Newbies getting attacked

[vurdijak]

One of the best things about Geas is that the players are free to act in almost any way they see fit. Of course this leads to certain problems, one of which is newbie killing. I have seen this several times recently where a newbie is attacked and/or killed. I would like to see the game grow and take on a more newbie-friendly attitude. Since some players have opted not to excersize disgression in who they attack with the sharp sides of their blades, I reluctantly propose that it should be hard coded that no newbie under 1 day old can be attacked. Also, of course, they would not be able to attack others/steal from others etc until after a day old. Perhaps this is to drastic, but this is a problem that should be addressed, and maybe someone else will have a better solution. I have seen my version in other muds before and it works well.

This is especially true because of the 'hard coded' nature of Crusaders who have to attack anything that glows red. I recently tried out a char...never attacked a unicorn, never killed a faerie...killed several thildens, never stole, never did anything but hang out with a few people who I came across in the first hours of the chars life, and glowed slightly red. I was attacked with no questions with the sharp side of a Crusaders blade and was shocked.

Not shocked because of what the Crusader did, I understand their call to duty. Shocked because any 'real' newbie would have got killed and got the impression that Geas is just a PK crazy environment. And for many mudders who prefer a more benign environment, that would have been their last day on the game.

[Vargrahim]

I think it's right that it is a problem when newbies get killed. And with newbie I mean someone new to the game, not with a new character (that's why we treat them fairly, right?). One problem is that it can be hard to tell who's a newbie, especially with low appraisal skills (if there's ever a reason IC to appraise him, which there might not be, so you don't get this information which is actually of OOC character). I think maybe a little * beside the name of less-than X-hours characters would be good (even if that would also protect experienced geasians with new characters).

I also think that the Crusaders did right to attack him. Actually, I think it's a problem with the reputation and/or favour checking mechanisms. If there was no such easy way to look for evil, we would have to spy and such instead to figure out who are, which would be more fun. Now we saw his red flames and then we are basically required to inquire him. A rather radical solution, which I think might work though, is to simply remove the detection/reputation system. It can all be replaced with RP, and this for the better. People would have to think more about what they do and how they appear, and they would really need to get the trust. Sure it would be harder for the crusaders, and they might take in innocents, but this would all be a part of the game.

Edit: Let me add that I think that even if you did nothing that made you deserve red flames but you have them, it's right to attack him. It's like being on a crime scene just after a murder.. of course you'll be a suspect, even if you don't want it.

[vurdijak]

I think that not being able to check reputation is probably a good idea.
But I would also like to add that when you say attack, there are really two ways to attack someone. Stunmode is a great way to show restraint when attacking another player, but used less often than it should be in my opinion. Killmode, if I were playing the Crusader, would be reserved for the unrepentent, obviously evil guy. The rules state that player killing is not encouraged, but still allowed. I read this to mean that player killing is
discouraged, unless really merited. And a repentent newbie with a barely red aura is hardly merited IMO. Am I reading this wrong?

The star next to the name idea is a good alternative to my idea.
Thanks to Varg for the well thought out reply.

[Vargrahim]

I think actually people are using killmode at first to get him down to very bad shape as quickly as possible and then switch to stunmode.

And yes, I think you should have a reason to kill someone. But a suspicion of evil along with its confirmation (red flames) is really enough. I think what they do not want is someone who kills anyone just because he is a mad maniac killer, but because he has a motive to do it.

And thanks to you for a good topic =)

[Blizt]

I agree that REAL newbies shouldnt be killed. This means Not some player who creates a new character who goes off and does evil stuff, and whines because he is attacked. Dont think this doesnt happen, this happens often. I have had many incidents when someone even tells me OOC that they are a newbie, and I find out otherwise later on that they lied to me after not even doing anything to them, because they go OOC and tell me they dont understand whats happening because they are a newbie. I dont really care, because playing a Crusader, we should punish evil people, and the only way to avoid people using their excuses such as these, is do what you are supposed to do. Also, I have made many new chars and tried them out, and I have NEVER gotten red flames unless I did something to deserve it. Such as team with evil people, steal, or do quests for evil npcs, or attack good beings. I hope I am not alone in this, because that would be a big problem. You can be evil from doing other stuff besides attacking unicorns and such.


Quick Edit: Also, attacking someone in GEAS in stunmode, is almost like saying: I want to capture you but run away.

Its too easy to run on geas and get away, unless you have a big team to block all the exits , and even then I have seen people sneak past the only exit being blocked by a HORDE of people. I think Varg is right when he says someone attacks in killmode to take someone down fast, I know I do hopeing they break a leg or foot and cant run fast.
Also, if the star is a good idea of who not to attack, those people should also be blocked from being able to do any evil deeds. To many people do evil things and expect to be left alone because they are newbies (new chars)

[Abharsair]

I haven't really monitored the way our players are treating each other recently, but I'd like to add that even for a Crusader "red flames" shouldn't be enough to attack a newbie - second or not. Yes, from a roleplay point of view there isn't a difference between a newbie and any other character, but c'mon, it's a fact that newbies are treated differently (or at least they should be). They don't know the game and therefore do stupid things. So unless you want to play alone at one point or another, be lenient toward them.

Also, there is something else which is commonly referred to as "fair play". Even if the newbie in question is the second character of someone else, it's still not a good idea to just attack him in killmode. After all, it's no challenge and there are other ways of non-lethal education which are significantly less likely to piss off someone who just tried to start with a new character. Naturally that doesn't mean that a newbie can get away with just about anything, and if he insists on continuing doing stupid things, then you can punish him just like any other experienced player.

[Blizt]

Well, as far as I know, I havent killed any new character to the mud, intentional or not. Not ever I dont think. Also as far as I know, no Crusaders have killed one either. I think the hints is a very good example for newbies, telling them not to go around and killing npcs, or so forth, but yet, it seems to be ignored sometimes. Of course, I dont make a new character, follow Taniel and go sit inside Asador and do good things and expect to be welcomed there. I dont see why it would be any differant for other characters to make an evil char, do bad things, and expect to sit and be welcomed, especially when they know what they are doing is evil, and wrong and will be frowned upon by others.
I think if you did monitor the mud lately, you would see the Crusaders have turned into fluffy flowerpickers who let people do whatever they like because they said its an "accident". I really think the Crusaders should be steering away from this instead of into it. Thats mostly my fault I guess. Also, I am not saying its the fact that they did something evil and should be killed. I am saying they did something evil, knowingly, and expect not to be punished because its a new character. Especially lately I have seen too many new characters go kill or attack other new characters with less than 12 hours of playtime and run off, and people expect nothing to happen, even when the other newbies died because the guards turned to attack them.

[vurdijak]

What I am talking about is a specific incident, in which the new char had
NEVER attacked a good NPC, never stolen etc. The red flames I can only assume came from sitting and talking to a person of ill repute for a while,
though this char has never hunted with anyone aside from other newbies and certainly wouldnt know who was good or bad.
The mud rules ask for players to play fairly, to not ruin the game for anyone else. This means using discretion, and in some cases....ok....here it comes.....not attacking someone with lethal force if they glow slightly red and look like they just woke up in the inn in Elvandar. In the specific case I'm talking about, the player attacked was less than a day, barely glowed red, was wielding a branch...and was NEVER appraised first. I think an addition to the rules is in order, so that people will start using discretion because they have no other choice.
It should go something like this, and would involve no hard code:
"If you kill a newbie less than one day old, expect to be punished for it."
No markings next to the newbie, no notation of any kind. This way people will make sure they wait good and long before lashing out. This would also have the added effect of weeding out newbie killers from guilds other the Crusaders as well.

[Olrane]

You know, I've never seen that problem with other guilds than the Crusaders very much. Even the Sathonites don't usually kill newbies, and they rarely will use lethal force unless it's a challenge.

Hell, as a newbie I made a lot of mistakes. I still did not get my first punishment from the Thieves' Guild until I'd grown more able to defend myself, and even the second stabbing attempt, etc. was not lethal.

God, all these "evil" guilds still maintain high OOC codes of honor, certainly not an evil trait. What we need is a return to a more newbie-friendly environment, because I foresee a lot of people turning away soon with this nasty attitude.

[chara]

Newbies are defined by their character's age, not whether they are a second or not - and they rightfully have a protected status while they get their bearings. That doesn't mean their actions should be ignored, but there are many ways of educating and/or punishing newbies that do not involve killing them.

[Abharsair]

Don't get me wrong. I like it that doing evil things has now its consequences. It used to be that people went off to kill faeries, highelves and other good creatures and then won the crossroad-popularity-contest because they were such amiable chatters, and because reputation meant nothing to them or their buddy players. That's not the idea of the game, and since our players failed to punish such known killers (epecially the Legion did a crappy job), we created a guild which has the purpose and goal to actively fight Evil. What I disagree with, though, is that a newbie (real or just a second) has to be attacked in killmode for faint red flames (assuming that poVurdijak's story was accurate). As someone else has already said in this thread, not even Sathos are very aggressive towards newbies, and they have as much or even more roleplay reason as the Crusaders do. Personally I'd like you to consider newbies as an opportunity to convince them of their erroneous ways and maybe sway them to your side rather than just beating them over their head with a big stick.

[Drake]

I think its also important to note, that this is not simply a crusader issue as I've seen similar actions against very young characters by at least two other guilds.

Another thing to keep in mind is letting those new, possibly future evil characters develop for the future, it has been many more times than once that I have heard comments like 'there's no bad guys' and 'its no fun without real bad guys to fight anymore'.

If you hunt them into giving up before they even really get their feet on the ground, no wonder new evil characters just give up and go away.

[Vargrahim]

I agree it's wrong to attack newbies even if they had red flames, the problem was in this (I believe I was there, but I'm not sure if that character was Vurd's second or not) is that there was no way of knowing if it was a newbie. I think my appraise said he was somewhat weaker, but then many are weaker than Varg, and he did seem to act as if he had understood how things work. So when he was captured (I still hope I'm speaking about the same case), it made us think maybe we should not kill this guy. At the same time, he kept insisting he would do the same crimes again if he got the chance, and I'm not sure that even a newbie would say that..

I've also assumed that a newbie is a new player, not a new character, since an old player would know how things work and therefore be at equal terms.. which raises the question, at which point is the newbie (young char) not a newbie anymore? There should be like a clearer definition of newbie written somewhere, and maybe like a little code support to warn you if you try to attack a newbie.

Anyway, my point is that I think it's hard to know who is a newbie. Am I a newbie? =)

[chara]

A newbie should be a new character, because even if you are familiar with the game itself, a new role has a lot of unfamiliar elements to it, which requires a period of adjustment. Also, there is no reliable way to know who is a newbie and who is a second, so there is no real way to differentiate. And I would not like to see players have to admit or deny that they are playing seconds to get fair treatment. And still furthermore, there is no thing as seconds IC, whereas newbies in general make sense IC (you are new around here. Maybe you aren't familiar with our laws...)

[Abharsair]

It's moot to discuss who's a newbie and who isn't, because different people have different opinions. Some would say "one day pure online time", others would say "three days of pure online time". And again others would maybe use stats to measure a newbie. However, there is also common sense which should work nicely.

One indication someone is a newbie is whether you have seen him before or at least have heard about him. If you meet him for the first time at the crossroad and he doesn't look powerful, then you can pretty safely assume he is new. Secondly, if he has no scars or looks significantly weaker than you do, he is also most likely pretty new to the game. Now, that doesn't differentiate between people who are completely new to the game, and those who are second characters, but again, I don't think it should matter for your assessment of whether to beat him up or not. Yes, maybe he is the second character of poYegerfin who knows all there is to know about the game, but it's not the character Yegerfin. Therefore if he is weak compared to your own character, do not just whack him, because it's still frustrating for him to not stand any chance at all with his newbie against a big, fat warrior/thief/cleric, and as Drake already said, it might prevent people from playing more controverial roles which add spice to the game.

[vurdijak]

Varg that episode that you are talking about was not my other char. In this
instance, the newbie made it safely away before the Crusader could bludgeon him to death. Their were no crimes committed or anything even resembling them. The newbie that you are talking about must be someone else.

Appraising people should be a must. At least attempting a brief conversation with the newbie should be a must. I understand that these things are all player driven and that works sometimes, when players decide to use all the good advice just given by the imms. But in situations like the one that happened to me, and it happened absolutely how I'm telling it, there is no punishment for the overzealous player. I argue that there should be, and that it should be part of the rules as I described above.

[Drake]

Ok, for a start, there can be no punishment for the overzealous player because the incitent has not as yet been reported to the playerarch, who is the one in charge of such things.

Any such incidents should first be reported via mudmail to myself as the playerarch, and preferably as soon as is possible after it occours so that I can begin looking into it as soon as it happens while it is still fresh in everyones mind.

I'm not a mind reader, nor do I pay particularly strict attention to very much that goes on in the game. Unless I'm told, I don't know. So step one is to inform me, and no, its not tattling, its letting the right person know that there might be an issue, and if its the same thing again and again, a ongoing problem, which then can be dealt with since its finally known.

[jezz]

I didn't know people were asking for more evil people, but as it was suggested, you can't expect anyone new to the game to try to develop a char who is hunted by 3/4 parts of the MUD and who doesn't have much people to hang with.

Jezz grew as neutral, toggled to evil without much pure goodies around and then he crowned himself as pure evil but with the backup of many evil chars (*cries remembering Dalamar and Kurt*). Kaspars for example grew neutral without much problems, toggled evil soon beeing harassed day after day without many people to ask for help and then became satho with crusaders, rangers and taniels behind his ass. Thanks God poKaspars is a great MUD player, both in pvp and RP, or else he would have no chance. But not everyone is poKaspars.

[vurdijak]

Alright Drake I will reluctantly report this one, but I am mostly talking in general terms, for the newbies of the future. I suppose I could start a poll, something like, 'Should there be a rule against attacking players under
one day old?'

But for me, its better to just talk it out and get feedback in the form of notes instead of votes...that rhyme wasnt intentional.

[Drake]

I won't with certainty say that something will be done as to punishment, because in all likelyhood, something like this can be a completely innocent thing, as in whoever did the attacking believed they were up against a more experienced opponent etc...

But, reporting it, allows me to keep track of things like a particular player simply taking it far too extreme and doing the same thing over and over again, which will allow me to take steps if deemed nessecary.

But, the simple act of myself, or another wizard talking to the people involved will help them all to understand the finer points of playing fair, especially with new characters.

None of us are perfect, and in the heat of the moment we can all get a bit trigger happy, especially if a bit of adrenaline kicks in.

But the old adage fits, once bitten, twice shy, even when its the one doing the biting who might become the shyer for it.