Person A says: if you agree offline to hook up online and rank, you are a perma, and subject to all the punishing that being a perma dictates.

Person B says: If you are not ridiculous about your permaing, you bring in thirds who aren't ooc, you roleplay constantly, spend time apart hunting and gathering gear - but happen to just meet up to level, that's okay.

Roleplay some? Since when is everyone traveling Thera To slay anyone they see? How many times do you "who" or "where" to see whos about whom you can PK?

If you meet up with someone in game and pretty much travel with only them, why not? its roleplaying??? My char and a bard, met up early on, Traveled as much as possible, for 25 years game time acutally, we didn't go around PKing cause, wheres the roleplay in all the PKs, every chance you get? Sure if you make some kind of roadside bandit, or Empire vs Fortress, Or Outlanders/Tribbys. Or those Cabals and stuff. But what has become of a roleplaying mudd where everything now is about, "Ohh hey theres some random person near me, lets go slay them!"

Alpha-Q

>Roleplay some? Since when is everyone traveling Thera To slay
>anyone they see? How many times do you "who" or "where" to see
>whos about whom you can PK?
>
>If you meet up with someone in game and pretty much travel
>with only them, why not? its roleplaying??? My char and a
>bard, met up early on, Traveled as much as possible, for 25
>years game time acutally, we didn't go around PKing cause,
>wheres the roleplay in all the PKs, every chance you get? Sure
>if you make some kind of roadside bandit, or Empire vs
>Fortress, Or Outlanders/Tribbys. Or those Cabals and stuff.
>But what has become of a roleplaying mudd where everything now
>is about, "Ohh hey theres some random person near me, lets go
>slay them!"

CF historically used to be much more like "Hey, there's someone, me smash". Its a lot of fun really. As long as you don't break role at least.

You play to explore areas I've seen already, that's nice for you. I play to kill people I haven't killed yet, so let me do my thing.

>Person A says: if you agree offline to hook up online and
>rank, you are a perma, and subject to all the punishing that
>being a perma dictates.

Hooking up offline is not a perma. It does however fall under this rule:

* Do not exploit Out-of-Character (OOC) mechanisms to create an advantage in the game. This includes cutting link or quitting to avoid consequences.


>Person B says: If you are not ridiculous about your permaing,
>you bring in thirds who aren't ooc, you roleplay constantly,
>spend time apart hunting and gathering gear - but happen to
>just meet up to level, that's okay.

I think the help file on permagroup is pretty clear:

A 'permagroup' is defined as two or more characters who rarely do
anything without the other. In essence, if you very rarely adventure
without a particular person, you are part of a permagroup. (Logging
in and sitting in your guild or gathering items while waiting for
your perma-partner(s), for instance, does not count as "doing
something".)

Avoiding being part of a permagroup is easy:

1) Mix up the people you travel with. This is a good idea for reasons
other than avoiding permagrouping - it gathers you a larger network
of allies to call on when you are in need.

2) Treat everyone according to their IC merits. One simple way to
guarantee this is to not tell other people who you are playing.

3) Ask yourself if you are exploiting your connection to the other
character(s) to gain an unfair advantage over another player. This
can be a difficult determination to make, but fairness to other
players will be at the heart of the staff's decision, so weigh it
carefully.

See also RULES.

So long, and thanks for all the fish!

>>* Do not exploit Out-of-Character (OOC) mechanisms to create an advantage in the game. This includes cutting link or quitting to avoid consequences.<<

1) Look at Nep - married to an active player. There are other couples that MUD together. I don't know what pains they take to "avoid" each other, but there absolutely has to be some crossover and times when they (advertantly or inadvertantly) give each other an unfair advantage by sharing of OOC knowledge.

2) This isn't Myspace. Friends actually do matter here and are what keeps this MUD alive. Yeah, it sucks if, OOC, two people hook up to gank down everyone they can, but it's what make the game fun for them. I personally don't have a problem with it, I just avoid them.

3) Everyone who exploits OOC mechanisms by having played before falls under that rule up there. It's why they know how to prep and where to get items, but no one would consider it cheating.

>>>3) Ask yourself if you are exploiting your connection to the other
character(s) to gain an unfair advantage over another player. This
can be a difficult determination to make, but fairness to other
players will be at the heart of the staff's decision, so weigh it
carefully.<<<

4) The newbie factor. If someone is obviously a newbie, sometimes I'll go out of my way to constantly bring them along when I explore, gather equipment, rank, etc. OOC knowledge of their newbishness makes me want to help them build up. This creates an unfair advantage because I may know more or something else that another player would, but I'm also leveling the playing field so that the newbie will at least feel like this is something worth playing in the long run.

>>>* Do not exploit Out-of-Character (OOC) mechanisms to
>create an advantage in the game. This includes cutting link or
>quitting to avoid consequences.<<
>
>1) Look at Nep - married to an active player. There are other
>couples that MUD together. I don't know what pains they take
>to "avoid" each other, but there absolutely has to be some
>crossover and times when they (advertantly or inadvertantly)
>give each other an unfair advantage by sharing of OOC
>knowledge.

I have yet to spot Nep and Baer/Ray playing characters together. If they have, they haven't done so much as give each other a water skin.

>
>2) This isn't Myspace. Friends actually do matter here and are
>what keeps this MUD alive. Yeah, it sucks if, OOC, two people
>hook up to gank down everyone they can, but it's what make the
>game fun for them. I personally don't have a problem with it,
>I just avoid them.

Sure. But, when you see two characters that are always grouped for ranking and pking, both have the same amount of hours, levels and xp, that is the permagroup that is rule breaking.
>
>3) Everyone who exploits OOC mechanisms by having played
>before falls under that rule up there. It's why they know how
>to prep and where to get items, but no one would consider it
>cheating.

To a point, this is true. Experience is something that is an advantage. But, there are ways that are considered exploiting things that go beyond knowledge.
>
>>>>3) Ask yourself if you are exploiting your connection to
>the other
>character(s) to gain an unfair advantage over another player.
>This
>can be a difficult determination to make, but fairness to
>other
>players will be at the heart of the staff's decision, so weigh
>it
>carefully.<<<

We have this covered by our own means and fall into the nunya category on how.
>
>4) The newbie factor. If someone is obviously a newbie,
>sometimes I'll go out of my way to constantly bring them along
>when I explore, gather equipment, rank, etc. OOC knowledge of
>their newbishness makes me want to help them build up. This
>creates an unfair advantage because I may know more or
>something else that another player would, but I'm also
>leveling the playing field so that the newbie will at least
>feel like this is something worth playing in the long run.

I have yet to hear a solid argument for the newbie having an advantage, but, I suppose if you fish for something long enough, you can call it that. That newbie isn't going to be tied to your hip for all of their levels either.

People who hook up ooc, even if occasionally, to get gear and or pk, gain advantage from it even when not with their ooc friend.

This means that the gear or, for example, unholy weapon charges or edges, will benefit them in the absence of their ooc friend(s). This means that they gain concrete benefit ALL the time despite limiting their ooc alliances to occasional gear gathering and/or pk sessions.

This, to me, is as bad as perma'ing all the time, roleplayed or not.

If you hook up ooc in order to gain an advantage in the game, that's should be bannable. And that includes asking someone to log on to help.

>People who hook up ooc, even if occasionally, to get gear and
>or pk, gain advantage from it even when not with their ooc
>friend.
>
>This means that the gear or, for example, unholy weapon
>charges or edges, will benefit them in the absence of their
>ooc friend(s). This means that they gain concrete benefit ALL
>the time despite limiting their ooc alliances to occasional
>gear gathering and/or pk sessions.
>
>This, to me, is as bad as perma'ing all the time, roleplayed
>or not.
>
>If you hook up ooc in order to gain an advantage in the game,
>that's should be bannable. And that includes asking someone
>to log on to help.
>
>

I play this game very rarely nowadays and when I do so it is ALWAYS because a friend gets me excited to play whether or not I actually get a chance to play with them. That said I can guarantee the number of times I would role a character without some hope to at least play with my ooc friends on occasion would be zero if I was in danger of being banned over it. I play because I have friends that play, I play because I want to play with those friends. It is as simple as that.

What do I do when the chance arises to play with these friends? I RP and I rank or explore and it these sessions, that are almost always coordinated ooc, that keep me hanging around. Do I think this gives an unfair advantage to other players? Simply put, no I don't.

So why do you think that getting extra edge points (for pk), better gear, and possibly charges, or better game knowledge (through being able to explore better) does not give an advantage?

I read your post to be getting together with ooc friends for anything results in an in-game advantage. After rereading it I am not sure that is what you intended.

I think any ooc grouping that is designed for pking or where pking will be a major activity undertaken by the group is a problem. I don't think it is a problem for the edges earned, charges gained or loot gained through the pk, but it is a problem because it results in unfair situations where one group of players is better able to communicate/stategize vs other players. The benefits such as edges/charges etc are just the consequences of this type of grouping, which again I do agree is unfair and should not be allowed.

My original post was that I feel grouping in general without the goal to pk or expressedly enter situations where pk is likly to occur ie cabal raiding etc, should not be looked at as unfair.

Gear gathering/exploring/ranking I don't feel in general is unfair as long as the group makes sense from an ic prespective. That is if your group is formed of ic allies but was coordinated ooc so as to help facilitate getting together to do X or get X, as long as X isn't wiping out your pk range, I don't see it as a problem or unfair. To me it is just making sure I am not going to waste my time wanting to do X but not being able to accomplish it because my ooc friend(s) decide to say watch football or go to a movie instead. The playerbase for cf is not so large anymore, it is not uncommon to play a couple hours and not have any allies log on, setting up something ooc on occasion to ensure that is not always the case to me only makes sense and I don't feel it is against the perma rules.

Do I have a problem with people that just happen to group when they just happen to be on at the same time, but know each other ooc? No.

Do I have a problem with someone getting their ooc friend to log on with them, then grouping? Yes.

It gives big advantages, and removes lots of vulnerabilities.

>Do I have a problem with someone getting their ooc friend to
>log on with them, then grouping? Yes.
>
>It gives big advantages, and removes lots of vulnerabilities.

My point much more succinctly is I don't have a problem with this if the reasons for getting together are not pking or activities like cabal raiding where pking is likely.

So you would view it as ok to have your friends log on to help you get defiance?

That doesn't make pk likely, but it makes a HELL of a difference in pk afterwards.

I suppose as most things it depends on the situation. Personally I don't see gear gathering as such a big deal. I think most characters pretty much are going to fall into one of two categories:

1) They have allies on normally when they play and they will have no problem forming a group to get X.
2) They have few to no allies on normally when they play and it is unlikely they will be able to form a group to get X.

In group 1, most people probably don't go to the length of setting something up ooc to get X, but even if they do I don't see it as that big of deal. Presumably they would be able to get X without using ooc means, they are just being lazy or impatient, but they aren't changing the fact that they will get X either at some specified time or at a slightly later random time.

In group 2, the person is unable to form a group without ooc means to get X, here I don't have a problem either because I don't think a player should be barred from being able to accomplish such things in the game due to a constraint like playing times.

I do agree that something of the nature of getting an ooc friend to log on, running to get X, and then logging out is at the very least extermly lame. But, I don't have a problem if you get an ooc friend to log on, you play together and in the course of doing so get X.

Personally I don't put so much emphasis on gear or gear gathering when I play it just makes it that much harder when you lose it.

I'm a newbie here, so I'm probably blind to something important in this issue. But isn't getting Defiance the same accomplishment regardless of how you got your group? Either way, it's not like the mobs are going to say, "Oh, it's you guys. Here, take the sword, friends."

The only group restriction I could see it being dependent on is that a paladin shouldn't group with evils or other such roleplaying fiascos. But you aren't likely to see such problems in a halfway intelligent permagroup.

Furthermore, I think Seantryn Modan must be destroyed.

You will always be the goodie with defiance.

Defiance makes a huge difference to combat.

Other goodies can't get it, because they are prevented from taking it from you because of role-play.

Other goodies don't get a chance to get it, because your ooc group can always be assembled before they can assemble an ic group.

Sometimes assembling an ic group takes a long time, and thus ooc groups bring artifacts like defiance into play sooner. That then impacts on the balance between good and evil, etc.

When you not only use ooc connections, but tailor the classes involved, the effects become even more pronounced.

If divine forces choose your group for you, OOC vs. IC becomes a moot point.

It could work like this. Every 15 RL minutes, any PC who is not grouped is randomly grouped with two other PCs of compatible level/spheres/alignments/cabals/etc. Although, they wouldn't have to get along well, since divine forces don't necessarily care about personal differences.

Each divinely mandated group could also have a destiny, some goal or quest they must complete. Any individual who voluntarily leaves the group before the group has fulfilled its destiny could be subjected to poor group XP bonuses, poor morale, horrible anti-gang penalties -- i.e., the wrath of the gods. Not to mention they wouldn't be able to group again until the divine forces choose them for a new quest with a new semi-randomly chosen group.

Thus, while it would possible for OOC friends to be grouped together, it wouldn't be any more likely or beneficial than for anyone else. Anyone who disliked their provided group would have equal opportunity to leave; they'd just have to pay the hefty price is all.

Furthermore, I think Seantryn Modan must be destroyed.

Every 15 RL minutes, any PC who is not grouped is randomly grouped with two other PCs of compatible level/spheres/alignments/cabals/etc.

This is not trivial to automate. It also ignores all personal history between the characters. "Compatible" is best judged the way it is now-- by the characters.

Although, they wouldn't have to get along well, since divine forces don't necessarily care about personal differences.

Some people log on and want to explore, gather some equipment, or go somewhere and chat. Telling them that they can't do what they want to do, and instead have to be with these people doing this thing is awful from the player's side.

Each divinely mandated group could also have a destiny, some goal or quest they must complete. Any individual who voluntarily leaves the group before the group has fulfilled its destiny could be subjected to poor group XP bonuses, poor morale, horrible anti-gang penalties -- i.e., the wrath of the gods. Not to mention they wouldn't be able to group again until the divine forces choose them for a new quest with a new semi-randomly chosen group.

Why would we implement a system that goes beyond telling players what to do, and in fact punishes players for doing what they like, or doing what they need to do?

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

Well, current player/character freedom in choosing who to group with and how to act seems more limited than you imply here, so my idea need not be read so uncharitably as to suggest a complete departure from the current system. On the other hand, at some point it must come to tastes, and I'm sure you are much in tune with that of your players. So I won't attempt to argue against an "Ugh."

Furthermore, I think Seantryn Modan must be destroyed.

CF can and never will be "fair" to the degree you are measuring it at. At this point I'd take fun over fair. People care too much about records and competition. A lot of the characters I come across these days just seem so dry and boring because they're too concerned with not dying and not concerned enough with playing the damn game.

Victoria was an example that showed I was willing to take risks and die.

Doesn't mean that I should have to deal with twats that get their friends to log on so they can get gear to permalag you (or whatever).

Thing is, by and large, I can still kill these people. But it means I can't use sleep (for example) or their friend will log on to save them.

This game is both fun with friends, but can be unfun with too many friends. I consider a friend in this case to be someone you talk to frequently, visit with, hang out with, etc., outside of the game. Scenario "A" rarely comes up, and scenario "B" might come up if play times match every once in a while. Do I think I'm a cheater for that? Definitely not. I'm just playing a game, the way it is intended to be played by the staff, with a friend. Similar to playing Halo2 online or at home with a friend, or shooting pool with a friend, or going out bowling with a friend. Games are meant to be played for fun. And Carrion Fields isn't any exception to this rule. It's fun to play games with friends who have similar interests. There is no avoiding it. If you have friends who also play Carrion Fields, eventually you are going to interact with one another. Whether it's on the same side or opposing sides, it doesn't matter.

Now if you're referring to powergamey, Russian-style perma's, I think that's a problem.