Put the Soul Mother to Rest? Maybe? Perhaps?

[hawklen]

Every death shouldn't have a huge exp loss, in my opinion. What about the same style rolling and if you fail the roll, you lose X amount of EXP?

Hey, I kinda like that. You roll a 1 and lose the max XP loss. roll high and lose just a little bit. Kinda interesting

[Dorganath]

If the next version isn't going to have any bugs and such, then making the Mother go poof will probably be a bit pointless to travel in the first place (well, after you finish running around like an insane person for a few all-nighters to explore the terrain). People only meet the Soul Mother by killing, bad tactics, bad judgment, or just sheer lack of luck...And most of this is during battles and traveling. As far as I know, most people battle for loot and exp, so ...

No Soul Mother + No exp/gold = No traveling to begin with meaning...No need for lack of Soul Mother?

I hate when I just wake up. I should really avoid posting. So long-winded.

Respectfully, I think this is the wrong perspective.  There are always bugs.  And as I said, Soul Strand losses from bugs were always returnable, and will continue to be returnable.

So if there were no bugs, then yes, there's no point in shutting off the Soul Mother rolls.

I guess I would have thought that some would enjoy exploring all the newness for a short time without as much risk, though consequently also without much reward outside of the excitement of discovery. Perhaps I was wrong.

[hawklen]

Respectfully, I think this is the wrong perspective.  There are always bugs.  And as I said, Soul Strand losses from bugs were always returnable, and will continue to be returnable.

So if there were no bugs, then yes, there's no point in shutting off the Soul Mother rolls.

I guess I would have thought that some would enjoy exploring all the newness for a short time without as much risk, though consequently also without much reward outside of the excitement of discovery. Perhaps I was wrong.

I did enjoy wandering everywhere when v3 first came out. Invisi is quite handy for that

[Chongo]

In closing, I'm curious how many of you would, if we turned off Soul Mother checks for a short time (if warranted), also support turning off all loot, gold and XP for kills during that same time.

 
 I've never played the sims before.
 
 :rolleyes:
 
 I understand your point there Dorg, I just kinda disagree with the tendency that's been taken over the years to say my way or the highway on the strand issue, and I don't mean to start a big fight, but it's almost always the stance taken by staff who don't regularly play any more.  Something to maybe conceed and evaluate.
 
 Ok, this is potentially mean to some folks, I hope they don't take offense.  I think the SS system kills off one of two things.  1) The lowest common denominator.  2) Those who play non-survivalist character types.
 
 In the first group, you have folks that are young, or not savvy to every aspect of the game.  Likewise, you have people who have started, are having a rough learning curve, and by the time they figure it out they're around level 17 with 9 DTs.  In the second group you have the non-survivalists.  And by that I mean several types of non-survivalists.  Roleplayed characters that simply aren't conducive to being safe, poorly built characters that just don't stand as much a chance in the grand scheme of balancing, or classes that are wildly fun to play, but due to mechanics and/or world balance, they tend to get picked off.
 
 These types just don't make it with the soul strand system in place.  
 
 My high power caster who ran the underdark pre-epic has two lost strands.  So I'd simply ask, who is this making the game better for?  And yes, that's self depracation regarding my playstyle with that character.
 
 Between two characters and 24,000,000 experience, or around... 100,000 dead creatures or thereabout... I have 7 lost strands.  I'm personally not worried about it and know that if I needed to I could stretch it for the soul mother defense at any point needed.  I'm not the one I'm worried about, and I mean that with every overconfident muster I can manage.  2 of them were part of unbelievably overpowered battles on quests (finale), 1 was due to the least game-friendly player I can remember, Mith, who dragged a demon onto me during a quest, again a silly overpowered punitive foe, while I was stunned safely in a corner so that he could then escape, 1 was lag death with no GM/WL present, 1 was a lag death with a WL present...  I don't like being a dispute queen, and 2 were my own bloody fault.  What am I saying?  That 5 out of 7 of those weren't really of my own making, and I'm pretty darn savvy at staying alive.  Again, with the elitist tone you can all make fun of me for, that's the upper end of the aforementioned curve.  So where does it go for the majority of the curve?
 
 What I do worry about is that every cleric I desparately need to go on any adventure that'll still blow my hair back... they're benched.  They have 14 lost strands, they love their character, and are proceeding to accept the stagnation track.  What I do worry about is seeing who makes the grade on atrition and who doesn't, what sort of playstyle we're perpetuating.  I don't mean to say there shouldn't be an aspect of excellence to this all, but with all the discussion on playstyles, building for roleplay rather then power, and the grand environment that Layonara is supposed to potentiate, I think this model is a joke that's being proven in the stagnation or final deaths of characters that were true benefits to the server environment while the Abi's of the world progress without any concerns whatsoever.
 
 This is the part of discussion where I proceed to get smacked.
 
 I mean, I get it.  You create an environment with true worth in the risk of life, the weighty nature of knowing your mortality, the atmosphere this all creates.  I mean, it's a good idea!  You want that feeling in the air, it makes everything that happens a bit more immersive.  But not all good ideas work.  I'd honestly call this system a failure of a good idea, and I just braced my chin for another smack.  The concession needs to be made that the initial rulings of the developing staff are finding faults as you allow progression into the epics.  Magic level I'd say has been proven to be off and never adjusted.  Some of the systems that were hatched in a previous version of Layonara, where you had the ceiling at 20... these are proving to be poorly translated into what we are now playing with.  
 
 There's a reason Leanthar has been raising the DT ceiling through the advancement of the server.  It's called adaptation and doing the right thing for the tempo of your game.  I'd contend that the reason this was done in the past was because it had the tide of other developing members behind it, probably promoting it because their ear was to the stone of Layonara, they were in the game, they did have these concerns and were harnessing the support for change in staff forums.
 
 I know Leanthar has taken a firm stance on this, with the general sentiment of 'how far is too far' with the tendency to keep raising the ceiling.  And I'd say that in any dynamic development, there's never going to be any peace on this.
 
 And I'm no smarter then any of the people who built it, so I haven't any server-changing ideas I've simply been keeping to myself all this time.  I really don't know the right way to go on it.  Permanence is obviously an integral part of the Layonara environment.  But so is retention of the playerbase you desire to foster.  And this current one is dropping the ball on that as I pointed out initially.  Solutions?  I dunno.  XP loss in earlier percentages of the roll while SS loss is made a lesser possibility?  No clue, it's just another ceiling raise when you get down to it.  Though one thing to consider, and you'll probably find some truth in this... the player mindset you want to retain is going to be more worried about SS loss then XP loss.  The player mindset that we could do with less of is worrying more about XP loss then SS loss (until their at max SS loss whereby it becomes a veritable full XP loss in their mind).  So why are we promoting and harnessing the anti-mindset?
 
 *hangs himself up on a chain and pads his clothing to make for a better punching bag*

[Filatus]

I have to say that Chongo raises some interesting points. But at the same time I'd like to think that the risks we are willing to take are a conscious descision, learning curve or not.

One of the things I would hate to see in an everdeveloping world as Layonara, is immortal PC's. They end up clogging up the world in my humble opinion. People had been making new characters for the next campaign for example. And what you saw is that they couldn't even get on the quests, because of all the heroes of the former campaign.

I have the highest respect for LFF in that he always strove towards NPC-hood for Lia. Perhaps that's the answer in this. Get to a certain point and your PC becomes an NPC. *shrugs*

Otherwise the world will eventually just end up with a large amount of top-end characters. And rather than having the world adjust to the rise in level (or whatever type of growth the next generation will have), I'd prefer to see some sort of system that actually works towards not only change in the world, but also towards change in the characters that are played.

If you want a world that changes, you also need its people to change. My two cents.

The DT system always seemed a good means to me, despite the fact that it wasn't implemented for this per sé. Though in your post Chongo, you clearly showed its flaws. But I wouldn't give it up without an alternative.

Now I have to add, that this post would have had more weight if we were all still thinking Layonara would still be running NWN for two years. But perhaps something to take into account for the next generation?

PS: And yes.. I am aware this post completely misses the subject about how removing DT's would remove the threat of death or not.

[Weeblie]

I probably has said it before, and I will say it again.

The soul strand system is definitely my favorite one among all existing death-systems I've stumbled upon, striking right on the mark between hard core (death = perma death) systems and the "death is no issue" (WoW, EQ and almost every other NWN server) ones.

Ironically, if one ask some old players who was here during the "death = XP loss" days, almost all of them say they prefer the SS system. Although... that might have something to do with the extreme harshness of the XP penalties back then (not unheard of that people lose 2 MILLIONS of XP during a single night).

[Lynn1020]

Ironically, if one ask some old players who was here during the "death = XP loss" days, almost all of them say they prefer the SS system. Although... that might have something to do with the extreme harshness of the XP penalties back then (not unheard of that people lose 2 MILLIONS of XP during a single night).

I don't know about anyone else but I would much rather lose XP instead of my character all together.

[Dorganath]

For the record, there was still a chance of Soul Strand loss in the old system, albeit a lower chance for those who reached higher levels than now.

And at least one character did permanently die under the old system, so the risk of perma-death was still there.

[Harlas Ravelkione]

Interesting posts Chongo and Filatus. You're outlining a great many problems and what you write has merit.

----------

@ Filatus: The heroes of the former campaign are still around, still very much dedicated and do still like to join quests. Yes, they took part in the previous one, but why does that mean they should step aside for the new campaign? They have shown that they care for Layonara (both IC and OOC) and they do enjoy their characters, who are likely at this point VERY very developed and have a long history in the world and its history. Telling these characters to change, so that the world may stay static is and to make room for new people on the campaign quest is not the right way to go at this problem. These characters have already been given a bad time on so many fronts, being accused of dominating quests and trampling the new people. It is easier to sit back and complain than to actually challenge these characters on quests. These characters are good at what they do and therefore not easy to best, but a quick wit and humour goes a long way at earning their respect. (What can I say - of course I am biased on this topic.)

That was several miles off topic, and I am quite sure it was not this that you were pointing towards. Change for these characters was a goal for several months via the Kingdom System. This would have allowed these characters to change within a changing world. Additionaly it would in all likelyhood have spawned different types of quests and would have kept at least some of these characters away from regular quests because they had too much on their hands to run around adventuring. Unfortunately NWN was too great a barrier for this attempt.

----------

@ Chongo: Many good points there, man. But don't think we did not discuss alternatives when the old system was replaced with the SS system. Don't think I am jumping the gun here and telling you it's the Strand-way or the highway because I don't. I challenge you to come up with a better system for everyone.
Yes, the SS system punishes the weak and high-RP players that don't go on hunts as much and therefore in all likelyhood die more often when they go. Combined with bad luck on the dice-side this creates frustration and I can honestly say I am sorry for that. But I, for one, want realism in the game - I want death to be a factor to be reckoned with. I want to flee from my enemies because I fear that I may die. I want the consequences - or I wager the alternative is that we all play berserkers/battleragers of one type or another, some with spells, some with armours and swords.
XP loss as a penalty. We had both to begin with. This way you will again punish the weak/high-RP characters that don't evolve/gain levels through bashing. What they get on quests (oh, and don't go on too many quests because then you'll be known as power-quester which equals - if it is not worse than - a powergamer) they loose with one death and the level that looked promising, along with the much wanted prestige class, is once more one month away. When we had the xp penaly those that complained the most were the ones who gained the least xp. These often are solid RP'ers and what xp they earn they in all likelyhood truly earned. The powergamers didn't complain because dying meant 4-6 hours of bashing, which wasn't that much a problem.

----------

Nah... I think we need to think out of the box here. We need a system that is codeable and efficient. Still it should promote the 'Spirit of Layonara'.

If you can come up with something fresh and new - shoot!

Harlas

[Drizzlin]

Hey guys...

It was suggested above by Laldiien and it seems to have been missed by a couple of you, but the idea of relaxing the Soul Mother checks for a week or two after the major update was put forth.  This is something I strongly considered for the initial V3 release, and while there were bugs, the number of Soul Strand losses to bugs (going by those which were requested to be returned) was low and did not seem to warrant such a temporary reprieve.

I'm fairly confident this next release is being, perhaps already has been well-tested for "killer" bugs, so I would strongly suggest that we stop predicting doom and gloom for the next release and see how it goes.

Soul Strand losses due to bugs have always been returnable, even if a GM or WL did not see it at the time it happened, and that will not change.  Lag and crashes....those are things we don't have much control over and so the policy will continue to be the same for those.

There have been several other major releases over the years.  So far, none of these significant/large updates had a reprieve from the Soul Mother accompany them.  At this time, there is no indication that
this up-coming release will be so buggy and deadly as to warrant the Soul Mother being turned off.  So let's all just have some faith and see how things go.


In closing, I'm curious how many of you would, if we turned off Soul Mother checks for a short time (if warranted), also support turning off all loot, gold and XP for kills during that same time.

I would be up for it, for a short time period. That would give me time to learn the lay outs and explore some. I have stopped playing after every single release of a new version, simply to avoid the bugs. The risk has always far out weighed the fun of playing during those times.

Look at the v3 change, haven went from a low level zone, to one that even though the creatures were easy cons, they were killing level 20s. When the complaints rolled in about that, we were told to play smart and travel in groups. Eventually haven was brought back to a reasonable level.

Those are the reasons I simply stop playing/testing until things are worked out. If there were no xp, no gold, no soul mother, I would gladly explore and test for bugs. A short 5 days or so of that would be great IMO.


Edit:
@ The change of the soulstrand. I think it should not be level dependent after a certain point. I would say that it should never be more than a 10% chance, no matter how high you level past 10. Start it at 6% chance at level 6, 7% at 7, 8% at 8, 9% at 9, and from level 10 and up it never goes above a 10% chance.

[twidget658]

I want to flee from my enemies because I fear that I may die.

 
 Can't...it is against server rules. You have to be considerate of your fellow players and not drag creatures around. Some creatures will follow you several maps and into towns. Combine the 'no retreat' (I know there are means like invis and other methods that will break contact with creatures, wait, those are bugged...well, you know what I mean) rule with the permanent death system and you get people breaking the rule anyway.
 
 Dorg, I am willing (and have done it before) to give up loot, xp and the chance of loss of SS to be allowed to explore the new areas and fight the new monsters. I think that would be very entertaining.

[Acacea]

I'm not sure that example is really fair, Filatus. I mean I was heavily hoping for months before the plot even ended to have better roles for the former generation in the next campaign, so a new one could take over. And carry it into normal quests, too. Less mixing at the ground and more emphasis on abilities deciding roles. Moraken doesn't lead the fray against the orcs, the super PCs and WLs shouldn't either. But you don't see many DMs letting any PCs act in place of the World NPCs, do you?  

They don't have any less involved roles to play, they don't have plot information dropped so they can run mini-quests directing PCs to go out and do stuff on their own, they don't really have anything at all to do that has anything to do with what they have done except listen to all the new PCs and NPCs trash it, relegated to either dominating a quest and fostering resentment, or sitting in the back and fostering resentment, neither of which are very fun. I don't think most of the older ones WANT to be told by super knowledgeable NPC what they need to do now, they've done that, they don't want to be tugged along through an entire new campaign. There was just nothing else to do, really.

I personally feel that the presence of former heroes on the newer plot quests is not a fault of the system or the fact that we should have tried harder to perm them, but because no one gave them anything else to do, like the idea was just to make the atmosphere utterly anti-veteran so they wouldn't even bother, nicely backed up by all the PCs that never really wanted them around in the first place. "Go retire or go to the Underdark a 100 more times, jerk!" Pfft. I totally agree that character need to change, new ones need to take over, I was never against that. But you can't force it. It needs to happen naturally, and nothing was done to make it happen.

Eh...I guess I ended up just agreeing with Harlas on that one and could have just kept my mouth shut...heh! *Shrugs*

I'm also with both him and Chongo on the whole strand system... it does breed survivalists; we all encourage people to forget about the numbers, build for RP, make meaningful characters instead of machine guns! But the flawed ones we love are the ones that can't meet the strain of balancing with GOOD epic parties in mind, and will perm. Chances are people that lose a meaningful character aren't going to risk the same thing again, and will either not try or just make sure all numbers are perfect next time, making for a character that is less rich in personality but less likely to be a victim to perming.

But at the same time, I think there SHOULD be permadeath, I think characters should be shuffled up now and again, that death should mean something more than grinding back XP, etc. I like the emphasis on tactics and caution. But...would I still play if my character's final death was to an orc or something? I dunno. I'd roll a new one but not sure I'd be able to stick with it. So I don't know. If most can agree on the "liking concept but not liking weeding out RP characters" but none of us can come up with a better system, it doesn't seem any better to shut it down.

What I'm curious about is, how much would strand reattachment change anything of your points, Chongo? That is, do you object to the system entirely, or would a system for gaining them back alleviate some of the problems that come with a lot of time to play with a 'flawed' character? What if there was no limit to how many times you could do it, but the price was steeper each time or something? Or just fixed steep every time in a fashion that people would rather be cautious about than have to fork over cost x multiple times? Or after x amount of times your deity was switched to "Soul Mother" and you'd basically signed off your afterlife?

Heh...to translate with fewer words, is it the entire concept you are dismissing as failed, or the current implementation of it, that does not allow for anyone to get any back?


(And yeah to twidget, another point against the current system of permadeath - encourage RP characters, roleplay, fear of death, tactics - then forbid running away and force everyone to stand until dead That said there is the whole 'common sense' bit, and running away can be done gracefully now and then. I'd rather make no enemies cross transitions except in certain cases - consider how far of a distance some of those transitions are anyway - than make them follow and forbid IC fleeing.)

[Filatus]

@ Filatus: The heroes of the former campaign are still around, still very much dedicated and do still like to join quests. Yes, they took part in the previous one, but why does that mean they should step aside for the new campaign? They have shown that they care for Layonara (both IC and OOC) and they do enjoy their characters, who are likely at this point VERY very developed and have a long history in the world and its history. Telling these characters to change, so that the world may stay static is and to make room for new people on the campaign quest is not the right way to go at this problem. These characters have already been given a bad time on so many fronts, being accused of dominating quests and trampling the new people. It is easier to sit back and complain than to actually challenge these characters on quests. These characters are good at what they do and therefore not easy to best, but a quick wit and humour goes a long way at earning their respect. (What can I say - of course I am biased on this topic.)

That was several miles off topic, and I am quite sure it was not this that you were pointing towards. Change for these characters was a goal for several months via the Kingdom System. This would have allowed these characters to change within a changing world. Additionaly it would in all likelyhood have spawned different types of quests and would have kept at least some of these characters away from regular quests because they had too much on their hands to run around adventuring. Unfortunately NWN was too great a barrier for this attempt.

----------

Harlas

Yeah..  several miles off topic indeed. So I will stop with this post. My post was not at all directed to the Worldleaders and what not in person or whatever form. Just that I noticed that how was dealt with the rise in levels with Layo in NWN doesn't really solve the problem. With the lvl 40 ceiling it would only have delayed the inevitable.

EDIT: I'd like to add that not at any time in my post I used worldleaders and such as example. Guess I could have been clearer to prevend this mix up.

[Acacea]

I was actually just arguing that your particular example was unrelated, not trying to imply you were attacking them I was more saying "But that's not really WHY it happened, this is why it happened!" Like saying if they stuck around, they wouldn't clog the world if they had something else to do I guess I could have said that in as many words *rolls eyes*

[jrizz]

to Jrizz: I will get to you later if needed, but Laldieen gives a good idea why.

Further, isnt it the risk that makes every more interesting? The thing that an area is unknown and you as a player have to explore it? Does that not give you a thrill?
How do you think I and others found out - how things work on east?

Well SS by, lag, bugs, crash etc.; thats why we have some rules for that. I am just thankful for that we have this oppotunity. Imagine if that service was not here at all.

Gotta got, work is calling

You know.. Varka you have a really good point there. The risk really makes it fun. I have had heart pounding blood rushing sessions because I try not to get killed. And yet I still want to go kill things because it is fun (and guess why it is fun? because I can die LOL).

Here is my only suggestion on the issue: Since the WL thing has now stopped but we still have the crazy 3 million XP to get from 20 to 21, how about moving SMD to a feat on or before 20th level (20 or 19 what ever level you get your last feat before going into the 20 to 21 climb). This is a very reasonable request folks.

[Interia_Discordius]

At the same time, the people at level 20 would also be hurt pretty badly from that... Unless they all have a chance to relevel and regain the EXP they had earned so they could take the feat, or it is given automatically by GMs at level 20 and just disable the SMD feat for level 21.

[Dorganath]

Since the WL thing has now stopped...

This is not accurate.

[jrizz]

At the same time, the people at level 20 would also be hurt pretty badly from that... Unless they all have a chance to relevel and regain the EXP they had earned so they could take the feat, or it is given automatically by GMs at level 20 and just disable the SMD feat for level 21.

New rules dont have to be retroactive. I would be fine with it even though it woul dnot help my main PC. I would not want to stop something from being fixed to help others just because it does not help me

[jrizz]

This is not accurate.

I can't really comment on when we'll no longer be taking CDQ or WLDQ requests

If GMs want to run CDQs then they are free to do so, that is not changing from anything we have been doing for years. We may shut down WL applications at some point down the road, but mainly due to the amount of time it takes to plan and execute them. Those WL apps that are approved and pending or in-progress will likely be allowed to continue or be completed if that happens; but no new ones after whatever date we pick (if we pick one even).

This is why I said it.

[Joyrock]

If chars are going to go away soon anyway, why remove a system, because it going to go away soon?

If your going to lose your char anyway fear of death should not really be much of a blow, if you lose it now and are gloom about it, well you can get over it before you lose it when the NWN version is dropped, along with  which ever other one you have at the same time.

keep in mind no matter what your probly going to lose the char, so why not enjoy it? live the last bits of moments on it, enjoy the exciment of facing death and chancing it? Least you can RP them dieing in some fun grand way, on a big DM quest, rather then *poof* server wipe!