any other cookie cutter necro. The player side of me routes completely for those who deserve it to lich, and believe me I thought you earned it, but man, oh man, oh man, is Arminas ever glad you dropped dead. Outlanders in many ways is rebuilding and kind of an underdog at the moment, but having a lich thron in against us would have made that an even longer venture.

Great character, even if I did eviscerate you verbally in game, it was all part of the role play. We were complete opposites in every facet and I would have expected no less from you. (And pretty much got the same treatment.)

Nice shot at it. Hopefully someday you'll get that quest done proper if you have the patience for it. I only hope I am roughly on your side when you do.

You're all class.

Arminas
42215, RE: (AGE DEATH) [TRIBUNAL] Kaazra Shaheen the Spectre, Marked of the Indigo Triangle, Provincial Magistrate
Posted by Ornerne on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
Ahh, ####. I didn't expect this anytime soon, that blows. You were always reassuring to have around. Most wouldn't do much when you were around, except Fork, the bastard... Heh, just kidding Forsk. Anywho, I was hoping to be able to lend a hand with your quest. Guess it didn't work out in time.

Good luck on your next,

Ornerne
42295, Heh fergot about me!
Posted by Volicitry on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
Tried to help you out when I could! goin to miss you! You offered me very good wisdom amongst the spire!

Volicitry
42300, RE: Heh fergot about me!
Posted by Kaazra on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM

Thanks for all the help you gave me with those dwarves Volicitry. You were always willing to help me, which I appreciated very much, and I think you could go places in the spire. Good luck!

Kaazra