So I read the full looting comments on Niaz..'s Battleground Thread.

Here's the deal as I see it. If you really want to discourage full looting, why don't you remove the ability to loot with charmies. The way it works now, game mechanics don't just enable, they actively encourage necromancers, Tribunals, and druids to full loot everything, down to the last bit of "hero outfit" gear.

So there's the easy fix: Charmies can't loot anymore.

The way it is now, asking a necromancer (or tribunal, druid et al.) not to full loot is like asking him not to flee/sleep - game mechanics have set the ability up as a significant advantage to the class.

well The first thing that has baffled me for the longest time is why can't sub-11 chars loot corpses? I mean if you die at rank 5 better believe that level 51 can loot your corpse and some actually will for your ohh so precious newbie bread.

My two ideas for fixing this is first make sub-11 pccorpses off limits to pk range characters. this means no looting, no animating, no butchering, skinning, singing of requiem, etc. This helps keep gear in the hands of the newbie and yeah i realize occasionally they might have really good gear for somereason but if they quit before they hit 11 its poof and once they hit 11 feel free to gank them for it.

The second solution is to allow newbies to loot any corpse. This might seem a bit much but keep in mind with corpseguard they will often have a near impossible time of it anyways. By random chance though a newbie might be able to get a leg up with this system though.

another cool idea would be to modify corpseguard so that everytime you knock someone away random things can happen.

for instance
you could backhand them and do a little damage (like a hit or a wound)
you could shove them away which would lag them for a moment(like 1 round or 1.5 round lag)
The idea of this is simply to reduce the huge amount of spam that accompanies corpse looting these days.

>well The first thing that has baffled me for the longest time
>is why can't sub-11 chars loot corpses?

Because they take no risk in doing so.

If you're level 11, there's at least a chance someone will kill you while you're out trying to spam get all corpse in a war zone, and there's at least some opportunity for the looted dude to hire someone else to kill you and get it back.

there is nothing you can do if someone else loots your corpse. The time it takes with newbie moves to reaquire a basic set of skull rings, etc, is considerable compared to the amount of time newbies spend doing other things.

>So there's the easy fix: Charmies can't loot anymore.

My personal position is we don't ask anyone to full loot any
more than we ask the people who die to continue acting like
total pussies about it. Looting is less common than it's been,
charmies can loot less than they could in the past, and death
is easier to recover from than ever.

That said, do you think charmies should be able to hold items
at all? Coins? Boats? Be affected by magic? Is it just the
ability to get items from inside corpses? Other containers?
Off the ground?

I don't have any interest really in changing anything there,
but I'm curious.

Qaledus

>>So there's the easy fix: Charmies can't loot anymore.
>
>My personal position is we don't ask anyone to full loot any
>more than we ask the people who die to continue acting like
>total pussies about it.
>

That wasn't the impression I got from reading Niaz's PBF and Battlefield Thread. I read the "bitch" and newbie unfriendliness comments, and I thought "Hmmm.. this is going to encourage people who die to complain about sportsmanship, but that's not going to change anything, so why don't I make a suggestion."

TBH, though, I can't be sure whether your definition of "acting like total pussies" includes complaining about the lack sportsmanship in CF and how everything is going down the drain. But I'm going to assume it does.

Moreover, Aarn's not alone in his opinion. There's strong support to limit full looting (of course, there's strong support to leave it the way it is, as well ).


>
Looting is less common than it's
>been,

Well, I can take your word for it, but IMO it's always been about the same. In fact, for a lengthy period of time in the past, when the Knights of Thera were prohibited from looting more than half, I'm sure full looting happened less overall than it does now. Anyway, I realize this is a minor, tangential quibble, but I see people saying this all the time and just wanted to toss in a contrary observation.

>charmies can loot less than they could in the past,


That's true, but then it's also true that a necromancer/Tribunal/(maybe druid) can still strip clean a corpse without breaking a sweat. This is somewhat more than a minor quibble because it's a pretty essential concept to my "quick and easy fix."


>and death
>is easier to recover from than ever.
>


True.


>That said,


Well, that said, it doesn't sound like you want to limit full looting, at all, and I misunderstood the comments in Niaz's PBF and goodbye thread.


>do you think charmies should be able to hold items
>at all? Coins? Boats? Be affected by magic? Is it just the
>ability to get items from inside corpses? Other containers?
>Off the ground?
>
>I don't have any interest really in changing anything there,
>but I'm curious.
>

OK, first, thanks for taking the time to respond even though you're unpersuaded. Second, I think charmies should:

1. NOT be able to "hold" items in their hands, but MAY hold items in their inventory.

2. Be able to "hold" coins, again in their inventory

3. Be able to "hold" boats, " "

4. Be affected by magic.

5. Can take items from containers (who cares when a pit gets looted).

6. Can "take all" from the ground.

7. Be limited in their ability to get items from corpses by any of the following:
7.i. Must remove one item at a time, by name (no get 1.).
7.ii. Must remove one item at a time, with slight lag.
7.iii. Cannot loot corpses, period.

>>>So there's the easy fix: Charmies can't loot anymore.
>>
>>My personal position is we don't ask anyone to full loot any
>>more than we ask the people who die to continue acting like
>>total pussies about it.
>>
>
>That wasn't the impression I got from reading Niaz's PBF and
>Battlefield Thread. I read the "bitch" and newbie
>unfriendliness comments, and I thought "Hmmm.. this is going
>to encourage people who die to complain about sportsmanship,
>but that's not going to change anything, so why don't I make a
>suggestion."

I got a different impression. And maybe I should have been
clearer in that I don't encourage players to actively take
everything from a corpse any more than I encourage them to
leave their potential for victory or recovery from defeat up
to their enemies. That's not contradictory to anything an Imm
posted in that thread though. Again, my opinion.

>TBH, though, I can't be sure whether your definition of
>"acting like total pussies" includes complaining about the
>lack sportsmanship in CF and how everything is going down the
>drain. But I'm going to assume it does.

It doesn't necessarily.

>Moreover, Aarn's not alone in his opinion. There's strong
>support to limit full looting (of course, there's strong
>support to leave it the way it is, as well ).

Recognize that we've taken several step to limit full looting
already, but still leave a decent opportunity because it is
at the discretion of the player. Your suggestion struck me
as a bit much.

>>
>Looting is less common than it's
>>been,
>
>Well, I can take your word for it, but IMO it's always been
>about the same. In fact, for a lengthy period of time in the
>past, when the Knights of Thera were prohibited from looting
>more than half, I'm sure full looting happened less overall
>than it does now. Anyway, I realize this is a minor,
>tangential quibble, but I see people saying this all the time
>and just wanted to toss in a contrary observation.
>
>>charmies can loot less than they could in the past,
>
>
>That's true, but then it's also true that a
>necromancer/Tribunal/(maybe druid) can still strip clean a
>corpse without breaking a sweat. This is somewhat more than a
>minor quibble because it's a pretty essential concept to my
>"quick and easy fix."

Quick and easy doesn't always make things the best choice.
Your lead-off suggestion just had, to me, more impact than
I think the 'problem' warrants.

>>and death
>>is easier to recover from than ever.
>>
>
>
>True.
>
>
>>That said,
>
>
>Well, that said, it doesn't sound like you want to limit full
>looting, at all, and I misunderstood the comments in Niaz's
>PBF and goodbye thread.

If by 'you' you mean 'Qaledus', you're wrong. If you mean the
Staff as a whole, considering that we've already taken some
steps to limit looting, I don't see where you get that absolute
of an impression. I may not want to eliminate 'get all corpse'
from the game without thinking about it, but that doesn't mean
I wouldn't think about it.

>
>>do you think charmies should be able to hold items
>>at all? Coins? Boats? Be affected by magic? Is it just the
>>ability to get items from inside corpses? Other containers?
>>Off the ground?
>>
>>I don't have any interest really in changing anything there,
>>but I'm curious.
>>
>
>OK, first, thanks for taking the time to respond even though
>you're unpersuaded. Second, I think charmies should:

I'm unpersuaded by your suggestion, I don't reject your motive
outright.

>1. NOT be able to "hold" items in their hands, but MAY hold
>items in their inventory.
>
>2. Be able to "hold" coins, again in their inventory
>
>3. Be able to "hold" boats, " "
>
>4. Be affected by magic.
>
>5. Can take items from containers (who cares when a pit gets
>looted).

Newbies, for one.

>6. Can "take all" from the ground.
>
>7. Be limited in their ability to get items from corpses by
>any of the following:
>7.i. Must remove one item at a time, by name (no get 1.).
>7.ii. Must remove one item at a time, with slight lag.
>7.iii. Cannot loot corpses, period.

Would you think that people could still give things to their
charmies?

7.i and 7.ii are far less restrictive than what you suggested
initially. Do you think 7.i for example could 'solve' the 'problem'
to the point that you would support if it meant that 7.iii would
be ruled out down the line instead of the issue being considered
further?

What if PCs had to abide by the same rule?

Is your distinction between items on the ground or in pits
that charmies lack the manual dexterity to strip a corpse,
in an in-game sense?

What if undead could only pick up items of a certain size
(be it wear slot and/or weight that determines it), but were
otherwise left as is?

Knowing that there is a wand/spell/scroll/power that the
charmie's owner can always have to simply destroy the
corpse and then the charmies could take all anyway, still
think that 7.i or 7.ii is enough of a balance?

Qaledus

I'd say:

>>1. NOT be able to "hold" items in their hands, but MAY hold
>>items in their inventory.
>>
>>2. Be able to "hold" coins, again in their inventory
>>
>>3. Be able to "hold" boats, " "
>>
>>4. Be affected by magic.
>>
>>5. Can take items from containers (who cares when a pit gets
>>looted).
>
>Newbies, for one.
>
>>6. Can "take all" from the ground.
>>
>>7. Be limited in their ability to get items from corpses by
>>any of the following:
>>7.i. Must remove one item at a time, by name (no get 1.).
>>7.ii. Must remove one item at a time, with slight lag.
>>7.iii. Cannot loot corpses, period.
>
>Would you think that people could still give things to their
>charmies?
>

Yes. Though now that you've posed the question, I can foresee "get 1.;give 1." aliases. So I guess if things one day went 7.i or 7.ii, I'd think the same restriction would have to apply to giving items to charmies.


>7.i and 7.ii are far less restrictive than what you suggested
>initially. Do you think 7.i for example could 'solve' the
>'problem'
>to the point that you would support if it meant that 7.iii
>would
>be ruled out down the line instead of the issue being
>considered
>further?
>


Yes. Because I think then necromancers/Tribs/druids would be nearly but not quite as restricted as everyone else (the class/cabal advantage would be increased inventory space).


>What if PCs had to abide by the same rule?
>

Not sure it's necessary. I thought about those restrictions for charmies because.. ahem.. it's what I have to do when I loot corpses. I never have the inventory space to "get all", so I have to sit there sifting through the stuff while it's in the corpse and decide what to take out and put into my precious inventory space (short desc's are more accurate than long descs, so destroying the corpse is a bad idea for me). So basically it would make charmie-owners have to loot as slowly and deliberately as I do.

Assuming other PCs are as picky with their inventory space as I am, it doesn't seem necessary to slow down PC looting. Plus, a while ago Nepenthe convincingly argued that restricting PC looting by adding a lag would encourage multi-killing until the PKer got what he wanted.


>Is your distinction between items on the ground or in pits
>that charmies lack the manual dexterity to strip a corpse,
>in an in-game sense?
>

Honestly, I haven't gone that far to think of an in-game rationale, but I can put more thought into it. My initial reaction when you mentioned undead and manual dexterity is that they're too clumsy/mindless to swiftly grab everything they can while it's scattered piecemeal on the corpse; they need explicit direction and time. When it's in a pile on the ground, they spread their stiff arms and scoop everything up. Doesn't apply to all charmies though.

My distinction OOC is that while easy ways of destroying corpses exist for certain classes/cabals, and there is no lag on sacraficing, it seems "unbalanced" if you could fully sacrafice all someone's items easier than you could full loot them (e.g., Tribunal-Outlander mutual destruction). So I figured, once it's on the ground, it's fair game. Otherwise you'd have to put a lag on "sacrafice" to balance things out, and I didn't want to indulge your patience and complicate things that far.


>What if undead could only pick up items of a certain size
> (be it wear slot and/or weight that determines it), but were
>otherwise left as is?
>

Hmm. Not sure how this would work out. It's definately more nuanced than what I'm suggesting. I think it would be easier to explain with an in-game rationale.

>Knowing that there is a wand/spell/scroll/power that the
>charmie's owner can always have to simply destroy the
>corpse and then the charmies could take all anyway, still
>think that 7.i or 7.ii is enough of a balance?
>


"Can always have" = readily available with relatively little effort? If so, no, it would not be enough of a balance and negate my simple fix (I'd have to complicate it by adding a lag to "sacrafice" and a lag to charmies picking up things off the ground - which affects more than just looting).


>Qaledus
>
>

They are *very* limited as to how much they can loot. On the one hand because treants have a very limited inventory, as do COWs. Furthermore COWs are very short lived. I lost several *nice* pieces because my COW was holding it and decided to go frolic in the fields rather than kick trib ass with me.

"New payment options w/ Iron Realms"

Will suck for those who get killed in town nah?

Since the tribunal will only be able to save some of their stuff rather than everything.. But on the brighter side, it will rock everyone else, so all in all the average person dying in town can expect to get more eq back.. And the average person dying in a random area has their eq-returning expectation increased even more