Subdual mode is mostly a waste of time

[Void]

True but in real life when you're dead you're kinda... dead. And whilst we don't want to implement any sort of permadeath system, we do kinda want people to treat death with some sort of seriousness- especially in PvP.

In my opinion there should also be weight for decision to save someone's life, as it is, normally, harder to keep someone alive (when they're trying to kill you) than making them dead. There are already systems in place adding to decision to kill. Those are death penalties, and you never know if someone is playing with MoD. Frankly you should assume that everybody is. I, honeslty, liked the old -subdual more.

Regarding subdual, a design with a warning would be better than current one, but overall situation looks like this:

Imagine you're installing a system tool on your computer.

The tool asks. "I'm going to format your hard drive and erase all your data. Proceed? [Yes/No]" That's asking for consent. Tha'ts how capture after death works.

NNow imagine if tool says "Formatting your harddrive, please stand by". You lose the data, but then your techie friend says "Dude! You should've typed "Rhymbofunkers" on keyboard and it would stop". That's current design of subdual. I've been playing here for a few years and I FORGOT that -giveup existed. I did read the whole wall of text of commands when I registered, you know, but I don't recall most of them by now.

Now, yellow text option you proposed.
"About to format your hdd, type 'Rhymbofunkers' to stop. You have 15 seconds. 14. 13. 12". Better, but still..

Like someone posted either in this or other thread, this is an RP tool best working for situation when both players know each other, despite their characters being in conflict. In other situations there will be doubts, and depending on who you play as and who is trying to subdue you, running away at a first chance can be the best and most reasonable option.

And that would be it, I have nothing else to add.

[Aelryn Bloodmoon]

You do not have to consent in the moment to PvP for it to happen, nor do you have to consent in the moment to lose in PvP. It is an explicit design direction of the server that no one is ever 100% safe from PvP beyond the boundaries of what the story can reasonably enforce (like a DC100+ lock/trap setup on a door).

Likewise, while you don't have to consent in the moment to lose in PvP and be subdued, you can only be subdued if you choose not to take advantage of an option available to all players in the case of being subdued unwillingly. You can skip go and head directly to the fugue.

That the winning player can offer you a chance to not suffer death penalties without breaking character (because there are plenty of times it doesn't make sense to kill someone like you didn't just end someone's life, unless your character is actually a complete psychopath) is a good thing, and saying 'you didn't consent to be subdued' makes as much sense as saying you didn't consent to be sent to the fugue- you consented to all (rule-following) possible consequences of any possible PvP when you signed into the server.

I don't mean to come across as harsh or unempathetic, but I don't believe adopting this point of view is healthy for player interaction on the server. The stance presents, to me, as 'nothing bad can happen to my character without my say-so, except death penalties, which are lame. But if someone spares me those death penalties, I don't want to have to play being at a disadvantage to them, because that's lame, too.'

I believe that's a problem with perspective, and not with subdue.

Aren't all of the subdue options explained underneath the -help command? I'd be down for that little yellow text in the combat log, either way. I don't really care if subdue is on or off by default, so long as there's a combat log reminder for whether it's on or off when you load into a zone.

[Wings of Peace]

You do not have to consent in the moment to PvP for it to happen, nor do you have to consent in the moment to lose in PvP. It is an explicit design direction of the server that no one is ever 100% safe from PvP beyond the boundaries of what the story can reasonably enforce (like a DC100+ lock/trap setup on a door).

Likewise, while you don't have to consent in the moment to lose in PvP and be subdued, you can only be subdued if you choose not to take advantage of an option available to all players in the case of being subdued unwillingly. You can skip go and head directly to the fugue.

That the winning player can offer you a chance to not suffer death penalties without breaking character (because there are plenty of times it doesn't make sense to kill someone like you didn't just end someone's life, unless your character is actually a complete psychopath) is a good thing, and saying 'you didn't consent to be subdued' makes as much sense as saying you didn't consent to be sent to the fugue- you consented to all (rule-following) possible consequences of any possible PvP when you signed into the server.

I don't mean to come across as harsh or unempathetic, but I don't believe adopting this point of view is healthy for player interaction on the server. The stance presents, to me, as 'nothing bad can happen to my character without my say-so, except death penalties, which are lame. But if someone spares me those death penalties, I don't want to have to play being at a disadvantage to them, because that's lame, too.'

I believe that's a problem with perspective, and not with subdue.

Aren't all of the subdue options explained underneath the -help command? I'd be down for that little yellow text in the combat log, either way. I don't really care if subdue is on or off by default, so long as there's a combat log reminder for whether it's on or off when you load into a zone.

No one was suggesting you need consent for pvp or that nothing bad should happen to your character. The relevant part is that -subdual subverts a process that previously already hinged on both parties consenting for the prisoner rp to begin since it is a 'death' mechanic that doesn't trigger the 24 hour rule. Further, since there's no alert when subdued about this to my knowledge it can hardly be said that both players have chosen to be there. Opt-out is considered a dark pattern for a reason. To the question on the -help command, when I type "-help" -unrelent is there but with no explanation to its purpose and -subdual isn't even listed.

[Void]

That the winning player can offer you a chance to not suffer death penalties without breaking character

You're not seeing the other side of coin. "The winning player can offer you a chance to remain in extremely hostile unpleasant situation longer after you've already been beaten up, and with debuffs from that on top, and you agree to that by default.".

That. It is not just tool for "mercifully" allowing someone avoid death penalties.

Death allows you to fugue, respawn, turn off the game take a break, return 30 minutes later once the penalties vanish, and then the other party will be REQUIRED to avoid you for a whole RL day, unless you permit the opposite. Both parties get out of each other's face and have the time to cool off. While with subdual, conflict continues.

I'm not sure how else I could explain it.

And, yeah, -help is not very useful...

[Dr. B]

There is a very easy way to fix this.

1. Remove -giveup.

2. Modify the 24 hour rule so that it applies whether the losing character was killed or -subdued.

I don't like how -giveup takes my decision to spare someone's life out of my hands and into the other player's. And -giveup would not be necessary if (2) were implemented anyway.

Problem solved. The end.

[Wings of Peace]

There is a very easy way to fix this.

1. Remove -giveup.

2. Modify the 24 hour rule so that it applies whether the losing character was killed or -subdued.

I don't like how -giveup takes my decision to spare someone's life out of my hands and into the other player's. And -giveup would not be necessary if (2) were implemented anyway.

Problem solved. The end.

So you want a version of subdual where you get to force the other player to keep rping with you and yet somehow they will also be protected by the 24 Hour rule which shields them from interacting further with you for 24 hours?

[Amateur Hour]

So if we add some yellow text that appears on subdual saying something akin to 'To die rather than be subdued, and pass on to the fugue, please type -giveup'

This would be great. The first time I was ever subdued, while I knew about subdual mode and the "-giveup" command because I read the wiki, I didn't realize that's what had happened until a few hours later when I described it to someone else. There's limits to how effectively text can describe a game mechanic.

[Dr. B]

There is a very easy way to fix this.

1. Remove -giveup.

2. Modify the 24 hour rule so that it applies whether the losing character was killed or -subdued.

I don't like how -giveup takes my decision to spare someone's life out of my hands and into the other player's. And -giveup would not be necessary if (2) were implemented anyway.

Problem solved. The end.

So you want a version of subdual where you get to force the other player to keep rping with you and yet somehow they will also be protected by the 24 Hour rule which shields them from interacting further with you for 24 hours?

No.

I want a system where you can choose to send the target to the fugue or spare them. Either way, any subsequent interaction within the next 24 hours requires consent.

Does that clarify the nature of my suggestion for you?

[Wings of Peace]

There is a very easy way to fix this.

1. Remove -giveup.

2. Modify the 24 hour rule so that it applies whether the losing character was killed or -subdued.

I don't like how -giveup takes my decision to spare someone's life out of my hands and into the other player's. And -giveup would not be necessary if (2) were implemented anyway.

Problem solved. The end.

So you want a version of subdual where you get to force the other player to keep rping with you and yet somehow they will also be protected by the 24 Hour rule which shields them from interacting further with you for 24 hours?

No.

I want a system where you can choose to send the target to the fugue or spare them. Either way, any subsequent interaction within the next 24 hours requires consent.

Does that clarify the nature of my suggestion for you?

It does. I was curious how it would play out but I'm realizing on re-reading that it was more about stating the general goals which seem reasonable.

[AstralUniverse]

Subdual doesnt force anything on anyone, tho.

PvP happens. I lost the fight. Few possible scenarios here, lets compare two of them:

1) the enemy did not use subdual - I'm sent to Death area - the enemy can kill bash, keep the body, hand it to someone or ask me OOCly if I want to be raised for more RP (which weaves the 24h rule). I decide that I'm done with that silly griefer because how dare they kill me and gloat about it in tells after! So I turn -notells on and I respawn, log off, play an alt character and chill for example, and I'm not pointing at anyone here, just giving the extreme scenario, if I'm a player that cant handle loses very well lets say. I have full agency on where my avater is even after dying in pvp. I can refuse the raise and go somewhere else while I take the temp penalties because being saved by my god is none trivial and is a pretty big deal.

2) The enemy used sub-dual - I remain laying on the floor, locked, no agency on my avatar as per crowd control affect and my enemy doesnt need to send me any tells to get any consent to do anything at all, at that point.

So -giveup command was added as a hard shutdown to scenario #2. You type it and it sends you back to scenario #1 as if subdual never existed, but you dont HAVE to use it, because it saved you the die>go to death>communicate oocly>return process if that was your intention.

I dont understand the problem presented in this thread.

[MissEvelyn]

Subdual doesnt force anything on anyone, tho.

PvP happens. I lost the fight. Few possible scenarios here, lets compare two of them:

1) the enemy did not use subdual - I'm sent to Death area - the enemy can kill bash, keep the body, hand it to someone or ask me OOCly if I want to be raised for more RP (which weaves the 24h rule). I decide that I'm done with that silly griefer because how dare they kill me and gloat about it in tells after! So I turn -notells on and I respawn, log off, play an alt character and chill for example, and I'm not pointing at anyone here, just giving the extreme scenario, if I'm a player that cant handle loses very well lets say. I have full agency on where my avater is even after dying in pvp. I can refuse the raise and go somewhere else while I take the temp penalties because being saved by my god is none trivial and is a pretty big deal.

2) The enemy used sub-dual - I remain laying on the floor, locked, no agency on my avatar as per crowd control affect and my enemy doesnt need to send me any tells to get any consent to do anything at all, at that point.

So -giveup command was added as a hard shutdown to scenario #2. You type it and it sends you back to scenario #1 as if subdual never existed, but you dont HAVE to use it, because it saved you the die>go to death>communicate oocly>return process if that was your intention.

I dont understand the problem presented in this thread.

Thank you. Your examples are spot-on, and I don't see why there seems to be so much hate for subdual mode. It's a voluntary way to play, no one is forced to use it. Many people do use it and for those of us who do, why the strong desire to take that away from us?

[dominantdrowess]

See, this is how it actually plays out in practice:

- The Magistrate is an elected magistrate of a settlement where they are the political arbitrator between citizens who have some (reasonable) expectation of protection for their taxes, who she tries to keep up to date on recent events, including thieves.
- The Magistrate walks up to a thief or known Quarterbreaker who is confirmed by a citizen she knows and trusts.
- The Magistrate tells him that breaking into houses in the settlement isn't okay and to tell her that he understands that and will obey the command.
=====
+ The Quarterbreaker tells The Magistrate that he does what he wants.
+ The Magistrate subdues the thief who tries to run away and puts a boot on his neck.
+ The Magistrate tells The Quarterbreaker to tell her that he hears, and intends to obey her command not to break into houses in her place of authority.
+ The Quarterbreaker tells the Magistrate while face down on the ground that he does what he wants and: "<Settlement Name> is a free area."
=====
- The Magistrate kills The Quarterbreaker.

I feel like these bolded middle steps.. are actually important to establishing some societal (and server) norms that are established by the actual society the players live in and create for one another ... because it involves actual verbal communication, rather than blatant stonewalling of perfectly legitimate communication and the threat of violent death being withheld until the "Quarterbreaker" in question actually shows they have no intention of cooperating.

Until then? It's a bruising, which is a very medieval punishment used the world over since time immemorial, and I feel that's perfectly legitimate.

Removing Subdual effectively puts all blame on the magistrate who is balancing the needs of 80+ people ... and in my opinion? This is on the Quarterbreaker who is not acknowledging the agency of other players through their elected officials.