The World of Layonara

The Layonara Community => General Discussion => Topic started by: merlin34baseball on May 06, 2008, 11:40:26 PM

Title: DTs
Post by: merlin34baseball on May 06, 2008, 11:40:26 PM
I love DTs.................:)
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: ShiffDrgnhrt on May 06, 2008, 11:48:27 PM
I'm gonna guess you just earned a new one?
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: merlin34baseball on May 06, 2008, 11:53:16 PM
as Chaynce would say......

yup, yup!

But really its so much more fun when theres consiquences
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: ShiffDrgnhrt on May 06, 2008, 11:55:58 PM
You mean doing things?  Or doing stupid things?  :p
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: merlin34baseball on May 07, 2008, 12:10:22 AM
erm... both? *wanders off shruging*
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Eight-Bit on May 07, 2008, 12:51:37 AM
Almost all of my DTs came from something stupid. Going AFK near dear. Drinking a potion of endurance on accident and then getting beaten up, running away, then resting.

Stupid and unepic.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Blackguy on May 07, 2008, 03:36:55 AM
I hate the SS system.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: twidget658 on May 07, 2008, 04:06:44 AM
So many computer glitches can occur, to your own or others computers, that can cause a death. OOC reasons causing severe IC repercussions.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: jan on May 07, 2008, 04:19:12 AM
i say lower the amount in secret to 9 or 8 then perm ;)
certainly would give some rp opportunities :D
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: DMOE on May 07, 2008, 04:26:13 AM
True and of course there is just plan old bad luck on the rolls....

But I've played on servers with no perma death and to be honest, I like SS.

I like that you have a finite amount of time to achieve your characters goals and dreams.....That you have to think smart when you go out adventuring.

Actions should have consequences.....

It is just a great pity that you can lose them due to technical things beyond your own ability to control or the teams ability to verify as genuine but unfortunately.....No system is ever perfect
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Filatus on May 07, 2008, 04:30:18 AM
I don't mind the loss of soulstrands. Though I think the raised DC becomes a bit harsh and unforgiving at higher levels.

Plenty of people that still die a lot at lvl 17-20, which makes a 17-20 % chance a bit harsh at that point. And not sure it makes sense for me that powerful people are quicker to have strands tethered. Because a higher level doesn't necessarily translate to age or other possible reasons that they could be somehow weaker. (think elves and dwarves with longer life expectancy)
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: jan on May 07, 2008, 04:33:33 AM
True ...a system would be perfect if glitches could be avoided .

I played one world that was fun , they had a kind of random ss system .

On creating a character a 10 sided dice was thrown , that stood for the deaths that were needed to perm .( they had a crude " do you die ? " check as-well , but cant remember what it was )

Without the " not yours to control glitches " it would have been perfect ;)

no players running around telling " i'm only on 7 , so i'll be good for now " :D
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: DMOE on May 07, 2008, 04:37:33 AM
Quote from: Filatus
I don't mind the loss of soulstrands. Though I think the raised DC becomes a bit harsh and unforgiving at higher levels.

Plenty of people that still die a lot at lvl 17-20, which makes a 17-20 % chance a bit harsh at that point. And not sure it makes sense for me that powerful people are quicker to have strands tethered. Because a higher level doesn't necessarily translate to age or other possible reasons that they could be somehow weaker. (think elves and dwarves with longer life expectancy)

I always look at it this way....

The higher level you are....The more adventuring you've been doing, the more 'risks' you've been taking and the tastier you are to the Soul Mother ;)
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: miltonyorkcastle on May 07, 2008, 09:21:09 AM
Tastier... that's one way to put it. Consuming more powerful souls provides more power... it's really as though she's fattening us up for the feast.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: DMOE on May 07, 2008, 09:41:46 AM
Exactly!
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: LordCove on May 07, 2008, 10:16:12 AM
I quite like the DT system.

Despite having nearly permed several times way back... and several good characters having permed... and several characters being so close to perming its scary.....

... its still the best way to keep people on their toes. It promotes travelling in parties... not taking crazy risks ( most of the time)... and gives way to some good RP too.

And Im content to say that not one of my 12 DT's was due to computer glitches, lagging or anything like that ( but of course, I think Im a rare case in this instance. )
They're all down to good old reliable stupidity and the cursed Death magic and Implosion. ;)
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Eight-Bit on May 07, 2008, 10:21:09 PM
I strongly dislike the permadeath system.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: mumbles on May 08, 2008, 12:38:01 AM
Cant say il like Dt due to getting 4 out of five deaths lol , but whats the other choices , your charecters have to go at some point as i found out myself . And persoinally i dont think id have it any other way
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Script Wrecked on May 08, 2008, 02:40:28 AM
And I thought three from four was bad... *salutes Mumbles*

;)
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: twidget658 on May 08, 2008, 02:51:15 AM
More aften than not, a SS loss disrupts the whole game play and ruins RP. Also, it prevent some RP and a lot of adventuring from happen. I don't care what anyone says about how good it is for them, I can never agree with it nor will I ever be convinced that it is a good system.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: jan on May 08, 2008, 02:58:44 AM
Quote from: twidget658
More aften than not, a SS loss disrupts the whole game play and ruins RP. Also, it prevent some RP and a lot of adventuring from happen. I don't care what anyone says about how good it is for them, I can never agree with it nor will I ever be convinced that it is a good system.


It prevents adventuring because the player knows how-much are left .
To me personally it seems at-least a bit odd that players ( who have during their first 8-9 SS took lots of chances ) suddenly change because they know it could be their last death .

Lets face it , no one lives forever and no one should .
If you take that as a given , then its normal your char will perm one day , its the sudden change that occurs when a PLAYER gets scared of losing his/her character that ( in my eyes ) ruins the rp that said character was known for because fear is preventing that same character to stay as it always was .
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Lord of the Forest on May 08, 2008, 06:16:42 AM
Well of course everyone has its own viewpoint about if the DT-System is bad or not, misplaced or just in the right shape) though I think I can call myself lucky that none of my chars permed yet, even though Dor was very close and Harlas accidentially permed her once on his quest by a misclick ;)
Alas my personal view is that it kinda fits into Layonara. Of course sometimes the rolls don't favour one, the same happened to mumbles happened to me as well 2 years back or so but personally I think the system itself benefitted my RP in certain situation.

I can remember the time when the SoulMother was on her vacation. Many were like "Oh look I cannot perm or earn a DT so lets do the impossible just cause we can". I'd say if there's not a system like we use atm, then there would be something missing at all. Of course it is kind of frustration from time to time. Happened to me as well from time to time. Yet I see and understand those players who already permed after they spent a lot of time with their char or are close to perming.

Still you can die at least 10 times before you perm. There are other worlds with other systems which are pretty hardcore. If you die and don't get raised, well then you are dead.

-Inny

----

This is of course my very own point of view and don't want to start a huge discussion about it at all. As for clarification I still use the term DT for Soul-Strands as well, don't really like the short 'SS'.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Chongo on May 08, 2008, 10:35:15 AM
Turn the system off, put back in severe XP loss, remove the xp loss floor so you can drop levels, and then....
 
 Flip the hardcore switch.
 
 Who else wants to see monsters do 300 damage? Pretty sure I have a smiter in there with a scythe that could probably get you goodies for 1000+.
 
 Just think, we'd have a whole new breed of discontent!  DD's would go on strike!  Palemasters of Toran would rise from the woodwork!
 
 O.o
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Lynn1020 on May 08, 2008, 10:37:09 AM
Quote from: merlin34baseball
I love DTs.................:)

Doesn't everyone?!? :D  I think everyone should get equal amount of them to be able to share in the fun. :p



Just kidding... I agree that there should be some type of consequents for dying. I think the fear of losing your pc does add to their value.   It is the unfairness of it I don't like.  Some have died 100 or 200 times and still have plenty of SS left.  Then there are some that have permed with 50 or 60 deaths.  

Then you have the whole lag, crashing, bugs, disconnections, jumping at transition etc.  It is so hard to prove those things and get a SS reimbursed without a GM or WL.  

A lot of the time someone looses a SS they just get frustrated and log out. I have been guilty of that as well. Because often the higher pc's do not have that many left so there goes the mood of rp and most of the time the group disburses and there went any rp that was going on or adventuring.

Also the loss of SS's often forces you to rp your character differently than you normally would because of the fear of losing more.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Chazzler on May 08, 2008, 10:40:10 AM
Heh, if I recall this correctly, I got (as poor old Godim) 5 DT's/SS' on Godim's last 5 consecutive deaths *grins*

I still got the screenshot of Godim's last passing :)

The servers were kinda saying that a human being shouldn't be 114 years old or so and adventure around, heheh ;)
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Lynn1020 on May 08, 2008, 10:41:46 AM
Quote from: Chazzler
Heh, if I recall this correctly, I got (as poor old Godim) 5 DT's/SS' on Godim's last 5 consecutive deaths *grins*

OUCH!!!!
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Muhkuman on May 08, 2008, 07:48:30 PM
Just as I was begining to think Muhk wouldn't lose any DT's(After dieing more times than I can count) I brought Muhk with Rugo and Balthazar down in the Rift to get Diamonds...and sure enough I lost my first that night >:/
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Eight-Bit on May 09, 2008, 11:50:54 AM
Quote from: Chongo
Turn the system off, put back in severe XP loss, remove the xp loss floor so you can drop levels, and then....
 
 Flip the hardcore switch.
 
 Who else wants to see monsters do 300 damage? Pretty sure I have a smiter in there with a scythe that could probably get you goodies for 1000+.
 
 Just think, we'd have a whole new breed of discontent!  DD's would go on strike!  Palemasters of Toran would rise from the woodwork!
 
 O.o


I never lost a level when there was XP loss after every death. I don't think anyone did. I've lost millions of Xp from deaths before the v2 change over. I prefer the old system anyway. There was a greater risk involved, if you ask me, because back in the day we needed 32 million to get level 20, and any death past level 15 was a 500,000 xp loss guaranteed. Granted the only way to get any experience at level 15 was to trounce Fisterion, but that's another subject. You played a  lot smarter. The current system is a minor inconvenience, and death tokens are just the one tooth the old dog has.
 
It puts me off that whenever people disagree with a Layonara system we get the "it could be worse!" speech.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: jrizz on May 09, 2008, 03:39:53 PM
Some time ago I suggested a change to the system that would create a hope based system instead of a hopelessness based system. But was told that no more major changes would be made anymore (that was two updates ago I think). Here was my suggestions (mind you they both keep the SS system):


1. Soul strength grows with the PC.
At 4th level you get 4 SS then you earn 1 every 2 levels. That will be a total of 12 by 20th level. Keep SMD at 21st level and have the earning go to one every three levels after 21. This method keeps the SS loss system as is and still keeps your PC afraid of death. But there will no longer be the hopelessness of "only one SS left". There will always be the hope that you can make it to the next time you can earn one. Also this method shows that the PC grows in soul strength as she gains in experience instead of getting weaker in soul. There are other reasons why this is a good way to go but I dont need to spell them all out.

2. Death means loss of play time.
In this method when you die and respawn you go right to the eye of the storm and you cannot enter the world again for 24 hours (could make it 30 so that it would really mean missing a lot) RT. With that there is no chance of SS loss. If you chose to wait for a RD or R spell then you risk the loss of a SS (resurrect would have the current % chance and RD would have some modifier so that the risk was higher). This way you would have to let your party know before setting out if you wish to be "helped" by a cleric if you die.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: osxmallard on May 09, 2008, 03:51:57 PM
I liked the ideas brought up previously.  Basically, when you get to the magic number, you just stop playing a character altogether, removing the RP from the world as if the character permed anyway.

It does disrupt journeys and just removes any fun from adventures.  The system is said to keep people from taking unacceptable risks, which is quite contrary to anything magic in an online D&D setting... adventurers are supposed to take risks and strive for greatness.  There are plenty of RP characters that are fine with sitting around and not going out... that adds it's own mix of flavor to the world as well.

I do not agree with the 'people will just go crazy if we get rid of SS's' theory, and I think the community is respectful enough of the world to not abuse the loss of the SS system.  We always defer back to the 'look at how everyone went crazy before the blood finale'... I think that is because it was a new freedom on a server that was not balanced for the current average levels that we see now.  The average level on a server routinely falls between 15 and 26.  There are appropriate areas for each level range and people should strive to see the new areas and adventures, fully challenging their characters skill sets while maintaining fun in the world.

There is nothing less fun than rolling the dice against the SM on a death, whether it be the fault of the player or the fault of a bad computer connection, lag, or anything causing that d100 to roll.

As jrizz stated, there are plenty of other 'penalty' systems to still make the sting of death 'hurt' and be felt by the character without removing it from the world permanently.  XP loss, level loss, loss of time, requiring cleric raises... etc.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Weeblie on May 09, 2008, 04:07:46 PM
Long term, there is nothing less fun to see the lack of respect of deaths. Even in the present shape and form, a single death (except the last one) is regarded as "Oh... it happened again... get up, no time to sleep!".

Death should be so horrible on both an IC and OOC scale that it will actually be feared to death. SS system might not be the best, as fear is generally only struck when approaching the last few SSs... a super heavy XP hit sounds more like the system of choice. Funnily... though... those actually being present during that time (not me) tend to think the opposite. :)
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: lonnarin on May 09, 2008, 04:45:18 PM
Quote from: osxmallard


It does disrupt journeys and just removes any fun from adventures.  The system is said to keep people from taking unacceptable risks, which is quite contrary to anything magic in an online D&D setting...



In my opinion, fear of permadeath reinforces excessive luring and making people look for an "I Win" button.  Why charge a whole group if you risk perming and having to throw away a character you've been working on for years and years?  If there was no permadeath, barbarians might actually think about charging ahead and trying to go down in a blaze of glory more apt to their alignment.

The thing I hate most about permadeath is that these tokens or soul strands being lost more often than not from a computer or network glitch, and there is no fair way to reimburse that.  You have the whole "there must be a GM present for reimbursement" policy, and inevitably it turns out that people who dont group with GMs rarely get reimbursement even if they have screenshots and all their friends as witnesses, and meanwhile if somebody happens to be good friends with a GM and died while in party with them, the reimbursement gets greenlighted.  I'd rather just have no reimbursements at all than to set the stage for some who do and some who don't.  Now this isn't server corruption or politics at work, just simply how the rule was written.  Requiring a GM to witness every reimbursement just immediately sets the stage for those who group with GMs getting more successful reimbursement requests than those who don't.  One group has a prequalified witness, another does not.

Honestly, having played over 4 years now and having only at maximum 3 deathtokens on my highest character, I really don't see much need for all these constant SS reimbursement requests. While it does suck to lose a SS to a crash, that's life.  I know 2 of my SS losses were due to server crashes or mega lag, and only the third was from fighting a nasty evil monster that could be considered a blaze of glory.  It sucks, but I move on.  Meanwhile I check the disputes forum from time to time and see some people getting SS reimbursements about every other month, to the point where they could have permed for two people by now.  This is why I hate the SS permadeath system...  MOST of the people who have permed did so because they A) had computer crashes for more than 2/3 of those tokens and B) could not get those soul strands back because they don't consistantly group with somebody who can be allowed to vouch for them.  

For these reasons above, I would rather permadeath be off the table.  On the other hand, I do think we should lose ALL of our gold when killed by beasties, and perhaps a random EQUIPPED item. (one with significant worth to the owner)  It's not like we're running around slaughtering ogres and only taking half their coinpurse each, heheh.  And feel free to dock XP per death, even de-level people.  It's not such a big deal, even if you do die to a crash... at least you still have your old character you've been working on for years and years.  But to have all that effort just blink away because your ISP glitches or your motherboard overheated OOC just immediately takes away the very concept of an honorable death offered by the permadeath system.  It'd be the same as if a PnP DM spilled coffee on your character sheet and said "haha! he's dead, roll up a lvl 1, now!"

When we perm, the very first thing that goes through our minds is "well, I technically should have 6 more chances, since those were all crashes".  And again, there is no fair way to reimburse this without the technicality of who you know and if they were at the right place at the right time.  I'd much rather have SS Loss only happen when there was a GM present to vouch for the death being legit, than to need one around to witness for reimbursement.  That would be far more fair, I think.  I'd rather catch a handful of legitamite deaths which had meaning than to pick and choose through waves and waves of deaths that occured from OOC computer stability.  Permadeath should be reserved for when characters do REALLY stupid things, or establish a duel to the death in my opinion.  Like that guy who slaps Rael in the face or sticks his head in a dragon's mouth... Soul Strands shouldn't even be an issue by then.  Poof, dead.

Most of all though, I'd rather not have to worry about perming at all when my computer burps.  Besides, there are much better things the team could be doing than sifting through a bucket full of new SS reimbursement requests every morning... coding, catching exploiters, running quests, playing their own characters to name a few.  Whatever RP that is lost from the lack of permadeath would be reimbursed tenfold by the added time spent running quests!  

And... a whole lot less people would get fed up after seeing their epic character die and leave.  There's only so many times you can make a new character and walk around the same areas over and over, but a good portion of the server hasn't even been seen by these same people because they're made for lvls 20+.  When most people are close to perming at that level anyhow, it keeps them from exploring said new areas.  I believe that for these reasons, if we did not have a permadeath system, many many more of our old friends would still be with us today.  You make that 2 year old character, get him to epic, feel all the pride in it, and poof, he's dead.  Next you have 2 choices, either make a new character and spend 2 more years trying to get back to where you were (and take it slow, else somebody accuses you of powerlevelling!) just so that you can go explore some new areas again... or switch servers and play some new areas immediately.  Perma Death is bad for player retention.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: jrizz on May 09, 2008, 05:03:37 PM
I agree with a lot of what lon has said with the exception of the part about having a GM in your group gives you the green light for a SS refund. As a GM playing my PC I have witnessed SS loss 7 times. I have posted support for return of only two of them and only one of those two has gone through. So it is not a auto refund if you have a GM or a WL with you or even one of each.

Of course if you go out in a party to places where every bad guy and good guy is casting half a million spells and buffs so much so that your groups very presence lags the server then your chances get higher for a technical SS loss. So having 4 GMs and 6 WLs with you is a good idea :)
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: jrizz on May 09, 2008, 05:06:10 PM
Quote from: Weeblie
Long term, there is nothing less fun to see the lack of respect of deaths. Even in the present shape and form, a single death (except the last one) is regarded as "Oh... it happened again... get up, no time to sleep!".

Death should be so horrible on both an IC and OOC scale that it will actually be feared to death. SS system might not be the best, as fear is generally only struck when approaching the last few SSs... a super heavy XP hit sounds more like the system of choice. Funnily... though... those actually being present during that time (not me) tend to think the opposite. :)


Well as we have always said we cant force RP. I myself wince at every SS loss I see but on deaths without SS loss I am chevalier. I treat them more like a beat down then a death.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Weeblie on May 09, 2008, 05:22:36 PM
Quote from: jrizz
Well as we have always said we cant force RP. I myself wince at every SS loss I see but on deaths without SS loss I am chevalier. I treat them more like a beat down then a death.


A high death penalty requires no enforcement of RP-ing of the IC consequences, as the RP-ing of death will (with a higher probability) just grow by itself. One seldom RPs high HP loss unless one tend to feel for that in that particular moment, because there are simply no real mechanical penalty of low HP. If the character would actually start to walk slower, limp, having a harder time to hit the enemy or something similiar, I'm sure it would be quite "auto-RPed".

Whether it is because of a SS-perming system, a heavy XP-loss system... that's highly irrelevant. I'm not so sure if I like or dislike the SS system for the moment. Or even a heavy XP-loss system. I think I'm more and more fond of leaning towards a "high and long time mechanical penalty". Say... simply... the current stat penalties (perhaps even harsher with a greater AB/damage hit) for a RL week? And make the penalties stacking?

It would certainily allow one to do some minor craziness from time to time... but the cost would be too high to do it in a regular fashion. And there would be no real need to have any witness-based reimbursement system at all. :)
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: jrizz on May 09, 2008, 05:35:57 PM
Too add to your idea. It would also promote people using their secondary PCs more!
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Pibemanden on May 09, 2008, 05:46:58 PM
I would like to add the option one week or 30 hours IG, simply to make it a bit easier on the people, like myself, who will never have a secondary character due to various reasons.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Blackguy on May 09, 2008, 06:08:53 PM
Quote from: Weeblie
Long term, there is nothing less fun to see the lack of respect of deaths. Even in the present shape and form, a single death (except the last one) is regarded as "Oh... it happened again... get up, no time to sleep!".
 
 Death should be so horrible on both an IC and OOC scale that it will actually be feared to death. SS system might not be the best, as fear is generally only struck when approaching the last few SSs... a super heavy XP hit sounds more like the system of choice. Funnily... though... those actually being present during that time (not me) tend to think the opposite. :)
 
 I was present during that time. And I didnt think difffrent. I had a level 14 character after 9 months play, with many many many deaths, and it worked. SS is just wrong. plain and simple.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: ycleption on May 09, 2008, 06:13:18 PM
Perhaps a compromise would be to have both an xp penalty (if not quite so punitive as it was at one time), which would represent the trauma of each death, and a set amount of deaths after which a character perms, which would preserve the lore of the soul mother, but wouldn't have the random aspect that frustrates many players... I don't know that this discussion is really relevant with the MMO coming, but...
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Dorganath on May 09, 2008, 06:41:42 PM
A few words on the subject:

A chance of Soul Strand loss on death is staying.  

We have been close to getting rid of the whole Grievance process many times because of the load on those who take care of them and the bitterness that some bring to their requests, for Soul Strands or otherwise.

Chance of perma-death has always been a part of my play experience here over the last 3.5 years, and I do remember a system with greater XP loss on death and subsequent deaths.  I bounced my character off Level 10 more times than I care to count over the course of a week.  I lost all the XP I gained on a quest and then some by going out and being foolish afterward.  When I started there was no SMD...no chance for delaying the inevitable except for playing smart.

Having been around before, during and after the much-discussed "Soul Mother Vacation", it is my strong opinion that the rather obvious disrespect for death that some players (not characters) have for death has its origins in that time.  It was the result of an ECDQ, and was intended to last up until the campaign finale a few months later.  Sadly, it didn't make it that far because players pushed their characters beyond the boundaries of good sense because there was no "real" penalty for death or chance of permadeath.  I don't remember how many people literally begged me to reinstate the Soul Mother within only a few weeks of her "vacation" because the RP had suffered, people were taking the "Bindstone Express" back from long trips, and in the group of worst offenders, people were generally reckless.  After this time, a lot of players maintained their bad habits and continued taking undue risks, only getting weepy when they hit their 9th lost Soul Strand at level 12.  Of course there's bad luck sometimes.  Jacchri is a perfect example, and he even permed on a quest I was running, thankfully due to OOC factors.  Yet somehow he managed to hang on.

No one in my knowledge has permed and stayed permed due to a technical glitch.  I can think of two cases where some additional leniency was given due to the circumstances of perming.

Love it...hate it...indifferent to it...the Soul Strand system is staying.  And the Soul Mother is not going on another vacation.

Personally, I like it, and I say this with a Level 28 character that I've spent 3.5 years developing who has 8 lost strands and almost a 1-in-3 chance of loosing one with every death.  Those are rotten odds, so I RP as much as possible and try to avoid death (which any sane person would do) when combat arises.  In my opinion, if you want to have a barbarian who lives and dies by his own blade, then so be it!  I just wouldn't spend much time on developing him, because in any semblance of reality, made-up or otherwise, that barbarian is going to have a short life-span.

Incidentally, if anyone wishes to live on the edge, it is perfectly OK to request that we set your Soul Strand loss to 9 (or 14).  All you have to do is ask!

:)
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: thedagda on May 09, 2008, 06:46:44 PM
The death system as it is now, is not bad at all.  An improvement to it would be a better cut scene for perming.  I can see where it is hard to lose a character, but after all it is a game.  If you're gonna die....die with your boots on.  Perm a character, why not try something new?  If losing a character is seen as a waste of time invested, isn't the point of playing missed?  The point being to have fun and a release from the daily grind.  Granted I have yet to have an epic level character or even close to that level, but the lowly grunts can be entertaining.

But, as it is there are consequences, even though sometimes it may not always be consequences from ones actions (crashes, lag,etc).  So grab a pop, coffee, beer or other preferred drink and have fun.   Live or die, there's always a new intriguing character should the need arise.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: jrizz on May 09, 2008, 08:55:57 PM
Well folks time to drop this again :)

We have had this talk many many times and no matter how many people setup and say "hey this needs to be looked at" the answer is that there are many many people that love it the way it is. So we have many many people on both sides of this issue.

As in all endeavors, examination is the key to growth. Without examination you cant have growth and you will fall behind and stagnate. It is good that we continue to bring up this subject, it is in my opinion the single most important issue of the overall system. We need to look at how to evolve as the player base evolves. The average level is much higher now then it was a few years ago, the builds have gotten better, the areas have changed greatly, the dynamics of how to advance have changed greatly, and much more has changed. All these things say that change has fueled change and if some part of the world needs change to address the evolving population of the community then change it must. So we should continue to be advocates for examination and growth, agents for change where change makes sense.

We should all keep open minds to these issues and to this issue in particular. If fun and balance are our goals then nothing should be set in stone.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Chongo on May 10, 2008, 12:00:57 AM
Quote from: Eight-Bit
It puts me off that whenever people disagree with a Layonara system we get the "it could be worse!" speech.
 
 I was kidding around chief. It may behoove you to get a feel for the people on the gameworld so you can understand their angles and humor a bit better. That would be the other end of the spectrum from monthly come and go gallery shots.
 
 :o
 
 I think the DT system is a downer sometimes. I also didn't enjoy it losing hundreds of thousands when I was in the teens with Caern or Hadrian.
 
 Moving away from my jab at 8bit.... It's been mentioned that a DT system breeds folks who build to survive, so far as to be a detriment to the world atmosphere. I actually have thrown that accusation around in the past. But, I'm growing into the opinion that the mere introduction of any punitive death system will breed the same situation to the same scale. It's dependant on the type of player. One shot lives with permadeath? Gold and experience loss? Accumulating stat loss? It doesn't matter, people will keep their angles, and they'll build to them. There are folks on this forum that would look at hardcore one shot permadeath and nothing would change in their characters. There are folks on this forum who would look at that and build the most invincible character possible, or build with a specific level in mind where they would risk peaking until and be more survivable afterwards.
 
 It's almost entirely based on the player, and the gameworld's precedents. A lot of the groans are based around the idea that the gameworld's precedents and standards have dropped, and that this is feeding more and more into the problem. And you know, some pretty weighty minds of Layonara feel this way. I think it's bunk. Standard nostalgia, standard opinions that follow general disillusionment. And it often comes from folks who have drifted far enough away so as to have lost a handle on anything really going on inside. The crowds and styles shift on an hourly basis. The world hasn't changed, the purpose of what's built and what's run as a quest hasn't changed, it's just that we have a lot of history now, and it's bound to run rampant with declarations of golden ages. The world is a much better image of anything it ever was, through the population, through the efforts and refinements of the project teams, through the events being run, and through the literature that is getting better and better and more and more filled in. The only thing that ever changes is that it stops blowing someone's hair back as much as it used to. And those are the personal growing pains everyone faces at multiple and unpredictable stages of their life. I know I have. Friends come and go, newcomers interrupt a comfy feeling. It's bound to hit and my hat's off to everyone who actually sticks with it and grows with the discomfort of growing old.
 
 What's that got to do with DT's? Mostly an aside on any system which is held responsible for negative change.
 
 Now I mentioned one-shot hardcore, I mentioned XP loss. And the big concession that I'll make, and the opinion that I'll hold on this (at least for today), is that our current system sucks you in to an investment. The more and more DT's we allow, the deeper that investment goes. With one-shot hardcore, your investment can be profound, but it doesn't have so much time wrapped into it most often. With XP loss, it's simply getting knocked down, and knowing you'll always be able to get up. With DT's, it's just like the one-shot but the investment becomes more and more a part of your life. If it were 30 SS's... we'd have even more weepy and emotional stories of loss. Though they'd be fewer. What's the right balance? I don't know - we seem to have a world where people can really get into their characters. Is it too much? To little? Dunno. Who does it hit hardest? Sure - new folks feel it a lot. But... as a guide I worked with once said about school and kid's programs for climbing (paraphrased) "You get these teachers that want to see everyone make it to the top of the cliff. So they hold this kid for an hour as he holds frightened to the rope, claws at the wall, and finally is hauled to the top where everyone cheers for him. And yeah, it's great that he's getting those cheers. But for that kid that actually showed excellence, who actually made it to the top on his own in good style, the notion of becoming better or showing excellence is now gone, as it just doesn't matter. The playing field will be levelled and there's nothing to bother striving for." So... I'm of the opinion that there should be learning curves, there should be unfortunate losses, and that it helps create a better atmosphere.
 
 Not saying it doesn't upset me at times though. And tomorrow, I'll likely be pointing out how the vast majority of losses are from bugs, quirks, and slow computers. Dunno.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Tobias on May 10, 2008, 12:05:30 AM
I guess its time for another old timer to speak up. :)
 
    I have been here for fours years with a small 2-3 month break nearing the end of v1. Having one character perm or rather being the second character to perm and to be brought back with thanks to an ECDQ.  I think I can say that I am happy with the current death system. Back in V1 it was xp loss and and chance to lose death token/soul strand was not a happy time. In v1 and early v2 it was very easy to miss that you got a death token/ soul strand and that really sucked when you went and check your bindstone and found out you had four of them. Now we don't have the xp lose nor can you miss that you have you lost a soul strand unless you crashed or that you went afk at the wrong place at the wrong time. :)
 
    You might not like the death system but it works and as Dorg said people abused it when it wasn't there and I have heard the use of the "Bindstone Express" and even was unfortunate enough to see a couple players do it.  It kills the worth of adventuring if there is no risk.. Hey yeah its great killing and beating things up but when it gets to the point where there is no risk then there is no strategy, there is no planning just mindless wizards, clerics, rangers, and rouges forgetting their class and turning into barbarins and fighters.
 
    Two characters of mine are close to perming out Rurik who I was so happy to get back after the ECDQ I dont' even play anymore. Its not that I am scared of killing him off or having him perm. Its just that I moved on with him playing Quill. Now Quill has 14 DT's/Soul Strand's and I am not scared of having him perm, its just if he is going to Perm its going to have to be something worth while to leave his wife and child behind for. Heck if it fits my schedule I will go with a group to the ends of the earth and try to make it back, but I would not have him go knock on Milaras door and ask for sugar. But not only that I moved on from him and started to play my other character Tobias and again playing Ophelia.
 
    Someone told me that if you stop playing your character its just as good as them perming and if you decide to bring him back for one last adventure then when he perms no one remembers him or that they have lost touched with that character and the hearing about their death is not as drastic as if a character that you have been adventuring/RPing with constantly.
 
    When your character gets older they get more mindful of who is watching them when they die and they have something to live for and that is more then the risk of death on some needless xp run.
 
    It boils down to what they have said time and time again.. Role Play your character and enjoy the time you have with them. If your characters time comes enjoy the part where you can reflect on their life and their growth and listen to other characters talk about them then they never will die. Gotak is not dead.. he lives on through he character and player. "Deathwards are fer Pansies"  That is an epic saying that will forever keep him alive in our minds and as our characters says those words they ones that new him or have met Gotak are able to tell of the meanest, bravest (if thats a word) and craziest dwarf we have ever met.
 
    So go out there and play your character make them immortal in your friends hearts and let them pass on your brave, silly, and crazy moments.
 
 
 And sorry for the rant.. I swear it made sense in my mind! O.o
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Mooneyes on May 10, 2008, 12:14:39 AM
I appreciate that Tobi:)  You made sense to me.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: ShiffDrgnhrt on May 10, 2008, 12:33:07 AM
Shiff's going down fighting a Dragon if it can be arranged ;)  Fighting a Dragon seiging a city
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Script Wrecked on May 10, 2008, 01:48:09 AM
IMO, the biggest inequity is the randomness of SS loss.

Given that the players who want to keep their character alive tend to stop adventuring on their last SS, the purpose of SS loss being random would seem to be lost; the player isn't going to risk their character, particularly when they are mid to high level.

A more egalitarian system would have the same, fixed number of deaths for everyone. God knows there is enough randomness in combat as to whether your character survives or not.

Regards,

Script Wrecked.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: osxmallard on May 10, 2008, 01:55:01 AM
The number of SS should be hidden from everyone with the exception of the database server manager.  There wouldn't be the same feeling of dread and it would just be a suprise ending to your characters life.... at least you'd know you're safe if you died less than 10/15 times.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Lynn1020 on May 10, 2008, 02:06:07 AM
Quote from: osxmallard
The number of SS should be hidden from everyone with the exception of the database server manager.  There wouldn't be the same feeling of dread and it would just be a suprise ending to your characters life.... at least you'd know you're safe if you died less than 10/15 times.


Great idea then you wouldn't have to worry about reimbursements either. :)
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Script Wrecked on May 10, 2008, 02:10:28 AM
And that would remove all those requests for SS reimbursement, because you'd never know if you'd lost one!
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: jrizz on May 10, 2008, 04:01:24 AM
Quote from: Script Wrecked
And that would remove all those requests for SS reimbursement, because you'd never know if you'd lost one!


that would make a bunch of folks quiet angry.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: ShiffDrgnhrt on May 10, 2008, 04:05:35 AM
I would prolly be one of them.  could there be a new system?  Sure.  Could there be a better one?  Maybe...  Would I EVER support one that keeps knowledge like that from players?  Never
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Blackguy on May 10, 2008, 04:46:28 AM
This leads me to another question, probalby not for this thread but. Would the mmo imploy somekind of perm system, leaving a person unable to use a character?
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Script Wrecked on May 10, 2008, 08:51:26 AM
Quote from: jrizz
Quote from: Script Wrecked
And that would remove all those requests for SS reimbursement, because you'd never know if you'd lost one!


that would make a bunch of folks quiet angry.


Quote from: ShiffDrgnhrt
I would prolly be one of them.  could there be a new system?  Sure.  Could there be a better one?  Maybe...  Would I EVER support one that keeps knowledge like that from players?  Never


How about this for a proposition:

If you were to join a world with great RP and a plethora of DM'ed events that had a death system that involved a random chance that you would perm on each death after the first ten after third level, you'd (likely as not) accept it.

You wouldn't be demanding to see the values of whatever tally system they used to keep track of things.

Regards,

Script Wrecked.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Dorganath on May 10, 2008, 09:06:02 AM
Quote from: Blackguy
This leads me to another question, probalby not for this thread but. Would the mmo imploy somekind of perm system, leaving a person unable to use a character?

This is a simple question with a complex answer that has not yet been fully defined.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Lalaith Va'lash on May 10, 2008, 09:17:02 AM
Quote from: Tobias
Now Quill has 14 DT's/Soul Strand's and I am not scared of having him perm, ..... but I would not have him go knock on Milaras door and ask for sugar.


But, we did take him to knock on Milarra's door with 14 DT Toby!
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Tobias on May 10, 2008, 09:47:13 AM
Quote from: Lalaith Va'lash
But, we did take him to knock on Milarra's door with 14 DT Toby!
 
 
 Yeah, but we forgot the sugar *snaps fingers*
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: twidget658 on May 10, 2008, 10:05:51 AM
Quote from: Script Wrecked
If you were to join a world with great RP and a plethora of DM'ed events that had a death system that involved a random chance that you would perm on each death after the first ten after third level, you'd (likely as not) accept it.
 
 I can honestly say that I will not get involved with another server that has a perm death system. When I started here, I never knew how attached I would get to my avatars. So knowing that now, I will read about the death systems and if a perm system is in place, I will keep looking. I won't even give the server a shot.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Script Wrecked on May 10, 2008, 10:53:45 AM
It is a cow.

However, one of the things a permadeath system does give (at the cost of the loss of our lovingly created characters) is turnover at the top.

Having played on a PW without permadeath, the characters to first make it to the high levels were always the "senior" characters by right of having been around the longest. Even when your character got to those levels, you'd always be on the second (or third) rung, having to defer to those "older and wiser"; there was never any chance of new characters taking charge.

The senior characters became entrenched. In the end, the PW stagnated.

Of course, if you cunningly avoid SS loss although, this is never an issue... *not looking at anyone in particular* ;)

Regards,

Script Wrecked.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: jrizz on May 10, 2008, 11:20:40 AM
umm looks up. We have that issue here even with the permadeath system. How many of the top rung senior PCs have you seen perm? It is before 21 that gets hit the hardest.

But all that aside I still like having a perma death system. But is ours the best or even all that good? lets just say it could be improved.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: miasma_hemlock on May 10, 2008, 03:51:41 PM
"How about this for a proposition:

If you were to join a world with great RP and a plethora of DM'ed events that had a death system that involved a random chance that you would perm on each death after the first ten after third level, you'd (likely as not) accept it.

You wouldn't be demanding to see the values of whatever tally system they used to keep track of things."



Honestly?  I think there'd be just as much complaining as there is with a transparent system, if not more so.  Especially if the people who programmed and run the system are also DMs and also players.  You would have a lot of accusations of cheating when the DMs and administrators players live to be epic, and being "out to get me" whenever a non-Dm player died young or in a way that they think they should have survived (or due to a DM spawn or event that was beyond their abilities.)  

I'm not for a second saying any Layonara team members would do that, by the way, I'm saying what is human nature with things like this.  We all think we're more mature than we really are, and when you get a few mildly disgruntled or upset people together (which many folks would tend to be if a treasured character died) the conspiracy theories fly.  It would be different if Layo was made and run by an anonymous game company but when the people who are in charge are also DMs and also players you really need for all of your rules and systems to be out in the open.

I don't know what the answer is of course.  I always thought the soul strand system should kick in at a higher level, even waiting until the character was "epic" to give people a fighting chance before they started losing strands.  Or even making it a straight once you're epic you have ten deaths and that's it, take the randomness out of it. But then I think all three soul strands I lost were before level 10 and due to other people dragging assassin vines around by Krandor.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: stragen on May 10, 2008, 07:35:56 PM
Ladies and Gents,

Firstly to Serrisa who picked up a SS last night at the same time as Jacrum.  I had fun.  My apologies as I was bound to west.

Those of us who still play Layonara are those who have the persona to withstand the loss of characters.  Or are lucky enough never to have permed one.  I know a friends and players who have left this server because of the nature of the system.   With loss of soul strands triggering depression in real-life.

I was thinking an alternative, perma-death system would be:

Allow a total of 10 respawns.  That is respawn not deaths.
Allow corpses of characters to carried.
Allow temples to raise a corpse
, at the cost of the characters delivering the corpse.
Forced respawn after 2 days game-time.  After which time a corpse can no longer be raised.
Addtional
, provide more negative HPs.  So that if the group of PCs do win the battle then basic first aid and healing may be used to revive some of those fallen unconscious and near death.  Ie CPR works if applied quickly.


In this system loss of a soul strand becomes a conscious decision.  The character having to pay a toll to the soul mother to return to the plane of the living.  There is the hope that they will be raised before a respawn is forced.  There are some really good systems for moving corpses and raising the dead on other NWN servers.  This system could be used for Layo 2.


Cheers,

Stragen
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: osxmallard on May 10, 2008, 09:08:46 PM
Quote from: ShiffDrgnhrt
I would prolly be one of them.  could there be a new system?  Sure.  Could there be a better one?  Maybe...  Would I EVER support one that keeps knowledge like that from players?  Never


sarcasm

Yeah, I guess it is better to just metagame how many you have left and let it directly affect your RP.
 
/sarcasm
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Kirbiana on May 10, 2008, 09:18:06 PM
I'm kind of a Layo light-weight (ie, not enough free time to do much more than a little crafting and therefore permanently low-level), but if the MMO team is still mulling over their death system for the new game, I thought it might be worth their while to hear from the peanut gallery too.
 
 :)
 
 My main angst about the current soul-strand system is that I am such a bad game-player that I really have trouble reacting to any battle situation in a timely fashion. I'd be totally okay with losing strands for my own characters because of that, but I really get upset when someone else loses a strand because I aggro'd too many monsters with a mis-click or cast a heal WAY too late. The result after a year or so of playing is that I seldom accompany any of my friends to serious battles, because I dread causing that to happen to them again. (And yes, I'm a wimp in real life too!)
 
 I have no opinion on what might be a better penalty system to discourage mindless hack-and-slash, but I just thought I'd mention this aspect of the current system as it pertains to group RP in dangerous settings, for me at least.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Lalaith Va'lash on May 10, 2008, 10:07:41 PM
Quote from: stragen
Ladies and Gents,

Firstly to Serrisa who picked up a SS last night at the same time as Jacrum.  I had fun.  My apologies as I was bound to west.

Those of us who still play Layonara are those who have the persona to withstand the loss of characters.  Or are lucky enough never to have permed one.  I know a friends and players who have left this server because of the nature of the system.   With loss of soul strands triggering depression in real-life.

I was thinking an alternative, perma-death system would be:

Allow a total of 10 respawns.  That is respawn not deaths.
Allow corpses of characters to carried.
Allow temples to raise a corpse
, at the cost of the characters delivering the corpse.
Forced respawn after 2 days game-time.  After which time a corpse can no longer be raised.
Addtional
, provide more negative HPs.  So that if the group of PCs do win the battle then basic first aid and healing may be used to revive some of those fallen unconscious and near death.  Ie CPR works if applied quickly.


In this system loss of a soul strand becomes a conscious decision.  The character having to pay a toll to the soul mother to return to the plane of the living.  There is the hope that they will be raised before a respawn is forced.  There are some really good systems for moving corpses and raising the dead on other NWN servers.  This system could be used for Layo 2.


Cheers,

Stragen


Hey, thats not bad.  At any rate, it also prevents soloing... since somebody is less likely to find your body.

Or, it would encourage you to let you friends know IC ahead of time where you'll be.

Of course, you'll always have the Rez monkeys (As we called them on another server)  I.e.:  "Oh, just drag XYZ's corpse back to the crossroads, and I'll log out and log in with my cleric to raise him for you."

No system is perfect.  I do like the player having the conscious choice. IMO if its because the soul is tethered to the bindstone that your putting a strain on your soul in death it should be on respawn that you roll the 1d100 for the soul mother.  Its the cleric that uses the soulstone or the piece of their soul to bring you back otherwise.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Stephen_Zuckerman on May 11, 2008, 12:30:27 AM
Quote from: osxmallard
sarcasm

Yeah, I guess it is better to just metagame how many you have left and let it directly affect your RP.
 
/sarcasm

As I understand it, and have been told officially in the past, it is IC knowledge that a given Bound character has ten Soul Strands.

I have roleplayed accordingly, with my character taking each loss harder, as it's that much closer to the final death - and that much more strain on what's left of that tether, when he's pulled back. It's been a fairly good RP device, and sets him up well for several potential outcomes of his final few years.

Were the death system different, I would roleplay it differently. *Shrug.* But it is what it is, at the moment.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Dorganath on May 11, 2008, 01:00:28 AM
It is IC knowledge. It's also IC knowledge that not everyone chooses to bind.  In fact, it is only the "adventurer" set that generally binds, and binding has that whole trade-off thing associated with it.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: jrizz on May 11, 2008, 10:10:04 AM
What are the mechanics if a person chooses to unbind from the bindstones (if they can)?

What are the mechanics if a new PC chooses not to bind?
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Dorganath on May 11, 2008, 10:21:37 AM
There are no mechanics for PC in either case. I'm not even sure there's a lore-supported, IC way to unbind.

Mechanically, all new PCs are auto-bound to either Port Hempstead or Fort Vehl.

That said, respawning is still a conscious choice, both IC and OOC.  It's entirely possible to decide not to respawn and remain dead. There's actually a character in-play right now who takes that view (i.e. the first death without someone around to raise will be the last) and has not purposefully bound to a bindstone.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: jrizz on May 11, 2008, 10:55:27 AM
So what is the relation of the Soul Mother to the bindstones? Can she still operate without them?
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Honora on May 11, 2008, 11:05:01 AM
Why do I always end up posting after Dorg?  *sighs*

I like the chance of permadeath.  Whether or not it encourages good RP is dependent on the player, not the game mechanics in my opinion.  I personally have played many a game with no chance of dying, just XP loss, and I'll take the *possibility* of an SS over the definite loss of a stupid amount of what is now VERY precious time any day.  

I will point something else out that feels unique to our SS system.  How many of you have made families in game, married and had children (or just had children :) ) with the idea that it would be a good backup in case your main died, for continuity's sake?  Not as a primary objective, perhaps, but in addition to the other reasons...I know I factored that in when Honora adopted.  And it adds a huge, wonderful level to roleplay when you do that.  So the chance of permadeath has, *perhaps*, also contributed to the layers of families and generations that have given Layonara such a dimensional feel.

And I'm spent.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Dorganath on May 11, 2008, 11:35:45 AM
Quote from: jrizz
So what is the relation of the Soul Mother to the bindstones? Can she still operate without them?

I'm going to leave the full answer to this question to EdTheKet, as the answer sort of bleeds into matters of lore that may or may not be made known to the general public and/or which may not yet be fully finalized.

The [lore]Layonara Cosmology[/lore] document describes, generically, what happens to souls on death under the section on the Thread and the Desolate Frontier.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Lynn1020 on June 03, 2008, 04:37:27 PM
Once again another great pc is lost to the Soul mother.  :(   It has ruin the fun of the game for many and once again has taken the urge to rp away from me. :(    

I can now see why the death system could cause many just run with their groups seeing how fast they can get to the highest level.  Because it is easier when it is all over and they have no real connection to their character and it will be easy for them to just walk away and quit.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Blackguy on June 03, 2008, 06:30:32 PM
There is no connection with people and highlevels and their relation to them. People run in groups for a simple reason, trust, and RL. Its as simple as that.

Other than that, I agree, the deathsystem is the worst system implented on Layonara.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Acacea on June 03, 2008, 07:55:35 PM
Well, I don't know about the worst... I'm not a fan of the clicking one hundred times every five minutes food/drink thing (in contrast with, say, LORE birds which are awesome), and it seems like the big issue with the DT system is split into two camps - those who hate, hate, loathe in all possible manners the mere possibility of ever losing their characters, and those who can see how at one point in concept the whole roleplay of it might have been good, except there is so many things beyond player control OOCwise that it becomes something that hurts roleplay instead of makes it better.

To the formers, well, sorry... it's been said that the implementation may change but the point of the system isn't going anywhere and is considered a big part of the world.

To the latter, is there any way that it could be made better - both with a personal change of perspective combined with alterations to the system, even if it were the simple answer of "less OOC losses" ?

For example, if the Disputes were gone, but there was an IC system available for regaining soul strands, regardless of difficulty level or cost. Remember they wanted to put this in NWN? If you could do something to get them back IC, wouldn't it help? If we had a more stable client that could handle the kind of stuff we put it through, offering less lag and the frustration of hearing "pull back" and watching in horror as your character skips ahead instead, would that help? What if there were other avenues of progressing your skills than going to an area several levels above you and getting your butt handed to you? (Though of course that remains an option!) Or skills that allowed you to retreat better, without constantly being scolded for dragging spawns away which basically means anyone, no matter how chaotic, must stay the course and die lest they accidentally drag on some invisible NPCs?

For that matter, what if certain abilities unlocked, the more strands you lost? There is an interesting tangent - areas in the distant future that could only be entered by those closest to death, berserker rage or retreat abilities from those that want so much to live and yet are about to die... what if enemies fled in the presence of final death, leaving it more of a momentous event instead of something that crashes everyone out of game? If it were more integrated with character possibilities instead of feeling like this big OOC mess of grievances and a countdown, would it feel more like a part of character growth as intended?

Again, I'm not talking to the people who will hate the entire concept and possibility, no matter what. There's nothing I can say to that, except that it probably sucks playing here. But I do think that those people are fewer than this thread implies - it's just my personal opinion based on talking to people and reading the forums that much of the dislike for the system comes from situations that yes, could have been good roleplay or character growth, but were frustrating and confusing instead - what happened? Were you lagging? Did you crash? Was the model glitched? Does anyone have logs? Who lost a strand? How many do you have left? Do we have witnesses? Etc. The impossibility of this improving this more than has already been done in NWN has just soured many completely on it.

In case there is any confusion, I am not offering any promises or information or anything of the sort. I am in no position to do so, obviously. All I am doing is asking, because I wonder if those who hate it most in NWN would have been able to stomach it in better conditions. Or, from another angle, what is "better" without losing the possibility of death? I know it's hard to get past that, since that's the big issue, but sometimes we have to just rant on for awhile going "I don't WANT possibility of death!" and then finally sigh and start thinking, "fine, if you have to have permadeath, maybe we can do it like this..."

What would make it work for you? stragen posted one idea. Again... it's really only as a personal favor to me, because I'm not sure such a discussion could go anywhere, but I think it would be interesting to see how different people viewed the different ways of implementing permadeath. No mechanical system will ever suit everyone, but by looking around at the different angles people can throw rocks from, you start noticing similar needs that suggestions are meant to satisfy...so even when the suggestion does not suit, it has served to point out what is needed. If nothing else, using some frustration to start thinking of ways it could work could at least give some hope for the future - if you can think of even one way that it could work for you, it becomes less impossible to hope that the team might find one, too, even if it's not yours.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: darkstorme on June 03, 2008, 08:13:26 PM
Quote from: Blackguy
Other than that, I agree, the deathsystem is the worst system implented on Layonara.


You honestly believe that players would be more attached to their characters if there was no fear of death?  What is your proposal - that permadeath be removed altogether?

Myself, I believe the death system is perfectly balanced as it is, but if I had the ability to alter it to accommodate those who hold this view, the only concession I would make might be to allow soul strands to regenerate, given sufficient time.  One every three months, perhaps.  But again, I think that cheapens death.  Removing permadeath altogether would make death a nonissue.  Half your carried gold and an hour or so of feeling week?  C'est une bagatelle!

As it stands, adventurers have more "life" to them than most, but they know their days are numbered.  Losing that first soul strand is, for most, a harrowing experience - would it be, if it were just another death?  When one's strand count is getting up there (or down there, depending on how you look at things), a character starts to feel their own mortality - a fantastic piece of the immersion that is Layonara.  Characters can sense the Mother's mouth watering for that last strand, and guard it all the more jealously.

How much more significant can the risk of death make a heroic sacrifice?  What kind of nobility would there be in a character crying, "Go!  Run!  I'll hold them!" when facing insurmountable odds if the consequences of their death were simply to feel weak for a few hours?  If Gandalf had known he'd make it out alive (or rise again as Gandalf the White, anyway), would there have been as much poignancy to his stand at the bridge?

When I joined the server, a character had, through Herculean (literally) efforts, won back a harvest of strands from the Mother, and forced Her into temporary vacation.  And let me tell you - Death held no fear.  Cowards would plunge cheerily into battle, again and again, 'gainst insurmountable odds, secure in the knowledge that they were going to come back from the other side none the worse for wear.  Some tried to RP the desire not to die, but far more fought with abandon, since dying held no real consequence.  When strands again began to be cut... oh, the improvement!

As a final point - yes, the loss of beloved characters to the Mother is a tragedy.  A tragedy in-character!  Out of character - what a roleplay opportunity!  Funereal arrangements!  Vengeance against those who slew the fallen!  Eulogies!  Tributes!  For the player of the fallen - you can tie up your character's affairs, (CDTs and the like), and enjoy a privilege that real life does not afford us: watching your own funeral, and seeing how friends and loved ones celebrate your life or mourn your death.  All of this impossible, if Death is relegated to the same severity as a head cold.

Be grateful, I would say, for the leniency of Layonara's death system.  Remember 2nd Ed?  If you die, and are fortunate enough to be resurrected... you lose a point of CON.  Permanently. Start the game with a CON of 12?  You've got 12 resurrections.  12 times you can die.  Ever.  Granted, Layonara is somewhat more lethal than your average pen-and-paper campaign... but the system is much, much more lenient.

So, some dissatisfaction stemming from the loss of a beloved character - this is perfectly understandable.  But to say that it's the "worst system implemented in Layonara" is ridiculous.  It's part of what makes Layonara as good as it is.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Lynn1020 on June 03, 2008, 08:26:17 PM
I am not against permadeath.. It is how unfair it is.  It all lands in the rolls.  Some have died over a hundred times and lost very few SS.  Then some have permed with around 50 deaths. There was the one pc that was trying to perm and died over 200 times and couldn't loose enough ss to perm.  :\\  I do think there should be a consequences for dying.  Just not sure what.  I liked the idea of xp loss.

Then you have the whole reimbursement situation.  If you go back and look at past ones that were approved you find many that didn't follow the rules  criteria.  So that always brings up "why was theirs approved but this one wasn't."  I'm all for doing away with the reimbursement process then there wouldn't be any worries for favoritism etc. ;)
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: jrizz on June 03, 2008, 08:30:10 PM
Quote from: Acacea

What would make it work for you?


Third time posting this solution to your question (it had been asked before):

Quote

Some time ago I suggested a change to the system that would create a hope based system instead of a hopelessness based system. Here is my suggestion (mind you it keeps the SS system):


1. Soul strength grows with the PC.
At 4th level you get 4 SS then you earn 1 every 2 levels. That will be a total of 12 by 20th level. Keep SMD at 21st level, but make it 2 or 3 not 5 and have the earning go to one every three or four levels after 21. This method keeps the SS loss system as is and still keeps your PC afraid of death. But there will no longer be the hopelessness of "only one SS left". There will always be the hope that you can make it to the next time you can earn one. Also this method shows that the PC grows in soul strength as she gains in experience instead of getting weaker in soul.


The particulars should be debated but the framework is one based on hope not hopelessness.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Blackguy on June 03, 2008, 08:32:59 PM
Ive heard all the arguments for it before, and Ive know that there are some passionate people for the system, but I simply dont agree with that.

And the story about Athus that made the Mother go on vacation have no effect on me. If you really want to limit people going and doing something they are not meant to do, then use a XP penalty system instead. That'll make people think twice about their actions, XP hit alot harder, cause its something your effected by everyday when you play.

But I still think the deathsystem is the worst thing about Layonara, period.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Acacea on June 03, 2008, 08:53:13 PM
Quote from: jrizz
Third time posting this solution to your question (it had been asked before):


That's great that you've posted before, but it is not a "solution to the question." It is a suggestion, just as stragen's was. If you feel you have already contributed to the question, then there is no need to feel like you are being repeatedly addressed for the same thing...you're not. :) There are others that are very opinionated on this subject.

I personally disagree with the suggestion for multiple reasons and don't think it makes a lot of sense either (the whole weaker/stronger in soul thing is not actually even applicable), but that is just me. In either case though, it is still a suggestion from one person, and not the most vocal here. Blackguy for example I don't think is going to ever have one, because he is never going to like perming and will always complain about it given the opportunity ;). We agree to disagree... I prefer perming, you're never going to like it. Noted! :D But Lynn for example hates not necessarily the concept of permadeath but the perceived unfairness of its implementation. XP loss is not permadeath, so while it appeals to her it is not the same.

Since I was not clear, I don't personally think the odds are good that any one of us will suddenly come up with this fantastic system that solves all our problems and can be sold to the team, especially without knowing anything about their other systems. More importantly, I feel a great number of the issues with the current system are tied up with the constraints of NWN and may be a non-issue in the future. But there is a lot of angst and frustration tied up with it from people who are good people to have here and who are the sort of players I personally am interested in keeping around in the future, too. twidget for example said he'd never play on another server with permadeath - will not the MMO have it in some form? I know I prefer it... is that a final statement, or could it work with the things that are the most frustrating cut out of the picture?
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: jrizz on June 03, 2008, 11:12:21 PM
well if a system based on hopelessness is better then one based on hope what do you suggest?
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: jrizz on June 03, 2008, 11:31:42 PM
Quote from: Acacea
(the whole weaker/stronger in soul thing is not actually even applicable),


Please explain. since in a way this is what SMD is. And yes you can look at SMD and say well it says 15 and no more. But the base idea of SMD is learning to have more strands or a stronger soul. So we already have the precedent for  getting "stronger" of soul when growing in power.

I have not seen a suggestion/solution (i use solution so as to frame the current system as a problem that needs solving) that incorporates the current system and is so easily reconcilable with the status of PCs today. Furthermore one that uses our current lore with little to no change and yet creates an air of hope on the server.

I would really need to understand under what reasoning anyone would not want a hope based system. This would solve a lot of issues around the death system we have.

I am confident that if it were allowed to go to a vote my solution would win the day over the current system.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Dorganath on June 03, 2008, 11:44:41 PM
Easy guys. :)

Calling it a system based on "hopelessness" is a little negative and harsh, in my opinion.  It is a system based on inevitability though.  Eventually, everyone will die for the last time.  Like in the real world, there are people who seem to cheat death, and there are those for whom the Reaper comes at the earliest convenience.

Is it "fair"? Maybe, maybe not.  It can be argued successfully in either direction, and depends greatly on how one defines "fair".  Life, real or virtual, is full of randomness and luck in both directions.

I'm not sure there will be a system that makes everyone happy and which keeps the intent firmly in place, at least not in NWN.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: jrizz on June 03, 2008, 11:58:37 PM
Of course I am taking the opposing view of the current system and to do that my stance is that it is in need of fixing and in need of being replaced by something better.

The current system is one of subtraction with little chance for addition. I say little chance because we do have a shot at 21st level that gives an addition. It is this chance/idea that I am building on to form a system of addition that still leaves open the chance that your PC can die for the last time. This keeps death as very real and gives PCs a healthy respect/fear of death. But it takes away the "I only have one SS left" syndrome, it takes away the "I'll never see x level" syndrome, it gives an air of "even if I'm unlucky I can still make it".

Once again why would anyone not want a better version of our current system that gives hope.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: twidget658 on June 04, 2008, 12:07:44 AM
Quote from: darkstorme
You honestly believe that players would be more attached to their characters if there was no fear of death?
 
 I don't know about you, but I am not attached to my children because I fear losing them. I am attached to my wife and children because I know them. I have watched them grow, suffered for/with them, played sports with them, traveled cross country with them, talk to them, etc...the bond is unimaginable. I love them and attached to them because they are what makes me want to come home at night and they are what I think about when I am deployed. I really never think about losing them because I want to enjoy them here and now. Why in the world would I want to focus on losing them? It doesn't make sense. If I thought about losing them everyday, I would probably distance myself from them to prevent the pain and agony of losing them.
 
 I play layo because I like my PCs. I like their personalities that have developed over time. They are the reason why I play the game. I don't rp thinking that my PC could die. I am not attached to my PC because I fear losing them. I am attached to them because of the 'people' they have become and the relationships that have been made.
 
 The reason for this death system and the loss of SS...to prevent people from abusing the system and going into battle thinking that they have nothing to lose. It is is place to prevent people from powerleveling (which happens anyway, just in groups of like minded people) This, to me, has NOTHING to do about being attached to my PC, RP or IC reasons.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Acacea on June 04, 2008, 12:49:51 AM
It was stupid of me to ask. I should have realized it would just turn into an argument about why a particular suggestion is The One and more posts about how the current system is one of deepest despair and hopelessness and why it's the worst system in the world. I repent already, heh. Advocating a particular desire because it is "based on hope, not hopelessness!" is akin to holding up signs saying "Don't YOU want a president that doesn't eat babies??" It's pointless. End of posting for me...
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: jrizz on June 04, 2008, 12:58:47 AM
@dorg if we can stay away from being negative and harsh is this a discussion that is open to have? Can the outcome of this discussion be a conduit for change?
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Dorganath on June 04, 2008, 01:12:23 AM
I will not say whether or not anything will change as a result of this discussion for NWN.  It's not a matter of resistance but priority and manpower.  However, yes, please continue a constructive and respectful discussion if you so desire.  It is like any other suggestion from the community...it may be implemented, it may not, but it is looked at and considered.  And since we have a new game in the works, unimplemented ideas from one game may sometimes be carried to the other.

Inaction on our part should not be construed as apathy or disagreement, but there's more to consider here than simply what system is the most popular.

I would, however, refrain from emotional words like "hope/hopelessness" and the like. I know this is an emotional issue for many, but emotions and fairness don't always mesh well. If there is to be any system changes, they have to be viable and consistent with intent. It's also worth stating that any major overhaul of how Soul Strands are calculated (such as the idea of accruing them as one levels up) could cause some significant inconsistencies with those characters who have already lost strands and/or permed.  This of course is only an issue if one wishes to see changes in NWN.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Script Wrecked on June 04, 2008, 01:35:21 AM
Quote from: Dorganath
It is a system based on inevitability though.  Eventually, everyone will die for the last time.


Not necessarily. The mistaken belief in a randomised system it that it will eventually "even" itself out. Each result is unrelated to the next result. It is possible that someone will "not die" for the last time. (1)

Quote from: Dorganath
Like in the real world, there are people who seem to cheat death, and there are those for whom the Reaper comes at the earliest convenience.


Yes, life is unfair.

Quote from: Dorganath
Is it "fair"? Maybe, maybe not.  It can be argued successfully in either direction, and depends greatly on how one defines "fair".


To make a specific statement:

[INDENT]"I think it would be fair if everyone had the same number of deaths."[/INDENT]

I'm not sure there is a very strong argument against that (in terms of fairness).

Quote from: Dorganath
Life, real or virtual, is full of randomness and luck in both directions.


Ibid the previous "life is unfair" statement. Of course, no-one complains about their good luck.

I guess the question is:

[INDENT]"Is it necessary or desirable to have randomness in the death system?"[/INDENT]

Randomness is unfair, ergo a death system with randomness is likewise unfair.

Quote from: Dorganath
I'm not sure there will be a system that makes everyone happy and which keeps the intent firmly in place, at least not in NWN.


What is the intent? Does having randomness in the death system contribute to that?

Regards,

Script Wrecked.



(1) This is also a function how the percentage chance of Soul Strand loss is determined. If you could get to level 99, then there would be 100% chance that you would lose a Soul Strand, and hence die for the last time.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: merlin34baseball on June 04, 2008, 02:26:09 AM
hmm... I have one basic problem with the system, well actually two.

1) One is that one of my characters has 9 DTs... she level 19. She has  500,000 XP left to get to 20. Then 3,000,000 more to get to 21 to get SMD. She only has 5,000,000+ XP total now. So she needs... hmmm... (gets calculator)... *types in numbers*... 70% more XP than she's earned in two years to get SMD. Now she has a 20% chance of getting a DT on every death. There's no way I can get 3,500,000 XP and not get a DT (SS? whatever there now called) and get to 21st. So basically I have a character I really enjoyed who will never ever advance in level again, and who can't go adventure anywhere that gets her more than 1 XP per monster, without the fear of perming.

2) and the fact that at least 3, maybe four of her DTs are directly because of the invisibility bug. Lets see... large battle, people falling dead everywhere... what does a Mage do? Casts invisibility of course... only to be chased down and slaughtered by giants or orcs or some other low browed race that can barely say their name let alone see an invisible mage.

(and I totally understand that the Invis bug is Biowares problem not Layo's problem, but it still doesn't dull the sting.)

Now... If she could get another SS at level 20, or had I gotten one at 19, or whatever level, and maybe have two left then to get to 21 I might give it a shot. But knowing I only have one, I have basically given up on a character that I played for 2 years, because I don't want her to perm.

There have been debates on whether the character knows how close they are to 10 DTs and I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that the consensus was that a character knew when they were close. So there no way I can go out and adventure with her.

*shrugs*

oh and by the way this has been a very readable post for one that started with one sentence...

I LOVE DTS!
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: twidget658 on June 04, 2008, 02:44:25 AM
Ami got her 9th DT right after she made level 20. I did stop playing her. But then, her personality got the best of me and I started playing her again. It took a long time and taking very little chances. She did die three times, fortunately, she was lucky enough not to fail her save against the SM. She finally got to 21. I have no idea how long she was at level 20, but it was worth 'fighting' the system to 'save' her.
 
 Emie wasn't far behind her. She finally made 21. Her and Ami ended up leveling together.
 
 So although you have your PC, you don't. If you stop playing her, then you have lost her already. I was happy not playing Ami and still 'having' her. Still having the relationships. But, if she did perm, I am not sure what I would do.
 
 There are others that decided to continue after the loss of 9. Some have made it, some have not. Everyone says, "Just don't die." I think that is a ridiculous comment because there are things that occur beyond your control.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: merlin34baseball on June 04, 2008, 02:48:27 AM
yep... JUST DON'T DIE... is the most ridiculous comment ever... there's so much that's out of your control... someone logs on with 50 lion bags full of stuff and stops the server for 30 seconds and your dead, despite how careful you could have been. I still play Tyrian, but she's a shell of her former self knowing the next death is the last.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: darkstorme on June 04, 2008, 02:54:04 AM
Quote from: twidget658
I don't know about you, but I am not attached to my children because I fear losing them. ... If I thought about losing them everyday, I would probably distance myself from them to prevent the pain and agony of losing them.
 
... I don't rp thinking that my PC could die. I am not attached to my PC because I fear losing them. I am attached to them because of the 'people' they have become and the relationships that have been made. ...


Thank you, Twidget, for helping clarify a different viewpoint than mine.  While I have trouble understanding holding such a viewpoint, it does make it easier to understand the resultant attitudes towards the death system.

The disconnect occurs because I don't view my characters as old friends or relations - I view them as characters in a story that I'm watching unfold.  If I were reading an action-packed fantasy novel, or mystery, or watching a TV show, I don't want to know that nothing really bad will ever happen to the characters, that they're safe no matter what they do.  I want there to be risk - I want there to be real doubt as to their survival.

In a book, or a TV series, since we don't necessarily know the rules by which the author/writer is operating, we can't know whether the characters can die or not, so that suspense can be sustained even if the writer has no intention of killing off our favourite character.  (And, in fact, at least in serial TV shows, usually a character dies after a season or three, just to keep the audience on their toes.)  But in the game, we know the rules.  If our characters couldn't die, we'd know it.  And, at least as far as I'm concerned, the action would pall.

Inevitably, as well, in novels, TV, and other works of fiction, characters must have an "end".  Whether it is dying ignominiously in a moment (Tasha Yar, say), riding off into the sunset (Westley and Buttercup), or dying and taking your adversary with you (Sherlock Holmes), there the story ends - and in so doing, it lends weight to all else accomplished during the life of the character.

So, while I respect your right to your opinion on the topic, I fear I will never understand the feelings behind it.  I hope I've helped elucidate my own opinion, even if my feelings are equally incomprehensible.

@Jrizz - I can understand the motivations behind your suggestion, to a degree, but I have a number of problems with your proposed implementation.  First among them, the "twelve by twenty".  At most, this should be ten by twenty.  As it stands, many characters make it through to epic levels.  A 20% increase in soulstrand count prior to the magic number would make it that much easier to achieve, and cheapen it both for those who make Epic levels after the alteration, and those who made it the hard way, before.

In addition to that, as you so accurately pointed out, people already try to reach 21st level for that magic "recharge".  If alternate levels are rewarded with additional soul strands, I can predict that people will view each additional soulstrand as another fencepost to pass.  This would go a long way towards encouraging the powergamer mindset - after all, the faster you get through the levels, the faster you get your strands.

Additionally, it favours the established players.  That is to say, those people who already have friends on the server could easily say "look, I'm on my last soul strand - can you guys help me level so I can get another?", while those new to the server wouldn't yet have alliances of this sort - whether or not we even want to encourage that behaviour!

As yet another point I hold against the idea, what of those characters already in-game?  Do they get an infusion of soul strands?  Do characters on their 6th strand already by level 9 simply get killed?  Fairness and equity would be troublesome... and the database updates would be a nightmare.

Now, if I were persuaded that our current system needs changing (and I am emphatically not of that mindset at the moment), I would lend support to the suggestion I proposed earlier - recovery/regeneration.  After three months, realtime, (as an example), any character with less than ten soulstrands would "recover" one.  This would allow a player to keep a favoured character - they would simply have to mothball them for some time if they wished to do so.  This would actively discourage powergaming, since it would force the player to play cautiously (if at all) if they wanted to keep their in-danger character.

This would also be far easier to implement, and fairer across the board, as all would start out on an even footing, with no more or fewer strands granted until the first time period elapsed.

There would also be a couple of caveats to such a change, in my mind:


Anyway, that's my stance on the subject.

(As an aside, while I like Stragen's idea, the window to exploitation - rez-monkeys, I believe they were called ;) - would be too broad, and the implementation too intricate, and too involved.  Nevertheless, save for those problems, I rather like it.)
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Kirbiana on June 04, 2008, 07:30:55 AM
In dog-training, the best results for behavior shaping are acheived by a combination of both positive reinforcement (treats and toys) and corrections (verbal or physical punishment). If you consider our current death system as a behavior modification tool for players, you can see that it uses nothing but the 'punishment' of strand loss until the very delayed 'treat' of taking SMD at Level 21. It's the equivalent of always shouting 'NO!' at your dog for jumping up on you with muddy paws, but never praising them or giving them a biscuit for the polite sitting behavior that you want instead.
 
 I realize that we have other systems in place (quests and spontaneous events) to give our players 'XP treats' to encourage role-playing, but on the basis of my dog-training experience, I think a death system that both punished reckless/hack and slash behavior and rewarded cautious/role-playing behavior (with timed strand recovery such as Darkstorme suggests) would be much more effective in shaping the role-playing behavior that is the stated intent of the server.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Serissa on June 04, 2008, 08:26:28 AM
The one really good thing about our death system is the lesson it has for our younger players--death is real and permanent, and rash actions can bring it faster.  I'm willing to accept that risk for my beloved characters in the hope that it will influence real-life actions, even a little.
 
 That said, I'd be thrilled if we had a reinstatement program for the next-to-last strand in the way Darkstorme suggested.  If you're on strand 9 or 14, three months of cautious play would give you back strand 8 or 13, but no more.  Lose that one, and you're back to three months of cautious play to retrieve it.  Then you have both the lesson of permanence and the positive reinforcement for cautious play.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Dorganath on June 04, 2008, 09:00:12 AM
The problem with a system whereby everyone gets the same number of deaths regardless will inevitably result in people building for AC and HPs, moreso than now even. The complaint then will become not the randomness, but that if someone goes for an RP build (which we would like to see, of course) over a "durable" build, then that person who chose RP is at a much larger disadvantage than they are now.  Sure, RP builds are rarely durable, so even in our current system, they die more often, but at least now there's a pretty good chance they won't lose a Soul Strand.

And since we're not going to get rid of lag, random disconnections or people logging in with 50 lion bags filled with CNR...ever...a system of "X deaths until you're done" is no more "fair" than a randomized one, since there will still be deaths that get attributed to these things, and they will be unfair, potentially moreso, since there's no random chance that it won't count toward your allotment. Every death, IC or OOC, will subtract that number, whether it's your fault or that guy logging in with 50 bags of CNR.

Quote
What is the intent? Does having randomness in the death system contribute to that?

The OOC intent is to maintain a respect for character death and enforce the idea that actions may have consequences, and ill-advised actions often have worse consequences. Also, there's the idea of encouraging RP over a bashing race up in levels.  As for IC  intent, some of that I can't get into, so I'll leave it with the OOC for the time being.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: jrizz on June 04, 2008, 10:28:49 AM
Thank you DS for your input and taking the time to weigh out how you think a change would effect the community. I will first comment on your observations of my proposal then I will address your proposal.

Quote from: darkstorme

@Jrizz - I can understand the motivations behind your suggestion, to a degree, but I have a number of problems with your proposed implementation.  First among them, the "twelve by twenty".  At most, this should be ten by twenty.  As it stands, many characters make it through to epic levels.  A 20% increase in soulstrand count prior to the magic number would make it that much easier to achieve, and cheapen it both for those who make Epic levels after the alteration, and those who made it the hard way, before.

It really just spreads it out between 20 and 21 because by 21 the total number possible would still be 15. Yes it does make it a bit (a bit) easier to make it past the 20 to 21 hump. I am sure that most people that have worked their way past that would not feel slighted by the new system. I have a lo of faith in this community and I dont think any of them would be that petty. That is not name calling it is how I see this community in a positive way. How many Wls stood up after the epic door was open up to all and said "Hey its not fair it was so hard for me and now you are just letting anyone in" not many I am sure.
Quote

In addition to that, as you so accurately pointed out, people already try to reach 21st level for that magic "recharge".  If alternate levels are rewarded with additional soul strands, I can predict that people will view each additional soulstrand as another fencepost to pass.  This would go a long way towards encouraging the powergamer mindset - after all, the faster you get through the levels, the faster you get your strands.

Power gaming will never go away under any system short of a no rank system. What my proposal does is it spreads out the risk and actually puts PCs at a little more risk if they play in a high risk way. It makes players start to think smart very early on instead of waiting till they are at 7+ DTs.
Quote

Additionally, it favours the established players.  That is to say, those people who already have friends on the server could easily say "look, I'm on my last soul strand - can you guys help me level so I can get another?", while those new to the server wouldn't yet have alliances of this sort - whether or not we even want to encourage that behaviour!

We have that same issue now but it is just on the 20 to 21 hump. But yes you are right it will encourage better team play and put more groups and players in the "all for one and one for all" mindset.
Quote

As yet another point I hold against the idea, what of those characters already in-game?  Do they get an infusion of soul strands?  Do characters on their 6th strand already by level 9 simply get killed?  Fairness and equity would be troublesome... and the database updates would be a nightmare.

Reconciliation would really not be that hard. Yes some PCs would end up with more and some with less none would die from the set up and none would come back to life from it as well. And it would not be a nightmare to update the database. The script would not be that hard to write or test.

That is it on my comments to your observations. Now on to your proposal.
Quote

Recovery/regeneration.  After three months, realtime, (as an example), any character with less than ten soulstrands would "recover" one.  This would allow a player to keep a favoured character - they would simply have to mothball them for some time if they wished to do so.  This would actively discourage powergaming, since it would force the player to play cautiously (if at all) if they wanted to keep their in-danger character.

This would also be far easier to implement, and fairer across the board, as all would start out on an even footing, with no more or fewer strands granted until the first time period elapsed.

There would also be a couple of caveats to such a change, in my mind:
  • The countdown for strand recovery would begin from the time of the last soulstrand loss.  That is to say, if you lost your first soulstrand, and then lost a second a month later, you would recover a soulstrand three months after the second loss.  This would both encourage caution and allow for an IC explanation - additional trauma to the soul during the healing process undoes any good that's been done.
  • A character would stop recovering soulstrands when their count returned to ten.  If they chose to take SMD, any strands from those extra which were cut would be lost forever - if they were fortunate enough to push past 10 when they took the feat.
  • Soul Strand refunds would become entirely the dominion of GMs/WLs.  If on a quest a GM feels their spawn was unfair, costing one or more characters a strand, they could request the refund.  Likewise, if an exceptional death were witnessed, the GM/WL witness could make the request.  Any other requests would be deemed spurious - especially since, in the fullness of time, the refund would deliver itself.



I really like this idea a lot. The only changes I would make would be to make 3 months 2 months. Now for the real issue behind this system. It would have to have the caveat of it NOT being retroactive and I think that could cause a bit of a stir but one that can be dealt with. Next is implementation, due to the dynamic nature I am not sure how it would be done. I think a check would need to be made on load for every character of the number of SS, the date of last SS loss, and todays date then the calculation could be made. Another really good aspect of your proposal is that it would encourage the use of secondary PCs a lot.

IF <10 ss THEN
Refund = refund (refund being a flag that gets set to true when you have had a refund and false when you die)
-->IF Refund = false THEN
---->x = date of last SS loss (that is assuming the DB records that information)
---->days = 56
---->bdays = days between today and x
------>IF bdays > days THEN
-------->Add one SS
------>ELSE do nothing
-->ELSE do nothing
ELSE do nothing
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Script Wrecked on June 04, 2008, 10:37:40 AM
Quote from: Dorganath
The problem with a system whereby everyone gets the same number of deaths regardless will inevitably result in people building for AC and HPs, moreso than now even. The complaint then will become not the randomness, but that if someone goes for an RP build (which we would like to see, of course) over a "durable" build, then that person who chose RP is at a much larger disadvantage than they are now. Sure, RP builds are rarely durable, so even in our current system, they die more often, but at least now there's a pretty good chance they won't lose a Soul Strand.


Ah... So you're saying, because there is a chance that a build that is flawed for the RP value(1) might get lucky enough to compensate for the flaws, that people are more willing to play them.

Can't argue with that.

The only thing I would be concerned about for the RPers who follow that is the ones that end up further disadvantaged by the randomness, and perhaps become jaded by it. Of course, there are those RPers for whom this is an opportunity rather than a problem, but failing to realise the full potential of the RP you had in mind can be disheartening.

Quote from: Dorganath
And since we're not going to get rid of lag, random disconnections or people logging in with 50 lion bags filled with CNR...ever...a system of "X deaths until you're done" is no more "fair" than a randomized one, since there will still be deaths that get attributed to these things, and they will be unfair, potentially moreso, since there's no random chance that it won't count toward your allotment. Every death, IC or OOC, will subtract that number, whether it's your fault or that guy logging in with 50 bags of CNR.


Randomness in the death system does not compensate for the randomness of lag, random disconnections or people logging in with bags of CNR.

Quote from: Dorganath
The OOC intent is to maintain a respect for character death and enforce the idea that actions may have consequences, and ill-advised actions often have worse consequences.


Respect for character death is realised by having a permadeath system.

Rather than the idea that actions may have consequences, would it have more value to enforce the idea that actions will have consequences?

Quote from: Dorganath
Also, there's the idea of encouraging RP over a bashing race up in levels.  As for IC  intent, some of that I can't get into, so I'll leave it with the OOC for the time being.


I think the idea of encouraging RP over a bashing race-up in levels is realised by the permadeath system, not the randomness thereof.

Regards,

Script Wrecked.



(1) Not saying that non-flawed builds don't have just as much RP value as flawed builds.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Dorganath on June 04, 2008, 11:13:20 AM
I'm not suggesting that randomness "realizes" anything in the system, nor does it fully compensate for OOC losses.  However, if you had a choice of a system that you knew would cause a loss of your mortality (i.e. ticking down the total death counter) even in OOC cases like extreme and sudden lag or one where you stand a better chance of not being penalized for events beyond your (or our in most cases) control, which would you rather have?

But you see, it's a complex issue.  If you're going to have permadeath (which we have and will keep), then you need to have a system that will move that process along.  For every suggestion, and indeed for the current system, there are advantages and disadvantages.  Everyone will have their opinion as to what is "better", and this is one of those things where no solution we devise will make everyone happy.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Makashi on June 04, 2008, 11:38:26 AM
I'm just going to jump in with my opinion, and I don't really want to hear any direct feedback to myself about it, because no matter whats said - the DT system does consider many things, but what I find the biggest issue with it, it destroys RP in a lot of situations (completely opposite to what some have said here), and can take enjoyment away.

I've been on many trips where RP has taken a turn for the worse when some one gets a DT, a number of things can happen. Usually a flurry of tells explaining why the death occured, then onto the number of Soulstrands lost etc etc.

After the loss of a SS, usually there is a gigantic mood swing in most players RP, some say it's purely IC, others, I quote 'i hate seeing players lose strands undeservingly' - which is probably the most common way we all lose them, mainly from techinical problems/internet etc. And I've seen a happy party that I enjoyed travelling, go mute, probably through speaking to eachother in tells and sympathising with the poor fellow.

When you've had friends quit due to getting their ninth or tenth DT, takes a lot of that enjoyment away, I'm not the only person that this has happened to, so I hope some you can atleast share my opinion on this, I've ended up taking long breaks due to it, unsure of whether or not I'll have the same experience I used to get from the world.

There are other systems that do work far, far better from both RP and enjoyment perspectives. - others I can promise you will disagree with me on this point, and you may yourself.

But the current system, well let me phrase it this way. If there wasn't a problem with the way things are, then this thread wouldn't be here.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: DMOE on June 04, 2008, 01:09:42 PM
Quote from: Makashi

But the current system, well let me phrase it this way. If there wasn't a problem with the way things are, then this thread wouldn't be here.

And yet, I've played here for well over two years and the only time anyone has seemed to have serious problems with the DT system has been since the new project and the fact NWN Layo will be ending was announced....

So I ask, has it always been a problem or is it simply a problem now the end is in sight so to speak?

And if it is simply because the end is in sight, why?

I think these are important questions....

I personally don't want the DT system to change, nor do I think it should be relaxed because the end is in sight for NWN Layo, I personally think that changes such as that just because it will be ending will cheapen all it has been before.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Lynn1020 on June 04, 2008, 01:50:10 PM
I don't think the end of this version of Layo really has anything to do with it. Other than some may not want to start over with a new character this late. But I'm sure if we go back and search the forums we will find post on the same discussion's.

I personally don't see how maybe finding improvements in the system will cheapen Layo. Helping those that have taken the time to develop their character for the last few years to hang on to them a bit longer is cheapen it?  I don't thinks so.  Most of those that seem to disagree with the system doesn't want to see it go away.  Its more about the fairness of the system and just looking for ways to improve it.

It is pretty clear that the system isn't changing.  We have been told to pretty much suck it up and deal with it.  But this discussion may give ideas for the future in the new version.

We could get into the discussion on things that have "cheapen" Layo but that would be a total different thread. ;)
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: jrizz on June 04, 2008, 02:11:37 PM
Hello all,
I really feel like this thread in going in a good direction with the feedback and proposals from Stragen, DarkStorme, and myself. I would really lie it if we can keep going on looking proposals. We have gone back and forth about the current system and why some people love it and some people hate it. Lets park that issue for now and focus on the proposals. All of which I might add still have permadeath as part of them.

If you would like to continue the discussion on loving or hating the current system that perhaps someone should post a poll to see how the community is split. I am sure there are a lot of polls that could come out of that line of thinking. So to keep this thread on proposals I have started and new thread called "the current death system good or not good" here:

http://forums.layonara.com/general-discussion/184472-current-death-system-good-not-good.html#post974152
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Dorganath on June 04, 2008, 02:52:43 PM
I think there's just as much room in this or another discussion thread to hear not only proposals for change but reasons for keeping things as they are or making only minor adjustments.  Both sides are equally valid.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: DMOE on June 04, 2008, 02:56:09 PM
I was referring to relaxing the system just because NWN Layo is ending when I mentioned cheapening....

Personally....I think to relax it just because NWN Layo is going to end actually would cheapen it for all those who have permed previously....That's just my humble opinion of course....

And yes, there have been occasional posts regarding the DT system....But none to the degree that I have seen since it was announced NWN Layo would be ending....Hence why I said  it seems people only have serious problems with it since the announcement....Not that no one ever has.


You know...just once, just for once it would be nice to have a personal opinion that wasn't fluffy and cuddly without being made to feel like a criminal for it or having it nitpicked out of context.....

Yes, it's not a popular opinion, but nor was it rude or confrontational....

On another note....I do think it is totally unreasonable to ask people to only post positive opinions in a thread, especially...straight after the first non, fluffy, disagrees with you post
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: jrizz on June 04, 2008, 03:07:03 PM
Quote from: Dorganath
I think there's just as much room in this or another discussion thread to hear not only proposals for change but reasons for keeping things as they are or making only minor adjustments.  Both sides are equally valid.


But not focused and can throw a lot of FUD into either topic.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Dorganath on June 04, 2008, 03:11:06 PM
Respectfully, only discussing one side of things is not a discussion, it's a pep rally. :)  

Using terms like "hopelessness" contributes to FUD as well. ;)

I'm suggesting an open, and respectful, discussion of all points, not just those in favor of overhauling the system.

It's only a suggestion, and I'm surely not trying to control the discussion...I just don't agree with limiting the talking points to just those in favor of change.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: jrizz on June 04, 2008, 03:12:14 PM
Quote from: DMOE
I was referring to relaxing the system just because NWN Layo is ending when I mentioned cheapening....

Personally....I think to relax it just because NWN Layo is going to end actually would cheapen it for all those who have permed previously....That's just my humble opinion of course....

And yes, there have been occasional posts regarding the DT system....But none to the degree that I have seen since it was announced NWN Layo would be ending....Hence why I said  it seems people only have serious problems with it since the announcement....Not that no one ever has.


You know...just once, just for once it would be nice to have a personal opinion that wasn't fluffy and cuddly without being made to feel like a criminal for it or having it nitpicked out of context.....

Yes, it's not a popular opinion, but nor was it rude or confrontational....

On another note....I do think it is totally unreasonable to ask people to only post positive opinions in a thread, especially...straight after the first non, fluffy, disagrees with you post


I am sorry if it came out that way. What I meant to say was that this thread has evolved into a discussion on what can be done if a change would take place to keep the flavor that we have and yet improve on the current system. It is understood that some will say "no change needed" and that is fine. But if there was to be a change what would you like to see? How would it need to form so as not to lose the important aspects of a permadeath system? Would love to hear your thoughts on that.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: jrizz on June 04, 2008, 03:15:52 PM
Quote from: Dorganath
Respectfully, only discussing one side of things is not a discussion, it's a pep rally. :)  

Using terms like "hopelessness" contributes to FUD as well. ;)

I'm suggesting an open, and respectful, discussion of all points, not just those in favor of overhauling the system.

It's only a suggestion, and I'm surely not trying to control the discussion...I just don't agree with limiting the talking points to just those in favor of change.


OK point taken but it is hard to discuss proposals of how something can change at the same time as if something should change. That is why I suggested the split so that one discussion could be about the if and another about the how. How do you think we can stay focused on the subjects?
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: jrizz on June 04, 2008, 03:31:49 PM
@Dorg you also bring up a very good point about my use of terms. And I have said in an earlier post that I will try to stay away from using emotional memes in my proposals. In PnP there was a set number of deaths system but there was also ways to increase that number. We have a set number of SS that get lost randomly on a death event but we dont have a way to increase that number.

So that brings us back to the ideas at hand. How do you view the three proposals we currently have on the table? Do you have another proposal? Well really I should say in all fairness four proposals since one of them is the no change needed proposal.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Dorganath on June 04, 2008, 03:34:36 PM
Well "if" and "how" can remain separate questions, even though they are quite related.  In whatever discussion/discussions come about though, both sides should be included.

Further, it would probably facilitate things if there was less debate and more proposal.  Don't spend so much time on the problems of one vs. the other (or the proposals of others) but rather focus on stating one's preference and justifying why that is superior based on its own merits.

That would be my suggestion, but I have no desire or time to mediate this overall discussion, so feel free to disagree with me.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: jrizz on June 04, 2008, 03:39:06 PM
Great suggestion. Thank you.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: jrizz on June 04, 2008, 03:52:18 PM
I prefer either DarkStorme's or my own proposal. I feel they both are improvements over the current system in that they add something the system needs (as I see it) without taking away the attribute of permadeath.

As to my proposal I feel it is the best way to go since it keeps the number of SS finite and thus makes permadeath still a real thing. But it also gives a way and reason to keep playing your PCs as they have evolved even when they get to high SS loss counts. Furthermore it promotes better group play in a more spread out fashion. It also does away with the "only one SS left" syndrome and the "I will never see level x" syndrome even though both of those things will still be possible. PC's will still get to the only one SS left state and many will still not see level x but by giving a goal that can be reached to "make it" for a while longer PCs will be thinking to that point in the future instead.

To be fair I think DS's proposal also have many of the same aspects.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: EdTheKet on June 04, 2008, 05:50:38 PM
So....

I would like to see the following, as I am kind of lost now :)

______________
Proposal 1:
Pros:
1)
2)
3)
etc.

Cons:
1)
2)
3)
etc.


Proposal 2:
Pros:
1)
2)
3)
etc.

Cons:
1)
2)
3)
etc.

And so on, because I've lost the oversight (and I'm probably not the only one) :)

Thanks!
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Makashi on June 04, 2008, 06:25:51 PM
I miss the days of picking up my friends corpse, slugging it back to the nearest temple and waiting for a cleric to come along to help them.

I am sure almost every GM on this server has experienced a tell similar to this:
'I'm going to roll a strength check to carry the corpse' - Why is that so necessary when it can simply be overcome by a corpse being left in replace of a grave stone, and then actually have a weight, so if the PCs pack is light enough, they can carry the corpse, if not, well, it's a long walk back. (minor issue really, but it's happened on more than one quest, both running and taking part in them).

When a player died they would be sent into a limbo - on the server I played on i actually sometimes looked forward to dying to find out some information I was interested in, or hear information I didn't know etc. (and I was very, very suprised how little most of the information was metagamed)

Limbo was a big library of past goings on, stories, jokes, players accounts of events, even a place to sit and just relax :P - Anyway, it was something that made dying bearable, the information changed daily - and you got a new experience with most deaths.

I can recall one time where a person in our party died, we didn't need this person to go on, and didn't have a cleric to resurrect the corpse we now had. Knowing however they would be trapped in this place until some one decided to help, we took the corpse back to a town, and found a cleric to help us, who also ended up joining us, and then also became a good travelling partner for future trips - Death actually helped start RP, here my personal opinion is it doesn't offer an experience anywhere near, not even the same scale as that provided.
Take this situation into mind on layonara, a person in your group dies, but you don't need them and don't have a cleric - four out of five times that person would get left behind I imagine, maybe things would change knowing that the only way for that person to come back is in the hands of the group you left with.

The other option, if you were feeling desperate was to lose about half a level of exp and jump out of limbo, and also be unable to gain any exp for several hours, and lowered stats and a visual effect to show they were currently suffering - We called them plagued :) (a bit like the empty creature system we use)

I was about to write specifics about the system and how "DT" / "shard" losses occur but that will get complicated - but the system did have perma deaths, and they did happen, though rarely, and normally through quests.

*slaps hands on his knees standing* Well thats my trip down memory lane done! I'm not suggesting this as the answer to the current system, bringing it over to layo may not work - may cause too much work because of some of the things within it - and I really do not expect the community to respond to these changes in the same way. Thought I'd just share my personal favourite from the ones I've witnessed.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Lynn1020 on June 04, 2008, 06:28:21 PM
I was not saying or meant to come across that you did not have the right to your opinion.


Quote from: DMOE
I was referring to relaxing the system just because NWN Layo is ending when I mentioned cheapening....

Personally....I think to relax it just because NWN Layo is going to end actually would cheapen it for all those who have permed previously....That's just my humble opinion of course....

And yes, there have been occasional posts regarding the DT system....But none to the degree that I have seen since it was announced NWN Layo would be ending....Hence why I said  it seems people only have serious problems with it since the announcement....Not that no one ever has.


You know...just once, just for once it would be nice to have a personal opinion that wasn't fluffy and cuddly without being made to feel like a criminal for it or having it nitpicked out of context.....

Yes, it's not a popular opinion, but nor was it rude or confrontational....

On another note....I do think it is totally unreasonable to ask people to only post positive opinions in a thread, especially...straight after the first non, fluffy, disagrees with you post
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Lalaith Va'lash on June 04, 2008, 06:36:40 PM
Quote from: Makashi
I miss the days of picking up my friends corpse, slugging it back to the nearest temple and waiting for a cleric to come along to help them.

I am sure almost every GM on this server has experienced a tell similar to this:
'I'm going to roll a strength check to carry the corpse' - Why is that so necessary when it can simply be overcome by a corpse being left in replace of a grave stone, and then actually have a weight, so if the PCs pack is light enough, they can carry the corpse, if not, well, it's a long walk back. (minor issue really, but it's happened on more than one quest, both running and taking part in them).

When a player died they would be sent into a limbo - on the server I played on i actually sometimes looked forward to dying to find out some information I was interested in, or hear information I didn't know etc. (and I was very, very suprised how little most of the information was metagamed)

Limbo was a big library of past goings on, stories, jokes, players accounts of events, even a place to sit and just relax :P - Anyway, it was something that made dying bearable, the information changed daily - and you got a new experience with most deaths.

I can recall one time where a person in our party died, we didn't need this person to go on, and didn't have a cleric to resurrect the corpse we now had. Knowing however they would be trapped in this place until some one decided to help, we took the corpse back to a town, and found a cleric to help us, who also ended up joining us, and then also became a good travelling partner for future trips - Death actually helped start RP, here my personal opinion is it doesn't offer an experience anywhere near, not even the same scale as that provided.
Take this situation into mind on layonara, a person in your group dies, but you don't need them and don't have a cleric - four out of five times that person would get left behind I imagine, maybe things would change knowing that the only way for that person to come back is in the hands of the group you left with.

The other option, if you were feeling desperate was to lose about half a level of exp and jump out of limbo, and also be unable to gain any exp for several hours, and lowered stats and a visual effect to show they were currently suffering - We called them plagued :) (a bit like the empty creature system we use)

I was about to write specifics about the system and how "DT" / "shard" losses occur but that will get complicated - but the system did have perma deaths, and they did happen, though rarely, and normally through quests.

*slaps hands on his knees standing* Well thats my trip down memory lane done! I'm not suggesting this as the answer to the current system, bringing it over to layo may not work - may cause too much work because of some of the things within it - and I really do not expect the community to respond to these changes in the same way. Thought I'd just share my personal favourite from the ones I've witnessed.



I'm in agreement with this, honestly.  I loved the death system on the other server I played on.  We called it the nexus, or something instead of Limbo... but it was a similar idea.  The bodies also weighed a ton!

I think it was mentioned before about a system that only has a chance of SS loss on respawn?  If we had a system that you could carry the bodies to get them raised, and then you only had a % chance to lose a SS on respawn, I think that would be great. You keep the randomness factor, you keep permadeath.  And it makes sense IC to me that if its the strain of your soul being tethered to the bindstone that cuts a SS -- well, then it should be when you pull on the bindstone that it has a chance to cut.  Not when a cleric uses a piece of their soul or a soul stone to bring you back.

But, that is me :)

EDIT: On talking to Makashi about this a little bit, I also like to add to this the idea of a maximum time before force respawn -- like 6 hours.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: jrizz on June 04, 2008, 07:09:50 PM
Yo Ed here is my proposal for your viewing pleasure :) (Look up for community feedback)

Proposal: Soul strength grows with the PC.
At 4th level you get 4 SS then you earn 1 every 2 levels. That will be a total of 12 by 20th level. Keep SMD at 21st level, but make it 2 or 3 not 5 and have the earning go to one every three or four levels after 21. This method keeps the SS loss system as is and still keeps your PC afraid of death. Also this method shows that the PC grows in soul strength as she gains in experience instead of getting weaker in soul. I feel it is the best way to go since it keeps the number of SS finite and thus makes permadeath still a real thing. But it also gives a way and reason to keep playing your PCs as they have evolved even when they get to high SS loss counts. Furthermore it promotes better group play in a more spread out fashion. It also does away with the "only one SS left" syndrome and the "I will never see level x" syndrome even though both of those things will still be possible. PC's will still get to the only one SS left state and many will still not see level x but by giving a goal that can be reached to "make it" for a while longer PCs will be thinking to that point in the future instead.

Pros
1. Keeps the SS loss system as is and still keeps your PC afraid of death.
2. Keeps the number of SS finite and thus makes permadeath still a real thing
3. Does away with the "only one SS left" syndrome and the "I will never see level x" syndrome
4. Gives a goal that can be reached to "make it" for a while longer

Cons

1. Permadeath is still part of it and thus will result in some unhappy people
2. Will take reconciliation and equalization in a sweeping event.
3. Will need to be implemented.

NOTE: With such a system in place I (like DS) suggest that the SS refund system go away and the only refunds allowed will be ones that happen on GM quests (at the discretion of the GM of course).
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Gulnyr on June 04, 2008, 07:42:46 PM
Quote from: Lalaith Va'lash
I think it was mentioned before about a system that only has a chance of SS loss on respawn?  If we had a system that you could carry the bodies to get them raised, and then you only had a % chance to lose a SS on respawn, I think that would be great. You keep the randomness factor, you keep permadeath.  And it makes sense IC to me that if its the strain of your soul being tethered to the bindstone that cuts a SS -- well, then it should be when you pull on the bindstone that it has a chance to cut.  Not when a cleric uses a piece of their soul or a soul stone to bring you back.


First, to the bold part, it is my understanding of what has been said that it is the death of a person that causes strands to be cut, and not anything directly related to the bindstones.  It's the strain of dying that breaks the strands, not the strain of bindstone resurrection.  Everyone, bound or not, has ten (or fifteen for the SMD crowd) soul strands holding their souls to their bodies.  Anyone, bound or not, who dies may or may not lose a strand, but his soul goes flying off.  The bindstones are some sort of magical catcher's mitt sewing machines that keep the soul of a bound person nearby and allow the soul to reattach itself to however many soul strands are left dangling from the person's body, if the soul so chooses.  That's why nothing can be done when all the strands are cut; there's nothing for the soul to hold onto to stay with the body.  It's also why unbound NPCs (or PCs, even) can still be raised; there's somewhere for the soul to reattach itself, usually.

Second, I think this is the most recent thread (http://forums.layonara.com/nwn-ideas-suggestions-requests/116297-movable-corpses.html) about such a body-hauling system, and it includes links to other discussions about it, just in case anyone would like to check out ups and downs previously discussed.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Dorganath on June 04, 2008, 08:29:11 PM
Correct.  It's the strain of death that causes the strand loss, not the bindstone.  The bindstone allows a person to return to life on their own without being raised or resurrected by a cleric.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Drizzlin on June 04, 2008, 09:43:19 PM
Quote from: DMOE
And yet, I've played here for well over two years and the only time anyone has seemed to have serious problems with the DT system has been since the new project and the fact NWN Layo will be ending was announced....

So I ask, has it always been a problem or is it simply a problem now the end is in sight so to speak?

And if it is simply because the end is in sight, why?

I think these are important questions....

I personally don't want the DT system to change, nor do I think it should be relaxed because the end is in sight for NWN Layo, I personally think that changes such as that just because it will be ending will cheapen all it has been before.


I have been on this server since 2003. This is not the first time DT issues have come up, nor have they only come up because of the announcement of the end of layo.

In fact some of the discussions helped bring changes to the system IMO. At least we don't loose a ton of xps along with a DT when we die now.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Crunch on June 04, 2008, 10:05:07 PM
I think a lot of what has driven the rise in Perma Death or folks at 9 DT's was when the team lifted the requirement for WL status to advance beyond level 20.  Before that, if you were high teens or 20 and didn't expect to be approved for WL, xp was relatively meaningless.

There have also been a lot of very challenging new areas added since that time.  If you want to explore those areas, especially if you want to be amongst the first to explore them, you are taking an unknown risk with each spawn you trigger that you may have gone a bit too far for your parties abilities.  I suspect total party wipes are more common now than they were 2 or 3 years ago.  A total party wipe of 20th level characters is quite likely to result in at least one dt.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: jrizz on June 05, 2008, 02:53:05 PM
@crunch Yes indeed! what you are saying is that there has been some significant changes to the world and other parts of the layo system (opening of epic levels to non-WLs). But there has not been a change in the death system to balance out those other changes.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Gulnyr on June 05, 2008, 05:19:33 PM
I disagree with that interpretation.  I don't doubt that more characters at higher levels leads to more chances at strand loss and permadeath across the board, but I don't believe any areas were built or changes were made as if no one took any consideration of the various systems potentially affected in the rest of the world.  The difficulty of an area has nothing directly to do with the functioning or intent of the death system, anyway.  Strand loss is directly related to level, though, so a higher level character will, on average, lose more strands than a lower level character given an equal number of deaths each.  The more epics and near-epics there are, the more characters will start perming.  It's not so much that the world has changed but that the average levels and ages of the characters has.

Also, as a personal opinion, I think unknown risk is part of the fun.  That's what adventuring is all about.  Aren't the mining trips that much more fun when a DM drops in to spice things up?  Aren't trips to places we've never seen on Belinara exciting?  Of course!  That's because there's something new happening, something different and potentially deadly, rather than the same old spawns in the same old places that we've all memorized.  Newness of an area, whether new to everyone or new only to the players currently visiting, is not a flaw.  Sure, there may be something odd in some spawn that was unintended, but some places are just plain tough.  And if it does happen to be too much, intended or not, well... *shrug* Live by the sword, die by the sword.  Welcome to the world of adventuring.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: lonnarin on June 05, 2008, 05:42:25 PM
It does seem strange to me that the more powerful somebody is, the more likely they are to suffer damage to their soul. Then you can wind up with strange conundrums like the 40 year old 30th level fighter being 3x more likely to lose a strand than the 80 year old 10th level mage.  Logically, the untrained geezer should stand a greater chance to die for good than the elite youngster.  Currently, the better trained one becomes, the less powerful their grip on their soul grows.

I like the previous suggestions where one could earn some of their strands as they level, as it would both reinforce cautious play and would let souls potentially grow in power.  Foolhardy young adventurers should be more likely to stay down after killed than an epic.  How the system is now, it almost seems to be increasingly punitive to those who succeed.  When you hit 30th and you lose a strand around a third of the time, it sort of indicates that your soul is weaker than the wee 5th level newcomer who only loses a strand 1/20th of the time.

Of course how much of this raise in soultax is purely game mechanics, vs how much of it is the fine print of the Soul Mother's bindstone contract is unknown to me.  It could very well be that Soul Mother has put some kind of interest on the appreciating value of her services as the risk variables increase according to the higher level adventurer's activities.  She could be very well like one of those angry collections agents that add extra fees due to nonpayment of soul in her deathly insurance schemes.  She could view those higher level characters as more high-risk investments in much the same way car insurance rates go up if you get tickets for drag racing.  The more you risk, the higher her rates become.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Acacea on June 05, 2008, 07:13:36 PM
As far as I know, it is not the strength or weakness of the soul, but how likely it is that it will be taken. If anything, it is actually the more powerful of souls that have been written as the most attractive. Whether or not that has changed, I don't know, but at least in the past (and present?) it is the weakest that are least likely to have strands cut and taken at death, and the most powerful that draw attention. In the end, what good does power do you when you are dead? You can't resist the Soul Mother, really...

(Edit to add proper amount of uncertainty.)
[/SIZE]
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: lonnarin on June 05, 2008, 07:26:26 PM
Ah true!  Reading that Lore about how the soul has to travel to the afterlife, I could imagine that the power of the soul would make all nefarious beings trying to consume it look on it as more tastey.  Every time somebody loses a strand, they could have been essentially drafted in alternating rounds the way the NFL and NBA drafts player.  The Baatezu Confederation chooses Rufus, The Celestial Hierchy picks Athus, the Slaadi want Farros, etc.

Also there is the factor of the gods, who certainly want to devour your soul power or use yous as a divine eternal servant as well.  Vorax needs new warriors around his Keep!  Corath needs to eat souls to stay in power, etc.  So there might be some arrangement between they and the Soul Mother, the latter being mostly a neutral administrator agreed on by all to be fair in distribution.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Acacea on June 05, 2008, 07:36:13 PM
Though, that argument also brings up the answer of, "Besides, maybe the strain is greater after you have died so many times, adding to the higher chances for high levels," which would have been a flawed argument since high level != high death count. So shooting down my own argument made me wonder if perhaps a sort of compromise between "power" and "deaths" would work.

Like... yeah, a level 30 who has never died will have a higher chance of losing a strand on death compared to a level 10 who has never died. However, a level 10 who has died over three hundred times might very well be getting himself up there on those chances. It might offer a compromise between "power is attractive" and "the more deaths, the higher chance" in order to not have staggering odds at high levels by virtue of being high level...and to at the same time add a little bit of weight in favor of the cautious, regardless of level. Just a random thought...
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Stephen_Zuckerman on June 05, 2008, 08:11:17 PM
Maybe an additional percent for each ten deaths? Or any X number of deaths that seems reasonable.

Though, wow. Pyyran would be toast. xD
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: jrizz on June 05, 2008, 10:25:31 PM
Quote from: lonnarin
Ah true!  Reading that Lore about how the soul has to travel to the afterlife, I could imagine that the power of the soul would make all nefarious beings trying to consume it look on it as more tastey.  


If this where the case we would have more perms happening to epics then un-epics.

And that is not the case.

The real story is that souls seem to be perfectly ripe and the most yummy  when a PC is between 18 and 20 levels
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Acacea on June 05, 2008, 10:33:38 PM
Who have lower DCs than the higher levels...and it was the DC being referred to. I don't think anyone was quoting how many people of any level range permed... just their chances of losing a strand.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: jrizz on June 05, 2008, 10:56:07 PM
Yeah Lonn you would think that since we already have the precedent of gaining  greater resistance (SMD) to the soul mother that it would make sense that as a PC grows in power it learns to resist the SM better and not just some weird one shot thing but a continuous strengthening.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Gulnyr on June 06, 2008, 10:38:20 AM
All feats are, technically, "weird one shot things."  Most of them can be seen as something learned over time, though some could be things that just happen, if you look at them just right.  Also, besides the fluff text saying so, there really isn't any difference between an epic character and a 'normal' one.  Plus, there is not always any particular reason that some feats are only obtainable in epic levels.

Think of Armor Skin.  Does an epic character just wake up one day with rock-hard skin?  Maybe, but it's also possible (and perhaps preferred from an RP perspective in most cases) that the character has simply gotten tougher over time, either through intentional training or just as the result of getting beaten up so often.  There doesn't seem to be any particular reason it's an epic feat, since it doesn't seem all that powerful and could have more requirements added to make it available at lower levels; that's the trade-off, though.  It's epic by design choice, allowing anyone to take it just by having a high enough level without need for a high Constitution or whatever.

SMD is the same way.  When you look at the stats, the extra five soul strands do indeed just pop in from nowhere.  Looking at the RP, though, it could be seen as a conscious, continual strengthening of the soul (or the soul's affinity for the body, more correctly) over time that only bears fruit when the feat becomes available and is selected, just like with Armor Skin.  SMD has no prerequisites except epic level, so it would need some prerequisites to be a normal feat, adding a proper cost for the value.  Making it epic is similar to making Armor Skin epic, in that anyone can take it regardless of stats or previous feats just by virtue of making 21st level.  That's the current cost, which I understand seems too much to some, but balance has to be considered.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: jrizz on June 08, 2008, 11:02:58 AM
ah I see. Well then what do you think of the current proposals? or do you have one that should be looked at?
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Gulnyr on June 08, 2008, 01:28:21 PM
I don't think there is any particular flaw with the current system.  It's unfortunate that things like lag can lead to soul strand loss, but that isn't a problem with the death system as much as a problem with NWN and Internet technology in general.  The dispute process is not perfect, but no system will be.  

I think it is not in accordance with established lore to say that souls should be getting stronger or weaker in any way because of anything involving soul strands.  Soul strands are not part of the soul itself, the way I understand it, but some sort of means of holding the soul and body together.  When a character loses a soul strand, the soul hasn't lost any pieces and hasn't gotten weaker; there are simply fewer strands available to hold the soul to the body.  SMD is not a strengthening of the soul but strengthening of the bind between soul and body.  Systems based on strengthening of the soul over time don't fit the world.

I think the use of the bindstones at all is a boon and there isn't any particular reason to try to milk more positives from it.  Ten strands minimum is a pretty hefty amount.  For years, there were only one or two characters to perm.  It is only because there are more characters at levels with a higher chance of losing strands that there are more characters permanently dying now.  The system didn't change or break.

I think random rolls for loss are as fair as it gets.  It isn't unfair that some characters rack up the loses early on while others go death after death without losing any; that's just the luck of the draw.  Trying to base the system on number of deaths, for example, could bias it for or against certain classes, roles, or alignments.  That would be unfair.  There are already enough complaints about class balance as it is.

I don't have a suggestion for a new system as I think the current system is satisfactory.  Imperfect, but satisfactory.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Stephen_Zuckerman on June 08, 2008, 01:33:39 PM
If there were a corpse-movement system in place, I think, perhaps, that having SS loss only trigger on respawn would be a fair change, that wouldn't really cheapen death. It would make Raise Dead and Resurrect all the more important, though, and give added reason to bring along a Cleric, or buy some scrolls.

More partying, more RP, more fun.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Gulnyr on June 08, 2008, 01:51:18 PM
Aren't there enough reasons to bring a Cleric?  That's just the impression I get, especially considering player events that specifically say the trip is off if no Cleric shows.

I can't help imagining players with characters near perming leaving the character dead until they can find another player with a Cleric to log in and go raise the rotting corpse.  You can take that as an insult if you like, but it's obvious there are a lot of strong emotions regarding our characters and their permanent demise so it doesn't seem a stretch to imagine people falling to the temptation.  I don't think introducing such a temptation to the system is a good idea.  Death should be the strain that breaks the strands, not bindstone resurrection.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Stephen_Zuckerman on June 08, 2008, 02:07:07 PM
There are loads of reasons to bring a cleric, at every level, but... Can't they have the player wait around, "Wait For Help"ing until a Cleric shows up, even now?

Introducing a system that eats an SS (or simply kills you outright) after three in-game days would also help to quell this - and it would fit with the lore.

I am more of the opinion that the creation/teleportation of the body and gear, then the drawing down of the soul (and slamming it into that body) is more what causes the strain, rather than simply the death itself.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Lalaith Va'lash on June 08, 2008, 02:14:19 PM
On one hand while I agree with you, the system is another means for "group" play.  A raise dead scroll, in these cases, is just as good as a cleric. Anybody can use the scroll, so as long as your not alone....  

And a timer on forced respawn (if not raised in XYZ amount of time, you respawn) is a good way to deter the "leaving of corpses until rotten"  Additionally, maybe a system that causes you to respawn if you log out while dead?  That way the player cannot just go wait until they meta game a cleric of their whereabouts.

While the obvious Con to this system is that there can be some metagaming of clerics, it is limited if there is a timer on the respawn.

Other pro's of the system are the roleplay aspect (yes, bringing a dead body through town can create some nice RP, creating a system where group play is encouraged, and eliminating *most* of the grievances based on lag deaths ect, since with a well equipped party if a member survives you can be raised.)

Total party deaths, Soloing, and the unprepared would still be pretty much forced to respawn., but it puts a little more control into the players hands.

The other major con is that it does not -quite- fit with the lore of the world as Dorg explained a few posts back... (The strain is on death, not respawn) but perhaps the ideas have some merit nonetheless.

I don't think there is a system that is perfect.  But thats why we are all chatting about it in the first place :p

EDIT: SZ beat me to it.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Hellblazer on June 08, 2008, 02:39:59 PM
I do believe that if the ss was rolled only on respawn, then the risk of getting a ss due to lag would be greatly diminished. We have seen in the past a few retcon go into the lore and general history of the world. This one could also be one. It would help alleviate the dispute process, promote rp and parties, and also help with the general sentiment that a bad death can bring due to technical difficulties.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Gulnyr on June 08, 2008, 02:47:48 PM
Sure it can happen now that a character waits around to be raised, but there's not point right now (DM'd quests excepted); strands are lost at death, not at respawn.  If they were lost at respawn, there would be a point to waiting longer than necessary.  

Three days is a long time to wait dead.  I think a couple of hours is a long time.  That's plenty of time to find someone to trek out for a raise.  

Enabling windowed mode and Alt-Entering out of the game allows access to the forums and IRC without logging out.  

Maybe it's a great idea, but we seem to be in agreement it doesn't fit the current lore.  Systems that maintain the world rather than bend or break it will always tend to win in my book.  And I am not saying people would metagame it, but it wouldn't be hard to do and the temptation would be great.  I cannot honestly say that I wouldn't try to get a raise if Jennara were on her last strand.  I like to think I wouldn't, but I really don't know.  I'd have to be there to test myself.  

As to the RP aspect, there have been other posts in this thread about the system breaking the mood, and there have been discussions of the RP benefits of body-hauling.  But I say that RP is not caused by the system but by the players.  We make the RP happen, the background systems just help guide us, or not, as we permit.  If we want good RP, we have to bring it ourselves.  The game won't deliver it for us.  The RP is what we make of it.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Stephen_Zuckerman on June 08, 2008, 02:48:49 PM
Ah, I see the post from Dorg now about the strain being on death, rather than respawn... However.

Are the Raise and Res spells not -specifically designed- to ease the strain of coming back from the dead?

Perhaps there could still be a chance of losing an SS - even a significant one. However, perhaps that roll should be made when the person is being brought back to life... Hear me out.

Let's say John Adventurer dies. Yeah, that's rough. Being brought back - wow. That's rough, too. However. John has one SS left; it's all in the dice, now. Now, if John was out on his own, he'd be forced to respawn, as there's noone to come and raise him. Sure, he could wait a few minutes, to see if anyone came along, but... Tick, tock. If he waits too long, the curtain falls.

But let's say, lucky John, he's out with his adventuring buddies. Now, he's level 20, not too bad... Meaning that, on a normal respawn, he has a 20% chance to lose an SS. However, he gets killed, ouch... And Jane the Priestess is here to raise him.

Perhaps she doesn't have Resurrect prepared. So, Raise Dead - and John rolls a 10% chance to, lose a Soul Strand, and, in this case, perm.

Or perhaps she does! Instead of half the chance, a quarter... 5%.

Now, maybe John's lucky, and he gets out of this intact(ish).

But what if he's not?

Perhaps John chooses to Respawn, and finds out... Oh, dear... That he rolled too low. Wherever his body-item is, the Perm animation triggers, the body-item disappears, and John is gone.

Perhaps he's raised by a spell... But, aw rats, when Jane tries to call his soul back from the ether, it slips away - the final Strand which she could have used to pull him back, snaps. The animation triggers, the body-item disappears, and John is very, very dead.

Does any of this make sense, and seem reasonable?

Edit: The "three days" I mentioned were in-game days - amounting to a couple of hours, and fitting with the lore about characters whose souls are not claimed by a deity being eaten.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Lalaith Va'lash on June 08, 2008, 03:51:46 PM
Quote
Maybe it's a great idea, but we seem to be in agreement it doesn't fit the current lore. Systems that maintain the world rather than bend or break it will always tend to win in my book.


In my book, nothing break immersion worse than an OOC event (lag, disconnection, ect.) causing the loss of a SS.   If bending the lore a little allows for a system can alleviate some of that stress, then I think its worth a look.

20-30% loss of a SS on every death when your with a prepared group and those ooc things creep up?  Ouch.

I'd be behind the current system 100% if it was purely IC.  But I do not think it ever can be.  I guess I'm aware that this is more a product of NWN ect.  than something that can be fixed.  But being with a prepared group, in a known danger, and having your network go down to lose a SS, well, it stings.

At least in the suggested system if that happens with your prepared group, then there is less of a chance of that bite.  I actually like SZ's last suggestion too.  Now we are thinking ;)

(As a final note somewhat unrelated note - if you still want to make death scary, it could have an XP loss even if you are raised for every death. *Hides* I could bare those happening for OOC reasons - but not permanent loss for OOC reasons. - big difference is that one of them you can get back on your own... the other is gone for good)
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: EdTheKet on June 08, 2008, 05:58:07 PM
Quote
Soul strands are not part of the soul itself, the way I understand it, but some sort of means of holding the soul and body together.

Correct.

Quote
When a character loses a soul strand, the soul hasn't lost any pieces and hasn't gotten weaker; there are simply fewer strands available to hold the soul to the body.

Correct.

Quote
SMD is not a strengthening of the soul but strengthening of the bind between soul and body.


Correct!
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: lonnarin on June 08, 2008, 06:19:48 PM
I love Stephen's Idea.  What if the Soul Mother roll happened only after the *respawn* and not the death?  If it is the bindstone's use that causes a soul to risk losing a strand, then why does one still risk them when a cleric raises somebody from death?  The character doesn't owe the SOul Mother for that, he owes the cleric and his god who raised him.

The pros: would be that clerics would be much more useful since they could effectively save people not only from death, but from the soul mother herself.  They could charge an arm and a leg to people who were on their last few strands, and there would routinely be survivors running back to cities and towns calling for priests to help them, instead of everybody taking the "bindstone express".  People would stay dead as a corpse form longer, hoping to be raised, vs just running back to town and sitting there "reflecting on their death" all the time.  People would take EXTRA care to keep their clerics safe, and those with few strands left wouldn't be likely to leave the house without a cleric handy.

The negative: would be that there might be some meta-homing beacons at work where tells are sent and the cleric in town "senses a disturbance in the force".

I don't know, it just makes sense to me that if you don't use the bindstone in a given death, that you aren't subject to its taxes.  If I avoid the toll road and drive inner-city, it might take longer but I don't have to pay the toll.

This would also fix any bugs where people are dead, and they lose a soul strand, the server crashes, they log back in and they die again to lose another soul strand.  In this method, people who died again on login would only risk the soulstrand loss to the bug once they hit the respawn button.  The death itself isn't what gets taxed, but using the bindstone to let your soul travel to safety and avoid the soul mother.  If somebody else does that for you, you shouldn't owe her for that.

And keep the XP-loss keyed to the number of deaths in the allotted time, so it's not just a case of weakling following around a raising cleric for XP.  If you need to be risen 3 times an hour, then you really haven't been learning much battle tactics other than the proper death screams.  that system already in place would prevent a raising system from being abused.  Large parties in areas they really shouldn't be would start losing more xp than they were gaining and head back, even if their cleric was safe.

As it stands now, I have a cleric who really doesn't bother memorizing raise dead, since if anybody dies, it's not that much difference to him to let them respawn and have them run back to their grave invisibly... which breaks immersions and cheapens the powerful nature of the spell.  Most people just respawn and sneak back to the gravestone marker because its faster than letting the cleric rest and re-memorize/pray anyhow.  But if respawning ran the risk of the stone loss, you'd better believe that MANY fallen adventurers with a cleric in the party would at least stay down long enough for the cleric to take a look at them with the eye for the soul.

How many clerics here have sent somebody a tell that says "aw, I could have raised you."  and gotten a repsonse along the lines of "I can get the stone myself, brb", or "That's ok, after that DT, I might as well call it quits for tonight anyway"?
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: jrizz on June 08, 2008, 07:21:31 PM
Quote
Soul strands are not part of the soul itself, the way I understand it, but some sort of means of holding the soul and body together.

Correct.

Quote
When a character loses a soul strand, the soul hasn't lost any pieces and hasn't gotten weaker; there are simply fewer strands available to hold the soul to the body.

Correct.

Quote
SMD is not a strengthening of the soul but strengthening of the bind between soul and body.


Correct!

LOL ok ok so the soul does not get weaker. The bond that hold the soul to the mortal shell gets weaker. Now my proposal is:

Proposal: The bond that holds the soul in it mortal shell grows stronger with the PC.
At 4th level you get 4 SS then you earn 1 every 2 levels. That will be a total of 12 by 20th level. Keep SMD at 21st level, but make it 2 or 3 not 5 and have the earning go to one every three or four levels after 21. This method keeps the SS loss system as is and still keeps your PC afraid of death. Also this method shows that the PCs bond to it soul grows in strength as she gains in experience instead of getting weaker. I feel it is the best way to go since it keeps the number of SS finite and thus makes permadeath still a real thing. But it also gives a way and reason to keep playing your PCs as they have evolved even when they get to high SS loss counts. Furthermore it promotes better group play in a more spread out fashion. It also does away with the "only one SS left" syndrome and the "I will never see level x" syndrome even though both of those things will still be possible. PC's will still get to the only one SS left state and many will still not see level x but by giving a goal that can be reached to "make it" for a while longer PCs will be thinking to that point in the future instead.

Pros
1. Keeps the SS loss system as is and still keeps your PC afraid of death.
2. Keeps the number of SS finite and thus makes permadeath still a real thing
3. Does away with the "only one SS left" syndrome and the "I will never see level x" syndrome
4. Gives a goal that can be reached to "make it" for a while longer

Cons

1. Permadeath is still part of it and thus will result in some unhappy people
2. Will take reconciliation and equalization in a sweeping event.
3. Will need to be implemented.

I also like the carry type system. It can also be done without the carry part. Here are my thoughts on it:

2. Death means loss of play time.
In this method when you die and respawn you go right to the eye of the storm and you cannot enter the world again for 24 hours (could make it 30 so that it would really mean missing a lot) RT. With that there is no chance of SS loss. If you chose to wait for a RD or R spell then you risk the loss of a SS (resurrect would have the current % chance and RD would have some modifier so that the risk was higher). This way you would have to let your party know before setting out if you wish to be "helped" by a cleric if you die.
__________________
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Gulnyr on June 08, 2008, 07:32:53 PM
To clarify my position, I'm not at all opposed to a system that reduces the losses from lag and other OOC causes.  That would be great.  I do think altering established lore, for that purpose or any other, is not something to be taken lightly.

More importantly, I remember things - nice things, things that were far less important than soul strand loss - that have been removed from Layonara because they were abused and exploited by a few.  I don't want to be negative, but it is unrealistic to believe that a few would not exploit the system to avoid any strand loss if things were changed to have the chance only occur on respawn.  If a few cause the team to remove emotes at the crafting tables because they were unfairly exploiting the delay to save CNR, how much sooner should and would a soul strand avoidance exploit be yanked out?  

EDIT:  I didn't specifically cover the drop in chance from Raise Dead or Resurrect because the basis was covered in not changing established lore lightly; since death is the cause of the strain, it doesn't currently matter how the soul and body are reconnected.  I do think such a reduced cost system is more biased than the current system, favoring players in high-traffic time zones over low-traffic time zones and wealthy characters over the poor and/or generous ones (you can't buy a scroll if you don't have any money).  I know it can be argued that everyone is wealthy, but that isn't exactly the truth.  To a lesser extent, it also disadvanatges characters of certain faiths who have fewer friendly and allied Clerics to do the raising.  It seems unfair to punish players with characters of certain faiths because there are few (or no) Clerics on good terms with their god.  :END EDIT

But I'm not the boss.  If things change in that direction, they do.  I wouldn't like it, but not everyone is going to like everything.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Lalaith Va'lash on June 08, 2008, 07:35:34 PM
While I'm intrigued by Jrizz's option #2, the system would make it so that nobody would ever Perm.

If you were on your 9th or 14th SS, you would *always* choose to respawn, and just have to sit out of game for 24 -30 hours.  While the loss of play time is a bite, there is no risk for those on their last soul strands at all. Merely respawn, sit out a bit, and get to keep your character.  Wash, rinse, and repeat next week.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: jrizz on June 08, 2008, 07:46:51 PM
Quote from: Lalaith Va'lash
While I'm intrigued by Jrizz's option #2, the system would make it so that nobody would ever Perm.

If you were on your 9th or 14th SS, you would *always* choose to respawn, and just have to sit out of game for 24 -30 hours.  While the loss of play time is a bite, there is no risk for those on their last soul strands at all. Merely respawn, sit out a bit, and get to keep your character.  Wash, rinse, and repeat next week.


Well yeah that is the case but think about what a real pain it would be to have to sit it out for 24 hours EVERYTIME you die. Now that will give the fear of death. Oh and it would also to the complete end of the refund program :)
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Stephen_Zuckerman on June 08, 2008, 08:38:23 PM
I don't like the idea of sitting out of the game for X number of hours, to not risk a Soul Strand.

I -like- the Soul Strand thing. I just think that a few shifts might be in order.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: jrizz on June 08, 2008, 08:44:59 PM
well there are more then a few proposals that keep permadeath as a real thing.

Of course you can bring together the random unknown number of SS and my above idea
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: EdTheKet on June 09, 2008, 03:57:58 AM
Quote
I don't know, it just makes sense to me that if you don't use the bindstone in a given death, that you aren't subject to its taxes. If I avoid the toll road and drive inner-city, it might take longer but I don't have to pay the toll.

But you already are using it, because if you had not bound in the first place, your first death would be your last! And consequently, if you had not bound you would not have ten strands, you would have a single one.

Quote
would be that clerics would be much more useful since they could effectively save people not only from death, but from the soul mother herself.

This can never be, because that would mean clerics are stronger than the Soul Mother is. The deities are not stronger than her, so by consequence, neither can their clerics be.

Quote
Well yeah that is the case but think about what a real pain it would be to have to sit it out for 24 hours EVERYTIME you die. Now that will give the fear of death. Oh and it would also to the complete end of the refund program

It would probably also mean the end of the player base. Here you are, gaming on your Sunday afternoon, it's your only time you negotiated with your better half and your offspring, and then you die 20 minutes after starting your Sunday gaming session. And now you're out for 24 hours, which sucks, so you go play another game and don't bother to ever return :)

Quote
I do think altering established lore, for that purpose or any other, is not something to be taken lightly.
And I won't be ;)
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: lonnarin on June 09, 2008, 01:51:31 PM
This just raises even more questions.

So raise dead and resurrection do literally nothing other than just reduce the anguish of death duration and keep you in the area?  That's pretty weak (spell balancewise) considering resurrection requires either a diamond or 3 eschew feats in order to cast.  What exactly is ressurection doing that a bindstone respawn and a few hours of rest doesnt do?  Essentially, a wee 2nd level spell combo of invisibility with gum arabic and Bulls Strength (only assuming they're encumbered) is even more efficient than a 7th level cleric-only spell requiring either 3 feats or a diamond to cast. That's not even counting the price of a soulstone, which is comparitively minimal.  This is why people don't bother waiting for clerics to raise them: it's just not cost effective unless they used almost half the feats they'll get from 1-20 lvls, and THEN they still have to worry about xp loss and such.  As a corpse, you have the option of escaping to a safe place to rest, or running around weakened on a battlefield gaining no xp until you can find a safe spot to rest, with consecutive deaths resulting in xp loss as well.  

Also, if resurrection completely mends and restores the body and brings it back to life, then why is the body still weak for any amount of time, rather than just 1/2 that of raise dead?  Considering the time still weakened, the soul stone and diamond material components or 3 feat eschew requirement for the spell and its high level, resurrection gets far less loving than it should.  The 5th level wizard with gum arabic becomes a better raiser than the 13th level cleric with a diamond or 3 feats and a soulstone.

As for an end to the player base due to being dead for 24 hours, they could always make up to 6 characters in their vault.  Variety.  And if sitting in time out is the end of the playerbase, then why have the resting period for the anguish of the soul in the first place?  Somebody logs into the server at 2 in the afternoon on a saturday and dies, they still have to wait several hours online or around 8 hours offline to play that character again, assuming he cant find a wizard to make him invisible and just grab the stone.  The current system already does this time-out, and from a gameplay perspective, there is little difference to me between sitting 8 hours for a cleric to raise me, or sitting 8 hours for the anguish of my soul to pass.  If this is time to be spent RPing, then the immersion is already lost because he's sitting on a bench in town talking to people after they watched him die.

//PS I'm not really sure whether Resurrection needs a diamond or not anymore because the Lore Description doesnt mention it, but I have heard some higher level clerics mention it.  Also, the duration of the time it reduces cyclical.  Raise dead says twice the time as Resurrection and Resurrection says 1/2 the time of Raise Dead, but the factors of the base wait aren't mentioned.  The Raise Dead entry also mentions that one gets full hp back from it, when I think this might be wrong.  Please crosscheck the Lore entries for both Raise Dead and Resurrection.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: miltonyorkcastle on June 09, 2008, 02:55:54 PM
... i'll fix LORE if someone tells me whether Resurection does indeed need a Diamond. As far as the wait time, it's number of reflections, and one reflection is five minutes. That can be added to the description as well, though I'm also going to ask for a confirmation, as I never really think about it anymore. I'm pretty sure it's two reflections for Raise Dead and one for Resurrection. And yes, you do get full HP back on a Raise Dead.

.....as for everything else non-LORE related in this thread.... I'm staying out of it, heh.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: lonnarin on June 09, 2008, 03:44:25 PM
Ouch, if that's true, then the only mechanical difference between Raise Dead 5th and Resurrection 7th is one extra feat or a diamond, plus or minus 5 minutes.  It usually takes longer than that to rest again anyway, so the difference is minimal in gameplay.  if somebody is waiting 10-20 minutes between resting intervals anyway, then that +/- 5 minutes is negated almost immediately.  Raise dead seems more cost efficient and just as powerful as Resurrection from a gameplay aspect, and there is little incentive to use the more powerful version.

Now if Resurrection only negated the chance for the Soul Mother roll, or at least reduced the % of chance by half, that would be better balanced, I think.  Then you would see people staying down and dead until the party could find a cleric to bring to their corpse.  So in the format suggested...

Suggestion 1: Make Resurrection negate the chance of recieving a DT/losing a soul strand.  Leave Raise Dead the way it is currently.

Pros:
1. Would help balance the two spells Raise Dead and Resurrection which seem unbalanced right now.
2. Would enhance the usefulness of clerics
3. Would make sense because the cleric and the god are responsible for reviving the person, not the Soul Mother
4. Would increase the immersion and RP of death being important, since the current system penalizes resurrection far more than bindstone hopping.
5. Raise Dead wouldn't reduce the chance whatsoever, so it would remain a "poor man's res" instead of "res +5 minutes"

Cons:
1. Using a diamond might actually sound like a good idea.  This could potentially hurt the "Elgon needs more diamonds" fund.
2. Would require changes to the code, time consuming
3. Would still not address the logical inconsistancy of why Soul Stones are crafted from diamonds yet only cost 300 true to purchase, and that some clerics still need a diamond with one already provided in the stone.

Suggestion 2: Make Raise Dead Reduce the Soul Mother roll by 10, and Resurrection reduce it by 20, OR just have the use of raise dead lower the roll by 25% and Resurrection lower it by 50%

Pros:
1. Would make raising/resurrecting more useful and people would want to be around clerics more often
2. People could still perm and get soul strand losses should they fail the roll
3. It would be a significant penalty to those who bindstone hop and invis back to life, vs. waiting for a cleric to raise them

Cons:
1. People would still perm, so some would still be unhappy
2. Would require changes to the code, time consuming
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Stephen_Zuckerman on June 09, 2008, 03:57:14 PM
I like suggestion 2 the best, as there is still SOME chance of SS loss on death (representing, somewhat, the strain of death), but think that perhaps the lowering by 10 and 20 would be a bit much, while the % offered is too little.

Raise Dead can be cast at level 9, while Res can be cast at level 13.

Perhaps one could roll at 50% of the chance and 25% of the chance, respectively, which still leaves a significant risk for higher levels, but leaves it proportional to those of any other level.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: osxmallard on June 09, 2008, 04:00:06 PM
You mean lowering the DC vs. the dice roll? (Or raising the dice roll by that value?)  Lowering the roll will increase the chance of losing a SS versus a fixed DC.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: lonnarin on June 09, 2008, 04:06:19 PM
Quote from: Stephen_Zuckerman
I like suggestion 2 the best, as there is still SOME chance of SS loss on death (representing, somewhat, the strain of death), but think that perhaps the lowering by 10 and 20 would be a bit much, while the % offered is too little.

Raise Dead can be cast at level 9, while Res can be cast at level 13.

Perhaps one could roll at 50% of the chance and 25% of the chance, respectively, which still leaves a significant risk for higher levels, but leaves it proportional to those of any other level.


Maybe make it like a miss chance secondary roll akin to displacement modifiers in combat.

So with Resurrection, it's still the same base chance of the Soul Mother roll, but then you roll again and anything above a 50% negates the strand loss.  Raise dead could work the same but it's only a 25% Soul Strand miss chance.  That would still make entirely possible to get a soul strand loss, but still make raising and resurrection attractive enough to stay down for a cleric to tend to you.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Stephen_Zuckerman on June 09, 2008, 04:08:21 PM
I rather meant for the Raise to give you half the chance of a DT, and Res to give you a quarter of the chance of a DT.

For example, a level 20 who got Raised would have a 10% chance, or if he got Rezzed, 5%.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: EdTheKet on June 09, 2008, 04:26:07 PM
I thought I had explained why the roll happens when it does, but reading the above I guess I was not :)

So: Raise Dead or Resurrection will never have any influence on the Save vs. Soul Mother roll. A Soul Strand has a chance of snapping at the time of death, not at the time of raising/resurrecting/respawning so Raise Dead, Resurrection or Respawn is not in he picture yet at that time.

I am too much out of the mechanics of the spells to comment on the reflections, diamonds etc.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Stephen_Zuckerman on June 09, 2008, 04:44:19 PM
Quote from: EdTheKet
I thought I had explained why the roll happens when it does, but reading the above I guess I was not :)

So: Raise Dead or Resurrection will never have any influence on the Save vs. Soul Mother roll. A Soul Strand has a chance of snapping at the time of death, not at the time of raising/resurrecting/respawning so Raise Dead, Resurrection or Respawn is not in he picture yet at that time.

I am too much out of the mechanics of the spells to comment on the reflections, diamonds etc.

Then... Honestly, what's the point of having two different spells that bring someone back to life? The differences between their effects is fairly minimal.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: EdTheKet on June 09, 2008, 04:58:21 PM
Quote from: Stephen_Zuckerman
Then... Honestly, what's the point of having two different spells that bring someone back to life? The differences between their effects is fairly minimal.


Ask TSR, Wizards of the Coast, or Bioware, or something :)
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Stephen_Zuckerman on June 09, 2008, 05:00:28 PM
Quote from: EdTheKet
Ask TSR, Wizards of the Coast, or Bioware, or something :)

Well, in D&D, the difference between the spells was fairly distinct... And there was an additional spell, True Resurrection.

Then again, there was level loss when you came back from the dead.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: lonnarin on June 09, 2008, 07:09:08 PM
What exactly are undead on that token?  Strandless souls that never got collected?  Stranded souls that had their body defiled too much to reoccupy, but technically didn't qualify for the Soul Mother or Harvester to collect them?  Soulless quasi-magical shadows that are simply necromantic imprints of a former consciousness?  When we see a ghost of somebody, is that their soul, or is it just a soulless magical construct while the real soul is resting peacefully in the afterlife?

Do Permadead PCs have a chance of returning as revenants?  How does defiling somebody's remains after they had been resting peacefully result in an angry ghost of the person?  Take Krandor and Hlint Graveyards for example...

Also, it has been stated that Raise Dead and Resurrection have no chance in influencing the Soul Strand loss, and therefore reversing final death itself.  if that is the case, why ever bother raising or resurrecting an NPC on a quest?  If they're just laying there face down on the ground, then obviously they either never bound at all and are dead for good, just lost their last strand and there's nothing we can do about it, or they are faking it and are too lazy to respawn and jog back from the bindstone.

I've been on plenty of quests where an NPC died and had to be resurrected or raised back from the dead, so the precident is there in history. ;)
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Gulnyr on June 09, 2008, 07:39:01 PM
Quote from: lonnarin
Also, it has been stated that Raise Dead and Resurrection have no chance in influencing the Soul Strand loss, and therefore reversing final death itself.  if that is the case, why ever bother raising or resurrecting an NPC on a quest?  If they're just laying there face down on the ground, then obviously they either never bound at all and are dead for good, just lost their last strand and there's nothing we can do about it, or they are faking it and are too lazy to respawn and jog back from the bindstone.

I've been on plenty of quests where an NPC died and had to be resurrected or raised back from the dead, so the precident is there in history. ;)


Dying doesn't automatically result in a cut strand, either for bound PCs or unbound NPCs.  Just as a PC can die with ten strands, not lose one and be raised with the same ten intact, so too can an unbound NPC die, not lose her single strand, and be raised again with that one strand intact.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: jrizz on June 12, 2008, 11:18:42 AM
Ok so to put some of these side tracks in summary:

Yes when you die you are dead and that is why we have clerics that can cast RD and R and we have the bindstones that can bring you back if you don't have a cleric around. So we come back to the SS issue. Every time you die on the moment of death you are attacked, more like a single theft attempt is made to remove (or cut or whatever the semantics are) a strand that holds your soul in your body. There are no defenses against this (beside the unrealistic "dont die" statements) and the higher level you are the more susceptible you are to the attack. It has been explained in this thread that is due to your soul being more attractive. It has also been explained that without the bindstones your first death would be your last death. These raise a bunch of questions, like.

- Why are more powerful souls more attractive? and if that is the case what are they being collected for?
- If people are able to gain a stronger hold on their souls (SMD) why cant there be a defense aganst SS harvesting?
- Why doesn't every person (NPCs I mean) in the world bind to the bindstones? Then every person would have ten lives. If that is not possible why do the bindstones only work for adventures? Are they the measure of who can be an adventurer?
- If you are not bound, that renders the clerical spells RD and R useless. Why is that? How are the bindstones connected to the gods that grant those spells?

From my PCs point of view the number one threat in the world is the SM. The heros of the world meddle and battle with all kinds of powerful beings like dragons, gods, demi-gods, powerful outsiders, and more. Yet most wont even consider messing with the SM. They are content to be the fields of harvest for her.

Also how many PC's have permed? Less then 100? Less then 50? In the time I have been here (more then 3 years) it cant have been more then 20 or 25 at most. Would it be so bad that those 20 or 25 were still here and at higher levels? What does the permadeath system really do? There are plenty of ways to make PCs fear death. Why have one that removes PCs from the game? Is it really only the lucky that get to be higher level and survive? And if it is the case that only the lucky survive why do they deserve any respect at all as it is totally random that they are still alive?

There are many people that play and enjoy this world that feel the current death system is flawed. The attempts to explain how the death system fits into the RP of the world never really hit the mark.

The current death system does not promote RP it stalls it, kills fun sessions, removes well liked PCs from the game, and generally leaves a bad taste in peoples mouths. It is hard for people that have not had a PC perm to really understand the impact that this system has on players so we go around and around in this debate. I have had a PC perm and I have a PC with 11 lost SS (6 lost to technical issues). In all the time I have been playing I have had only one SS refunded. I know how it feels to lose a PC that you have worked on for a long time I know how it feels to have a PC that you really love to play be near death. I dont play in a reckless manner. I have been playing my current PC for more then 2 years. I have not power leveled him he is not a power build and so I have to live with the inevitable death that will come to him. I say this sucks and it is not fair.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Stephen_Zuckerman on June 12, 2008, 11:28:29 AM
Death is an inevitable reality. I'd be all for a system that killed people due to old age, so long as it was equally enforced across the board (and perhaps there were another perk or two for the shorter-lived races).

I'm fairly fond of the current death system. I don't like the gold cut (as I think it should either take EVERYTHING you have away from you that isn't bound to you somehow, or take nothing at all), but the SS system itself seems great. What I have issues with is the fact that, despite how POWERFUL magic is, in this world, there is nothing to address the single greatest threat to adventurers: Strand Loss.

You could say that, as the Mother has power like unto a goddess (and probably more power than a few goddesses), there's no mortal magic to defend against her power... But even if Pyrtechon himself tossed a ball of godly fire at someone, an Elemental Shield would help a little... (Though probably not NEARLY enough.)
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: jan on June 12, 2008, 11:32:36 AM
I cant say i disagree much with the sentiments you express in the last part of your post jrizz , but as i see it death is as much part off your characters life as it is in rl .

I haven't lost a character myself yet , but are close , and on one side it scares the jibbers out of me but on the other it gives a more realistic feel then any other world could .

The rp i have had on lost love ones was probably the best there was , since it combines rl with the profound loss you experience in character .

Undying characters in my eyes can never call forth the level of emotions that characters that can and will permanently die do .
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: jrizz on June 12, 2008, 11:42:57 AM
Death is an inevitable reality in real life this is a game and is played for fun, losing a PC that you have worked on for a long time is not fun. We have rules in place to ensure that we all can have fun without interfering with other peoples fun the death system has nothing to do with that. It is simply just not fun.

It is hard for anyone to make a judgement on a system if you have not fully experienced all of the aspects of the system?

Quote
I have had a PC perm and I have a PC with 11 lost SS (6 lost to technical issues). In all the time I have been playing I have had only one SS refunded. I know how it feels to lose a PC that you have worked on for a long time I know how it feels to have a PC that you really love to play be near death. I dont play in a reckless manner. I have been playing my current PC for more then 2 years. I have not power leveled him he is not a power build and so I have to live with the inevitable death that will come to him. I say this sucks and it is not fair.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: jrizz on June 12, 2008, 11:50:09 AM
Quote from: jan

Undying characters in my eyes can never call forth the level of emotions that characters that can and will permanently die do .


On this I agree. But to have a death system that is so random is just not right. The long lived high level PCs we have are there by pure luck (and some number of returned SS). All PCs get killed in the same way, battle of some kind. But some get harvested and some dont and when the death is caused by a technical issue some get refunds and some dont. It is almost totally random if your PC gets to survive or not.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Stephen_Zuckerman on June 12, 2008, 11:52:30 AM
Losing sometimes is an inevitable reality of life. In combat, sometimes you lose. This isn't fun for most people. Would you suggest removing all chance of failure from the game, as well?

I'm fully prepared for Pyyran to perm; heck, even he's ready to die. That's part of life, and part of the game. Some things are less enjoyable, but it's a role-playing game. You play the role of a living, breathing person, in this little world. That living, breathing person will one day stop breathing. He knows it, we know it, and that's just a part of life.

Working hard for a measly twenty-five True isn't fun, either, apart from the enjoyment one gets from playing the character's role. But do we bequeath everyone with all the money they need? No.

Hardship is part of life, both real and imagined. These characters have to face death in their world - why should we just ignore this fact? They will die, eventually.

It's nice enough on most that characters don't take aging penalties - there are a few characters right now who should be very, very dead, from age alone.

Edit: It is most assuredly not random, whether one's character survives or not. And I dislike the implication that the reimbursement system is equally random - particularly coming from a GM. One's survival relies upon one's wit and skill... There is always a risk of unforseen things happening - in life, you can get hit by a car, no save. In the game, you might crash out and lose a Strand. Bad things happen. It's a blessing that SOME of those bad things, that aren't our own faults, can be reimbursed, in the proper situation.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: jan on June 12, 2008, 11:57:33 AM
While i can and do understand what you are saying , i don't fully agree .

When i started playing here i was well aware that there was a permadeath system and accepted that when i applied with a character submission and actually started playing , just like i accepted all the other rules .

It is not intentionally that the system is flawed , it's mechanically .

I am sure the team has done everything they can to get as-many flaws out as they could , but if they cant fix it further then it is what we all have to work with .

No , i don't think it is fair to have random rolls decide if you lose a ss or not since in my eyes that makes it a roll of luck .

But having a system that allows to earn more ss's would probably in a way mean that you get even more fond off your character and will make the loss even worse if it happens in it end .
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Acacea on June 12, 2008, 12:34:16 PM
Yep, long reply, but a long list, too.


A lot of the statements listed seem to be again assumptions or misinterpretations based on things said earlier in the thread. For that matter, there are also questions which no one is required to know the answer to. "What are they used for?" for example, is something nobody really has any business knowing, unless they want to presume knowledge of what the Soul Mother is doing on her lunch breaks... there is actually a surprising amount of information and theories floating around on the Soul Mother in-game already, so I don't really see why her specifics are important knowledge to us as players of characters, or even GMs of NPCs that do not and cannot know more.

As has been stated at least twice, though perhaps not in this thread, everyone in the world is not bound for a few reasons, the largest being that to do so is to risk death. There is "something" about PCs and certain NPCs that allow them to bind, but there is a chance that you die and that's that. The vast majority of the world is not going to risk the real death for "sewing needle accident insurance." More than that, the bindstones were inert for god knows how long, and became active again during the war with Bloodstone. Perhaps they woke up by themselves, or the gods woke them, or Ozlo. That doesn't matter so much as the fact that they were sleeping. Then there was the age of the Dragoncalled. The bindable (not so fancy a name, eh?) were Summoned by Ozlo for the war against Bloodstone.

Ozlo dies. No more big dragon to call the ones that can bind and tell them plainly to do so.

As mentioned in another thread, some NPCs are bound. Established NPCs, both good and evil, really have no business trying - to do so is to risk all that they have gained. I've seen an NPC perm before...

NPCs can be raised if they aren't bound. I don't think it was stated anywhere by Ed that this was not the case, but was rather something that was said for him later in response to something he said. I could be wrong, but that is my interpretation. He said that if you are not bound, your first death is your last death. Certainly. My monk is, RPwise, not bound to any bindstone, and I will never respawn with her. If there is an allied cleric present, they may choose to raise her, and I may choose to continue - but she will never live again through the bindstones. Many NPCs have been raised on quests, more than likely even Ed's. I seriously doubt that is suddenly an impossibility. If it has been decided that that should be the case, I very strongly request that it be reconsidered on the grounds of being silly. ;)

Regarding the difference between raise and res, we also used to be able to use Resurrect after a much longer time than Raise Dead, and with things in far worse condition, and did so on several quests. However, they have since brought the hammer down on the time limit and now force all raises to be within three days regardless of spell level.

Regarding age-killing characters, I am not really a fan of forced aging penalties and deaths because of how fast game time is, and prefer allowing characters to choose how hard they age their characters and if they let them die. There have been at least 2 IC explanations for how hard some are pushed, namely the heavy toll on the soul that the bindstones cause, while bodies are constantly knit back together, and the constant exposure to positive energy from healing spells making physical appearance of aging loopy. I'm fine with that as long as no one claims to be 45 when there are 99. The numbers don't lie, but it's okay if you're not wearing diapers.

As far as jrizz' PC thinking little of PCs who mess with dragons instead of the soul mother - if he bothered to ask around IG a bit or questioned instead of ripping down warnings or offers of information, he might find out why that is the case.

Regarding people playing cautiously, I actually beg to differ. Yeah, people on their last strand or who have permed a character before tend to become paranoid, but in general anyone who is in no particular danger gambles constantly with their character's lives. Hey, death magic, no cleric, 90% chance of making the save, you game? What the heck. New areas, but only 4 people, feeling lucky? What the heck, live a little.

Part of the whole fun of the game is that gamble, and we rely pretty heavily on it through the lower levels of soloing griffons and other such silliness. I agree with part of the statements made earlier in the thread - there is no particular discouragement of death, just a vaguely distant threat of permadeath for most. Each individual death is just a wait or a stone away from continuing, and hardly a blow worth worrying about.

If you listen to the toothless old timers yap about the old days and how they had to walk barefoot in the snow uphill both ways (;)), it is pretty obvious that most of them bent over backwards to avoid every single death - forget permadeath, Gotak was the first and only perm in the system. Death itself sucked. You don't hear perm/strand stories, you hear "I lost 1million xp in one night" stories. And being a player that was a bit caught between generations of players, I have run around with very different groups of people. The vets of the old system were crazy paranoid careful, and it is from that group of people that you often get the unhelpful "don't die" sentiments from. They're serious, too.

((Edit: The comments referring to the previous death system were not intended to be more of the same, "you should hav seen it under the old system" (I didn't, anyway), but rather a note on how much more cautious its veterans have seemed when I played with them. If anything, the old system was pre-favored equipment and pre-one step alignments for clerics, etc, and in general a lot looser on what you could do with builds, so death count need not apply in the equation. A whole different world, as well. So again... I was merely talking about player mindsets and levels of caution per individual deaths vs final deaths.))

The randomness has been debated on, who knows if it will stay in the next version. It has been stated that in NWN it was actually to even the playing field a bit rather than skew it - it is true that permadeath breeds characters built for survival rather than RP, but with the rolls, even a purely RP character totally stacked against combat has a chance of making it, while a calculated machine who dies 10 times in 40 levels has a chance of failing. This is not a statement in favor or against its current explanation, merely part of the reasoning that was given for it.

What is the purpose of this rant? The constructive part? Hate the system, yes, unfair, okay, random, sure, hasn't this all been said before? It's not going to be put to a vote nor designed by committee. They read, they listen, things may or may not - I'm betting on not but you never know - change in NWN, but it is unlikely we will have the same system and sets of issues in the next version. Different engine, different gameplay, different system, different levels, different everything. There are far more factors to consider than whether lag deaths have totally killed the concept of permadeath for some. No one is claiming that the NWN implementation is perfect. It's not. One of the biggest issues I have seen that sour people on the concept is the technical issues spoiling the potential for roleplay. I have no doubt that this will be a big deal to address in the future version. Right now they work with what they've got.

On another note, I was considering this morning the issue of characters who perm while bound on another server... do they get booted right away, to the death void of the next server? I was just wondering because it seemed like it might be a bit sudden and take away from the whole drama of the moment, and this feeling applies even if you hang around but die quickly.

Maybe if a) hostiles could start thinning out during a battle in which a PC perms, until all have either been killed or fled after a bit, certain exceptions apply of course, and b) some kind of script could be present that essentially disabled regen and healings and such on a character and left them at 1hp for 5 minutes for them to RP the death if they so choose. Trades could be disabled and so on. Yes, they would have gone from -142 hp to 1 hp magically, but so what? If they choose to have a miraculous bit of consciousness left in them for a few minutes to say their goodbyes, there seems no harm in that. It is supposed to be about roleplay, after all. Obviously this is probably not a good thought for NWN, but I think the concept at least is worth considering to make sure it is not quite so...one-shotted, in some cases.  It wouldn't help much in the event of a party wipe, but then not much does.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: EdTheKet on June 12, 2008, 05:29:03 PM
You people write a lot of text! :)
I'll try to respond to what seem to be the most important points. Here we go:

Quote
What exactly are undead on that token? Strandless souls that never got collected? Stranded souls that had their body defiled too much to reoccupy, but technically didn't qualify for the Soul Mother or Harvester to collect them? Soulless quasi-magical shadows that are simply necromantic imprints of a former consciousness? When we see a ghost of somebody, is that their soul, or is it just a soulless magical construct while the real soul is resting peacefully in the afterlife?

Technically, undead have no soul anymore. Granted, liches do, but they're kind of the exception with their soul in a phylactery. And please don't ask me how that works soul strand wise as I haven't finalized that yet :) Not everything from D&D can be easily fitted into our next incarnation, and as a consequence, not everything will. Not saying that liches won't be or will be, but they're the odd one out. Anyway, I digress.

Quote
- Why are more powerful souls more attractive? and if that is the case what are they being collected for?
There are only two people on this planet who know why. That's Leanthar and myself, so this question will not be answered, sorry for the inconvenience :)

Quote
- If people are able to gain a stronger hold on their souls (SMD) why cant there be a defense aganst SS harvesting?
Because you're dead at the moment of the SS snap. Being dead, you can't really do anything.

Quote
- Why doesn't every person (NPCs I mean) in the world bind to the bindstones?
I think I answered this earlier in the thread? Because there's a risk involved in the initial bind.
Quote
If that is not possible why do the bindstones only work for adventures?
I answered this already as well, they don't only work for adventurers.
Quote
Are they the measure of who can be an adventurer?
As bindstones do not only work for adventurers, they don't measure who can or can not be.

Quote
- If you are not bound, that renders the clerical spells RD and R useless. Why is that?
I never said that I believe.
Quote
How are the bindstones connected to the gods that grant those spells?
I will not disclose any inner workings of the bindstones, nor why they were dormant, nor why they suddenly were active again, nor their purpose.

Quote
For that matter, there are also questions which no one is required to know the answer to. "What are they used for?" for example, is something nobody really has any business knowing, unless they want to presume knowledge of what the Soul Mother is doing on her lunch breaks... there is actually a surprising amount of information and theories floating around on the Soul Mother in-game already, so I don't really see why her specifics are important knowledge to us as players of characters, or even GMs of NPCs that do not and cannot know more.
Correct. There are theories in game and that's all fine. There are only two in the know, Leanthar and myself, and that will remain that way.


Quote
Then there was the age of the Dragoncalled. The bindable (not so fancy a name, eh?) were Summoned by Ozlo for the war against Bloodstone.

Ozlo dies. No more big dragon to call the ones that can bind and tell them plainly to do so.
And then you have to wonder... Ozlo told people to bind. That way people became aware that the bindstones worked. It is not mentioned anywhere that only the Dragoncalled could bind. Only that all Dragoncalled had the ability to. (Don't ask why, as mentioned, I will not answer).


Quote
Many NPCs have been raised on quests, more than likely even Ed's.
No, that has never happened on my quests. And it most likely never will. If somebody kills an (important) NPC on my quests, you don't get a second shot. Actions have consequences, and you will have to deal with them. You won't be getting "Oh we killed him, now let's resurrect him and question him" on my quests. That's too easy. Digressing again :)
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Acacea on June 12, 2008, 08:28:14 PM
Well, I wasn't really implying that all NPCs can be raised. :P A lot of them simply don't want to, and you can't raise an unwilling person except as undead. We get that a lot in quests. I don't think I've ever been on a quest where we intentionally or unintentionally killed an important NPC and just tossed a prayer down to pick 'em back up. Just your typical "those fiends! What have the pygmies done to this woman! Let us call her back, Toran and spirit willing," types where you just do a good deed and drop her low HP butt back in town sorts. ;)
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: twidget658 on June 12, 2008, 10:24:04 PM
From what I have seen and read...this thread is pointless. The majority want a change, a very few like it, the rest don't want to comment due to 'disagreeing with the team', the ones that run it are NOT changing it no matter what suggestions are made...so what is the use, really?
 
 All the great suggestions, all the typing, all the ideas, all the 'Thanks', is only a way to make us feel better. Nothing is going to change. This is just one of those threads I have grown tired of seeing pop up.
 
 Thanks to the people that poured their brains into it and tried to present an improvement.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Marswipp on June 12, 2008, 10:46:41 PM
Quote from: twidget658
From what I have seen and read...this thread is pointless. The majority want a change, a very few like it, the rest don't want to comment due to 'disagreeing with the team', the ones that run it are NOT changing it no matter what suggestions are made...so what is the use, really?
 
 All the great suggestions, all the typing, all the ideas, all the 'Thanks', is only a way to make us feel better. Nothing is going to change. This is just one of those threads I have grown tired of seeing pop up.
 
 Thanks to the people that poured their brains into it and tried to present an improvement.
If I read that correctly, it's a winded request to lock the thread.

I can also see where everyone's coming from.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Gulnyr on June 12, 2008, 11:14:38 PM
Discussions like these are never pointless.  They may not result in changes, but they do help correct misconceptions and improve understanding of the world's background.  I don't know about anyone else, but I learned things from this thread.  Also, to me personally, they show that people care about Layonara; we all have different ideas of what may be best so there is a lot of disagreement, but we care, which is excellent.

In the end, this isn't an equal club where all of our votes carry the same weight or a pure democracy where the majority rules.  We can all express our opinions and offer suggestions, but we, the players, can really only vote with our participation and support.  The bosses make the decisions on how they want their world to be, and our opinions and suggestions may not always fit into the grand scheme or be worth the effort.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Nehetsrev on June 12, 2008, 11:17:43 PM
Quote from: twidget658
From what I have seen and read...this thread is pointless. The majority want a change, a very few like it, the rest don't want to comment due to 'disagreeing with the team', the ones that run it are NOT changing it no matter what suggestions are made...so what is the use, really?
 
 All the great suggestions, all the typing, all the ideas, all the 'Thanks', is only a way to make us feel better. Nothing is going to change. This is just one of those threads I have grown tired of seeing pop up.
 
 Thanks to the people that poured their brains into it and tried to present an improvement.


In all actuallity, the majority is -silent-.  Only a few from the total server population are posting thier displeasure with the current system.  I, for one, like the current system just fine the way it is (except maybe the idea to make the number of SS's a character has random and un-known to the player).  Having permed one character, and being close to perming a second, I can honestly say I've experienced the loss myself.  I've lived through it just fine.  I do admit to having occasional moments when I reminesce about the character that permed and wish I could still be playing her, but only because her personality was just such a fun one to play, and because of all my characters so far, she's the one that's impacted the world the most (gnolls taking the place of the ogres in the Haven Mines was very much the results of her efforts getting the ogres to move out peacefully.  Not that thanks aren't due to other characters who helped fight the gnoll invasion near the end of those efforts).  Yet, Melanna's final death was a foolish one.  She'd gotten emotional and did something truly stupid.  Would I change it?  No.  I'm happy with the outcome.  Her death invoked an emotional response in myself, and many of the players of the characters she associated with.  Heck, even the friendly ogre, Glurgle, tried to make it to her funeral.

One thing her life, and death did highlight to me, is that if you put a lot into your character, and RP -all the time, every moment- you can not only enjoy the game to it's fullest, but make a big impact on the world, without being an epic level character.

Anyhow, the system, at least in my own opinion, is a good one.  I won't presume to speak for everyone who is being silent.  I won't assume one way or the other whether they favor the current system or hate it.  My point is, not everyone, and quite possibly not the majority of players, dislikes the current system.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: twidget658 on June 13, 2008, 12:01:22 AM
Quote from: Gulnyr
Discussions like these are never pointless. They may not result in changes, but they do help correct misconceptions and improve understanding of the world's background. I don't know about anyone else, but I learned things from this thread. Also, to me personally, they show that people care about Layonara; we all have different ideas of what may be best so there is a lot of disagreement, but we care, which is excellent.
 
 In the end, this isn't an equal club where all of our votes carry the same weight or a pure democracy where the majority rules. We can all express our opinions and offer suggestions, but we, the players, can really only vote with our participation and support. The bosses make the decisions on how they want their world to be, and our opinions and suggestions may not always fit into the grand scheme or be worth the effort.
 
 Yep, I agree. But when people are told to 'stop whining and start making recommendations' with false hopes that something may actually change, that is where is crosses the line from 'community cares' to 'lead by a carrot'.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Gulnyr on June 13, 2008, 02:05:04 AM
Okay, I've gone through the thread looking for the 'false hope' parts, the 'not in accordance with established lore' parts, and the 'too much effort' parts.  Some things are hard to classify.  This is what I found (with posts directly linked), without any discussion of merits or problems, only briefly describing the system suggested or comment made and the category I placed it in, and only including one instance rather than each post of the discussion unless significant changes or additions were made:

[post=939792]Jrizz #1[/post]:  This one includes two options.  The first is strengthening of souls, which has been said to be out of line with established lore, and the second is loss of significant play time (24 real life hours), which was said to be bad for business.

[post=939932]Weeblie #1[/post]:  I seem to have missed this one before, so I'm glad I read back through.  It involves making the death penalty to stats last a full week rather than have any permanent death system in order to maintain the fear of death.  I'm not sure how much work that would take, so maybe a 'lots of effort' option.

[post=940052]Ycleption #1[/post]:  Add an automatic XP penalty for each death, plus a standard, finite number of deaths - not strand loss, but deaths - before a character permanently dies.  I'm classifying this one as 'too much effort' because there are several characters with SMD that would want a new feat, or the feat would have to be altered to match the new system.

[post=940062]Dorganath #1[/post]:  This one is not an idea but a statement that Soul Strands will remain a part of the world.  No category, unless any reader wishes to count that as 'false hope' in his own list.

[post=940382]Osxmallard #1[/post]:  Hide SS totals and loss from everyone but the database manager.  Then no one would know how many strands anyone has, and final death would be a surprise.  'Other' - it doesn't fit a category listed above.

[post=941712]Stragen #1[/post]:  A permadeath system allowing corpse hauling, temple raising at an undefined cost, forced respawn after two days, ten respawns maximum per character (where respawns replace soul strands), and a lengthened negative hit point scale.  'Lore' and 'Effort.'

[post=973282]Dorganath #2[/post]:  Another statement.  Uncertainty about the possibility of a system that will please everyone in NWN while maintaining the intent of the soul strand/permadeath system.  No category.

[post=973392]Dorganath #3[/post]:  There may be no changes simply because of manpower issues, and inaction should not be taken as apathy or disagreement.  There is more to consider than popularity of the systems proposed.  Solutions must "be viable and consistent with intent."  No category (it isn't 'false hope', rather 'you have to think of something that fits and doesn't take too much effort to implement').

[post=973492]Darkstorme #1[/post]:  Every three real months, any character with fewer than ten soul strands would recover one.  The recovery countdown would begin at the point of the most recent loss, the recovery would never push the total above ten soul strands (making SMD a one-shot booster of five instant strands), and there would be no player-initiated reimbursement requests; only DMs could request a character's SS be returned.  'Lore,' as regrowing of soul strands seems inconsistent with established lore.

[post=974622]Makashi #1[/post]:  Not exactly a suggestion, but included for completeness.  A system of body-hauling with a 'limbo' area where dead folks can hang out.  'Effort.'

[post=974652]Lalaith #1[/post]:  Body-hauling plus the possibility of strand loss only on respawn, rather than on death.  'Effort' for the first, 'lore' for the second.

[post=976362]Stephen #1[/post]:  Make the chance of strand loss higher by 1% per each ten deaths.  'Other.'

[post=979652]Stephen #2[/post]:  Under a system of strand loss on respawn rather than death, have Raise Dead and Resurrect spells reduce the chance to 50% and 25% normal, respectively.  'Lore.'

[post=979952]Jrizz #2[/post]:  A resubmission of Jrizz #1 with the text changed from soul strengthening with time to soul strand strengthening with time.  It also includes the 24 hours out of game suggestion.  Either 'lore' or 'other'.  

[post=980702]Lonnarin #1[/post]:  Two suggestions.  One alters Resurrect to eliminate the chance of strand loss, and the other alters Raise Dead and Resurrect to reduce the percent chance by some defined amount.  Each seems to function on the use of the spell after a roll has already been made at character death ([post=980752]Clarifying post[/post]).  'Effort' (spells have to be changed), and 'lore' (see Ed #1 below).

[post=980772]Ed #1[/post]:  Statement.  Spells cannot affect strand loss.

So, if I have read and understood correctly (which I may not have, given the late hour), of the proposals presented, none so far have had a combination of fitting with established lore and being easy enough to implement to be accepted.  No team member has specifically stated that no idea will ever be good enough, though they have been clear on what among proposed ideas will not work.  There is hope for a different system, though it may be less hope and/or harder work than some might like.  As long as this thread is, there don't seem to be very many actual proposals in it.  Maybe there are better ones to come.  And [post=973392]read this again[/post], just to be safe.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: EdTheKet on June 13, 2008, 02:15:54 AM
Quote
But when people are told to 'stop whining and start making recommendations' with false hopes that something may actually change, that is where is crosses the line from 'community cares' to 'lead by a carrot'.

By which you seem to be implying that (for example) my request on getting proposals with pros and cons would be entirely pointless and that I only did that to keep the community busy. That is not correct.

In addition, if my interpretation of your statement is correct, I do not think it's a very nice thing to say or imply.

Everyone is free to disagree and discuss, as long as things remain civil and constructive. So far, I thought this thread was doing pretty good for such a controversial subject, but if it derails, I will simply stop reading it or posting replies as there is plenty of other Layonara work around.

(Please don't take this as a thread killer post BTW)
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Drizzlin on June 13, 2008, 05:10:07 AM
I always felt there should be no soul strands lost from level 9 and below. After that it is a 10% chance for all PCs level 10-40.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Pen N Popper on June 13, 2008, 07:59:41 AM
I thought we were talking about the death system so that it could be adjusted for the MMO if a good idea came along.  It seems unreasonable to expect that anything in the Layo version will change.  Anything that does change should be viewed as an unexpected gift.

Ideas are good to have (the Layo deities know that I have had my share), but it's best to get over expectations that they will be implemented.  Think of them more like planting a seed in the minds of the folks on the other side of the curtain.  Sometimes you get lucky and they like it and *poof* a gift.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: EdTheKet on June 13, 2008, 08:53:04 AM
Quote
I thought we were talking about the death system so that it could be adjusted for the MMO if a good idea came along.
That is at least my main interest.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Eight-Bit on June 13, 2008, 01:45:33 PM
A little bird gave me this idea, moments before I pureed it in my blender.

Random chance is something that is never going to be fair, and a system that is unfair promotes negativity and often times rage over the impending loss of a character.

My idea is stolen from not only a bird, but several video game concepts used in the past to a great effect. Instead of a dice roll let the players have a chance to prevent the loss of a soul strand. After death, a corpse of the player should be created where they kicked it, and their spirit is taken to some kind of limbo where they are hunted by gatherers geared towards their level range, or however CR will be determined in the MMO. After a time limit, death of the gatherer, escape, or having been raised the player will be back in their body.

The player then has the chance to evade or do whatever they wish to the gatherers. I'm not saying this is a perfect idea, but hey, it's out there and I think it's better than a barely random and horribly frustrating dice roll.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Pen N Popper on June 13, 2008, 02:04:45 PM
A crazy idea off of eight-bit's:  How about a LORE jeopardy-like quiz game?  If you're part of the world and know the info, then you get a better chance at avoiding death.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Eight-Bit on June 13, 2008, 02:07:29 PM
Quote from: Pen N Popper
A crazy idea off of eight-bit's:  How about a LORE jeopardy-like quiz game?  If you're part of the world and know the info, then you get a better chance at avoiding death.


Anything is better than a dice roll, my friend, anything!
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Gulnyr on June 13, 2008, 05:32:48 PM
I feel like I've missed the point and I ask for clarification, please.  What, specifically, is unfair about random numbers or random chance?  

I'm confused because, as a dice-based game, the entire system is based on a bunch of random rolls.  Is everything unfair?
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: EdTheKet on June 13, 2008, 05:41:25 PM
Quote
I'm confused because, as a dice-based game, the entire system is based on a bunch of random rolls. Is everything unfair?


And that is a very fair question :)
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: ycleption on June 13, 2008, 05:50:23 PM
Quote from: Gulnyr
I feel like I've missed the point and I ask for clarification, please.  What, specifically, is unfair about random numbers or random chance?  

I'm confused because, as a dice-based game, the entire system is based on a bunch of random rolls.  Is everything unfair?


Almost all dice rolls in the game are expressions of what we are doing with a character, and if we want a better chance for a specific kind of roll, we can put points into a skill or an ability, take feats, etc.

The SS roll, on the other hand, is just random. Not an expression about the character's skills, ability, talents, plus a bit of chance, but just a pure random roll.
Other types of random rolls don't have nearly the same consequences as an SS roll... every once in a while, you may be faced with a roll on a quest with huge consequences, but other than that, very few times in the game will you be faced with a purely random chance that has the same potential.
Finally, most (except for some little used skills) other rolls that a character makes, will be rolled so many times over the course of a character's life that things even out a bit more. With the relatively few number of deaths a character can have, the likelihood that some characters will perm after a few deaths is pretty high, and that more than anything else, is what seems unfair to many.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: EdTheKet on June 13, 2008, 06:13:34 PM
Well, the crafting rolls are random. Granted, you've got more chance to succeed if your level in a craft increases, and more chance to fail if your level increases for SS snapping, but the idea is the same.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Gulnyr on June 13, 2008, 06:47:59 PM
Okay, let me make sure I understand.
Quote from: ycleption
Almost all dice rolls in the game are expressions of what we are doing with a character, and if we want a better chance for a specific kind of roll, we can put points into a skill or an ability, take feats, etc.

The SS roll, on the other hand, is just random. Not an expression about the character's skills, ability, talents, plus a bit of chance, but just a pure random roll.

Yes, we place skill points and choose feats where we want our characters to excel.  Some things are not possible for our characters, though, no matter what.  With the understanding that soul strand loss is, from what I understand, an instantaneous event caused by the strain of the soul leaving the body at the moment of death, what are our characters supposed to do to stop it?  What skill is that?  What can characters do when they are dead to affect anything, even over time, much less an instant event?  It seems the only fair ways to handle strand loss in accordance with the current established lore are automatic strand loss on every death (and I'm not sure that is in accordance with lore) or random chance for loss.  "Nothing happens" was already ruled out earlier in the thread (since soul strands are staying) else that would also be a fair method, too.

Quote
Other types of random rolls don't have nearly the same consequences as an SS roll... every once in a while, you may be faced with a roll on a quest with huge consequences, but other than that, very few times in the game will you be faced with a purely random chance that has the same potential.

The nature of the consequences has nothing to do with whether or not something is fair.  Some things are simply beyond what our characters can influence.  That isn't unfair but realistic.  We don't play tiny omnipotent gods, after all.

Quote
Finally, most (except for some little used skills) other rolls that a character makes, will be rolled so many times over the course of a character's life that things even out a bit more.

I agree, the more commonly rolled checks average out over time.  Luckily, soul strand checks don't.  Disregarding SMD, every character can lose ten strands before perming.  It could take only ten deaths to accomplish that, but it is more likely that a character will die fifty or one hundred or even more times before losing all her strands.  If it takes fifty deaths to lose ten strands, that is a ratio of four to one in favor of the positive side of the event, not even at all, thankfully, but seriously in favor of the character.  It's even more biased toward the character as the number of total deaths increases.  It could be said to be unfair in the character's favor.

Quote
With the relatively few number of deaths a character can have, the likelihood that some characters will perm after a few deaths is pretty high, and that more than anything else, is what seems unfair to many.

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).

Have my responses addressed what you are saying, or have I misunderstood?
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Acacea on June 13, 2008, 07:15:07 PM
There is a difference between being in the bounds of character control, and being fair. "Out of player hands" can feel unfair, but I think it is a separate issue from actually being unfair. If anything, moving to say, a lore quiz to decide if you lose a strand seems extremely unfair...towards a certain % of the population. My PC would probably be fine. A dwarven battle rager might not. Or should it be meta-gaming based? Likewise, something that involves physical combat, a bashier solution that inspired the suggested alteration of the lore-thing in the first place...because defeating/evading hostiles was deemed to be geared towards the wrong mindset.

Both of these suggestions seem to have merit in, say, the categories of "player entertainment: make death more interesting" and "player control: we don't like having only chance determine our failures, it sucks like being taken out of a boss fight by a stupid fear spell," but not necessarily fairness. If anything, the current one is actually a bit hard to beat in that... it is impartial, builds are irrelevant, RP builds can succeed or fail, powerbuilds may succeed or fail, terrible characters with high death counts have a shot, survivors with few can die... it is straight up across the board, the only discrepancy being the return system.

I am not posting in its favor, per se, as I think the problems addressed in some of the solutions above are certainly worth looking at. I'm just not sure finding something that is more "fair" is going to be very easy. That doesn't mean it's not worth trying. There are just a lot of factors to consider.

Regarding the statements of being told to stop whining and help out or whatever, and the giving of false hope, I'm sorry if that's how it comes out, but I think the current system is flawed because of a variety of circumstances that are not so easily addressed as with "IT SUCKS! CHANGE IT!" sentiments, especially when it is hard to iron down ways to efficiently and fairly do so in our current version. The best hopes always seem to me to be identifying the basic foundations of problems with a current system, and ways it could be altered to address them... by seeing a variety of them, you get different views of the same basic problems, and different angles that would approach them. The only "false hope" given is when campaigns begin and polls spring up and a lot of hype is given on one side or the other, turning posts into things sounding like politicians up for re-election.

I don't know if we can make change, and I never claimed to. I do believe that there is great value in isolating specific issues and finding ways that either contribute to the current method, which seems to be favored at the moment by the team, or completely new systems which attempt to address them all as well...while staying in established lore. I have simply found it easier for me to just stick with the current one and tweak/add on, as I don't think I could come up with a whole new system that addressed all the needed factors of the team, be assured of keeping in the bounds of lore I do not even know, make it entertaining to players, and be objective and unbiased enough to make it fair even if that means it is not the favorite.

Just for my personal notes...
Quote

Tech Issues: #1 issue - bugs, lag, and system flaws/glitches are not the players' fault. Don't punish the players for the server's issues. Tough one to address - there will always be tech issues of one kind or another, and no paying customer is going to be happy about losing a character to a bug.
Limited Returns: Barring GM/WL witnessed tech issues above, its a slippery slope downward with no chance of climbing back up save that 3mil barrier and a feat. IC return system, however easy or difficult and whether strands are regened or purchased, would take some of the pressure of inevitability due to #1 off.
Roleplay enhancement: System does not inherently do anything for roleplay. (What a player himself adds does not count.) At times, does the opposite because of issue #1. Generally ruins trips instead of ending them with a story worth telling.
Player Control: Roll vs Soul Mother system takes strand lossage out of player hands and leaves it up to chance. Many would rather have a harder system than leave it up to luck.
Fairness: Characters built for survival should not have a better chance to "win" than flawed characters, simply because of power level...likewise, people who simply are not the best players should not have a higher chance to perm, or perm those around them, because they are not those out "to win."
World Lore: The system cannot contradict established world lore, parts of which are known only to Ed and Leanthar. This one is especially hard to work with, as there are unknown factors.
Entertainment: I don't think I would write this as a primary concern as some of the others were, but it does seem that making death or strand loss more interesting in itself is a sentiment floating around. Perhaps this is just Integration and RP enhancement, though. "Fun" is always a factor, in any case - 24 hour wait times are not fun.
Presence, or in-game integration: The bindstone system as it is has often felt "tacked on" or an additional mechanic to make sure PCs stick around. Explanations given here and there have been at times on the spot or as yet undefined. Any permadeath system should be one of the most important systems in the game and have a heavy presence that is integral to the world, not a stray mechanic that both gives an excuse for PCs to keep coming back, and makes ending them a distant possibility.


have been the main things coming up that I have read, I think, with various things to address them. A solution for one may cancel out the other, of course, and something may be a primary complaint and still not be changed. The thing is, and this is the reason that I asked in the first place - I sincerely believe that it is the isolation of these themes that is most important, because of all the things at work that we cannot contribute to. Our suggestions help point out the problems and thus have merit, but may not provide any perfect solutions. This is why I feel that votes on systems and demands for change and heated arguments on how much the system sucks are what actually gives false hope. It is, to me, a bit like stirring up a riot that has no real destination. No system will ever be perfect, so what's the point in pitchforks and torches?
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Lynn1020 on June 13, 2008, 07:40:34 PM
Quote from: Gulnyr
I feel like I've missed the point and I ask for clarification, please. What, specifically, is unfair about random numbers or random chance?

I'm confused because, as a dice-based game, the entire system is based on a bunch of random rolls. Is everything unfair?



Quote from: ycleption
Almost all dice rolls in the game are expressions of what we are doing with a character, and if we want a better chance for a specific kind of roll, we can put points into a skill or an ability, take feats, etc.

The SS roll, on the other hand, is just random. Not an expression about the character's skills, ability, talents, plus a bit of chance, but just a pure random roll.
Other types of random rolls don't have nearly the same consequences as an SS roll... every once in a while, you may be faced with a roll on a quest with huge consequences, but other than that, very few times in the game will you be faced with a purely random chance that has the same potential.
Finally, most (except for some little used skills) other rolls that a character makes, will be rolled so many times over the course of a character's life that things even out a bit more. With the relatively few number of deaths a character can have, the likelihood that some characters will perm after a few deaths is pretty high, and that more than anything else, is what seems unfair to many.


An example is there is a player that has had 57 deaths and lost one soul strand and another that has had 57 deaths and lost nine soul strands. One more death and they could perm.  It just seems when it comes to losing your character all together there would some way to make it fair.  It is really frustrating to hear a player that has had over 100 deaths and lost one or two soul strands.  Seems there have been a few ways mentioned that it could be improved the system that would still follow LORE.  I don't think there are many that want to do away with Permadeath.  Just some type of improvement. After one of my character's permed I had a lot of people talk to me about how they didn't like the way the system is.  Just it seems they don't want to come out and speak against it.  They want to stay out of it to not cause "waves" and I can completely understand that!  No one wants the team upset with them.  Because we all enjoy playing here and want to continue to. Just want a more fair chance to keep our characters.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Dorganath on June 13, 2008, 08:02:35 PM
Quote from: twidget658
Yep, I agree. But when people are told to 'stop whining and start making recommendations' with false hopes that something may actually change, that is where is crosses the line from 'community cares' to 'lead by a carrot'.

No, actually the request for making suggestions helps us to think of alternatives we may not have considered while moving forward.  However, while I'm sure many would like it to be treated differently, this particular issue is no different than any other suggestion.  It does get considered, but it may not be implemented or acted upon.

What won't change is the concept of Soul Strands and their loss, resulting in perma-death.  What may change in NWN are the mechanics of their loss, but that takes more than just the will to do so.  It will most likely change for the MMO version, as mechanics in general are much different than NWN.  Since things will change for the new game and the mechanics of Soul Strands have yet to be fully defined, recommendations are in fact a very useful and tool.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Gulnyr on June 13, 2008, 08:03:31 PM
Quote from: Lynn1020
An example is there is a player that has had 57 deaths and lost one soul strand and another that has had 57 deaths and lost nine soul strands. One more death and they could perm.

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?

Quote
It is really frustrating to hear a player that has had over 100 deaths and lost one or two soul strands.
 
For this, would it be less frustrating to have a system like Osxmallard suggested where no one knows how many soul strands anyone has remaining, making perming a complete surprise?  Would that eliminate the frustration, since no one could make any definite statement about how many strands were lost?  To expand the thought, is the randomness really your objection, or is it the fact that characters can perm at all?  

Quote
After one of my character's permed I had a lot of people talk to me about how they didn't like the way the system is.

Did they offer any specifics?  Were they opposed because of the method alone, or because your character was forever gone?  

Quote
Just it seems they don't want to come out and speak against it.  They want to stay out of it to not cause "waves" and I can completely understand that!  No one wants the team upset with them.  Because we all enjoy playing here and want to continue to.

I understand.  As long as posts are respectful, no one will get banned for them.  I've had some pretty strong opinions on things, and still do, and the posts on those topics have never come close to netting me a ban, or even a suggested short vacation.  Opinions are welcome, usually, even if they are critical of part of the world.

Quote
Just want a more fair chance to keep our characters.

I'm starting to feel that we are not all using the same definition of fair...
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Acacea on June 13, 2008, 08:04:26 PM
I apologize if I seem to be reiterating something that some feel is overused, but no one is going to get banned for disagreeing with the team. Seriously. I do it all the time. Not that I am, uh, encouraging it, but as long as things are civil there is no rule stating one must like every system in-game, or every policy, or even every GM. I don't, I don't, and I don't. Even civil feedback that doesn't offer anything as suggestion, as long as it is not spammed, is likely not going to have any repercussions...why would it? It is typically player argument that leads to heat, as GMs are expected to keep better control of themselves in the public forums in terms of conduct and team-support. Not that anyone is perfect, but really, even if somebody gets disgruntled or snide, nobody is going to be prevented from playing here because they don't like the death system as it is. It is generally expected that no system is perfect nor satisfy everyone. It is simply important to keep in mind that speaking our minds does not mean direct change occurs. It can contribute to change, but will not control it.

The problem, I think, with calling for a "fairer" system is that any permadeath system will breed survivors, no matter what system is in place. The question is just to what degree it will occur, and to what degree it will work. Inexperienced players are going to die more than l337 gamers. Flawed builds intended for roleplay more than combat prowess will die more than perfect calculations. They are told to encourage the sort of behavior they would like to see... a system that looks only at death count favors those who do not die... which may be ideal in some regards, but will rely heavily on making characters made to win, I think. It is possible a compromise between character level and character death count could occur, which I mentioned somewhere else. Take a little heat off level and put a little more on count, without relying solely on either. It could work, but maybe it wouldn't be enough. IC soul strand return systems would also enable players to choose to keep their characters longer by their own actions as well, even if the loss was out of their hands.

Something worth mentioning might be that some people with lots and lots of deaths might have skewed numbers because of the load of dying that occurred with the Soul Mother's vacation. Randomness means that some will have more deaths than others, but it is hard to get an accurate statement of exactly how many there are.

((Edit: Gulnyr and I are apparently typing over each other's shoulders or something.))
[/SIZE][/I]
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Dorganath on June 13, 2008, 08:27:57 PM
Quote from: Acacea
I apologize if I seem to be reiterating something that some feel is overused, but no one is going to get banned for disagreeing with the team.

No one, in my knowledge or memory, has ever been banned for disagreeing with the GM Team, game systems and/or policies or suggesting revisions to same.  People have been banned for being repeatedly abusive, disrespectful and hostile to the GM Team and the community, sometimes in the process of doing the above...sometimes just because.

I know some of you come from or play/have played on other game worlds where GM favor is a tangible "currency" of sorts, where the people in favor get free and fancy gear while those who show even the slightest disagreement are GM-griefed or banned on a whim.  That doesn't happen here, and in fact, GMs have been reprimanded for even suggesting that sort of behavior.

*steers the thread back on topic*

Quote
Something worth mentioning might be that some people with lots and lots of deaths might have skewed numbers because of the load of dying that occurred with the Soul Mother's vacation. Randomness means that some will have more deaths than others, but it is hard to get an accurate statement of exactly how many there are.

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

Quote
((Edit: Gulnyr and I are apparently typing over each other's shoulders or something.))
[/SIZE][/I]

Yeah...starting to wonder about you guys. ;)
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Lynn1020 on June 13, 2008, 08:30:23 PM
Quote from: Gulnyr
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?

 
For this, would it be less frustrating to have a system like Osxmallard suggested where no one knows how many soul strands anyone has remaining, making perming a complete surprise? Would that eliminate the frustration, since no one could make any definite statement about how many strands were lost? To expand the thought, is the randomness really your objection, or is it the fact that characters can perm at all?


Did they offer any specifics?  Were they opposed because of the method alone, or because your character was forever gone?  


I understand. As long as posts are respectful, no one will get banned for them. I've had some pretty strong opinions on things, and still do, and the posts on those topics have never come close to netting me a ban, or even a suggested short vacation. Opinions are welcome, usually, even if they are critical of part of the world.


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

They were opposed to the system.. some had only rp'd with my character that permed maybe once or twice.  

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. :(

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.

I also see where you two you guys stand and you get where we stand but i wonder what the rest of the player community has to say.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: ycleption on June 13, 2008, 08:49:20 PM
@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).
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Acacea on June 13, 2008, 08:52:23 PM
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.

Quote
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.))
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Lynn1020 on June 13, 2008, 08:56:42 PM
Quote from: Acacea
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.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Acacea on June 13, 2008, 09:02:58 PM
:( 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.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Stephen_Zuckerman on June 13, 2008, 09:17:04 PM
Quote from: Lynn1020
*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.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Gulnyr on June 13, 2008, 09:25:42 PM
Quote from: Lynn1020
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.


Quote from: ycleption
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.

Quote
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.

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

You're welcome.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Script Wrecked on June 14, 2008, 12:39:29 AM
Quote from: Gulnyr
I'm starting to feel that we are not all using the same definition of fair... {196 (http://forums.layonara.com/985822-post196.html)}


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

Quote from: Gulnyr
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 (http://forums.layonara.com/985822-post196.html)}


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

Quote from: Gulnyr
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 (http://forums.layonara.com/985732-post192.html)}


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

Quote from: Gulnyr
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 (http://forums.layonara.com/985552-post188.html)}


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

Quote from: Gulnyr
To expand the thought, is the randomness really your objection... {196 (http://forums.layonara.com/985822-post196.html)}


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.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Stephen_Zuckerman on June 14, 2008, 12:55:08 AM
Quote from: Script Wrecked
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.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Script Wrecked on June 14, 2008, 02:25:08 AM
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.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Pibemanden on June 14, 2008, 06:43:07 AM
Quote from: Dorganath
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.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Nehetsrev on June 14, 2008, 08:40:03 AM
Quote from: Pibemanden
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.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Leanthar on June 14, 2008, 10:14:24 AM
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?
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: jrizz on June 14, 2008, 11:33:12 AM
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.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Gulnyr on June 14, 2008, 12:55:45 PM
Quote from: Script Wrecked
The outcome created by the random numbers or random chance is unfair. That is what people are complaining about.


Quote
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 (http://forums.layonara.com/nwn-ideas-suggestions-requests/117282-put-soul-mother-rest-maybe-perhaps.html) 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.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Eight-Bit on June 14, 2008, 01:28:04 PM
Gulnyr hit it on the head quite a few times with that suggestion. Best I've heard on the subject thus far.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: jrizz on June 14, 2008, 01:50:59 PM
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.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: merlin34baseball on June 14, 2008, 02:48:32 PM
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.

:)
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Script Wrecked on June 14, 2008, 03:19:28 PM
Quote from: Gulnyr
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.

Quote from: Gulnyr
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.

Quote from: Gulnyr
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:

Quote from: Gulnyr
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.

Quote from: Gulnyr
... They seem to be the sorts of things that happen in real life. ...


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

Quote from: Gulnyr
... 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.

Quote from: Gulnyr
... 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".

Quote from: Gulnyr
... 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.

Quote from: Gulnyr
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

Quote from: Gulnyr
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?

Quote from: Gulnyr
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.

Quote from: Gulnyr
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.

Quote from: Gulnyr
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. ;)

Quote from: Gulnyr
There was a thread (http://forums.layonara.com/nwn-ideas-suggestions-requests/117282-put-soul-mother-rest-maybe-perhaps.html) 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.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Stephen_Zuckerman on June 14, 2008, 03:26:49 PM
*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.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: jrizz on June 14, 2008, 06:26:08 PM
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?
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Gulnyr on June 14, 2008, 07:27:23 PM
Quote from: 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.

Sure, but my point was kind of 'take the risk to get the reward' or 'stay safe and miss a little.'  I didn't mean to suggest that there would be huge swaths of content missing from the softies' experience.  A softie can be a baron but not a king, or a company commander but not a general, or get all but the very tip top elite skills, or be ineligible for maybe one event a month, max - which could be a rather important plotty sort of event, yes, and someone would complain.  Everyone, deep down, to one degree or another, wants something for nothing.  Everyone, deep down, to one degree or another, wants all the good and none of the bad.  The way I imagined it, they would get almost everything, but couldn't really hit the tip top rung of whichever ladder they climb.  No pain, no gain, in a limited sort of way.

Quote
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.

The problem with this is that it forces players who want to play adventurers to pay for the chance at permadeath.  Isn't that part of the problem now, that some people want to do the adventurer thing but hate permadeath?  The player would no longer be consciously choosing to play a softie adventurer, but must instead be a softie politician or baker.  That just takes the agreement out of the hands of the player again.

Also, I don't think there should be a distinction between combat and non-combat roles and "classes."  Players should be able to give their characters any skills they want, as long as they gain them properly according to the system.  If the player of a tailor wants to switch his character to adventuring, have at.  Maybe he could even do both, like a lot of our characters do now (even though our current system is weird).  It's like multiclassing.  "Hi!  I'm a Fighter/Tailor!"  It's just a matter of taking combat skills at the next opportunity rather than new tailoring skills.


Quote from: Script Wrecked
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.

Okay, yes, I agree with that.  ALL things being equal, two doing the same thing should produce the same results.  BUT! the random roll, to me, has always been a way of maintaining those minutiae that can't be included any other way, the things that make us all different, even twins.  From one day to the next, even one hour to the next, your hands may not work exactly the same, whether from excessive exertion prior to the moment in question, an influx of caffeine, being angry or irritated, or who knows what else.  The random roll helps take care of all that for us.  Besides, no two people are going to be exactly alike, even if that's what the framework of the game tells us.

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

Well, yeah, okay, but identical results are boring.  *shrug*

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

Despite the fabulous things science can teach us about precisely why things happen, an absolute pantsload of stuff seems utterly random all the time.  So, yes, I do want some of real life's apparent randomness in my fantasy death system, please.  

Quote
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".

Okay, just to define 'fair' a little more, I personally feel that 'unfair' implies intention.  To be unfair, someone needs to do it on purpose, to say it roughly.  There has to be some act of impartiality.  Random and/or unexpected events are no one's fault, no one set them in motion to do anything, so they can't be unfair by my definition.  It's not unfair that a tornado destroyed one house and left another because there was no intention behind it.  It's not unfair that an asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs and mammals took over the Earth because there was no intention behind it.

I understand what you're saying, though.  I just don't think having everyone start the same and tossing in some random numbers is unfair.  And, even though I know you are not advocating this extreme example in particular, making characters come out the far side exactly the same as everyone else doesn't really make for a game worth playing.  The randomness adds to the experience.

Quote
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?

Yes!  That!  We're both talking about things that are fair, a fair system versus a fair outcome.  Talking about how much random might be a better way to discuss it.  It could lead to new ideas.  I just seem to think the current level of random isn't all that bad.  I do think that a one-in-three chance of losing a strand wouldn't fly too well on the MMO, though, so there probably ought to be a cap set lower than that somewhere.

Quote
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.

Surely.  I agree that any permadeath system will favor those who don't die; it is a death system after all.  It just seems that a system based on number of deaths, as has been suggested, would create a more defined set of builds to help 'defeat' the system than a random system would allow.  A random system allows builds that are not optimum the same chance to 'survive' as a min-maxed build, as much as that is possible in a system that requires death of characters to function at all.

Quote from: Stephen_Zuckerman
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.

I see a potential problem.  If I'm understanding correctly, everyone can do everything regardless of whether a gung ho or a softie.  In that case, gung ho players don't gain anything by taking the risk, but still have the chance to lose everything when their characters perm.  On the other hand, softie players get everything and can never lose their characters, needing only a few bashy trips to wherever to recover the lost XP and be right back where they were.  That seems skewed in favor of the softies.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: jrizz on June 14, 2008, 08:56:37 PM
I like the way SZ was going with the "choose your poison" path. You can have SS or you can have XP loss. This way it is the consumers (players) that decide what is better.

If you think about it we already have the gung-ho and softy choice now. The gung-ho players are out there taking big risks in tough areas to gain most of their XP and the softies are gaining most of their XP from quests and the like which in general are a lower risk way of getting XP in that you are getting XP the whole time you are playing, not just in battle. Of course that path has its risks as well since GM run fights tend to be much harder then AI run fights :)
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Script Wrecked on June 14, 2008, 10:06:43 PM
Quote from: Gulnyr
Okay, just to define 'fair' a little more, I personally feel that 'unfair' implies intention.  To be unfair, someone needs to do it on purpose, to say it roughly.  There has to be some act of impartiality.  Random and/or unexpected events are no one's fault, no one set them in motion to do anything, so they can't be unfair by my definition.


That clarifies things (viz, your position) a lot.

To counter-clarify, I think everyone else is saying "unfair" is something along the lines of "I haven't done anything to deserve/warrant this detrimental result", exclusive of intent or lack thereof. Again, its concerned with the outcome, rather than the cause, or intent (or lack thereof) of the cause.

Regards,

Script Wrecked.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Nehetsrev on June 14, 2008, 10:53:01 PM
Quote from: jrizz
I like the way SZ was going with the "choose your poison" path. You can have SS or you can have XP loss. This way it is the consumers (players) that decide what is better.

If you think about it we already have the gung-ho and softy choice now. The gung-ho players are out there taking big risks in tough areas to gain most of their XP and the softies are gaining most of their XP from quests and the like which in general are a lower risk way of getting XP in that you are getting XP the whole time you are playing, not just in battle. Of course that path has its risks as well since GM run fights tend to be much harder then AI run fights :)


I reject the notion that quests are less dangerous than bashing/adventuring!  Anyone who's been on a quest with Emwonk T'noduoy can attest to the fact that he averages nearly one death per quest session.  In fact, he's died more times while in a DM run quest session than he has otherwise.  Or, at least it sure seems like it to me!  ;)
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: jrizz on June 14, 2008, 10:54:25 PM
that is because he is annoying ;)
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Acacea on June 14, 2008, 11:16:43 PM
He is not annoying! But wow, as to whether quests are for softies are not,  anyone of that mindset has not been on some of the bloodiest ones...you know - the ones that you can't memorize spawns for, respawn out of, or change anything because of... nor fallen to hellball traps, no-save plot NPC death spells, no-save insta-death consequences for wrong answers to puzzles... nor blown up an island, caused a plague, or fought at a bloodpool...nor had a "summarized" rp-only rundown of fighting with the knowledge that if you RP-died, you WOULD still roll a d100 and have a soul strand removed manually.

With a lot of the new content we have cool things for hardcore adventuring... but to say that either pure questing or pure "adventuring" (as if adventures don't mean quests as well as bashing? I don't get that) is low-risk or for softies is beyond weird... I love adventuring in the new areas, and there are a lot of quests I enjoy, but "risk" wise there is no contest for me... ;) I understand that a lot people might not feel the same way there, but you don't hear the plot questers telling parties that the emerald crypt runs are for softies... why tell those that get trapped in sand filling labyrinths, ripped apart by rabid apes, melted by Milara or disintegrated by Bloodstone, etc, that their way is for softies? There is room for being shy and cautious in both areas, and room for danger in both, heh. Perhaps that players and GMs believe that one or another is less risky is a sign they should get out and do one or the other a bit more :P
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: jrizz on June 15, 2008, 02:03:11 AM
Well opinions do vary on that.

Now trying to find how two types of systems can coexist in the same play world is going to be difficult unless there are two versions of the same world and there is some ind of PC crossover for significant events when they transect.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: EdTheKet on June 15, 2008, 09:12:47 AM
I was wondering:
1) what people would think if it was possible to re-attach a SS and
2)how much they would be willing to "pay" for the re-attachment of a SS.
3) how easy or hard this should be (i.e. only for high levels, or for everyone, or only on certain quests, or for a bunch of True, or... you name it)

If (please note the word "if") we would implement such a thing, I would think that this would compensate (at least somewhat) for SS loss due to lags, disconnects or other technical glitches.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Script Wrecked on June 15, 2008, 10:13:30 AM
Quote from: EdTheKet
I was wondering:
1) what people would think if it was possible to re-attach a SS and


I think there might be a massive spontaneous outbreak of the "root" dance, both IG and OOC.

Quote from: EdTheKet
2)how much they would be willing to "pay" for the re-attachment of a SS.


How may defenseless orphans do I have to sacrifice, and to what dark god?

...

IG... I meant IG... Honest.

Quote from: EdTheKet
3) how easy or hard this should be (i.e. only for high levels, or for everyone, or only on certain quests, or for a bunch of True, or... you name it)


Rounding up orphans isn't hard, its just a question of how many. Unless you only want those blonde haired, blue-eyed ones. Might take a little longer.

Quote from: EdTheKet
If (please note the word "if") we would implement such a thing, I would think that this would compensate (at least somewhat) for SS loss due to lags, disconnects or other technical glitches.


Yes, yes. The first sign of weakness is to consider the possibility... ;)

Regards,

Script Wrecked.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: EdTheKet on June 15, 2008, 10:21:07 AM
Quote
The first sign of weakness is to consider the possibility...

You know me so badly, Script Wrecked :)
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: aragwen on June 15, 2008, 11:30:21 AM
Quote from: EdTheKet
I was wondering:
 1) what people would think if it was possible to re-attach a SS and
 2)how much they would be willing to "pay" for the re-attachment of a SS.
 3) how easy or hard this should be (i.e. only for high levels, or for everyone, or only on certain quests, or for a bunch of True, or... you name it)
 
 If (please note the word "if") we would implement such a thing, I would think that this would compensate (at least somewhat) for SS loss due to lags, disconnects or other technical glitches.
 
 1) I would not say I am 100% for it, nor 100% against it. But if this was a possibility I would think it should be limited and not something easy to gain. If you could reattach a soul strand ten times, I think it would defeat the whole purpose of the death system. But perhaps it can be done based on certain rules. For example once every six months or maybe once per level grouping. For example once every ten levels.
 
 2) I dont think per say you should be able to pay for it (in true that is at least). But I think something like someone else giving up a soul strand for someone else would be quite neat. So a husband could gift one of his strands to his wife or kid. Maybe a soul strand could be bought with experience (though not sure how to handle this IC) but it need to be a decent chunk in my opinion. Something like 20% of your current level requirement or 1% or total experience. I think the idea should be it is "expensive" otherwise if it is cheap, life will become cheap.
 
 3) I dont think it should be as easy as I want a soul strand here is 100,000 true, but dont think it should be impossible either. Does not help you loose two strands to try and get one back. But I think travelling to the Plane of Lost (or whatever it is called now) and bargain or negotiate for a strand in return for the price (whatever this might be) might be in order. Just think it should less impossible than what it is currently. So maybe you have to pass some test (scripted random quest) or have to endure some hardship to get there.
 
 All in all I think it should be limited and not infinite, and some effort should go into this to obtain it, not just loot 100,000 true. The test should be of such a nature that you surely would not dare do it more than a couple of times.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Lalaith Va'lash on June 15, 2008, 11:32:51 AM
Quote from: EdTheKet
I was wondering:
1) what people would think if it was possible to re-attach a SS and

Agreed with SW.  I also think it'd give those with 9 and 14th DT something else to drive and fight for, so even if they did fall in the process it would be a valiant effort and a story worth telling! ... and you'd see some happy dances!

Quote
2)how much they would be willing to "pay" for the re-attachment of a SS.


Somebody would pay whatever was asked. The price would just decide how hard others need to work ;)

Quote
3) how easy or hard this should be (i.e. only for high levels, or for everyone, or only on certain quests, or for a bunch of True, or... you name it)
I like the idea of it being a certain quest. A dangerous one with risk proportional to the reward... Not just a "Here is 1,000,000 true, I'd like a soul strand returned" But true and items work -- though, wondering what the soul mother does with those ;)

Quote

If (please note the word "if") we would implement such a thing, I would think that this would compensate (at least somewhat) for SS loss due to lags, disconnects or other technical glitches.
It does, it definitely does. I do want to say how much it helps is proportional to the price of course, I mean...  If they were entirely unobtainable like... "You must deliver 100 blond hair blue eyed orphans to the plane of the lost on the 5th day of the 13th month when both moons are in the sky, directly before a purple and green sunrise while supplementing your gift with 1,000,000 true, seven sets of enchanted mithril amour, a leaf from the great oak, and the claw of a fire breathing dragon, while riding on Rofirein himself!"  Then it helps a little less ;).  But I don't think it cheapens the system if the price* is high but obtainable, and it does instill hope.  

Lala


*By price I mean quest/cost/risk not just monetary

p.s. and.... obviously I was kidding on the aforementioned price!  I would never suggest the delivering of 100 children *shifty eyes*
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: jrizz on June 15, 2008, 12:09:51 PM
Reattachment is a great way to go. So to your questions:

Quote from: EdTheKet

1) what people would think if it was possible to re-attach a SS


I'm all for it. Just to make sure, we are still talking about the MMO here. It should only be available to a PC that is two away from perming.

Quote

2)how much they would be willing to "pay" for the re-attachment of a SS.


The bar could not be too high in a pay to play world for this but at the same time it should not be to low. It would have to be doable by most PCs so it would have to scale to the power/level/build (whatever the MMO uses to measure progress). As to "pay" it would have to sting but not too much.

Quote

3) how easy or hard this should be (i.e. only for high levels, or for everyone, or only on certain quests, or for a bunch of True, or... you name it)


As I said it would need to be reachable by most "levels" say after the equivalent of 10. I would like to see it take the shape of a scripted quest of some kind as well but more like this:

1. It would take a well balanced group to get the PC to some place.
- The risk should be medium.
- the path should be through a combo of no magic, high magic, and wild magic areas.
2. At some point it should be a only the person in need goes from here alone (I know it could be a line of folks but still one at a time).
3. The candidate then needs to go through some ordeal and pay some price (XP, stat point, etc..)
4. The candidate is then passed through a bindstone kind of thing (ported back to some bindstone) and must wait out a full recovery. No logging out and waiting but the reflection time must be done fully IG.
5. The reason I would put in the port part is that the group has to get back with whoever is left so it would discourage the round up type of thing.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: EdTheKet on June 15, 2008, 12:42:44 PM
Quote
Just to make sure, we are still talking about the MMO here.

We are!
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Pibemanden on June 15, 2008, 12:56:11 PM
Quote from: EdTheKet
I was wondering:
1) what people would think if it was possible to re-attach a SS


I wouldn't mind as long as you could still die somehow and not end up going in a loop of loosing strands and getting some back.

Quote from: EdTheKet
2)how much they would be willing to "pay" for the re-attachment of a SS.


Well I would leave that up to Lore to state how much should be payed for a return. As long as it is a reasonable price to pay for a player who playes around an avarge of 2 or so hours each day(Or well 14 hours a week) and not something that can be obtained easier by playing more or less but more by having played a "long time"(Not saying that you have to have played for years but a couple of months maybe) on the server.

Quote from: EdTheKet
3) how easy or hard this should be (i.e. only for high levels, or for everyone, or only on certain quests, or for a bunch of True, or... you name it)


Actually I would like it to scale with level, since the current system sort of dictates that the more powerful the person the more willing the harvester is to get his/her hands on the persons soul, so I would guess that the harder it will be to get her to part with a hold of a soul of a powerful person.
I sort of like the idea of traveling to the harvesters place and get the piece of your soul back, just as back when you could get your fallen commerades on the plane. Actually make it sort of like that but instead of instant permadeath on visiting the plane make it so that you will loose a strand if you die there no matter what.
Also as a side note I would like for this thing to stop at some point, say in nwn terms if you reach level 30-35 the harvester simply wont part with your soul no matter what and you will be a target for permadeath. This way players can actually have a chance to see all of the world given that they can get to a higher level but at some point everyone dies so at some point you will just have to forget about picking up more strands.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Chongo on June 15, 2008, 02:26:32 PM
Quote from: EdTheKet
I was wondering:
 1) what people would think if it was possible to re-attach a SS and
 2)how much they would be willing to "pay" for the re-attachment of a SS.
 3) how easy or hard this should be (i.e. only for high levels, or for everyone, or only on certain quests, or for a bunch of True, or... you name it)
 
 If (please note the word "if") we would implement such a thing, I would think that this would compensate (at least somewhat) for SS loss due to lags, disconnects or other technical glitches.
 
 1) I think this is a good idea, but should come at great sacrifice.
 
 2) You can't make this based off gold, items, or anything that is based off an economy like ours.  Talk about the rich getting richer... this sort of thing would create so much hate and angst.  Now if you consider it a process or effort on the soul itself, how about something like this:
 
 - You're at 9 SS's lost, you now have the option to seek out an NPC healer and be set back to 'half-strength' with your soul, or 5 SS's remaining.  The process of doing this weakens you, you lose half your total experience, and lose a point of constitution (white not green, so permanent).  You can do this as many times as you want until you bottom out on that stat (i.e. 3).  So let's look at an example.  
 
 Character A facing imminent death, and goes to the NPC.  The process occurs, and at 20 million experience, he loses 10 million, and all the levels that go with that.  His constitution of 18 is reduced to 17, and where the maximum +12 'buffed' constitution was once 30, it is now 29.  In the process of regaining strength to the attaching strands, he went from 9 SS's to 4 SS's lost.  Were he to have had SMD, and were at 14 SS's, he would go to 9 SS's lost.
 
 3) It's only fair if it's for everyone.  Yes, there should be a cost to maintain an atmosphere of 'business' with the NPC healer, shaman, witchdoctor... whatever.  But it shouldn't be made to breed exclusivity (i.e., don't make it a million gold).  When we do things like making this process require a certain epic level, or an epic item, or an absurd amount of gold... we reap what we sow.  People will become more organized to ensure their safety, and they'll focus on finding the means to do so.  They will horde wealth or whatever else is necessary, and we will find guild-like accumulation whereby the rich stay rich, the old players show great advantage, and the likelihood of OOC financial support for 'my buddy's new character' becomes more desirable.  And it's not the old player's or the guild's fault... they are adapting to a system which we present in the most natural of instincts, self preservation.  So it needs to be for everyone.  The good players, the bad players, the old and the young, the rich and the poor, etc etc.  It needs to be based solely on individual loss alone without the opportunity for outside influence, aid, or what have you.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Dorganath on June 15, 2008, 03:29:26 PM
Quote from: Chongo
- You're at 9 SS's lost, you now have the option to seek out an NPC healer and be set back to 'half-strength' with your soul, or 5 SS's remaining.  The process of doing this weakens you, you lose half your total experience, and lose a point of constitution (white not green, so permanent).  You can do this as many times as you want until you bottom out on that stat (i.e. 3).  So let's look at an example.  
 
 Character A facing imminent death, and goes to the NPC.  The process occurs, and at 20 million experience, he loses 10 million, and all the levels that go with that.  His constitution of 18 is reduced to 17, and where the maximum +12 'buffed' constitution was once 30, it is now 29.  In the process of regaining strength to the attaching strands, he went from 9 SS's to 4 SS's lost.  Were he to have had SMD, and were at 14 SS's, he would go to 9 SS's lost.
 


Just for the sake of discussion, that would make the healer NPC more powerful than the Soul Mother.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Acacea on June 15, 2008, 03:52:36 PM
Well, I think he was just posting the 'price' and all that for discussion, not so much who you get it from...after all, in any return system at all, something has to trigger it. So just replace "npc" with "trigger" and mostly the same thing is intact for comment :P
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Chongo on June 15, 2008, 03:54:56 PM
Totally fair Dorg.  I was just answering Ed's question in a manner that I feel would play out the best in practice.  I'm not going to weigh in on too many of my opinions on the DT system, I don't think it will do anyone any good.  But in regard to my answer to Ed's question I'll say this.  I've got a pretty good grasp on how it actually plays out in game amongst all the varying types of players.  What I suggested in response to his query is the beginnings of what I deem the most non-preferential means of doing this in a manner that will feel good for all players, allow for a viable mechanical option which doesn't require numerous systems or direct GM action, and maintains the atmosphere of life, death, and loss.  Beyond that, I'm not going to get sucked into DT discussion.
 
 It's on Ed to look at the lore/realism side of it.
 
 O.o
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Pen N Popper on June 15, 2008, 04:04:58 PM
Quote from: Chongo
But it shouldn't be made to breed exclusivity (i.e., don't make it a million gold). When we do things like making this process require a certain epic level, or an epic item, or an absurd amount of gold... we reap what we sow.

Bravo!  Make everyone have an equal chance at making the sacrifice required to live in the manner they choose to live.
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: jrizz on June 15, 2008, 04:28:26 PM
Quote from: Chongo
1)
 - You're at 9 SS's lost, you now have the option to seek out an NPC healer and be set back to 'half-strength' with your soul, or 5 SS's remaining.  The process of doing this weakens you, you lose half your total experience, and lose a point of constitution (white not green, so permanent).  You can do this as many times as you want until you bottom out on that stat (i.e. 3).  So let's look at an example.  


I really like the stat point loss idea on this but instead of doing a bottom out kind of thing make so that the most you can lose is 5 points or so. The XP loss is quite large and might be a bit much for a pay to play world. One level lost I think is sufficiently rough. So basically it could be done 5 or so times at a loss of stat points and levels (read XP).
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: lonnarin on June 15, 2008, 05:11:00 PM
I think we're all kicking ourselves now for killing Sinthar before first reverse engineering those Bloodpools and unlocking his secret to uncanny immortality.  Human sacrifice might not be potent enough for Soul Mother to trade, but dragon souls... *licks his lips*  Maybe if we kill Fisty and eat his still beating heart that might have some effect.  At the very least, Soul Mother might be a little more nervous next time when she comes collect!

I find however if every time you die you say a quick poem to Soul Mother or scream out "Ahoy my pale, sexy morbid one, I'm back!"  She tends to roll high.  You wouldn't believe how many 99s Farros gets, heheh.  I imagine only a skald could have the deathly, doomish voice that could possibly woo her.  Athus had it all wrong, why fight her?  That'll just make her more bitter and vengeful.  Let the lady of utter death feel that she's wanted, remind her that she's pretty, and don't forget to send flowers on her deathday. Everybody's always cursing her name when loved ones die, tricking her with phylacteries, trying to kill her... but does anyone ever really think about HER feelings?   ;)
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: EdTheKet on June 15, 2008, 05:22:29 PM
Quote
Everybody's always cursing her name when loved ones die, tricking her with phylacteries, trying to kill her... but does anyone ever really think about HER feelings?

Yes, two people to be exact ;)
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Acacea on June 15, 2008, 05:26:33 PM
Not so! *raises her character's hand as well* She has been on a personal quest about the soul mother for a couple decades now...
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: lonnarin on June 15, 2008, 06:01:41 PM
Besides, shouldn't we be cursing the Harvester instead?  He's like the collections agency, the taxman involved.  As I understand it the Soul *Mother* is the very reason babies have life in them to begin with.  After all the faithful souls are recruited by their respective gods, the rest of the pagans and heretics have to travel that long thread, avoid getting kidnapped by demons on the way and hopefully those that reach the end of the thread-trail are recycled into a new blank slate.  New body, new strands, the only down part is you forget all those "levels" fromy our past life, and you can't exactly choose the race, so you might be a goblin this time.

So we are essentially immortal in the sense that this soul power is neither created nor destroyed, but being transferred into 3 basic options 1) dutiful Afterlife with our gods (eternal until they fall, I guess) 2) reborn unaware of our past lives as a newborn baby with a clean slate and all threads intact, or 3) consumed by a demon army and warped into a soldier to hopefully rise in the ranks and become the next Xandrial.  Permadeath is just the end of one cycle and the beginning of a new one.

Now undeath, I see that as breaking this natural cycle.  We haven't truly defined that yet, but as I see it, they're like the ones who rather than follow the trail after death or join a god or get reborn or turn into a demon, used their force of will, or were ripped back into it by somebody else's accord via necromancy to "trick the system" so to speak.  Revenants refuse to stay down and move on until their task is done, Liches cheat with phylacteries like offshore bank accounts avoiding the taxman,  ghosts perhaps got VERY lost on the way, or something holds them here, etc. In that sense, powerful necromancer beings sort of starve the life cycle, by using necromancy to stop the recollection portion of the cycle.  This could be why places overrun with necromancy are "blighted".  This overwhealming aura of negative energy disrupts all the standard positive life energies, stunting or killing plant growth, making creatures sickly, etc.

Negative energy vs positive energy seems to indicate the type of frequency of the life energies, and maybe that type of frequency is much like matter/antimatter in science fiction, or positively and negatively charged ends of the magnet.  The lifecycle seems to be based on moving positively charged energies, standard soul enegy.  Necromancy could essentially flip the magnet sides on it, or ionize the soul particle so to speak, so that the souls involved are pushed away from the primary intended direction of the cycle, rather than drawn to it.  Of course dispersing the "magnetic field" of the necromancy via killing the will binding it together works in sending the soul back, as would "repolarizing" it with positive energy, healing an undead to death.  One could conversely solve the mortal problem like telling his wife goodbye or slaying the one who slew him to allow the soul to willingly repolorize himself from negative to positive energy.

Oh man, I should never have read The Physics of Star Trek.  Now I'm taking an engineer's approach to investigating fictional mythos. :P
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Script Wrecked on June 16, 2008, 01:16:13 AM
Quote from: Dorganath
Just for the sake of discussion, that would make the healer NPC more powerful than the Soul Mother.


Not if the NPC healer was the Soul Mother! *que sinister plot music* ;)
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: Stephen_Zuckerman on June 17, 2008, 04:17:41 PM
Quote from: lonnarin
much like matter/antimatter in science fiction,

Science FICTION?

Antimatteris REAL. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter)
Title: Jumping in with a game designer's perspective...
Post by: SteveMaurer on August 27, 2009, 06:42:40 PM
Let me put in a few comments with my old game RPG designer's hat on.

What we're discussing here is just another variation of the age-old attempt at balancing dramatic tension vs gameworld realism.  In other words, "role playing" vs "power gaming".

So-called "Power Gaming" is the realism side of the equation.    When death is permanent, everyone is a "power gamer", for completely legitimate reasons.   The U.S. military, for example, thinks nothing of spending a million dollars to buy and use a missile rather than risk soldiers in some dramatic mano-a-mano setting as most first person shooters would have you think armed conflict looks like.   Artillery was the main method of killing soldiers in WW2.  This, because to quote Patton, "You're job isn't to die for your country, your job is to make the other poor bastard die for HIS".    It is the objective of every soldier and sailor to "powergame" so as to make every fight completely and totally unfair - boring even (except for the people doing the dying, of course).

But it's very hard to construct a story of personal valor and daring-do from  such cold, impersonal, logic.   PCs walking around with one SS loss from death may act "realistically" for once their lives, but games are supposed to be fun, and this requires some forgiveness of risk-taking.

The question is how to do this and still keep the dramatic tension, which is what makes games fun.    Dramatic tension usually has one or more of the following elements:[LIST=1]
Judging by these criteria, the current death system is a mixed bag.  The penalty is severe, but it happens too predictably.  There are varying degrees of risk based on level, but this isn't really controllable.  Mitigation is nearly impossible, and utterly inaccessible to all but the highest powered PCs (no one will do a ECDQ vs the Soul Mother on behalf of a non-Epic PC, and it never until the PC is permed).  There is no time limit, and no real potential for conflict.  Resurrection is overpriced and mostly worthless.

In short, the current death system has many of the elements that would give it dramatic tension.  Better than auto-XP loss system in many ways,  it is still too lax at the beginning, and too severe at the end.  I'd give it a solid "B".  

Still, it is what it is.   Ed has invested too much thought into the cosmology to just abandon it for no reason.    And I completely support that.    I would only suggest that there may be things that could be done, tinkering around the edges, to raise that "B" to a "B+" or an "A-".

Here are a few:[LIST=1]
Steve Maurer
Title: Re: DTs
Post by: jrizz on August 27, 2009, 07:14:33 PM
Good stuff Steve! I hope it can be considered holistically and not picked at around the edges.

riz
Title: Re: Jumping in with a game designer's perspective...
Post by: Dorganath on August 27, 2009, 07:41:08 PM
Interesting analysis.  

And to address your points...

Quote from: SteveMaurer

Here are a few:[LIST=1]
  • Add "retying" a Soul Strand as a quest reward that GMs are allowed to offer - specifically something the non-violent Churches like Aeridin and Az'atta can do.  This isn't something done every day, but I see no reason why if magicians have learned a secret "Soul Mother defense", the Gods themselves should not be able to reknit a Soul Strand for mortals they're particularly happy about (knit one, perl two).
  • Make sure quests offering such rewards are not tilted towards the ultra powerful PCs - to the Gods, purity of service to them, would likely be more important than PC power. (Note: this reward need not be advertised either.)
  • Add an additional XP "bite" that PCs are subject to, as an entirely different roll on death. (Soul Mother - yum.)   The strength of this bite is dependent on your level and how many Soul Strands you have left (i.e. your soul is chewed on a percentage basis, and very few strands makes your soul very easy to chew).
  • Make it so that XP of this bite can be healed (the XP returned) by a Raise Dead (say, 100,000 XP) or Resurrection (maybe 200,000 XP) spell if cast within a specific time limit (tick tick tick - your soul is bleeding - tick tick tick), so long as the PC has not respawned.  Maybe make it so that closer the alignment, the more the XP returned is (with full XP restoration being possible by being Resurrected by the cleric of your own God).
  • Add potential alignment alteration penalties for clerics/paladins for resurrecting people of significantly different alignments, to make this not something that happens automatically.
  • Give scrolls of Resurrection/Raise Dead alignments.  "Raise Dead - Good", "Raise Dead - Neutral", etc.
  • Let logged-in GMs check out a SS-loss undo wand for any of their registered quests.  Misclicks or server overloads on popular quests seem to simply happen too often to keep bothering the DB team with.
Steve Maurer

1. There's actually another sort of system in mind for this, and at one point I was going to code it up, but I ran out of time and the balance of the whole thing became too much for the time.  The weighting of the current system of returning from perming or rather...erasing the loss of the last Soul Strand is sort of a half-way implementation of this concept, one based firmly within the (yes, somewhat secret) lore regarding the Soul Mother, death, Soul Strands and the whole mess.  There is a more complete and fully in-game method of reattaching Soul Strands planned for the MMO, but at this time, it is not fully designed and as such I'll not give it any more comment except to say it'll be different.

The concept regarding clergy of Az'atta or Aeridin touches on something that bleeds into #2, so...

2. From a lore perspective, and even looking into the old lore (i.e. the v2 Handbook that's largely out-of-date now), there's all sorts of speculation about the Soul Mother and the gods.  Some say there's a bargain between them, some say the gods fear the Soul Mother but no one knows why. These are just two possible reasons of potentially many for why the gods do not directly intervene in such matters.  They are allowed to claim souls once dead, but they do not typically override this very basic and fundamental "law" of life and death. Perhaps they are unable.  Perhaps they are prevented due to some binding contract.  Who knows? It's a good, if potentially exclusive, thought, but consider that there may be actual good reasons unknown to mortals as to why the gods to not prolong life in this way.

3. It used to be more heavy on the XP penalty several years ago. I myself "bounced" off of level 10 more times than I care to admit, personally.  Other long-time players have similar stories of how much XP they lost in a single day due to the death system's penalties.  They were very harsh.  Now, perhaps there is some other balance between "then" and "now" but working out that balance and then determining if it's the right one takes time, testing and a very patient player base.  The last doesn't concern me because most of our players are pretty good about such things. Regardless of whether we tweak our current penalty-on-death system or not, the whole thing is being re-done for the MMO anyway, as we don't really have XP in the way that NWN does.

4. Hmm...not quite sure what reasoning behind that is.  As it stands now, both in lore and in mechanics, the hardship of death is in the dying, not the return to life.  If you look at our documentation Raise Dead and Resurrection already reduce the penalties when returning to life over simple respawning, making the reflection time and the attribute penalties related to returning to life.

5. As far as our deities are concerned, it is less about what alignment a person is but rather the relationship between the deity of the raised versus that of the raiser. We have plenty of clerics who refuse to raise followers of unfriendly or enemy deities.  It hits them with an XP penalty.  I'm sure you've ready this already, but the death system (http://lore.layonara.com/Death%20System) information outlines all this.  There's another point too, but it bleeds into #6...

6. Isn't this sort of like alignment metagaming?  Doesn't it sort of increase the burden on a healer?  Consider a LN priest of Rofirein.  Would he really care if someone was fallen and of Lawful Evil alignment? First off, he wouldn't even know the deceased was LE. He would care if the fallen was a devout of Corath or Baraeon Ca'Duz, however, and likely not wish to raise that particular person.  Same would be if the fallen was CN.  The alignment is of lesser importance.  In another example, a priest of Az'atta would raise pretty much anyone regardless of alignment or religious affiliation, because in such an act is a chance to redeem that person.

In another example, how many people adventure in mixed alignment groups?  Plenty, but let's stick with a group of Good and Neutral characters.  It's pretty common for characters over a certain level to start carrying around Raise Dead scrolls in case there's no cleric or if the cleric ends up dead. Having alignment-specific Raise Dead scrolls means people have to carry twice as many scrolls to cover the possibilities.

7. As the guy who usually handles the Soul Strand returns, I can honestly say that when I wait and do them in batches, each one takes me maybe 15 seconds. On another administrative note, there have been times where a GM needs time to consider the circumstances of the event and resulting loss before being able to state confidently one way or the other. Lastly, on a somewhat cynical note, I'd much rather spend a few seconds reattaching Soul Strands than hours of wasted time answering accusations of favoritism against a GM and allegations of him/her using such a tool to freely refund Soul Strands to his/her friends.
Title: Re: Jumping in with a game designer's perspective...
Post by: SteveMaurer on August 28, 2009, 02:08:59 AM
Quote from: Dorganath
Interesting analysis.

Thank you.

First off, if there is some secret bargain between the Gods and the Soul Mother, and this is important to the world, then nothing should trump that.    Speaking only for myself, however, not only have I learned not to try to "read between the lines" in reading LORE, I don't even try to merely "read the lines" themselves!  The stuff changes too fast, and gets too out of date for me to depend on.   So I try to always ask, even if that end up sounding pedantic at times.

The reason why I suggest the potential for XP loss is to make up for my suggestion that Soul Strands can be occasionally regained.   (Lower one danger - raise another.)   But to raise the dramatic tension, I make the XP loss something that isn't necessarily permanent, and the timer just raises the pressure, which makes players sweat.

Actually, thinking about it further, I'm still missing some dramatic elements, especially around the person who died.   Hmmm.....  maybe if the Death Void wasn't actually a void, but some mysterious ghostly ruins filled with danger.  You might find what you lost there - pieces of yourself - or lose more.... maybe working the soul stone into it, if you find your way to the person trying to resurrect you, you don't lose the XP.

Ahh...  not going to happen.

I completely agree about the alignment scrolls.  I merely suggested the Good/Neutral/Evil resurrection spells as a compromise for what I'd really want - deity specific Raise Dead/Resurrects.   But NwN doesn't have room for 26 new items (52 if you included both flavors).
SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2026, SimplePortal