Character Kill Application

[Smilesville]

1 minute ago, Portz said:

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.

Joining a faction is voluntary - and those have CK contracts attached as well, from what I've seen here. You know what you're getting into when you get into it - but a system in which one can simply apply for your death, then roll up and blast your head off? You've just removed all element of voluntary risk-taking. If you can be killed for undercutting someone on cocaine, what about ores? Services? You could find any reason to get rid of someone.

 

Still a no from me.

[Portz]

10 minutes ago, Smilesville said:

Joining a faction is voluntary - and those have CK contracts attached as well, from what I've seen here. You know what you're getting into when you get into it - but a system in which one can simply apply for your death, then roll up and blast your head off? You've just removed all element of voluntary risk-taking. If you can be killed for undercutting someone on cocaine, what about ores? Services? You could find any reason to get rid of someone.

 

Still a no from me.

Lol. It still needs to be voted on by the powers at be whether or not your application is accepted. You're not going to get CKed for calling Sally a whore.

Edited May 7, 2018 by Portz

[Nervous]

31 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.

How does my logic give off this vibe, if you don't mind me asking? I'm concerned that you think this way because this is not the message I was trying to get across. In no way, shape, or form should any player be limited to one player slot nor should they ever not be allowed to roleplay here again. That's simply madness.

 

If you despise the realism that should come with heavy RP then why did you choose to sign up to a heavy text-based roleplaying server? Since that's what we should all strive for, realism. If players stop engaging in conflict then that is up to them but if they handicap dramatic roleplay because they're fearful of their character being killed then that makes them more realistic - people wouldn't go out of their way to get themselves in a situation which could get them killed in real life, so thank you for actually backing up my statement there whether intended or not, that if this system was in place then people would value their character's life more than they do right now. It's super, super awkward to roleplay around someone that's just been popped right infront of you and it kills all forms of immersion for everybody involved when they've just been roleplaying watching that exact same player bleed out and beg for mercy.

 

By the way, thank you for at least understanding why this idea is in place. Whether you agree with it or not, I respect the fact that you understand why this is being proposed unlike some posters who completely have avoided that sentiment and have chosen to directly attack the idea without giving it proper thought. 

 

-- For those believing that my replies are an attack by the way, they're not. They're a simple opinion in this discussion and you never, ever have to take my opinion as fact because I'm a staff member. I'm a community member just like the rest of you so I respect all of your opinions whether I agree with them or not. I will, however, challenge your opinion if I disagree with it because every person contributing to this thread should challenge things if they disagree with them and hopefully have your minds changed in the long run!

[Smilesville]

26 minutes ago, Maca said:

How does my logic give off this vibe, if you don't mind me asking?

I'm positive that isn't what you meant in practice, but it was your line of thinking taken to the logical extreme to demonstrate the point that realism must reasonably cede to fun, if the server is to continue functioning. Simply a rhetorical, hyperbolic statement meant to make a point.

 

And I agree that there needs to be another look at how to encourage players to refrain from pointless risk-taking, but a key caveat we need to keep in mind is that we cannot punish the player for engaging in the aforementioned risky behavior. My understanding is that when one would be CK'd under the proposed system, they either lose what they, the player, have worked for in terms of financial assets (bad) - or pay real-world currency to rename the character and retain those assets (worse). The fact of the matter is that killing a character off will not be an attractive option under ordinary circumstances, and unless we lighten our stance to allowing characters to retain liquid assets, this would not only unfairly punish the player, but also create bad blood between that player and the killing player, as the latter has directly punished the former. We limit the amount that can be stolen by robbers and scammers for good reason - to prevent an acceptable criminal behavior from creating bad blood on a player-to-player level.

Scamming a player out of $75,000 will upset them - understandably so, but they will move on. Killing their character will go so far beyond the pale.

 

Consequences in the game will never achieve parity with those in real life, and so we must work around it how we can to maximize the enjoyment of all players while sticking close enough to resemble real life, not mirror it. There are other ways to go about addressing this in one form or another, but I find the merits of this particular suggestion, as it has been proposed, lacking. There would need to be a number of changes to bring it in line with eliminating a character without harming the player. We could take one, a few, or all of these:

• Liquidize assets of a character on CK and allow them to be transferred to another character at 75% (or a similarly high but arbitrary percentage) of the original value. So a character who dies with $1,000,000 in assets will come back with $750,000.
• Allow the assets to be converted into something on death. Whether World Points (though I suspect that in particular would be a terrible idea) or a pre-defined list of services such as phone number changes, vanity plates for a new character, starting with a particular weapon, etc etc. This might even promote the regular recycle of characters with pointlessly high amounts of cash if the player wants to, say, play a poor character next.
• Allow license transfers from a dead character to a new character (perhaps with a cost as part of the aforementioned asset conversion system.) I haven't been playing long, but I could definitely see the utility of this if one wishes to play a resident of the state who would, realistically, already have these things.

But the answer is most assuredly not to whack someone, have them start over with $1,000, then expect them to deal with it as part of "the atmosphere of the server." A successful game always treats its players as agents of choice within the setting, not just a backdrop to solidify someone else's immersion.

Edited May 7, 2018 by Smilesville
syntax

[Aquila]

5 hours 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 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.

Preach.

 

Quoted to reiterate good points. I hate the idea of comparing RP to IRL, because it is nowhere near a fair or reasonable comparison in the slightest.

[Portz]

And we're back.

[Dashing]

Outdated and implemented.