To be clear, we play on a Renaissance-era server, which has intentionally disabled the Trammel facet and the game changes that were implemented because of it. This change was added specifically with the Trammel addition to the game, to accomplish what OSI wanted to accomplish with Trammel. I don't see how the line could be drawn any clearer from one to the other. HateCrime's threat, or whatever, is indeed silly. It's largely a waste of time (from a gold perspective at least), and doesn't seem like a terribly satisfying playstyle. My honest reaction when reading his post was a moderate-sized "meh", but to each his own I guess.
Do you understand that we are not talking about the specific version of looting rights as seen with the addition of Trammel? The suggestion is that of a simple flagging mechanism for criminal action, which quite frankly dates back to the inception of the notoriety flagging. The fact that it wasn't fleshed out completely or as perfect as it could have been for making obvious criminals subject to attack by the innocent, is what we're on about. In Trammel, you flat out could not loot a corpse you didn't have a hand in creating, if I'm not mistaken.
Dalavar, you just continue to argue that this change would be "too Trammel." Other than the fact it was added during that time period, just like most of the mechanics we currently enjoy on this server were, I don't see what your point is. Can you please specify why this is a negative impact? Simply stating that it was added during the Era we currently enjoy isn't enough to make it a drawback, imo. You argue that OSI implemented it to accomplish what they wanted to accomplish with Trammel? Can you elaborate on this? You know most of the mechanics currently in place on this server can also be argued in the same manner? I guess we need to remove this because OSI added it alongside Trammel to accomplish what they wanted to accomplish with Trammel. Give me a break.
Not "most", but a few. FWIW, I think the Recall blocker on this shard ("thou art a criminal and cannot escape so easily"), as well as the treasure map chest criminal thing, should not be here. But I am trying to avoid splitting the thread into other directions.
You know what? You're right. While we're at it, can we have people who shear my tamed sheep go grey too? They are mine, and are stealing my wool!!
Ok. Let's stop being silly, huh? That was never a mechanic in this game. What I am arguing for was implemented during the same era we are playing in, and it was implemented because it makes sense, not because they wanted to protect "Trammies". My only resolve in this situation is to go red or use a char that is already red to take more counts. Considering this would put someone deeeeeeeep into stat with an aggressor that wants nothing more than to grief you.
I wouldn't be opposed to shearing tamed animals not in your party or guild as a criminal action worth of flagging. Flagging is a temporary state allowing one to take action on the nefarious criminals of the lands. It's not a brick wall that prevents illegal activity, merely a window of time for the good honest player to enact justice without committing murder to do so.
Shearing my sheep is also stealing my gold. Shearing my sheep is also roguish behavior, and my only option is to kill you and take a count to stop you! So you can shear my sheep to your hearts desire and get nothing but a bad reputation out of it. Save the wool!! Same applies to my wool! If you want my wool, you gotta risk going criminal! Agreed, again. Roguish behavior requires consequences. Same thing as treasure chests even! Imagine an expert shearer!! Oh the humanity! Ok, I ran out of not-so-smart remarks, but all of the following quotes apply exactly in the same form to my sheep's wool: And I could go on, and on, and on...but I think you get it, that the argument is not about the mechanic, but the fact of it being a criminal action. Same for my wool.
We're talking about the corpse of a monster you have slain, not a resource you sat on your ass waiting for it to appear. You can easily take your sheep to a safe place and no one can ever reach them. Not so for a corpse. Learn to compare things of equal value and merit please. Hold on, I'll repost after I copy/pasta 20 statements that are completely incomparable to what I'm stamping my feet about. Hell, why even have people flag grey in private homes they are friended to. Why even have notoriety at all, who friggen cares, amirite?
What Pirul wrote was what I was attempting, and likely failing, to express. My hunch is that the majority of players here wish for the pre-Trammel notoriety and criminal rules (myself being one of them). And if you try to apply the post-Trammel ruleset to this particular looting behavior, logic would dictate you add it to other ostensibly "criminal" things like luring monsters and shearing sheep and who knows what else.
One is an annoyance and you can return the exact favor without criminal repercussions. ie: lure the mobs back on them The other has one recourse...become the criminal in order to serve justice to the actual criminal who did not flag at all for his crimes. How is this not totally ludicrous to you? Whatever the case, notoriety is a good system and it can and should extend to areas where it very simply can. The mechanic already exists wherein there's no way you could flag someone for luring mobs (that's just silly) you certainly could for shearing of a tamed sheep's wool.
So looting a mongbat would not turn me grey? Or how is killing a mongbat more "value and merit" than me taming 8 sheep? How about an orc? Where do we draw the line?
Not if you killed it, no. What are you even getting at? I agree that if the sheep are tamed, flagging for shearing them would be legit as you've just stolen from the current owner of that sheep. The line is drawn on who killed the beast, which is the whole point being made here. I guess the issue is that you want free reign for criminals with the only alternative being to murder them and be a criminal yourself. Seems very odd for what I've known of you in the past.
Ok, I think I need to stop and clarify my posture here. 1) The quote thread was not directed at you as much as it was directed at cynic. 2) You brought in meritocracy into the discussion, and I think THAT is precisely where this issue can get tricky. 3) I do not endorse looting other people's kills (or shearing other people's sheep for that matter). It is one of the few actions you can do to make me attack you. If my guildmates do this to an innocent person (anyone not a griefer, not necessarily blue), I will discipline them in a harsh way. I have kicked people out of my guild for situations like this (running people out of a spawn)...and it was one of my highest ranked members no less. 4) I do think that flagging grey for looting another person's t-map is stupid. I sometimes will use my tamer to loot the chest my t-hunter dug and unlocked. (It just dawned on me that maybe this can be solved by partying up, so it's likely it's just me that's stupid). 5) And last but not least. I DO WANT to defend what to me is the spirit of going out into a dungeon, or just anywhere out of guard zone. Whenever I leave town, I KNOW I will have to fight for what I get. Sometimes it's as easy as parking my dragons at a spawn spot and loot crap. Others I will have to fight off griefers trying to run me out of a spot. I am willing to take a count or 4 on a griefer. And when I've taken four counts on the char I'm farming with, I'll bring in another and take another 4...and another. And you know what? I'll LOVE every friggin second of it. If I can't compete, then I'll call my Friends and make an event out of it. If we are out manned or out smarted, well, then we'll just have to accept it and go dig up a t-map.
The answer is simple.... do not take into account if/when/where any OSI patches/rules/publishes or anything else took place. Just ask yourself this question and answer it. Put yourself in the book D&D game, or another MMORPG, or real life for that matter. If you do 100% of the damage on a creature, and someone takes the treasure from that creature, is that stealing? Myself, I asked myself this...since I LOVE hunting big game, I asked myself, If I'm out in Wyoming hunting elk, and I shoot an elk, it dies, and someone takes that elk from me, is that a criminal act? Anyone that is debating this topic (Cynic, Corruption, Blaise, Dalavar, etc), answer this question.
Absolutely, which is my point. Pirul, that makes sense but the answer is really in the last portion of your response. You've come to accept not that you have to FIGHT for what's yours, which would still be the case under the proposed change, but that you have TAKE COUNTS for what's yours. What you paid the iron price for, to put it in Game of Thrones speak, someone can steal and you have to take CRIMINAL action to secure what you've already earned. The same is appropriate for treasure map chests if someone is not in a hunting party with me (yay, it actually works accordingly here), they have no right to take my loot with impunity. Yes, they should be free to take CRIMINAL action to do so, that is the beauty of Feluccia. I don't see Feluccia in requiring ME to be a criminal in order to exact justice. That defeats the point, however that is what we have become accustomed to over the years. I party at treasure maps and I party when I'm hunting a dungeon. Thus, anyone in the party should be sharing looting rights just like we do on treasure maps. If an outsider thinks he's coming up on freebies, HE can choose to, if he thinks he can handle the fight for it! There's only so many counts one can take before it's glaringly obvious how poor that function is. If we are to play good people, we should not have to murder to claim what we've earned.
I believe this is what Telamon does. Instead of looking for era accuracy he tries to use the best-all-around mechanic. The proposed change is fine, I think. Maybe desirable. It would lead to situations where unwitting people go grey at events and get noto-d. But perhaps it would save people from more grief than it would cause. What is interesting to me is that in the situation/story posted by the OP, in my opinion, the person that would have been punished by the proposed change would have been the person originally harassed. (Depending on which story you believe, that being that I believe BananaKush started leading mobs onto Dalavar and Dalavar responded by using a thief character to loot kills and was then attacked by three people.) That is in itself an arguement for letting feluccan justice be feluccan justice and leaving the mechanic as is. I've never heard of anyone being griefed by the situation that Cynic and Hatecrime have suggested on UO:R. Although noone is arguing that they couldn't use that method to harass people, I think there are many, many ways that one could harass/steal from another without breaking criminal status. in summary, /shrug. Bring in party loot rules. It doesn't feel like a feluccan mechanic and it won't end this kind of behavior, in my opinion. But I suppose it might do more good than harm.
This is exactly the sentiment I was trying to express, far more eloquently than I could achieve. I don't necessarily think this would be a bad change, nor would I oppose it if it were in place -- however, I feel very much as Mes described above. Call it indifference with a lean towards keeping it the way it is, if you will.
I can dig on that and you're right, based on the context of the original story. I guess, odd as it may seem, I got off on a tangent about party looting rights. I'm obviously leaning towards having it as I think that it provides a healthy outlet wherein thieves are put at due risk for their actions, instead of their victims being put at risk (flagging/counts) for enacting true justice. Yes, some people may inadvertently flag as a result but the same can be said about dozens of actions in Feluccia.
This. I was trying to make it completely through this whole thread reading what everyone had to say, but it comes down to the simple fact that people are using "trammel" as a red herring. You are ignoring the fact that this implementation is completely "fellucian" if there can be considered such a word. I am for flagging griefers so that I can kick their teeth in.
