DTs

[jrizz]

well if a system based on hopelessness is better then one based on hope what do you suggest?

[jrizz]

(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.

[Dorganath]

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.

[jrizz]

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.

[twidget658]

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.

[Acacea]

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...

[jrizz]

@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?

[Dorganath]

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.

[Script Wrecked]

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)

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.

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).

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.

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.

[merlin34baseball]

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!

[twidget658]

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.

[merlin34baseball]

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.

[darkstorme]

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:

• 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.

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.)

[Kirbiana]

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.

[Serissa]

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.

[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.

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.

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.

[jrizz]

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.

@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.

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.

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.

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.

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

[Script Wrecked]

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.

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.

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?

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.

[Dorganath]

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.

[Makashi]

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.