The Soul Mother - Still necessary?

[jrizz]

OK so on thinking about it the best way to do this would be to make no changes to number of SS and not to remove SMD and just implement the reattachment policy as is. Then set some rules around it like:

1. levels can only be repeated once
2. Once a level is past the opportunity is past
3. It is not open to PCs under the level of 12.

something like that.

[jrizz]

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.

Yeah good points Dorg that is why I made my above post. As to reattaching yes it would be a admin action but there is already a process for that and for removal of XP all it would take is a GM to remove it and then post for the SS return. But I hear ya as it comes to NWN layo.

One little thing:

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.

Not really as at lower levels you have more opportunities to get ss back then you do at higher levels.


On the MMO as I said it is about if you are making a business out of it or a hobby. To make a business then I suggest strongly that you dont put in a forced perma death system. Remember the current community here is a extremely small sample of the customer base you will need to make a viable and sustainable business.

[Gulnyr]

Your first idea was alright.  The 4 Strands part just made it extra messy.

One problem with your initial idea is that Soul Strand attachment shouldn't be trivial (at least in my opinion).  That just seems like a big deal, since Strands are an IC thing, not just a mechanic.  Making reattachment available via xp exchange basically makes it possible to gain Strands back without doing anything at all in a totally OOC way.  That's because quests are a huge source of xp (the most efficient source for most characters), a lot of quests involve no danger at all, and anyone can basically just tag along on a quest for the full xp reward at the end.  The more quests you can make, the faster you can buy a Strand back by chatting up a DM on irc.  There needs to be something to bring it back IC, but I don't have any ideas right now.

Another problem is that leveling is supposed to be done as soon as possible.  If your character levels in the middle of combat, you should be leveling as soon as the battle is over, not two hours later after everyone is out of the dungeon.  If we are suddenly able to trade xp for Strands, that rule is going to get shoved aside a lot, and anything that makes an exploit common practice or clearly counters an established rule is bad.

A tangent problem is that DMs would be bugged to remove xp.  Not a big deal, but I'd rather they were logging in to create atmosphere and promote RP rather than handle accounting.

For the MMO, it's possible the free-for-all server could have no chance of permanent death while the world-changing RP server would have it.  It's not much to ask that players who want to change the world buy into a little risk for their characters.

[stolen]

Dont convolute a great idea....its simple and a solid idea as originally stated. It lets people enjoy their characters for longer still with the chance of death. People will just have to make decisions when leveling.
Even with quests most people still take quite a while to level. Taking away a level is not something as trivial as it is sounding like.

[ShiffDrgnhrt]

Yay risk!

[jrizz]

The MMO is going to be tricky since it is a business as well as a game. On that I am with Chongo how do you make it dramatic and scary to die while not losing your customers. The idea of the two worlds is a interesting one. As a experiment it will show where the user base wants to be by where the most usage is. It will be good to see what happens after a bit when players/customers start to lose their PCs.

[Chongo]

Taking away a level is not something as trivial as it is sounding like.

Yeah it is.  And the fact that we're so far from each other on that opinion is the problem.  

I'll say it again - tying strands to progression is a bad idea for this very reason.  It penalizes in the same direction every other progression based system does.

[jrizz]

Yeah it is. And the fact that we're so far from each other on that opinion is the problem.
 
 I'll say it again - tying strands to progression is a bad idea for this very reason. It penalizes in the same direction every other progression based system does.

 
 I think I am starting to get what you mean. If you look at it from the POV of all the different play styles you get very different views of progression and its affects. So it is really hard to find a way that can work without leaving some group or set of groups out in the cold. Of course that also means the reverse is also an issue. Meaning you cant find a perma death system that does not leave some group or set of groups out in the cold. So if I get your meaning there is no good/fair for all way to create a death system or to create a system that "counters" a death system.

[miltonyorkcastle]

At least not one that Chongo has figured out. And it's exactly those concerns that we carry into the MMO.

[jrizz]

At least not one that Chongo has figured out. And it's exactly those concerns that we carry into the MMO.

 
 
 If you are saying that we have great concerns about the idea of a forced perma death system in a pay to play world then I share those concerns deeply.

[lonnarin]

If it's a PVP server, necromancers and evil clerics should get some chance to steal other people's strands via bloody sacrifice.  What's the point of evil bloody sacrifice if you can't even live forever in some soulless undead husk of ultimate power?

[stolen]

Taking away a level is only trivial for people who can go get a boatload of xp in a night. That isnt the majority of the people here.

[Chongo]

Taking away a level is only trivial for people who can go get a boatload of xp in a night. That isnt the majority of the people here.

You're missing the point completely Stolen.

Many of our problems of server inequity come from the fact that most tangible gains derive from the same progression line.  Therefore, we should avoid any further ties into the same old problematic system.

I've been neck deep in the issues of server inequity due to varying progression rates for a good while now.  And I've got good visibility on the issues.  What ends up happening is that we develop the same old spread of the lowest and highest denominators.  This has to do with all manner of things - and I cringe when people simplify it to one issue.  More then anything else, time and availability impacts this.  Time is the single most variable issue in our game and it's amazing folks still like shouting playstyle.  Playstyle impacts this as well of course.  Luck in finding groups when you're on impacts this.  Luck in having a good group develop.  Social skills impacts this.  All sorts of things come into impact this.  And due to the highest common denominator existing, the balance of anything in progression ends up being forced upward.

So when we tie SS reimbursement into XP progression - we add to the problem.  Now, the instinct of those that maybe haven't been around long enough or been given enough visibility to see the reality behind the game - they often like to say that it's the people at the HCD that are the problem.  Folks that have been dealing with it on the standard roller coaster ride of a PW, whether it be an oldtimer player who's just wisened up, or a dev who's gone back and forth on balancing to all the different variables of inevitable inequity.... they often come to see that while there are 'problems' with certain individuals, the HCD as a whole is far more complex.  The issue of time alone breaks everything.  

It needs to be outside of this measure.  Otherwise we end up walking the same old path of futility.  And that is policing the people in manners that are rarely objective or with any backing data (i.e. criticizing someone who's gone from 1 to 20 in less then 9 months as having poor playstyle when in fact they've played the equivalent of 17 of your years in game).  Or we establish systems within progression that end up unfair to the HCD.  For example, let's say SS reattachments were given a xx per month limit.  Well - how is that fair for the person who plays more in that month then others will play that year?  It goes both ways.  Any system that bases itself around survival should seek to veer away from standard progression tracks that are already too difficult to pull off fairly for the community as a whole.

[stolen]

I do get your point and I cant disagree that its not fair to everyone. Nothing ever is. I just think its the most fair to the most people.

If anyone ever finds some solution that fair for everyone, that might be the first time it has happened.

[jrizz]

@Chongo I am getting your point now. As for the use of play style in my above post I use the term to encompass all the variables (time, luck, grouping, time zones, social skills) you mention. So what needs to happen is that PC progression needs to be decoupled from the above "play style" variables. Also any death/life force system also needs to be decoupled from the same list especially time and most of all luck.

I would say that the one single largest issue with the current death system is luck. And if that is true there really is no good way of dealing with ss reattachments since luck good or bad is still the driving force. And this is due to NWN layo being a XP based on kills or quests progression system. Luck is a random thing and you can die 100 times and never lose a ss or you can die 10 times and lose one each time. Furthermore it stays completely random for the life of your PC. So you can have a great run of luck and get to high levels and invest years in your PC and then have a very bad run of luck and lose the investment completely.

My question now is - Is luck fair?


As a side note: I really cant find much on the Soul Mother and the deeply invested in world lore of why she does what she does. But one thing about her is for sure based on how the system works she is Chaotic So a question on the Soul Mother formation in game creation terms - What came first the death system or the Soul Mother?

[Dorganath]

My question now is - Is luck fair?

Depends on which side of the luck you're on. Ask anyone who goes to a casino and plays slots.  Ask the guy who hits a nice payoff.  Ask the guy who loses every coin he put in.  Same "luck" but different distribution.

Luck is neither fair nor unfair.  It can, however, be cruel or forgiving.

As a side note: I really cant find much on the Soul Mother and the deeply invested in world lore of why she does what she does.

Nope, and you won't find it, as there's parts of the Soul Mother that are unknown even to most of the GM Team.

[Gulnyr]

So what needs to happen is that PC progression needs to be decoupled from the above "play style" variables.

No.  How would that work?  The progression of a character has to be closely linked to how much time the player puts in.  No one should be able to start a character, go on vacation, and come back to find that character is more powerful.  No one who has time to play should have their character's advancement held back by some arbitrarily assigned progression limit.  That'll just make him mad.

Luck is also a big part of it.  Luck is just a word for the randomness of things - if you find a cool rare drop or get ten lumps of ore from the vein instead of one you're "lucky", and you're "unlucky" if you don't.  The randomness makes the world better.  If everything is the same for everyone - with no randomness or luck - that's pretty boring.

For the other things you mentioned, like time zones and social skills...  I don't know.  It's not Leanthar's fault if you're too shy to ask to join a group.  It's not Ed's fault if the server happens to be kinda dead when you can log in so you have fewer chances to find groups.  Not everything should be soloable, but solo play should be possible in a many cases, sure.  That doesn't mean a soloer should necessarily be just as quick at progressing as someone with a good group to hook up with regularly.

You can't separate these things from progression.

My question now is - Is luck fair?

You know there's already a whole thread about this, right?  I think the system is fair because it doesn't discriminate but treats every character the same way, even if some end up more "lucky" in the end.  Others think it's not fair because some get to die more times than others, even though equal deaths for all would discriminate against certain builds, roles, and classes.  I can see value in both positions (though I still prefer one over the other).  It's not a simple question with a black-and-white answer.

[jrizz]

Oh I have to disagree that luck is neither fair or unfair but as to cruel or forgiving you are right on

Fair -   free from dishonesty or injustice:
Unfair - disproportionate

Using these two definitions and your subject of gambling we have to find that luck is disproportionate. Gambling works as a business because most people lose, that is why the house always wins.

So truly luck favors the few.

Any system based on luck cannot be fair and balanced and equitable to all. To achieve fairness a system has to have set rules free from randomness and be the same progressively for all invested.

Now this brings up more questions and thoughts - Do we really want a fair death system? Do we really want to know before hand when our PCs will die? Perhaps luck/gambling is part of the fun, perhaps the drama of losing a good friend is part of the fun, perhaps we all secretly want the chance to die heroically and be remembered fondly by those we leave behind.

[jrizz]

Luck is also a big part of it.  Luck is just a word for the randomness of things - if you find a cool rare drop or get ten lumps of ore from the vein instead of one you're "lucky", and you're "unlucky" if you don't.  The randomness makes the world better.  If everything is the same for everyone - with no randomness or luck - that's pretty boring.

Yes you are right, in some senses of the game randomness is very fun, such as in drops and collecting CNR. But for me my PC is much more important to me then a lump of coal so it is hard for me to see it that way when it comes to permanent loss of my PC. And maybe I am just too invested in my PC and really need to divest myself of the emotional attachment I have to him. I know some players are like that, they still have great fun and deep immersion without the emotional attachment.

If we are going to have a forced perma death system in the MMO then maybe we need a grief management forum as well

[Gulnyr]

Gambling works as a business because the games are designed to be unfair in favor of the house.  Everyone knows that going in (at least they should), so choosing to gamble and coming out a loser is not unfair - the loser knew what he was getting into.

For this:

Yes you are right, in some senses of the game randomness is very fun, such as in drops and collecting CNR. But for me my PC is much more important to me then a lump of coal so it is hard for me to see it that way when it comes to permanent loss of my PC. And maybe I am just too invested in my PC and really need to divest myself of the emotional attachment I have to him.

I was responding to the statement that progression should be separated from luck.  Someone who gets more resources to practice with will progress faster, right?  From the back-end perspective (that one person ends up with more resources from the same effort as another person), that's not really fair, right?  But you agree that the randomness is okay.  So do I.  Not only is it fun and realistic, but from the front-end perspective (that everyone had the same opportunity even if it worked out differently in the end) it's also fair.

Don't try to not care about your characters.  I think the emotional attachment can be important.  I love Jennara and I'd be pretty upset if she permed.  She's definitely more important to me than CNR coal.  Emotional attachment doesn't have any bearing on the death system's fairness, though.  It would feel unfair if she permed when someone else didn't (maybe), but that doesn't mean it actually is unfair.  And, again, that's not a simple question.