I have not seen this as an issue to be honest, and I don't think the change should be added. As stated earlier, it was added because of Trammel, which this shard doesn't have. There's risk for the reward, and there are lots of places to find rewards where there isn't as much risk.
But you didn't see them unfold. You showed up after the face because a player who's been here for 3 days was claiming that a player who's been here for 5 months with nary a negative word from anyone was "bullying" him out of a spawn. That is not a fact, that is hearsay. And it has no relevance in an era discussion, except to try to smear someone's reputation unjustly. Why don't I propose the following. If someone is working on a spawn and another player recalls in and immediately begins luring monsters onto them, that player should flag grey. After all, that's a pretty easy way to get gold, isn't it? It requires 0 skills. So is luring monsters onto someone that's working on a spawn. Sure you can, if you maneuver the monsters to do it. Yet again, this could apply to your guildmates behavior, yes? I guess I should have started a thread myself, to lobby to get this behavior to turn someone criminal. Every argument you make is equally applicable to the behavior of your guildmate. And my only recourse then would have been to take a count as well. Or to come back when I could and get what meager gold I could while I was bullied by 4 people. There is a reason we play on a Felucca server; it allows player freedom and player justice. Asking the game developers to legislate these things in the game in a specific way is what I think most people here seek to avoid.
This. A thousand times this. This exact sentiment is exactly why we ended up with the mess on OSI that everyone loves to hate. Yes, your only recourse is to go red... but who says your farming character has to be the one to take the count? Just as in this situation, you were brought in by someone to defend a farming spot -- why couldn't you do this with an alternate character, that you AREN'T afraid to take a count on? I just don't see how this is a problem... either relinquish what is being taken, or defend it -- those choices don't change just because they're all the sudden now grey when they loot the corpse.
One thing to keep in mind is that if a system like this were to be implemented, it could cause some havoc for events, where people pile up on a boss mob and then quickly loot everything when it drops. You'd have 9 out of 10 people going gray (which actually, might be pretty amusing). I'm sure the staff could cook up a system so that certain monsters could be excluded from the loot-flag rules, but it adds to their workload and they'd have to remember to exclude boss monsters everytime they come out with a new event.
Basoosh, I hereby issue you a notice to stay out of my head! Haha I was thinking about this exact issue. Or even champ spawns could become problematic and cause only same guilds participating.
How is there freedom and player justice in not having any recourse but murder when someone takes what you've earned? This is a simple flagging issue statement and Cynic's comment about the TMap chest is spot on. The mechanic is already in place. As for boss mobs, do some damage or don't loot, plain and simple. OR, go ahead and LOOT AT YOUR OWN RISK. The person who did the work may want to exact justice. A justice which does not exist if they must MURDER to do so. I don't remember people flagging on my tmaps in prior era but I don't hear people complaining about it. What would really be so bad about miscreants flagging grey for two minutes for.....committing a crime? Honestly I'm just not getting it. It seems like everyone hears 'looting rights' and immediately sees blues they can't attack and packs they can't steal from, which is %100 not the case. We, the good citizens of Sosaria, would just like criminals to be recognized as such in times of injustice. As for mob luring, well, learn to move.
I am with Corruption on this one. This is a Trammel addition and should not be added. As far as the "situation" goes, I might be a little biased because I know both parties involved from a previous shard. I never had any significant interaction with Kush to have a positive or negative experience with him. All I know are his "achievements" though that shard's forums. I have dealt with Dalavar A LOT both in our previous shard and here and I have never had a reason to belive he would grief "just because". One last thing. Being 3 days old on this shard does not necessarily make you a "new" player. Most of the players here have years of experience. It's like calling chumbucket or Matron a noob for only being here a month or two.
Can either of you elaborate on exactly how this is Trammel but thieves immediately flagging grey for stealing is not? This is flagging, not prevention or restriction of freedom. This is putting the freedom to take action into the players hands and removing thieving impunity. You're saying in order to be Feluccia we must murder people because the only evidence of their crimes is in our minds? Sounds like Trammel for scumbags if you want to put it that way.
If it being added with Trammel is not reason enough, then i suppose it has to do with the fact that it basically eliminates the need to socialize and call for back up if needed. In this case, one person did call for back up. And if another was crafty enough to loot kills while avoiding 4 players, I'd say he damn well deserved the loot. I never said thieves going grey ALWAYS is or is not Trammel. I think the function currently is horribly wrong, and should be looked at. I don't understand how you can notice you were stolen from and not be able to call guards. Then again that is a whole differet mechanic, and should be discussed in its own thread. We could end up discussing all of the game's mechanics if we start mixing them together.
Agreed, I don't understand why the Trammel argument is in here. You can be against this change, and that's perfectly fine, but the proposed idea is unrelated to Trammel, is it not? Unless you want to use 'Trammel' for name-calling. That's always legal. Stupid Trammies.
Um, we are discussing all of the game's mechanics. BoDs were added with Trammel, or after, were they not? If we stripped out everything here that technically came with Trammel, we'd be playing UOSA, not UO:R. Striving for perfection implies examining everything and considering whether it inherently contains the freedoms we consider Feluccian without the restrictions of Trammel. Restricting a single person from being able to LEGALLY take action against a criminal, is Trammel. This isn't about interaction and being able to call in backup or not. That's about the fight itself, not whether you can engage the perpetrator without being criminal for doing so. Please explain how flagging criminals.....as criminals, is Trammel? As for the stealing in town flagging, if someone comes up to me and steals my shoes, and I run up to a cop and say 'He stole my shoes', what evidence does he have? If someone successfully steals from me in game, I know for sure they did because an item is gone and they are flagged for their crime to their victim (me). Guards have no other witness but me claiming this person stole from me so they're not attacking. Seems pretty logical and Feluccian to me.
It is not unrelated. Which is to say... it is related. As mentioned above, this was specifically introduced in the Trammel patch in 2000. When I say "Trammel", it is not an adjective for a person, but a time period. The looting updates were literally implemented with Trammel. Just so I'm clear... ...if someone is looting my kills, they should turn criminal so that I can continue to do what I was doing in peace, or be able to legally attack them for their criminal actions. ...if someone is luring monsters onto me, I should NOT be able to legally attack them for their criminal actions? How are these situations any different at all?
Monster AI is not that simple. We're talking about mechanics that exist already on other things, like treasure chests. You can't move a corpse but you can certainly move your character. If someone is bullying you at your farming location, that is not truly criminal it's just them being a jerk. They are not taking anything from you. You don't own that spot nor do you have any right to claim them criminal for being annoying until you leave. If you want to take action, you have to swing first, making you the criminal so either take the heat for your spot, or leave. If you die because you can't avoid the mobs and they loot, you can come back (if you're quick) and attack them because then they are criminal for looting you. So no, personally I don't feel that mob luring is criminal. It's annoying and bullying but quite frankly, it's a mob, not a laser guided missile.
As Dalavar said, I feel the way I do about this change, because it specifically is connected to the concept of looting rights that came with the Trammel landmass; not Trammel as a pejorative. For the record, your example of treasure chests -- I did not know that was how it worked here, and let me be the first to say that I don't feel that should be the case either. To me, the concept here is the pre-UOR mechanics, with UOR and forward changes -- to me, that should include much of the same mechanics from UOSA, except where they are changed by necessity of newer systems that supplant them. If this were to be changed, I ultimately wouldn't have a problem with it, but it seems to me a hinderance that doesn't need to exist.
Looks like I'll have to start bringing my stealther into dungeons with reflect casted, loot everyones kills and grief them, and constantly recall out the second you attack me. Then maybe people will understand that a thief should turn grey for being a thief, and not have a chance to bounce out in a split second. I have no problem dishing out grief. See you all in the dungeons.
Exactly this. It's silly. The mechanic was added in the Renaissance patch... we are all playing on a custom Renaissance server with the Trammel land mass disabled. The powers that be look at everything that's added to the game and scrutinize how the addition of Trammel influenced the change (I'm pretty sure I've read that around here somewhere). I don't see how this negatively impacts anything other than griefers? A lot of you are coming here and casting down this idea with the only reason being that it was added alongside Trammel. Can anyone elaborate as to WHY it would make this server feel more "Trammel"... you know, considering we do play a Trammel era server and all...
Imho, I think the application of the trammel argument is used as a crutch in this argument. As hate pointed out there is a reverse trammality that can easily be exploited by simple means. I support this but only because of the existence of the "no recall" element after you have flagged. with that mechanic already in place, I think flagging for looting a corpse you did 0 damage to could turn you criminal. that way if somebody decides to engage hate's stealth archer, they had better be able to finish the fight, or pray they can outrun him for 2 minutes once they realize they are out classed. Still I worry that the proficient evil doers would just set up traps for newblars by stacking up a bunch of corpses in the harpy room and waiting for some curious adventurer to peek and take.
