Additions to the Flee Rules

Have an idea for the game? Something you'd like to see improved? This is where you should post it.
User avatar
MakeshiftWalrus
Frequent Poster
Frequent Poster
Posts: 176
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2014 6:53 pm

Additions to the Flee Rules

Postby MakeshiftWalrus » Tue Sep 11, 2018 10:36 pm

We've now had the pleasantry of two major incidents within the city of Cellsvich, both in which the outcomes were less than favourable for those on the side of the law. And while I do agree that those who opts to attack Cellsvich shouldn't be completely in the dumps of chance, I do think that the current rules are far too forgiving for major cities.

The current rules state:
- Fleeing a fight means you must leave the situation entirely once completely successful.

- There's a limit of 2 groups of up to 4 people trying to stop someone from fleeing. (Eight people maximum.)

- People who were part of one group cannot participate in another group’s fight involving the same target.

- Ideally, the party members should be made apparent either ICly or OOCly before the battle takes place.

- You must wait five rounds to flee from a battle that is in a city/densely populated area, if you flee before this time, you will be warned and potentially have your fight either redone or suffer an automatic loss.


And what I'll be touching upon is this:
- There's a limit of 2 groups of up to 4 people trying to stop someone from fleeing. (Eight people maximum.)

- You must wait five rounds to flee from a battle that is in a city/densely populated area, if you flee before this time, you will be warned and potentially have your fight either redone or suffer an automatic loss.


Let me start with the former. This should be increased to 4 parties of 4 people, within the walls of majorly fortified settlements. Two fights is too little for these areas, especially when a successful 'Flee' on round 5, constitutes as a victory for the offending party. The presence of the guard is massive and should be taken into account when the offending party attempts to flee.

The latter rule is... Fine, for the most part. However a change to this, in my suggestion, would be to disallow fleeing until the last battle. All other fights must be concluded through victory or defeat by either party. This makes it so that the offending party has to go through a proper gauntlet of serious fights, when attempting to tackle areas in which they are heavily outmatched.

I also suggest that an additional rule be added to roster:
- Downed teammates do not escape with the fleeing party, on a successful escape.

This would make it a tactical decision of 'Can we get him on his feet again?' or 'Should we cut our losses?', as well as leave behind something for the hungry people to dig their claws in.

To sum up my suggestions:
- Change the maximum battles before a party can successfully flee from 2 to 4 in major settlements.
- Change the conditions for mechanically fleeing to only be permissible in the last possible fight.
- Add a rule which specifies you cannot bring downed teammates with you, on a successful flee.

Others are free to add additional suggestions should they have any input, though this is a thread primarily aimed to improve and balance the present rules. Please refrain from commenting without constructive criticism aimed at these suggestions, or the present rules. There's a proper discussion thread here for anything else: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6575

User avatar
Sawrock
Posted to Death
Posted to Death
Posts: 532
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: Additions to the Flee Rules

Postby Sawrock » Tue Sep 11, 2018 10:55 pm

I don't agree with the increase in reaction party size. People that attack antagonists risk nothing, while if the antagonists lose they can be jailed, or given enough roleplay and in-character captures, even death. It's also to note that the protagonist side will almost always be larger, which is already an advantage in itself (and the fact that they get two chances to win, while the antagonists have to win twice or survive long enough, thus having harsher restrictions inherently). I'd only be okay with changes of this sort if people actually risked death or the like when jumping in vigilante-style, but as it is the dogpile effect is too strong.
Image

Joseph Jostar
Frequent Poster
Frequent Poster
Posts: 199
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2014 5:01 pm

Re: Additions to the Flee Rules

Postby Joseph Jostar » Tue Sep 11, 2018 11:13 pm

Sawrock wrote:It's also to note that the protagonist side will almost always be larger, which is already an advantage in itself (and the fact that they get two chances to win, while the antagonists have to win twice or survive long enough, thus having harsher restrictions inherently). I'd only be okay with changes of this sort if people actually risked death or the like when jumping in vigilante-style, but as it is the dogpile effect is too strong.


that's a good thing, in my opinion. we're talking about highly populated areas known to be frequented by the strongest of adventurers and guarded by the empire's very best. it SHOULD be suicide to try and pull a stunt like that.

the fact that they even get the option to escape flies in the face of lore-established security measures like the GIANT WALL and the mage's guild refusing to teleport criminals

User avatar
Lolzytripd
Posted to Death
Posted to Death
Posts: 1288
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2014 7:04 pm

Re: Additions to the Flee Rules

Postby Lolzytripd » Tue Sep 11, 2018 11:21 pm

Only the empires castle is guarded by the very best, the city itself is guarded by mooks, the prison has better guards than the city proper.

Castle/the emperor/=top tier guards
City proper/dormeho=normal guards
tannis/volenguard/anywhere else= Militia/patrols.

Yark
Intermediate Poster
Intermediate Poster
Posts: 81
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2018 4:33 pm

Re: Additions to the Flee Rules

Postby Yark » Wed Sep 12, 2018 12:37 am

Fighting four groups of four people would come out to roughly a four-hour time investment. Nobody should be locked into a four-hour role play session. Can we assume that capturing downed enemies whose leaders flee a battle applies both ways? For example, last night the guards fled from us after we knocked out three of their four team members.

If this is not what you're suggesting, then I'll have to disagree.

User avatar
MakeshiftWalrus
Frequent Poster
Frequent Poster
Posts: 176
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2014 6:53 pm

Re: Additions to the Flee Rules

Postby MakeshiftWalrus » Wed Sep 12, 2018 2:21 am

Sawrock wrote:I don't agree with the increase in reaction party size. People that attack antagonists risk nothing, while if the antagonists lose they can be jailed, or given enough roleplay and in-character captures, even death. It's also to note that the protagonist side will almost always be larger, which is already an advantage in itself (and the fact that they get two chances to win, while the antagonists have to win twice or survive long enough, thus having harsher restrictions inherently). I'd only be okay with changes of this sort if people actually risked death or the like when jumping in vigilante-style, but as it is the dogpile effect is too strong.


The general consensus for serious fights, is serious injury. If the losing, or winning party for that matter, disregards such, that's a sign of poor etiquette. There are also different ways to cause antagonism than attacking the middle of the largest capital in the known world. These changes would only affect capital-size cities such as Oniga, Cellsvich and Chatarunga, where the lopsided scales are very much logical and justified.

Yark wrote:Fighting four groups of four people would come out to roughly a four-hour time investment. Nobody should be locked into a four-hour role play session. Can we assume that capturing downed enemies whose leaders flee a battle applies both ways? For example, last night the guards fled from us after we knocked out three of their four team members.

If this is not what you're suggesting, then I'll have to disagree.

If you're attacking a major settlement, you've already accepted to an extended session of role-play. Simply don't go to any major settlement to avoid this, if you don't have the time.

Capturing others would likely fall to the turf-owners, not the ones trying to escape. Unless an entirely new set of rules for kidnappings were to be put in place. Logically, this would only detriment the escaping party further, of course, because now they're no longer just trying to escape.

User avatar
Sawrock
Posted to Death
Posted to Death
Posts: 532
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: Additions to the Flee Rules

Postby Sawrock » Wed Sep 12, 2018 2:41 am

MakeshiftWalrus wrote:The general consensus for serious fights, is serious injury. If the losing, or winning party for that matter, disregards such, that's a sign of poor etiquette. There are also different ways to cause antagonism than attacking the middle of the largest capital in the known world. These changes would only affect capital-size cities such as Oniga, Cellsvich and Chatarunga, where the lopsided scales are very much logical and justified.

The first statement is incorrect from my own personal experience (both fighting and witnessing). Not only that, but the argument of "poor etiquette" is itself flawed. Yes, it's bad to ignore risks when losing a fight. That was my exact point, people do, in fact, do that, and it's not only possible, it's frequent. For example, anyone who got reduced to zero health in any recent serious fight on the side of the guards- did they have any lasting, permanent risks? Usually, that is only done so with player permission, which is contrasted by what antagonists have to risk- jailtime, permanent injury, or death.

Yes, there is other ways to cause antagonism. My reply was specifically for this type of antagonism, and was highlighting how it was unfair on its own, leaning on the side of the protagonists. This is without mentioning that most people (unlike how it would be ICly) usually gather and roleplay in Cellsvich Square (when in reality, they wouldn't "log off" and would instead do their day-to-day activities).
Image

Yark
Intermediate Poster
Intermediate Poster
Posts: 81
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2018 4:33 pm

Re: Additions to the Flee Rules

Postby Yark » Wed Sep 12, 2018 2:42 am

MakeshiftWalrus wrote:If you're attacking a major settlement, you've already accepted to an extended session of role-play. Simply don't go to any major settlement to avoid this, if you don't have the time.

Capturing others would likely fall to the turf-owners, not the ones trying to escape. Unless an entirely new set of rules for kidnappings were to be put in place. Logically, this would only detriment the escaping party further, of course, because now they're no longer just trying to escape.

Only problem with this is we didn't attack anyone. Eidolon went to check out some shops in Cellsvich, and angry kids began to badger him. You're telling me our options are to either ignore that role play and get banned, or get locked into a four-hour battle?

No thanks.

User avatar
MakeshiftWalrus
Frequent Poster
Frequent Poster
Posts: 176
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2014 6:53 pm

Re: Additions to the Flee Rules

Postby MakeshiftWalrus » Wed Sep 12, 2018 4:12 am

Yark wrote:
MakeshiftWalrus wrote:If you're attacking a major settlement, you've already accepted to an extended session of role-play. Simply don't go to any major settlement to avoid this, if you don't have the time.

Capturing others would likely fall to the turf-owners, not the ones trying to escape. Unless an entirely new set of rules for kidnappings were to be put in place. Logically, this would only detriment the escaping party further, of course, because now they're no longer just trying to escape.

Only problem with this is we didn't attack anyone. Eidolon went to check out some shops in Cellsvich, and angry kids began to badger him. You're telling me our options are to either ignore that role play and get banned, or get locked into a four-hour battle?

No thanks.


I wasn't using your case as an example for my argument, although I could have. My overall suggestion for the change is simply 'Fleeing major settlements', be it by being wanted for previous crimes, or because they were a doofus in a place they shouldn't have been.

If you need to be somewhere OOCly, put an OOC tag on. That's what the rest of us do.

Sawrock wrote:
MakeshiftWalrus wrote:The general consensus for serious fights, is serious injury. If the losing, or winning party for that matter, disregards such, that's a sign of poor etiquette. There are also different ways to cause antagonism than attacking the middle of the largest capital in the known world. These changes would only affect capital-size cities such as Oniga, Cellsvich and Chatarunga, where the lopsided scales are very much logical and justified.

The first statement is incorrect from my own personal experience (both fighting and witnessing). Not only that, but the argument of "poor etiquette" is itself flawed. Yes, it's bad to ignore risks when losing a fight. That was my exact point, people do, in fact, do that, and it's not only possible, it's frequent. For example, anyone who got reduced to zero health in any recent serious fight on the side of the guards- did they have any lasting, permanent risks? Usually, that is only done so with player permission, which is contrasted by what antagonists have to risk- jailtime, permanent injury, or death.


Quite a few of them had severe injuries in prior engagements. Dumb antagonism always run the risk of getting blobbed. And while I do agree it's far harder to perform evil deeds than good without getting punished for it, evil deeds have no place within the walls of highly-defended settlements. Or, that's my own opinion on it, anyway.

Kensai
Novice Member
Novice Member
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 1:51 am

Re: Additions to the Flee Rules

Postby Kensai » Thu Sep 13, 2018 12:52 am

It's utter bullshit that 20+ people can't fight a group of 4 people. 4 groups vers 1 is stupid too and they should al split up based on how many people are there so it's 4v1.

Also who cares if a group loses since another group can pull them back and heal them up so the same group should be able to fight them after another group engages them, or even during and switch people around.

Also NPCs should be allowed in this fight so the npc guards should be able to join in the fights even if its a 4v4.


Return to “Suggestions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest