DTs

[ycleption]

@gulnyr, replying to my post, you've certainly understood what I'm saying, obviously we have some difference of opinions regarding what is fair... Which is really the only thing I take issue with: "This doesn't sound like a question of fairness but one of luck." To me, letting things be too reliant on luck is unfair, and I think you're drawing a false distinction there. To give a hyperbolic example, if every character had a random number of SS given at character creation, and some got only one, and some got a thousand, I think we could agree that it is unfair to give characters such drastically different survival chances, even if everyone has the same random probability.
For the most part, I don't disagree with what you're saying, but I just reach the opposite conclusion, that giving a set number of deaths is a more "fair" system.

(btw, thanks for taking the time to make the suggestion summary, it helps focus things a bit).

[Acacea]

I understand - shut up and sit down and let someone else say something, right?

Before that though, there was something that was misinterpreted that needs to be clarified, I think.

Whats wrong with breeding surviors? Is that a bad thing? So we should want some players to perm? If so we need to due away with SS reimbursements then it will be more fair.

What I meant by survivors was not "people who do not perm," but rather "characters that are built to win." These are number crunched characters, power builds, I wins, whatever.

We are a roleplay world, working towards some kind of vision in which mechanical systems function to encourage roleplay, whether it be stationary or adventuring. We have long tried to encourage non-standard builds, and discouraged "I win" spell, skill, and class combinations. In NWN these are generally doomed to die a lot, but they will not necessarily perm because of those choices. There is nothing wrong with well built characters, but the question inherent in the "breeding survivors" comment I used, is should a perfectly built character always win out against a character flawed for RP reasons?

I did not intend to imply that we want lots of people to perm. Not so - depending on how generous your return system is, it may actually become difficult to perm, so these things are easily scaled depending on how real a threat you want permadeath to become. But a very real concern for a roleplaying world is not punishing inexperienced players with such big consequences, just because they are not as skilled players as the big boys, or people that choose to specialize in all the knowledge and tracking skills instead of any combat skills. They will die more often, but should they perm more often? A system which tells the players "build well or perm" would seem to inevitably lead to the death of the poor builders or deliberate flaws. That is what I meant when I said permadeath breeds survivors. How much is all in the variables, I think.

((PS, sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you were implying that many felt to speak up was to be banned. It is something that has been said often, though - fear to speak. Saying that it's okay to do so doesn't really help anyway, but it generally bears repeating just in case.))

[Lynn1020]

I understand - shut up and sit down and let someone else say something, right?

*sighs*  That is not what I meant... But I will shut up now.

[Acacea]

I'm sorry, that was just a bit of a joke regarding how long my posts usually are in comparison to everyone else's and my general compulsion to reply every time. Ed has said in more than one topic "you people sure type a lot" and is often referring to me. I was not offended by your post and did not mean to upset you, so I apologize for being a bit flippant at a bad time.

[Stephen_Zuckerman]

*sighs*  That is not what I meant... But I will shut up now.

That was one of Acacea's tongue-in-cheek comments, meant to be funny more than anything else (and, if I read it right, an offhanded comment about her own impressive verbosity, which certainly has contributed to the length of this page - though I certainly don't mind). *

Please, speak your thoughts. There have been a lot of good thoughts bouncing around, and ideas both good and not-so-good. Plus lots of learning on how death really does work!

I understand that a lot of folks are hesitant to post in a topic that has a heavy vibe... You could say the wrong thing the wrong way, and have people go off at you, or... Well, yeah. But what really should be reiterated is that this is Layonara. The absolute best thing about this community is that, while some folks are less fond of some other folks, we're all here to RP, and to have fun. In some cases, that means that we want to improve the game in some ways... And that's good!

So long as everything's kept civil (or, if your skill with putting across the wrong emotion in your what-you-thought-was-civil post rivals mine, you apologize profusely ), no harm and no foul. General Discussion is ABOUT bouncing around ideas and information.



*Edit: Boo yah! I got it right.

[Gulnyr]

I never meant that anyone was afraid to they would get banned.  Just some do not like to speak out on such a strong topic.  Thats all.

My mistake.  I read "No one wants the team upset with them. Because we all enjoy playing here and want to continue to," as if some were afraid to speak critically for fear of banning.

To me, letting things be too reliant on luck is unfair, and I think you're drawing a false distinction there. To give a hyperbolic example, if every character had a random number of SS given at character creation, and some got only one, and some got a thousand, I think we could agree that it is unfair to give characters such drastically different survival chances, even if everyone has the same random probability.

Yeah, that would be too random.  The system as-is, though, isn't that random, since everyone starts on an equal footing.

For the most part, I don't disagree with what you're saying, but I just reach the opposite conclusion, that giving a set number of deaths is a more "fair" system.

The problem I see with this is that it biases the system toward a certain build style or playstyle, specifically those who build for high AC and HP and Constitution and whatever else prevents death.  It also biases things for and against certain roles.  For example, the Good defender putting himself in harm's way for his comrades' safety is more likely to be killed than the Evil slaughterer who runs for his life leaving others to their fates.  Is that fair to those who wish to play heroes rather than villains?  A random system doesn't favor any particular build style, playstyle, or role over another, making it seem, to me, more equal across the board, and therefore more fair.

(btw, thanks for taking the time to make the suggestion summary, it helps focus things a bit).

You're welcome.

[Script Wrecked]

I'm starting to feel that we are not all using the same definition of fair... {196}

The definition of "fair" is probably the same, what its being applied to is different.

Thank you for the example.  How is that unfair, specifically, though, rather than just unfortunate?  Did not each character have an equal chance despite choice of build, class, equipment, or other factors, and one simply come up unlucky? {196}

Gulnyr is applying "fairness" to the internals of the system, which is applicable, because it treats everyone the same; its non-discrimnatory. However...

This doesn't sound like a question of fairness but one of luck.  Unfortunate, yes.  Unfair, no.  Everyone had an equal chance (fair), but it went badly for some (unlucky). {192}

...I would suggest everyone else (myself included) is applying it to the outcome from that system.

I feel like I've missed the point and I ask for clarification, please.  What, specifically, is unfair about random numbers or random chance? {188}

The outcome created by the random numbers or random chance is unfair. That is what people are complaining about.

To expand the thought, is the randomness really your objection... {196}

Yes.

The use of chance in the system is not fair. It creates arbitrary results.

Two identical individuals, but one lives, one dies, for the sake result of a die roll. That is the unfair part.

Regards,

Script Wrecked.

[Stephen_Zuckerman]

Two identical individuals, but one lives, one dies, for the sake result of a die roll. That is the unfair part.

Regards,

Script Wrecked.

And, if you'll excuse the expression, to be fair... That's the prime mechanic in a game based on tabletop RPGs. A die roll.

[Script Wrecked]

This is the very thing that could lead to its generic application to all circumstance, where, instead, there might be a better mechanism.

Regards,

Script Wrecked.

[Pibemanden]

Also, factor in arena deaths, which are "free" in that they're generally without consequence.

Now I don't have the code or anything but I do have Storolds death count and looking at that I don't believe that arena deaths count is counted into your total death count. I believe they were removed at some point since I -think- I remember my death count taking a rather drastic drop at some point. Sorry for the of topic comment but just trying to clear this up.

[Nehetsrev]

Now I don't have the code or anything but I do have Storolds death count and looking at that I don't believe that arena deaths count is counted into your total death count. I believe they were removed at some point since I -think- I remember my death count taking a rather drastic drop at some point. Sorry for the of topic comment but just trying to clear this up.

People also seem to be forgetting the number of deaths you can rack-up before you hit level four or five and are even susceptable to the roll vs. Soul Mother.  Some newer players to the server might create a character and get them killed numerous times at those lower levels just in exploring the world a bit and seeing what is where and testing their character against different things they encounter.  I think it's great that the current system allows for that exploratory behavior with no real penalty at lower levels, but as you can guess it could be skewing the numbers of deaths vs soul strands lost in comparison to other characters as well.

Let's not also forget that even being on your last soul strand, it's possible that that strand might last through numerous deaths as well.  For instance, my character Treana is on her last strand, and lately she's died at least three seperate times that I can recall for sure and not lost that strand.  Her DC to beat when rolling against the Soul Mother right now, at level 18, is about 19, I think.  That means that basicly she's got about a 1 in 5 chance of perming with each death, that's four times the chance she'll live versus the chance she'll perm.  Yesterday I got her killed due to a stupid mis-click on my part that triggered a trap that got her for 233 points of electrical damage.  Personally, I'm glad the system rolled a 21 on her save and the SM didn't take her last strand in that instance.  To perm her due to a mis-click on my part would've been rough.  User-error isn't reimburseable to my knowledge.  But, I still wouldn't have stopped playing here because of it, and though I'd miss playing the character, I wouldn't dispute her final death no matter how inconsequential or anti-climatic it might've be.  My only regret might be that I didn't do as well as I could have making her life have more of an impact on the world than it has while she's been alive.

I guess part of my point is that if you're lookng to get the most from this game world, and make your mark, start working on that goal from level 1, don't wait til you're near your last SS to look for the worthy cause or grand fight.  Look for those things from the start and do your best to find a way your character can contribute to them at whatever level they might be.

[Leanthar]

It seems I need to step in here real quick. I am not sure what is going on and who all are talking (or what is being said) in the background but that needs to stop. Several people are trying to stir up emotions in the background and that has to stop as well. I have heard some of the stuff and it is wrong on very many levels. Stirring up emotions will not get changes implmented, it just does not work that way.
 
 I want to be perfectly clear, and this has been stated several times before. Systems in NwN are not going to be change, that includes the death system. It is not because we "don't care about this version" as it seems some people are saying, it is because we have a very finate amount of resources (time, manpower etc.) and they are on the MMO, they will not be brought back over to NwN. I can hear those few now muttering "see, they don't care about NwN", that is far from the truth and if you just uttered that in your mind you need to take a step back and get a different perspective in your mind, as you are clearly part of the problem.
 
 We do care about NwN, I love NwN. It was the first online version of Layonara and it is what grew the world, teams, and the community. We are so much more than I could have ever hoped to see seven years ago. But lets face the facts, the game is old (seven years old now) and the engine is aging. We have new plans for a new version of the world, it makes no sense at all for us to rewrite (or create) new systems when we are working on the MMO and are having a difficult enough time with resources for that project. If we did not care about NwN you can be positive that V3 would have never been released (some time ago) and we would not have had the four significant updates since then. Content creation (areas, creatures, loot etc.) is one thing, creating new systems or changing systems via code is totally different and we can not do the latter. I hear some more whispers in the background how some people are not even happy with the new content releases. I think that is wrong on so many levels, and sad, very sad, but I will stop here on that subject.
 
 The teams go out of our way to ensure everything is as fun as it can be, as balanced as it can be, and the community plays nicely together. We may not always be successful (it is a hard task after all) but we do our best. If that is not good enough then I am not sure what to do for you.
 
 Back on to this topic. The death system has been in place for over five years now. Regardless of what a few of you are saying in the background, it was "thought out" and it was changed a few times to get a little more "right", and believe it or not there is a reason that it is like it is (lore wise). In lore it also makes sense that it is random. Any discussisons of changes in this thread will be listened to for the new version of Layonara (the MMO) but it will not change in NwN, and I have stated that before (many times). As to the whole randomness that people seem to have a problem with, the entire D&D game (online and pnp) is based on random rolls; indeed any rpg game is based on random rolls at some level. I understand where you are coming from and things will change to some degree, but not in NwN, we do not have the resources. We do care about NwN though so that rumor-mongering needs to stop here and now.
 
 If we did not care about NwN we would have shut it down 2 years ago when we were well on the way on the MMO side of things, but we haven't because we care about this community; simple as that.
 
 We are not giving "false hope" or "leading by a carrot", we have said time and time again (in very large and detailed posts) that NwN systems are not changing. We are listening for the MMO side of things. I know that is not what some of you want (and are demanding) to hear, but it is the best I can offer you (and I have said that many times and in many threads). Just because something does not happen or does not change does not mean you are not heard and listened to. What seems to be happening are a few are demanding to get their way and if it is not exactly like they describe then it must be wrong; I could be wrong, but it is coming across that way in the posts.
 
 A few of you are also starting to feel like it is yet another "US vs THEM" and it is not that, read my responses above as to why it is not that. Some of you feel like you are being told to "shut up" or whatever else is being whispered about in the background, it is not that. We are trying to say that systems can not change in NwN (and it will not change) but we will listen to this stuff and take it in to consideration for the MMO. Some people are trying to point out various sides of things but it seems a few are demanding it has to be "this way" or it is wrong, it just can not happen that way folks. Your input is beyond valuable, as you play the game every day and you know what you would like to see, but we need to be given time to get it in to the MMO (not NwN). Just because we try to reason with you and take a contrary view does not mean we are against you (or that we are "attacking" you), we are trying to give other sides of the issues/systems/concerns etc.
 
 There is only so much we can do here folks, the game engine is very old, the systems we have in place have been here for five plus years (and they work for NwN and with lore as it stands now), and we are working on a new game for Layonara. We want your input and feedback, but we do not want the flames and rumor-mongering to continue to happen. That is destructive, not helpful. None of us what that I don't think.
 
 Thank you for taking the time to read this post. I hope this thread remains on topic and I hope to see it continue, but no more rumor/whisper-mongering and no more of spreading bad feelings, it is not an "attack" or "us against them", far from it. Use this thread to make a better system for the MMO, but do it polietly and with respect otherwise this thread will not continue. We all want a better (fun and "fair") system for the MMO, but lets try to get there in a professional/friendly manner, okay?

[jrizz]

I apologize that this thread took a turn in the direction of conflict. I allowed that to happen and I perpetuated it. As a team member that was wrong of me to do. We have all had many conversations both on and off the forums about the current system. I accept that there will be no change to it in NWN. I hope we can continue to discuss how we can keep the flavor of a permadeath system while still meeting the pressures of a business in the MMO. Here and now as L said there is no time and resources for change but in the MMO there will be. So lets use this space to come back to discussing how that change could (not should) be shaped. The current system is as it is and no longer needs to be discussed and I will no longer look for that to change. But I will continue (if anyone wants) to discuss ways to translate our Lore into a system that can meet the demands of the future.  L's post is as always as even handed as possible under the circumstances. So again to the community I apologize for my part in helping to create conflict here.

[Gulnyr]

The outcome created by the random numbers or random chance is unfair. That is what people are complaining about.

The use of chance in the system is not fair. It creates arbitrary results.

Is that unfair in any system or only in the death system?  If Fisterion attacks two characters with identical AC and low HP, hitting one and missing the other because of a die roll (random number), killing the former and sparing the latter, is that unfair?  If two moderately skilled tailors each have the same percentage chance of making a certain item, and one rolls high while the other rolls low, meaning the latter fails to create an item that the former, equally skilled tailor made, is that unfair?  These seem to be the same to me as the roll for loss of soul strands in the death system, where one may get a favorable roll and another an unfavorable one.  These don't seem unfair; they seem to be the sorts of things that happen in real life.  Sometimes chance really is the deciding factor.  If a tornado destroys your house and leaves your neighbor's house more or less intact, that isn't unfair but the luck of the draw.  The consequences are irrelevant to whether or not the system was applied fairly; they just make some bad rolls seem a lot worse.  The death system, after all, is not any more or less fairly applied than the crafting or combat systems; it just feels worse to lose a soul strand than the materials for a pair of boots or a hundred hit points.

Thank you for your explanation.  I understand better what is being said now.  Still, I have to continue to disagree, as applying a system to create fairness at the outcome seems like it would remove a lot of the surprise and "life" from everything.  If dying automatically removed a soul strand, say, which is a fair system applied to the outcome, or if each character were allowed one hundred deaths (same thing, just more "strands", basically), then a certain playstyle and build would be promoted.  I'm not trying to say an outcome-focused system can't work, but that a system that treats everyone the same mechanically regardless of choice of build or role for the character or the playstyle of the player seems best overall for the longevity and success of the game.  I am also saying that, in my opinion, the surprises and chaos of random numbers are an important part of the fun, even if they don't always leave us happy.

There was a thread a while back, about a year ago, that ended up talking about a lot of the same things this thread discusses.  While reading and responding in that thread, I came up with an idea I didn't post because it didn't matter then (since that thread was supposed to be about doing something for the NWN system and not the future system).  That idea was to have both strand-losing permadeath gung hos and never-die permalife softies on the same servers at the same time.  The player would choose which to make her character when the character was created.  The trade-off would be the concept that greater risk leads to the chance of greater reward.  So gung hos could achieve the highest ranks in organizations, unlock the most elite skills, and possibly even have special quests just for them, though they could die permanently trying to get there.  Softies would not be able to reach the tip top and might miss out on some nice plotty things, but the players of those characters could never, ever permanently lose them, which might help draw in the folks who don't want to pay for the chance of permanent loss.  I have no idea if that's a good idea, but there you go.  Maybe something like it could help settle the issue - "You may choose to take your chances with our permadeath system and possibly reap the rewards of the risk, or you may choose to take the safer path and forfeit your chances at the greatest glories."  That way, you consciously sign on to the chance of losing your character forever.

[Eight-Bit]

Gulnyr hit it on the head quite a few times with that suggestion. Best I've heard on the subject thus far.

[jrizz]

Having the choose your path scenario could work in a pay to play world but only if both paths have the same chance of high influence in the world. Restricting access to the more action fun areas due to the path you choose might be hard for business. But if the path choices took the player in totally different directions (areas, items, world NPC interaction) that could end up in the same place (like being a WL) now that would be an interesting way to go. The ones who choose a life of less risk could go down a path that has them more involved with the high politics of the world and be champions of the people were the ones that choose a more risky path would be the action heros called on in when all other negotiations fail.

[merlin34baseball]

I love DTs!

I never thought one simple sentence could spark this much dialog!

but... my main problem with the whole thing boils down to one... uncontrolable thing...

Computer error.

when my Char has 9 DTs.... and 6 are directly because of computer error... and absolutly not mine (or her) error, thats when I have a bit of a problem with the SS sytem.

eh keep up the constructive critisisms, and thoughts on how to improve the system, whether it be in this incarnation, or the next of Layonara.

[Script Wrecked]

Is that unfair in any system or only in the death system?  If Fisterion attacks two characters with identical AC and low HP, hitting one and missing the other because of a die roll (random number), killing the former and sparing the latter, is that unfair?

That is the crux of the question. It seems that the randomness works admireably in the combat system.

However, because people see it working there, they think it is equally applicable to other systems.

If two moderately skilled tailors each have the same percentage chance of making a certain item, and one rolls high while the other rolls low, meaning the latter fails to create an item that the former, equally skilled tailor made, is that unfair?

If you are doing exactly what your fellow craftsman is doing, and he turns out ten items, and you turn out five, I would call that unfair.

These seem to be the same to me as the roll for loss of soul strands in the death system, where one may get a favorable roll and another an unfavorable one. These don't seem unfair; they seem to be the sorts of things that happen in real life. Sometimes chance really is the deciding factor. If a tornado destroys your house and leaves your neighbor's house more or less intact, that isn't unfair but the luck of the draw. The consequences are irrelevant to whether or not the system was applied fairly; they just make some bad rolls seem a lot worse. The death system, after all, is not any more or less fairly applied than the crafting or combat systems; it just feels worse to lose a soul strand than the materials for a pair of boots or a hundred hit points.

I've had to break the above paragraph up to answer the points made:

These seem to be the same to me as the roll for loss of soul strands in the death system, where one may get a favorable roll and another an unfavorable one.  These don't seem unfair; ...

No, sorry, where one may get a favorable roll and another an unfavorable one is unfair. Disparity = unfairness.

... They seem to be the sorts of things that happen in real life. ...

Do you want "real life" in the death system?

... Sometimes chance really is the deciding factor. ...

"Chance" is a word used to encapsulate the factors that influence the outcome which we cannot quantify either because they are unknown or they are deemed too complex. Chance doesn't really exist.

... If a tornado destroys your house and leaves your neighbor's house more or less intact, that isn't unfair but the luck of the draw. ...

No, sorry, the luck of the draw is unfair.

Whether you accept an outcome as "luck of the draw" is an attitude to the outcome, not whether the outcome is fair or not. This attitude is in fact used to rationalise why an unfavourable (or unfair) result has just happened to me when I'm such a nice person, viz "it wasn't personal, it was just luck-of-the-draw".

... The consequences are irrelevant to whether or not the system was applied fairly; they just make some bad rolls seem a lot worse.  The death system, after all, is not any more or less fairly applied than the crafting or combat systems; it just feels worse to lose a soul strand than the materials for a pair of boots or a hundred hit points.

You're going back to the "fair" system as opposed to the "fair" outcome. I'll also reference my earlier comment (in this post) about the applicability of the randomness of the combat system to other systems, particularly the death and crafting systems.

Thank you for your explanation.  I understand better what is being said now.

Thank you for taking the time to discuss my replies. Yup, sorry, only half way through this response. :p

Still, I have to continue to disagree, as applying a system to create fairness at the outcome seems like it would remove a lot of the surprise and "life" from everything.

I believe that is the main reason to incorporate randomness into a system is to create uncertainty. The question is how much uncertainty is to be applied?

If dying automatically removed a soul strand, say, which is a fair system applied to the outcome, or if each character were allowed one hundred deaths (same thing, just more "strands", basically), then a certain playstyle and build would be promoted.

A certain play style is promoted for the current death system. A certain play style will evolve for whatever death system is used. This is unavoidable. The death system influences the style of play.

I'm not trying to say an outcome-focused system can't work, but that a system that treats everyone the same mechanically regardless of choice of build or role for the character or the playstyle of the player seems best overall for the longevity and success of the game.

An "outcome-focused system" (which I believe is the term you are applying to  the non-random mechanism) does treat everyone the same mechanically regardless of choice of build or role for the character or the playstyle of the player.

I am also saying that, in my opinion, the surprises and chaos of random numbers are an important part of the fun, even if they don't always leave us happy.

The uncertainty is captured in the combat system, where the randomness seems to work.

Too much fun can be fatal.

There was a thread a while back, about a year ago, that ended up talking about a lot of the same things this thread discusses.  While reading and responding in that thread, I came up with an idea I didn't post because it didn't matter then (since that thread was supposed to be about doing something for the NWN system and not the future system).  That idea was to have both strand-losing permadeath gung hos and never-die permalife softies on the same servers at the same time.  The player would choose which to make her character when the character was created.  The trade-off would be the concept that greater risk leads to the chance of greater reward.  So gung hos could achieve the highest ranks in organizations, unlock the most elite skills, and possibly even have special quests just for them, though they could die permanently trying to get there.  Softies would not be able to reach the tip top and might miss out on some nice plotty things, but the players of those characters could never, ever permanently lose them, which might help draw in the folks who don't want to pay for the chance of permanent loss.  I have no idea if that's a good idea, but there you go.  Maybe something like it could help settle the issue - "You may choose to take your chances with our permadeath system and possibly reap the rewards of the risk, or you may choose to take the safer path and forfeit your chances at the greatest glories."  That way, you consciously sign on to the chance of losing your character forever.

Ooh-err. Very thoughtful, and an interesting dynamic. You could set up a persistent world based on this premise alone.

*phew*

Regards,

Script Wrecked.

[Stephen_Zuckerman]

*Tips his hat to L, Jrizz, and Gulnyr. Edit: And Scripty.*

Good stuff since L's post. Good stuff before, but pertinent stuff that I'm liking, since. My only issue with Gulnyr's suggestion was commented upon by Jrizz...

I have a possible solution. Much like my thought to have heavy-RP servers, that require character approval in a similar fashion to what is currently in use, and a lighter-RP server for those who have paid, but aren't the hardcore RPers we have around nowadays... Why not have one game use DTs, and one not?

Well, that probably is answered by "resources."

Next idea, then. Perhaps if an XP penalty were enforced upon death for the non-stranders. Ripping away a portion of the energy you've grown, rather than tearing at tethers that - however disturbing it may be - don't exactly harm you when they're cut.

[jrizz]

SZ are you suggesting that the choices available to players are SS type permadeath or a XP loss system? And then keep the play and areas the same for all?