Which doesn't make any sense, I'd like to note. Effectively run along walls? Sure, but unless there's gravity or something pulling them towards the wall they'll just push themselves off. And more likely than not they'd crash into the walls.
If said wall is soft enough, maybe something that 'bites' itself into it to provide more support (coupled with something to stick to the surface long enough to continue running). But yeah, for running horizontally on a wall, one would probably need a synthflesh body, at the least. Maybe running up it vertically would be feasible with a regular (robo)body.
i have repeatedly informed you guys that killing the enemy destroys over 90% of the loot and asked that you refrain from killing those i have incapacitated, requests that have been almost unilaterally ignored. If im the only one putting any effort into keeping loot active then i feel no obligation to share with those who are mindlessly destroying it.
Remember that killing the enemy is our main objective here, so if other characters always go for killing blows, they are following orders, not mindlessly destroying. And almost every battle up till now has been a wave that gets destroyed in a single turn, after which a new one follows immediately, so not a lot of room for applying subtle force instead of going for lethal immediately.
Oh, and in the pause between waves, most people helped with evacuating wounded or putting up barricades instead of looking for loot so they were directly contributing to their teammates well-being or helping get the defenses up again. Yes, I saw Auron tried to deposit heads he might've had on the second turn between waves, but after looking for loot, not the other way around. There's a difference in intent basically.
With that said, let's establish that it's way harder to incapacitate (without killing) an enemy than it is to destroy them. The first one requires a careful application of juuust the right amount of force (both in 'real life' and in-game, where you'd need to roll a 5, maybe a 4), while the other has a much broader margin of success (4, 5 or 6 will do, maybe even a 3). Thus, in a pitched battle, simply trying to kill is easier than trying to incapacitate. And, as PW has mentioned, he will increase the danger (e.g. number of enemies) level according to player strength. Remember that this is a game after all, so he has to ensure there is a level of danger (proof: when he said what he'd do when we used the RU budget to buy everyone battlesuits) for the players to work with. This means that not going for the kill will always carry an inherent risk, except maybe in isolated cases (where there is no enemy backup coming whatsoever).
Thus, there is a bigger chance at success (and less risk) in going for killing blows. Yes, I know that with a manip/amp using just enough force to do the job is preferred, but there is a difference in using 'enough force to kill' and using 'enough to knock out' (undershooting/rolling too low with the first might still take the enemy out of the fight, even if it doesn't kill him, but undershooting with the second means you have a still combat-capable foe on your hands).
Now then, a big thing in this discussion is risk vs reward, a rather fundamental gameplay element. For example, do you grab the scary alien artifact, risking alien mindfrakkery, but possibly getting lots of tokens for bringing it in? It's up to a player to decide if it's worth it. In the same vein, if Auron wants to risk not taking out his enemy in order to try and gain more loot, that is his decision he makes as a player.
However, this is a large scale battle, not one-on-one combat. Not taking out an enemy means said enemy might have another chance at hurting or killing a teammate, not just Auron (we do not know how PW determines who gets hit, but in this situation (looking at it IC) I suspect the sod will just try to do as much damage as it can before dying).
Thus, nobody minds someone taking risks for getting loot (why would anybody mind that?), but if it also means another character could get hurt (or that person isn't contributing as much as he could to the mission, where in this case mission failure ends the game and
everybody dies), I can see why they would take heavy objection to it. So yeah, go grab that alien artifact while I stand waaay over there, but if there are enemies hotdropping in front of us
right now while their buddies are shooting us as we speak, then yes, stop looting and
shoot those assholes! Radio Controlled posted the piecewise/Steve ruling over loot. I recommend reading it.
Indeed. But, for the weak of memory:
-In the event that there is any, loot shall be divided as follows (note that these are Steve’s rules, don’t come complaining to me): what you kill is yours, everything else goes into the team fund. Everything else. Yes, this includes stuff you find on the UWM ships. Oh, and about those: remember we are to capture those ships, not scuttle them, so contain your looting urges. If I find out people have been playing magpie instead of doing their job, they will find themselves without payment for this mission.
-Sod equipment is to be returned to Steve at mission end. Yes, even when the sod in question is dead. This to prevent people using their troops as meat shields so they could claim their weapons.
From this, we can learn a few things:
-If the one who got the kill doesn't claim the loot, it goes into the team fund! Nowhere is there a clause that gives 'second dibs' or anything. So if Faith doesn't claim it, it's for the whole team, no matter who else 'claims' it after that.
-It says 'kill', not 'disable'. Normally that wouldn't matter, but in this case (where Faith killed a sod incapacitated by someone else) it does. And, according to this, it goes to the one who dealt the finishing blow, aka Faith. Yes, I admit that next time I should add a clause to address this kind of situation (cause one could readily make the point this isn't wholly fair. I didn't foresee this situation coming up, negligence on my part) but that's for next time: as the rules now stand, if Faith doesn't claim that sword, shield or rocket pods, then it goes to the team fund.
Main problems with that system are that it favours characters like miyamoto and jim who are already heavily geared, and the fact that killing UWM personell destroys the loot you would recieve.
Lucky then, that Miya (and Jim as well, I think) has literally expressed his desire to share loot he earns to give the team ( especially newbs) a little boost.
Now, if I had my way then I'd say PW just keeps track of all the loot we find this mission without us having to physically grab it. Then, after the mission this is turned into tokens, and from that pool we divide them as bonus for competence, with Steve giving a little base pay. This way, if a character is capable of disabling a battlesuit, thereby increasing the bonus pool greatly, he'd be rewarded for personal competence with some extra tokens, but failing to do that and letting an enemy have another turn to fight means less tokens. Risk vs reward. But now, if Auron fails to take out that battlesuit it can spell doom for another character, while Auron succeeding won't give any sort of boon or advantage to anyone else.
Can't we debate this IC? It gets resolved better.
Indeed, but then somebody needs to bring it up IC first. and Miya is on the other side of the map fighting drones, so you can't expect him to bring it up out of the blue. Cause if he did it'd be meta, and every time one sins against that commandment ("Thou Shalt Not Go Out Of Character Or Use Meta Knowledge") the Gods of Roleplaying kill a catgirl. Think of the catgirls! Lyra could be next!
Anyways, all of this should no longer be a problem once we get to regular missions again.
Author
Topic: Einsteinian Roulette: OOC and NEW PLAYER INFO (Read 2523478 times)