Character Kill Application

[Th3Madjackal]

Probably because the way CK have been pointed out is that there's only 3 outcome.

•Player A die

•Player B die

•Both player die because one was too wounded to call 911 (for example)

 

There's no middle ground or escape. In the drug dealer example of earlier:

•Player A and B fight, Player A survive and manage to run and loose player B, so B decide to lurk around A house, waiting for him but A decide  to run away to Sandy shore. Time pass, B kept looking for A but couldn't find him so he move's on and resume his business while A maybe started something new with a group of biker. Maybe down the line B will go after A because A is dealing meth and it's reaching B's ears and either go after A or because of time passed decided to let it loose for now.

 

Like i said, there's possibility for middle ground even if both hate each other, maybe one is more of a coward and value his life and instead decide to lay low for a while, there should be a fourth outcome available which, so far, nobody presented or felt the need to justify it because people assume they'd go at each other throat right away.

But in the event that you killed someone best friend or someone was close and dear to someone else then if you get tagged with a CK, escape would probably be impossible as said person would do everything to find you and kill you, in that case i understand the 'you get to kill, no escape' concept.

 

Now regarding asset, i already said an easy example on how to handle it, instead of loosing it you gain back a portion of it but it's stuck as 'frozen asset'.

Example: Player A have 500 000$ of combined asset and bank. He get to keep 250000$ as frozen asset, and from this he can get 10% as a kickstarter to get basic stuff such as license and a car and maybe bonuses for his new roleplay. The rest of the money is slowly fed back through paycheck or weekly allowance from 5 to 10% depending the amount of money.

But if the Player A2 die, he loose all of those asset and only get to 'keep' the current one.

 

It's a system that ensure the roleplay transition stay smooth, isn't  giving overpower and still give a punishment as said asset remain in limbo and can be lost forever.

Let's not forget, heavy text-based roleplay or not, it's just a game and we're all here to have fun. Getting killed is a punishment of its own as you loose maybe a character with a well developped story and loosing everything else can negatively impact the interest of playing more.

I personally wouldn't mind, in the end, the new CK system if it was maybe properly explained with guideline, the range of what is and what is not accepted, and if you can escape it depending of the severity. 

Edited May 7, 2018 by Th3Madjackal

[Aquila]

28 minutes ago, Makkebakke said:

Forcing people (not characters) to go through the establishment phase over and over again stalls the development of roleplay.

Would lead to people quitting too. I most certainly would quit if this became a thing.

 

It'll also make people not take interest in doing any sorts of risky roleplay, no matter how big or small.

[Makkebakke]

The final line of that post was in no way directed at you. I actually had a somewhat warped view of Portz, and he corrected me in a positive way.

 

5 minutes ago, Maca said:

you would've done something stupid enough to get yourself killed and thus pay the price for those actions.

Again, in select cases. Not all CK's are spawned from hostilities. If they were, I might agree with you, but reality states otherwise. Should suicides, OD's, etc. be punished (yes, still using that word) for the actions of others? Do you want to accept that as a precedent?

 

6 minutes ago, Maca said:

You are your character.

No. False. Incorrect. When my go-to Roleplay server was still MovingTarget Gaming Light-RP on SA:MP, I would've agreed with you, but today, I couldn't disagree more. My hopes, my dreams, my desires, my tastes, my wants, my needs, my likes and dislikes, these are not 1-to-1 between me and my characters. If you construct your character to be nothing but an avatar for yourself to step into the world of GTA-W, that is entirely up to you. That is however not how I choose to roleplay, and that should not be expected of me, or anyone else.

 

12 minutes ago, Maca said:

If you cannot accept that you are solely responsible for your character's actions then I am a little concerned that you may not understand the meaning of roleplay. You make a character and you make them play a role, the actions that you decide to take are the actions that your character takes!

And yet, there are times where it would make sense for your character to make a decision that you as a player know is wrong, and you may even find stupid. This is part of roleplay. It's part of acting out a character. That is roleplay. And with that I state once more, roleplayers should never be punished for roleplaying.

[Nervous]

If this was implemented as I've previously said, in comparison to @Th3Madjackal 's compromise, I'd actually say giving the players a certain amount of cash for a FOUNDATION of roleplay to be set up is not a problem. For example, giving them a house or a vehicle that their new character would realistically have so they do not have to grind paychecks to set up a foundation. However, giving them the assets (i.e, drugs, guns and even cash) that they had on their previous character would defeat the purpose of the CK system.

 

Quote

No. False. Incorrect. When my go-to Roleplay server was still MovingTarget Gaming Light-RP on SA:MP, I would've agreed with you, but today, I couldn't disagree more. My hopes, my dreams, my desires, my tastes, my wants, my needs, my likes and dislikes, these are not 1-to-1 between me and my characters. If you construct your character to be nothing but an avatar for yourself to step into the world of GTA-W, that is entirely up to you. That is however not how I choose to roleplay, and that should not be expected of me, or anyone else.

 

And yet, there are times where it would make sense for your character to make a decision that you as a player know is wrong, and you may even find stupid. This is part of roleplay. It's part of acting out a character. That is roleplay. And with that I state once more, roleplayers should never be punished for roleplaying.

Now I'm very confused. Are you not the one typing those actions out and even thinking for your character's next move? This is what I mean. You as a person are making your character do those actions, so you are the person making that happen. Without a person behind the screen making those actions happen, your character simply wouldn't exist. Hence why I said you are your character.

 

@Aquila - If you leave the server over your character being Character Killed, doesn't that just state that you don't value roleplay? If I am wrong then please correct me.

Edited May 7, 2018 by Nervous

[Th3Madjackal]

Just now, Maca said:

If this was implemented as I've previously said, in comparison to @Th3Madjackal 's compromise, I'd actually say giving the players a certain amount of cash for a FOUNDATION of roleplay to be set up is not a problem. For example, giving them a house or a vehicle that their new character would realistically have so they do not have to grind paychecks to set up a foundation. However, giving them the assets (i.e, drugs, guns and even cash) that they had on their previous character would defeat the purpose of the CK system.

Aye which is why i said, said asset are turned into money. You do not retain any of the item just their value  (Vehicle upgrade for example aren't counted in the addition unless said upgrade show in the character asset value, i dont know how it work) and the value is cut down to keep it fair for the rest of the player so nobody start with a rich as fudge character that instantly buy it's way back into position 

[Makkebakke]

5 minutes ago, Maca said:

Are you not the one typing those actions out and even thinking for your character's next move? This is what I mean. You as a person are making your character do those actions, so you are the person making that happen. Without a person behind the screen making those actions happen, your character simply wouldn't exist. Hence why I said you are your character.

Of course, but once a character has been established, that breaks down somewhat. There is a personality and reasoning that may not line up with your own. My drug-addicted biker character will not make decisions the same way that I do. At that point, they seize to be my decisions. My character makes his own decisions. All I'm doing is going through the motions at the keyboard.

 

If a time comes where the character makes a decision that results in their death, this (in some/most cases) isn't simply to blame on the player. Not when there is an actual character being portrayed.

[Portz]

6 hours ago, Makkebakke said:

Of course, but once a character has been established, that breaks down somewhat. There is a personality and reasoning that may not line up with your own. My drug-addicted biker character will not make decisions the same way that I do. At that point, they seize to be my decisions. My character makes his own decisions. All I'm doing is going through the motions at the keyboard.

 

If a time comes where the character makes a decision that results in their death, this (in some/most cases) isn't simply to blame on the player. Not when there is an actual character being portrayed.

I have had to make decisions with my own character that I have not wanted to do from an OOC perspective. In those moments, I accepted that due to the severity of my character's actions his death or imprisonment was imminent. I was in fact CKed. It was great conclusion to my character's story, and a great chapter to the other players characters stories (mostly cops).

 

I don't ever think being CKed for valid reasons is ever a punishment. Sure, some people do. But they will also be able to apply to get the decision over turned, for reasons in regards to rule breaking, not believing they actually had a valid reason, etc.

 

I am a gang roleplayer. A lot of gang roleplayers love to provoke, start conflict, with little regard to their characters lives. Systems like this, and the old system that never saw the light like the enforced faction vs faction CK wars were great. The player still hung around after being CKed (or sometimes moved on to other things), but the character was actually mourned because the character wasn't there. Instead of people awkwardly RPing around someone who had just been PKed in a war.

 

Edited May 7, 2018 by Portz

[Portz]

7 hours ago, Aquila said:

Would lead to people quitting too. I most certainly would quit if this became a thing.

 

It'll also make people not take interest in doing any sorts of risky roleplay, no matter how big or small.

People will quit for whatever reasons. If this is one, oh well. In regards to people not doing risky roleplay because of this, trust me, they still will.

 

 

[Smilesville]

9 hours ago, Maca said:

If you get killed in real life - do you keep your life? Your assets? Your stockpile of drugs and weaponry? No. Why should it be any different on a heavy roleplaying server? Well, it shouldn't.

By your logic, we should only ever have one character slot, and if we're CK'd, we should never be allowed to play on the server again. Attempting to emulate realism to the point that it becomes mindlessly pedantic will destroy this server. Again - if there's too much risk involved, everyone will simply stop engaging in conflict altogether - and you'll have an armistice between the most powerful organizations to take down anyone who tries to infringe on that.

 

I wholly despise the notion that "Heavy RP" means "we must bring our server as close to real life as possible" when the very purpose for the establishment of the server itself is antithetical to that statement. View the server less as an emulation of life and more as writing a giant, collaborative novel. If we're not writing about the most interesting portion of an individual's life (whether heroic, tragic, or comedic) then why aren't we writing about that? This is why cash-grab sequels tend to perform terribly in movies and literature. Yes, there is going to be more action, drama, etc than would otherwise be realistic, but that's fine because it's fun. I could make the case that having so many police players is unrealistic because in the real world, there is one cop per 227 citizens - but preventing 95% of the playerbase from playing a police character on that basis would be boring and idiotic. We should not apply that logic to how characters die.

 

You mention the consequences of dying in real life, but the distinction between player and character is important; we should not be punishing players for ending the story of their character - period, no matter how much that idea offends your notion of realism. This is why the way we handle incarceration is similarly sub-optimal: we're punishing the player in an effort to realistically punish the character. Like it or not, the financial assets are the work of the player due to how the server is set up - that's a fact.

 

If you're going to punish players for being CK'd, then only the most masochistic player will want to stay here. If you want to divorce player effort from financial assets, that means giving every player what they believe is a reasonable life savings for their character without any in-game work on their part, and we obviously don't want that either.

 

Never mind the fact that a CK could potentially arise through dubious circumstances - do we really want the head of a successful criminal organization whacked because none of their bodyguards were online at the time? There's a good way to kill RP for you - nobody will want to head up an organization like that when their leaders are routinely on the chopping block.

 

Never mind that there isn't (and can never be) a realistic qualifier for how much "story" an individual has to engage in before their hit. Do you have to repeatedly state I want to kill this person for a month? Do you require ten screenshots on ten different occasions in which you state your desire to kill this person? Attempting to quantify that is impossible, and so it will come to pass that the decision will ultimately fall to the whim of an administrator - and wherever possible, we really should avoid creating a system that relies on the judgment of someone who may not know the full story.

 

I understand the sentiment behind the idea - to give death permanence and to throw in an incentive for individuals to act in a more realistic manner.

 

This isn't the solution.

Edited May 7, 2018 by Smilesville

[Portz]

24 minutes ago, Smilesville said:

By your logic, we should only ever have one character slot, and if we're CK'd, we should never be allowed to play on the server again. Attempting to emulate realism to the point that it becomes mindlessly pedantic will destroy this server. Again - if there's too much risk involved, everyone will simply stop engaging in conflict altogether - and you'll have an armistice between the most powerful organizations to take down anyone who tries to infringe on that.

I stopped where I highlighted (I assume the rest of what you have written other people have already written). Did I fail to mention that I was a part of a server that had this and enforced CK faction vs faction wars? Did people stop engaging in conflict, hell no. But when certain individuals or factions crossed the line too much, at least there were ways that we could police their behavior.

 

Other people have mentioned they too, came from servers with similar systems. So that argument is wrong. People will not stop risking it all.

Edited May 7, 2018 by Portz