Layonara policy questions and discussion

[Script Wrecked]

No, no, that all makes sense; a bit of illustration of what was intended goes a long way towards clarification.

[Pseudonym]

Q. Are creatures continuing to whale on you after you had stabilised (somewhere between -1 to -9 HPs) a valid reason to consider a SS reimbursement using a Graceful Plea?

[jrizz]

I was just looking at Abigail's GP request:

http://forums.layonara.com/disputes-...d-pending.html

It seems that what Row is saying is that if you want to make a request on your last SS it must be under the "Special note regarding the loss of a character's final Soul Strand" section. But what if your last SS is due to some technical issue that would let you use a GP only to get it back? So there would be no loss of levels or items.

This sentence seems to say that if you have not enacted the regular GP as in the final death was a "clean kill" then you can use the special note section.

When a character loses his or her final Soul Strand, the player will be given a one-time choice to request a reconsideration of this final death, given that the above criteria have not already been enacted for the event in question.

Thoughts?

[Dorganath]

If a final death is due to a "bug" or other OOC technical issue then it should always be brought forth immediately so we can look into it. This is something we have done in the past as a courtesy to the community so that people don't have to worry overly about losing their final strand to something beyond anyone's control. We have reviewed such cases in the past and in some we have also been lenient on returning the final strand under such circumstances.

So to answer...

Come to us right away and we may just hand the strand back for "free", but wait months and anything we could possbly hope to check or verify about the circumstances would be long gone, and the only avenue remaining is the Graceful Plea.

[jrizz]

@dorg understood about how it should work moving forward. But what about retroactively? Since the GPs just came into being and old requests are now being considered and approved under the new GP program. What about old requests that had some glitch that caused a last SS to be lost and were reviewed and denied due to not fitting the rules at the time? It may be simple to say old perms are out side of this but we will allow you to use the "bring back from the dead clause" as a courtesy.

[Dorganath]

Three things:

1) The "old rules" as you described them allowed for a much more lenient review of the last death, and I have personally investigated several such requests for any reasonable way to show mercy and to return that last strand so that the death could be meaningful and not just the result of something fully out of anyone's control. We've done this, in fact, though not every such request was automatically granted. I typically threw out most of the usual criteria, such as GM/WL witnessing for such things. This has long been an avenue for people, not just with the advent of Graceful Pleas. So "fitting the rules at the time" often didn't apply to the final strand, if the player bothered to request a review. Some did, some didn't. I seem to recall scrutinizing Abigail's circumstances rather closely when they occurred. I really did look for a justifiable way to give the strand back to her.

2) Yes, it is true that we are allowing reconsideration of old or even unsubmitted requests through the Graceful Plea system. This is allowing a return of Soul Strands with a much more lax standard, though of course with a limited usage. As you have probably seen, plenty of people are taking advantage of this. However...

3) EdTheKet specifically expressed the requirement that no one be allowed to un-perm without making one of the "last chance"choices, assuming that one of the other usual criteria (including a deep scrutiny of the event just after that particular death) have been evaluated and deemed unfitting. I believe his primary motivation here was for lore and continuity reasons, the latter being important for everyone's RP, as in some cases, the characters were considered really and truly dead for years...even decades.

So that is a much longer answer that I could not give earlier. As for wording, I didn't think it necessary to distinguish between old perms and new perms, as the policy was written as a return from perma-death, which to me says it applies to everyone, old or new.

In any case, good question. As we're really still shaking down these policies, or rather the execution of them, there may be come clarifying language added to the policies, but I'm highly hesitant to start getting down to specific sorts of situations, because then what we get is a policy document that is 10x longer than it needs to be, and it just gets either too oppressive to read or too confusing because the one situation that wasn't covered explicitly comes up...and then it's just a mess.

[Pseudonym]

Not sure if this is the thread to discuss .. but it's certainly -a- thread!

I love the new system where a PC can influence the prices from NPC merchants through using one of their 'persuasion' type skills. I think it's great. My thought however was that the variable factor in this determination, a d100 roll, was too great relative to the fixed factor, the PC's skill score. To my mind a PC with huge bonus to bluff, intimidate, whatever (the realm of the epics?) should have that weigh more heavily than the vagaries of how that NPC merchant was feeling at that precise moment.

Maybe a d50 roll + skill score vs DC of d50 roll instead?

Just a thought.

[Hellblazer]

I don't agree, even with my chars with high cha high persuade, intimidate etc, still fail more than half the time their "persuasion" attempts so for an hour it cost them more to buy things. Interestingly enough, Feh has a good deal of success, with no charisma there for very little "persuasion" skill.

[Pseudonym]

Ummmm, aren't you saying exactly the same thing?

[jan]

" Returning of a previously permed character that has not been deleted from our server vault (see special note below) "

Does this mean that deleted characters can not be returned ?

Or can they be returned using the LORE page and testimonies off others collaborating on the main items in their gear/ inventories ?

[Dorganath]

Originally Posted by jan

" Returning of a previously permed character that has not been deleted from our server vault (see special note below) "

Does this mean that deleted characters can not be returned ?

Or can they be returned using the LORE page and testimonies off others collaborating on the main items in their gear/ inventories ?

At this point, no. It has long been our policy to not restore deleted characters for any reason. This is something we've stated even with LORE in place.

Character deletion is a player choice, and that choice is essentially "I don't want to play this character here any longer." People do it for various reasons, but it has long been portrayed as a rather permanent choice.

IF (and right now, it's only an "if") it was decided that the data in LORE could be used to restore a previously deleted character, it is rather certain that we would not consider the testimonies of others for any other equipment.

Again, the handling of deleted characters is nothing new, and as they currently stand, the new policies do not override the way we handle them.

[Hellblazer]

Originally Posted by Pseudonym

Ummmm, aren't you saying exactly the same thing?

No you were saying that to prevent uber chars with uber persuasion to win all the time against the npc , the dc of the player should be made at 50 instead of the 100. While I am saying that with the current system, my personal observation is that, my ubber chars with high persuade, fails almost all the time, vs my chars with no persuade type skills.

[Pseudonym]

Ummmm, you may wish to read and digest my post again.

[lonnarin]

Originally Posted by Pseudonym

Ummmm, you may wish to read and digest my post again.

I love it when Earl with no charisma or social skills intimidates a merchant for a discount, when Farros gets his price hiked with +46 persuade check. Makes little sense, but it's still really really funny. Of course Earl has had his prices hiked often as well, because people think he's a redneck jerk in the marketplace.

Please feel free to call the guards on him if you see him shaking down the poor halflings in Hempstead.

[jan]

Originally Posted by Dorganath

At this point, no. It has long been our policy to not restore deleted characters for any reason. This is something we've stated even with LORE in place.

Character deletion is a player choice, and that choice is essentially "I don't want to play this character here any longer." People do it for various reasons, but it has long been portrayed as a rather permanent choice.

IF (and right now, it's only an "if") it was decided that the data in LORE could be used to restore a previously deleted character, it is rather certain that we would not consider the testimonies of others for any other equipment.

Again, the handling of deleted characters is nothing new, and as they currently stand, the new policies do not override the way we handle them.

Understood

But if the reasons to leave this world would be directly linked to the rules / handling off the rules , then i can understand that people would like to dig up their chars now that the rules have changed .

The need to have a WL/GM in your party / online , to get a SS loss reimbursed is now gone .
The party lvl restrictions are gone , giving people more slack to travel with characters , so the fear of a reprimand when showing around others is lessened .

Those changes - for me anyway - have made it interesting again to give the world a new try .
The thought of needing to start from scratch ( no matter how interesting to others ) is not something i'm looking forward too though .

So just thought i'd ask if its possible to return with a char that technically hasn't permed and who's body was never found .

[Pseudonym]

Didn't like my thought?

If you have the time (and inclination) can you tell me why you distinguish between a known bioware bug and a known layonara code bug with regard to reimbursement considerations?

Cheers!

[Dorganath]

Originally Posted by Pseudonym

Didn't like my thought?

Like all suggestions, it is taken into consideration. It's also a frightfully low priority. That's neither a positive or negative review on the idea, just a statement of fact.

If you have the time (and inclination) can you tell me why you distinguish between a known bioware bug and a known layonara code bug with regard to reimbursement considerations?

Cheers!

Because Bioware bugs like Invis, G. Sanc., resting with low HPs and CON buffs active, etc. are beyond our direct control. For bugs we create, however unintentionally, it is our responsibility to ensure that they do not ultimately produce a strongly negative impact on players or their enjoyment of the game. They are also things that we can generally verify and reproduce most easily.

Those sorts of Bioware-related bugs I mentioned above could be very easily abused and given as an excuse for every Soul Strand loss. We'd have no way to verify that, as Invisibility does not necessarily behave consistently when creatures see through it. As such, we simply can't automatically accept something like this for a "free" reimbursement.

Using Invisibility, G. Sanc, etc. or some other system that is known to have its little quirks within the NWN engine itself is considered to be a "calculated risk" of playing, and as such is no different than going and adventuring somewhere which stands a 5-10% chance of causing your character to die.

By contrast, if we inadvertently cause some sort of bug that is deadly, find out that it is in fact a problem with the way we have programmed or built something, then by all means, we take responsibility for that and reimburse any losses that come as a result.

Or to put it more concisely, we take responsibility for our own mistakes, not someone else's.