The Soul Mother - Still necessary?

[Gulnyr]

The 'times you die' concept favors certain play styles and build choices over others.  Dying more shouldn't make it easier to lose strands or die permanently.  What if I want to play a not-so-clever charger who has a good chance of dying multiple times per day?  Should I be punished with a greater chance of permanent death for my character beyond the chances that are already stacked against me simply because I'm playing a not-so-clever charger?  What if I want to play the heroic type who stands and dies to hold the passage long enough that his friends can run away to safety?  Should I be punished with a short-lived character because I choose to make him selfless and he dies more often?  

Also, building in a mechanic that makes not logging in or parking a character out of the way overnight (or for days at a time) into viable strategies doesn't sound like a great plan.

[miltonyorkcastle]

Should I be punished with a greater chance of permanent death for my character beyond the chances that are already stacked against me simply because I'm playing a not-so-clever charger? What if I want to play the heroic type who stands and dies to hold the passage long enough that his friends can run away to safety? Should I be punished with a short-lived character because I choose to make him selfless and he dies more often?

As a player, no, you shouldn't be "punished." As a character, yes, you should eat those consequences everytime. So it boils down to, which is more important? The OOC factors of perma-death or the IC factors? Most of what's been raised here (and in all the other threads) are the OOC issues. Right now we do have a system that's got an IC explanation for its existance, and a pretty darn good one (at least I like it, heh) at that. We also have an OOC explanation, which is what was initially in question by the author of this thread, that we should get rid of the death system because the OOC reason is "invalid" or "not strong enough."

WARNING: The remainder of this post touches on arguments previously presented, and as such you may not wish to "waste" your time reading it.

But for me, I want every OOC mechanic to also make sense IC. I know that's just not possible 100% of the time (or even 50% of the time, it seems), but even so, to use the example given, if I purposefully choose to play a character I know will die many times, I'm also purposefully choosing to suffer a higher chance at perma-death, because that's the IC consequnces of playing that character type. In other words, the fact that the character is short-lived would be part of the "fun" of playing that character (yes, downsides can be fun :p), else why would I choose to play it? Translating this to the incorporation of more "balanced" OOC ways of handling IC death, I would still prefer that those "balanced" methods also make sense IC.

It seems to me that it should be IC for death to be scary and avoided, and that should your character choose not to avoid it, that he/she pays the piper. If not, if it was known IC (not to mention OOC bleeding into IC) that death could not hold PC's, then that changes the whole dynamics of the world. How did PC's gain such power; why do they have it and not the "common" person; maybe nobody dies, not PC's or NPC's? In order to give a world a sense of danger and suspense, you must have death, and a real chance to suffer from it. How that works out mechanically in an OOC sense can be made more balanced, or fair (because of deaths due to the lag-monster or other wierd OOC ways to die), or fun, or whatever, but I would suggest that no matter what OOC purpose the death system serves, it is the IC reasoning that is most important and is why the death system should remain in place.

Finally, I can say that what we have in mind for the MMO should satisfy (or at least come closer to satisfying) both camps, those of us who can't stand the OOC pain associated with character death, as well as those of us who actually enjoy the IC consequences surrounding perma-death.

[Gulnyr]

to use the example given, if I purposefully choose to play a character I know will die many times, I'm also purposefully choosing to suffer a higher chance at perma-death, because that's the IC consequnces of playing that character tyope.

This is exactly what I'm saying, that it's already built that way and shouldn't be worse.  Because I would have chosen to play a character that dies more often, the normal mechanics already make my character more likely to die permanently.  There's no need to add greater hardship on the player or to limit the viability of certain character types by making it more likely that a character loses strands simply because they die more often.

[miltonyorkcastle]

Yeah, sort of re-did that whole post, Gulnyr.

[jrizz]

I'm still waiting to hear of a viable solution.  Obviously it needs to be an in-game mechanic.  That is, hands free for staff.  But whatever system that is, it can't be leveraged off the same scales all other progression is leveraged off of.  That just ends up enabling mechanical power, and beyond that, another unfair social dynamic of who is favored by those mechanically powerful.  

I hope someone comes up with something both clever and fair someday.  I know I haven't.

I am sure it would be hard to automate this idea but it would take the subjectiveness out of the equation.

Idea:

SS reattachment cost = all the XP it takes to get to the next level. So to get one back you have to have enough XP to level but not level, instead you ask a GM to take it all away leaving back at the start of the level and post for a SS back.

Why does this work?
1. It is based on the same difficulty framework put in place for leveling so a SS is worth what ever level you are at.
2. The argument that the soul mother values higher level SS supports it (this is the argument that has been given many times as to why, as a PC gets stronger it is more likely to lose a SS)
3. It will slow down leveling.
4. It will be become a new way to reduce the number of PCs that make it to epic since many will use the 19 to 20 level to gain back SS. Of course those that do it right will enter epic with a lot of SS back.
5. We can abolish SMD as an added benefit.
6. Takes no (zero) code change.
7. The cost is high.


As for how I feel about the death system, well, the community knows full well where I stand. Mostly unsupported and fully against it as it is now.

[jrizz]

As an added note, another good thing about this idea is that is does not negatively affect anyone. Those who like to play under the death system, as it is, just dont have to use the reattachment process.

I am sure it would be hard to automate this idea but it would take the subjectiveness out of the equation.

Idea:

SS reattachment cost = all the XP it takes to get to the next level. So to get one back you have to have enough XP to level but not level, instead you ask a GM to take it all away leaving back at the start of the level and post for a SS back.

Why does this work?
1. It is based on the same difficulty framework put in place for leveling so a SS is worth what ever level you are at.
2. The argument that the soul mother values higher level SS supports it (this is the argument that has been given many times as to why, as a PC gets stronger it is more likely to lose a SS)
3. It will slow down leveling.
4. It will be become a new way to reduce the number of PCs that make it to epic since many will use the 19 to 20 level to gain back SS. Of course those that do it right will enter epic with a lot of SS back.
5. We can abolish SMD as an added benefit.
6. Takes no (zero) code change.
7. The cost is high.

[Tanman]

I like the idea that Jrizz proposes, but there should be something added in game. If its just about XP, its easy to get it back. But to have a test or some thing. The results will be discussed by the GM team it will cause people to have a bit of hope but think twice about  doing silly things.

There should be a time duration before people can reapply for SS reimbursement.

[Chongo]

But to have a test or some thing. The results will be discussed by the GM team it will cause people to have a bit of hope but think twice about  doing silly things.

Completely disagree due to points I brought up in my previous post.  We have so many subjective measures in place already that it ends up spreading the results unevenly.  And when the staff is backed into the corner of keeping things even across the board on subjective measures... it is overly stressful and ultimately forces them into sweeping measures that nobody really wants.

That said... xp basing it is tying it back to standard progression channels.  So while I think jrizz's suggestion is admirable, I definitely don't want to see it in the MMO.

I mean... what am I afraid to lose.... hmm.  How do you bring in viable loss if we get away from permadeath?  Well, here's what I'm afraid to lose.

- Obviously the character outweighs it all, but that's not the topic here.
- XP loss?  Meh.  I'm upset for maybe a night's sleep.  
- Stat points?  Yeah... that'd freak me out a bit.
- Level loss?  Maybe two night's sleep.  2 levels?  Kinda getting into downer-ville.  5 levels?  Ugh.  10 levels?  A fresh start and a new story suddenly seems intruiging on the side while I gather my head.  40 levels?  Hrm... not sure I'm up for going through with it again.  Consider me benched for late night convos with old friends.
- Item loss?  Hmm.  Wouldn't care early in life.  But if I lost the special blade with the troll ear, the vampiric tooth, acid resistance, a strength tome, a spellcraft tome, an acid elemental rod, a titanium rod, and a sharpening stone applied?  That's fast approaching the 'years worth of good luck' mark.  I'd probably retaliate by donating my wealth and playing naked for a while.  But hey, I'd have my character, and it'd likely warp itself into good places for development.  As long as I knew I didn't have to worry about losing my 'edge' for survival and would be at perm risk.


I mean, what else can you lose that *you* would feel a deep pang of loss for?  Think it over.  Doesn't have to be an actual mechanic.  That's probably the terrain people should be brainstorming in.  My head usually gets bogged down thinking NWN - which is not exactly growth of the idea really.  Every MMO dev I'm friends with wants to hear good ideas on everything under the sun.  Sure - they can't all be good ideas... but there's only one way to find out.

[Chongo]

I think I've made my view on this abundantly clear in other threads, so I'll just say that I'm in favour of the permadeath system and leave it at that.
 

You know... I feel like we should one-hit it sometimes.  One death = gone.  I'd like to see how it plays out for immersion, friendships and social development, continuity of plotline, and moreover player retention and player (not character) lifespan.  And I don't mean that sarcastically.  I'm really interested to see what it'd do.  At least we could then speak intelligently about our systems and their effect.

My instinct is that it'd shallow the server down.  But I can't say for sure because I haven't played in it.  Now... if I'm right, and it does shallow the server down - what does that say?  Does greater immersion occur through continuity of your own storyline and it's impact around you?  I dunno.  I think so, but I also wonder about the obvious.  Growing tired and apathetic of your life because change grows dimmer on the horizon.  So what's that say?  That we need to put a timestamp on it?  That there's a magic number that keeps you valuing your moments?  Heck, if I knew that, I'd be a wise man indeed.  Put it to the test in real life and there's no magic number.  It's all based in the moments and whether or not you're still bothering to figure out to use them with some vigor.  Some burn out quick on that note quick... some are still kicking it at 100.  So... more confusion here on my end.

All that said though... if immortality is the issue, why not race base it?  Defined age timeline, then you die.  Expectation and roleplay of that expectation.  More depth.  We'd probably learn a lot more about ourselves in this system.  Not a bunch of junk about some abstract dice roll mostly accumulated during lag spikes or quests carrying varying opinions on what 'difficulty' and 'investment' is.  You want to be around a longer time?  Play an elf.  You don't think that sort of thing counts to you?  Play whatever you want.  Seems fair to me.  You want loss, bring us back to age maybe.  At least nobody could whine after the fact about crashes, bad luck, subjective actions made by whoever... anything that takes the game and makes it too much like your house just burned down because a lightning bolt hit.  I mean... you picked it.  Fair's fair.  You're 340 and it's time to start talking to your close friends about where you want to be buried.

[jrizz]

I really like age based for the MMO of course that will mean a world populated by elves unless you are able to show real value to other races (you live a shorter life but you gain skills faster). But perma death in the MMO is really a business decision. Do you want a viable business meant to grow or do you want a hobby.

[stolen]

How do you bring in viable loss if we get away from permadeath?

Jrizz's idea would not be getting away from permadeath. Not only could you choose not to give up the xp for your level, and everyone values each level they get even if you can get the xp back seeing as how for most players it might take 3 or 4 weeks...or more for some, to get enough xp for that level, but you could also lose enough soul strands inbetween leveling to permadie. So this idea is by no means getting away from permadeath.

[jrizz]

Now on my xp based idea I really meant that for NWN layo not the MMO since I am sure the MMO wont be xp based. To explain it a bit more:

- The starting number of ss would have to be reduced to say 4 and have 4 be the upper limit as well.
- Get rid of SMD

This means that anytime a PC loses a ss the player has to decide do I try to get it back the next level or do I risk moving forward with only, really two more chances before you are on deaths door step.

[ShiffDrgnhrt]

I think the best sort of penalty for the MMO, if we moved away from Permadeath, would be some sort of deterioration of skills, abilities, etc

[stolen]

4 isn't enough. We don't want to have a world filled with 8-12th level characters, the level area where lots of character are starting to do more risky things, because they are afraid to go on to the next level and risk getting closer to permadeath. Stopping people from doing risky thing shouldn't be the goal, thats part of the fun of playing here. We need a world where you can continue on into the higher levels but the risk continues to grow. The more xp you need to level, the higher the risk of getting more than one lost strand between levels. There is still a risk involved even if you still have 10. At lower levels people will likely forgo giving up xp in order to get those precious levels they worked hard at. At higher levels, when you can do more fun things, you'll have a choice to make.
Lets face it. Everyone loves to level. When someone levels they send tells to all their friends to report it and get "yahoo", "congrats". This is because at some point leveling gets to be an accomplishment for most players. Something you look forward to for maybe as long as a month. This starts around level 10 when the xp necessary to level starts getting to the point where its not a day or 2 to level unless your a real grinder. From level 10 on it starts taking longer and longer to get those levels for most players.
Maybe there are some people who don't care about xp loss. I think most, like myself, do care.
The other day I was playing my monk Ash. I was doing things alone because at the time it was quiet, but all I was doing was collecting relatively simple things for crafting. I had a few runs of bad rolls and died twice, getting back to my gravestone both times. When someone asked me to go do something I was so happy to have someone to rp and travel with that I forgot about how much time had passed in the previous deaths and went out and died again resulting in the loss of 16000 xp. I was thinking about it for days afterward. Yes I was stupid and forgetful to let it happen. But I was having fun when I finally had a companion. Isn't that what its all about here really. Everyone is here to have fun.

Sorry for rambling on but I think Jrizz's original proposal is great with no changes. Still keeps risk,  but allows characters to get to those levels where you have more choices of things to do and don't have to keep killing goblins and such.

[Gulnyr]

6. Takes no (zero) code change.

- The starting number of ss would have to be reduced to say 4 and have 4 be the upper limit as well.

You have contradicted yourself.

[jrizz]

You have contradicted yourself.

LOL is that all. Well that is not a code change it is a db edit or at least it should be.

[Gulnyr]

It's a lot more than that because something would have to be done for all the characters that exist prior to the change.  Even if that's only edits, it's still a huge decision on how to handle things and a huge number of edits.  And if SMD is eliminated, then every character that has it would need to be rebuilt to get a replacement feat.

Changing the number of strands is a big deal.

[stolen]

It's a lot more than that because something would have to be done for all the characters that exist prior to the change.  Even if that's only edits, it's still a huge decision on how to handle things and a huge number of edits.  And if SMD is eliminated, then every character that has it would need to be rebuilt to get a replacement feat.

Changing the number of strands is a big deal.

Another good reason to keep it at 10 then. With the original proposal it requires no additional coding and doesn't effect existing characters much.

[jrizz]

It's a lot more than that because something would have to be done for all the characters that exist prior to the change.  Even if that's only edits, it's still a huge decision on how to handle things and a huge number of edits.  And if SMD is eliminated, then every character that has it would need to be rebuilt to get a replacement feat.

Changing the number of strands is a big deal.

Well the number issue would not be so bad, just set everyone to 4. As for the feat issue I guess if all the current epics really felt the need to get the extra feat then you are right something would have to be done. Adding a extra feat on what ever the next level is for anyone that took SMD would do it or we can take the good with the bad a just say "it is ok I dont need to be retro fitted" so the team would not have to do the work. Sure that gives the up and coming PCs a bit of an advantage but I am not one to bemoan that, heck more power to them. If another PC being more powerful then my PC had a negative affect on my fun on layo I would be a sad fellow

[Dorganath]

It's not that simple, jrizz.

We can't just "add a feat" as you say, as NWN won't let us without making illegal characters.

Out of the 62 active (logged in within the last 6 months) characters over 20th level, many of which have taken SMD and most of those, I'd guess, would want something instead, which would be a whole lot of work.

For sake of analysis, setting everyone to have 4 available soul strands would actually greatly favor those of higher levels simply from the fact that they have less of a hill to climb, having gotten all the way up to whatever level they're at with effectively zero strand loss, while new characters have the same weight hanging over them with a much longer path.

GMs don't currently have the ability to return strands, so either this would remain an administrative action, increasing the workload of those who manage them, or it would require additional code to sacrifice XP for Soul Strands.

There's been some very interesting suggestions, but there are valid reasons for the Soul Mother doing what she does, and they're deeply rooted in world lore.  We're sensitive to how this is a contentious issue with some players, and we're absolutely keeping that in mind for the MMO.