War, death, and the meaning of life.

If it's no bug or an idea, but it's still MUD-related, it goes here.

Moderator: Wizards

Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Abharsair
Site Admin
Posts: 901
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Regensburg, Germany
Contact:

War, death, and the meaning of life.

#1 Post by Abharsair » Tue Mar 06, 2007 6:33 am

I would like to start a little discussion about the "death" in Geas and its implications. Right now we have those who consider a death to be something really frustrating and nasty, and we have those who die 10 times (such in times of war) and who don't care much, knowing that vitality will eventually come back and they can't sink much lower anyway. And this last group is a problem, because they make it impossible to settle conflicts without one group simply getting tired of the killing. That means that wars aren't decided by who fights better or more effective, but by who is the most stubborn and has the stomach to keep up the killing and dying long enough, and that's just not fair to the most of the participating players who would rather not be dragged into a never-ending conflict.

Having witnesses this kind of problem multiple times over the last years, I came to the conclusion that something has to be done about it. The preferred solution would be that our players can actually accept defeat ("Alright, we died 20 times, they died 2 times, maybe it's time to surrender.") and to actually role play it, but call me jaded if I say that I do not believe that's going to happen any time soon.

Therefore if the appropriate role play does not happen, I would like to come up with plan B, which would be a code/wizard solution. I can think of the following options:

1) We wizards keep an eye on the kill logs and then decide after a while who has won and adjust the realities to that.

Naturally that's an ugly solution which causes probably some complaining about wiz interference and us being biased. The advantage would be that it's fast to implement.

2) Players do not start wars without agreeing on rules for how to win it.

A more elegant solution. As an example, the participating parties agree that whoever kills five high-level enemies first wins the war. This would be imho a better solution than 1), but it also requires the cooperation of all of the participating players.

3) We increase the penalty for being killed by other players.

Makes PK have more severe consequences and makes it less attractive to fight never-ending wars. But it would also increase frustration about being killed in PvP.

4) We increase the penalty for death after being killed a certain amount of times in a row.

As an example, if someone dies 4 times in 4 days and his vitality is rock-bottom, but he still plays the death-defiant hero and he dies again, he not only loses vitality, but also skills. This would probably ensure that someone would actually take a break from PvP after he was defeated several times.

5) We make it impossible to partake in PvP for a certain period after someone has been killed by an enemy.

Again, an ugly, but probably effective solution. You get killed by an enemy and you're out of the PK circle for 3 days or something like that.

Anyway, those are just ideas, and I would like to discuss them with you. Especially because I think some of you are as tired of the "We will never surrender, no matter if we die another 100 times! Booh-yah!" behavior as I am, and I am pretty darn tired.

Opinions?

Abharsair

User avatar
Tatiana
Apprentice
Posts: 28
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2006 4:43 pm
Location: Warsaw

#2 Post by Tatiana » Tue Mar 06, 2007 6:55 am

1) and 5) I don't like - it generates a lot of frustration when the wizards interfere, also they many not take into account the broader context of the conflict.

2) Hardly any war was officially declared.

3) This could work. For example after being killed by a member of a certain guilt to be reluctant to fight/afraid/panic after seeing someone from this guild. Your stats could drop for some time from all the nerves ;)

4) This would be okay if the skill loss wasnt permanent. Else rather frustrating because it may happen accidentally.

Would the new penalties be limited to pvp deaths only when they are introduced?

User avatar
chara
Wizard
Posts: 456
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 7:54 am

#3 Post by chara » Tue Mar 06, 2007 9:03 am

Personally, I like 4. After you die once, you have the opportunity to get to safety, you can't be trapped somewhere and forced to die over and over again, and I think it would make people give real thought to putting themselves into one life-threatening situation after another. I would make the skill loss permanent, and I would make it increase for every further death, but I would make the timespan relatively short. For example, more than 4 deaths in 2 @days (or two days of played gametime, to avoid people just not logging in for that long). If you die three times one day and once the next, you only have to avoid death for one full day to avoid the penalty, so long as you don't then die four times the day after. And you can build your skills back up again, if you do get caught.

I would also throw in that it is harder to fight a specific player/monster for some time after dying to it. Perhaps a temporary DIS hit so that you are more likely to run away form it for a specific period of time. I think that would enhance roleplay while cutting down on the "leap right back into the fray" mentality.

User avatar
Abharsair
Site Admin
Posts: 901
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Regensburg, Germany
Contact:

#4 Post by Abharsair » Tue Mar 06, 2007 9:33 am

Players are already handicapped if they fight their killers immediately after they died. But the problem is that they don't care if they die again, since apparently death is not really a deterrent for them, and it makes wars and similar conflicts kind of moot.

User avatar
chara
Wizard
Posts: 456
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 7:54 am

#5 Post by chara » Tue Mar 06, 2007 9:47 am

It's not just being handicapped, but being more likely to _flee_ that I like. Having trouble even facing the one who killed you would be cool, I think.

vurdijak
Hero
Posts: 357
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 5:28 pm

deaths

#6 Post by vurdijak » Tue Mar 06, 2007 10:03 am

I vote for number two and number four. For 2, I think it would be fun to be in the parlay that laid down the rules. Also it would be nice to have more contrast between periods of peace and periods of war.

For number 4, I guess it makes sense IC anyway. Your soul is getting fitted into a new body again and again. With number 4 I do have a few concerns. How would it be decided when statloss had gone far enough and it was time to lose skills? Chara mentioned that dying four times in @2 days play time would trigger it. I like the idea, but the character should have a way to know if the next death will trigger skill loss, or if they are in the clear to go hunt giants again. Maybe a message saying "you sense your mind is not in jeopardy" when you are in the clear. And on the death immediately preceding the death at which you lose skills, you could get a message like "your soul is ripped from your body. Something feels horribly wrong."

Are there some areas of the game that are so dangerous that a character might legitimately die four or more times trying to get in or out, or to get their stuff out? I guess at some point they would have to give up on their stuff, or start losing skills. Just a thought.

User avatar
Vargrahim
Master
Posts: 189
Joined: Tue May 09, 2006 5:47 am
Location: VALHALL

#7 Post by Vargrahim » Tue Mar 06, 2007 10:04 am

Or, replace the player with an NPC that behaves as desired...

No seriously, it sounds like the old, torn topic of people who do no fear death. I can imagine some just ignore roleplaying the "weak sides" of his/her character. But it would be kind of pathetic if all such things must be forced for the players to play it properly - are we roleplayers then? I would like to belive there is more to RP than just those things which can be forced by code.

Sadly enough, I think the only thing that will make powergamers change their behaviour and start roleplaying is to hit them where it hurts (in the skills and stats, unless you didn't figure).
"The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil." - Albert Einstein

User avatar
Abharsair
Site Admin
Posts: 901
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Regensburg, Germany
Contact:

#8 Post by Abharsair » Tue Mar 06, 2007 10:16 am

Vargrahim wrote:Sadly enough, I think the only thing that will make powergamers change their behaviour and start roleplaying is to hit them where it hurts (in the skills and stats, unless you didn't figure).
Unfortunately it's not just a roleplaying problem, but one which hurts the entire game. If the only way to resolve a conflict is to kill the other side until the enemy either stops playing, or you get too tired of killing and just ignore the whole issue, then it actually harms Geas. It's a shame if stubbornness is the key to success, and not skill and intellect.

Itenin
Journeyman
Posts: 66
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Florida

#9 Post by Itenin » Tue Mar 06, 2007 12:57 pm

My views on each option:

1) I'm going to be deviant and say this is actually my favorite option. I think its clear to most when they are either winning or losing a war. Honestly, I can't see myself ever thinking "Geez Abharsair only wants the Sathonites to win, we kill 50 of them yet they get all of the advantages." Who died today is usually not a big secret, you know when the situation is taking a turn for the worse.

That being said with this option I can also see a lot of little annoyances popping up for different factions as the opposing side gains ground. Perhaps if the Asrals have a clear advantage against the Taniels the patrol is replaced entirely with Arboreans, or the little Taniel chapel suddenly becomes a temple dedicated to Asral and guarded with his priests. When the forces of Taniel begin advancing on Sathonys' the tundra exits become guarded by Elvandar forces and lone Crusaders begin wandering the tundra. When Sathonites have the upper hand they place their own guards on the tundra, and possibly begin shutting down/increasing costs of using ports.

"Well this port belongs to the forces of the Crowned Skull and I'm under strict orders not to provide transportation to their enemies...I can take you, but it'll cost one gold, and you'll have to stay below deck."

This has tons of possibilities that reflect that this is war more than simply high powered characters going at one another, and would cause players both to economize their deaths and realize when they can no longer continue fighting. The only problem with this I see is that some forces are ALWAYS at war and its never really realistic to come to peaceful terms (which I assume would reverse any ill side effects received from war) for any length of time. A side that is already losing becomes less attractive, and has increasing difficulty changing the tides of war.

2) There is potential for this I think, but I do not like the example given at all. Sadly I can't really think of any options off the top of my head that I would find attractive, but I'm certain this is a very possible way to go.

3) Itenin hates dying. I hate dying even more. Combined, we've both become pretty adept at avoiding death altogether. Yesterday was my first pvp related death in a few weeks I'd say. It wasn't because anyone managed to pin me down and kill me, but because I willingly sat down, bit the bullet and said "This is what Itenin would do given this situation. So lets give it the best shot." If you increase the death penalty for pvp you make those whom are either weaker by experience or with weaker builds fall into three holes: martyrs (which only increases this problem), cowards/nonparticipants, and extreme strategists that only fight with superior numbers.

Lets face it, a 10 day character isn't going to beat a 50 day one. An elven fighter with 30 days isn't going to beat a dwarf with 20. Increasing death penalties for pvp only makes it more of an "elitist" situation. We already have an issue with nearly all evil characters having to masquerade as good ones for quite awhile due to the looming threat of slaughter if they can't avoid being one shotted. This, more than likely, would increase that problem exponentially and ultimately reduce overall conflict within the mud. Completely and totally 100% against this one and anything else that robs you of stats and skills. Enough of that as is.

4) I'm fairly neutral with this one. It would work, but the overall strategy of war would not change. Its still a matter of "Did we make sure to kill Mary, Bob, Jane, and Sue once today ?" It just makes sure those whom are headstrong and will keep dying until you die overall less successful at doing so. Wars would still be long drawn out conflicts.

As the situation currently is, the majority of players in charge of their particular faction rarely take an active role in the pvp surrounding it. I suppose this would work on the basis that their underlings would be more insistent on pressuring them when the situation isn't working.

5) A very effective solution. Its kind of telling when all you can do is watch your guild be burned to the ground, or your guild mates be ritualistically sacrificed before your eyes. I just see potential for what I'd call abuse. "He soandso just died, lets go raid his guild and then the lockers!"

User avatar
chara
Wizard
Posts: 456
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 7:54 am

#10 Post by chara » Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:07 pm

I also had an idea a while back that I don't know if it might help, but maybe... I thought maybe that we could introduce a limit for the number of resurrections, but have that limit be nearly unreachably high. Say 500 deaths, or 1000, over the lifespan of the character. If deaths are limited, even if that limit is nowhere near being reached or broken, then people might be more interested in conserving them.

Most characters would probably have no problem, but people who think that dying 20 times a day is nothing just might.

User avatar
kaspars
Journeyman
Posts: 71
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2005 7:54 pm
Location: Latvia

#11 Post by kaspars » Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:46 pm

Some fractions due their background always will be in war .. there is no way to change it from my point of view.
I remember old discussion about different ways to reason the wars. Somehow I could not find it in forum anymore, but I remember some ideas were like Itenin described now. Sadly, it is not fast solution and does not solve problem with `fearless heroes`.
About wizs involved in deciding who wins - I`m against it. It would cause too much rumours and ill talks. Have seen it - looks ugly and greatly harms whole MUD.
I believe the right way to solve the problem would be losing skills after several deaths in row. Meaning of the term `row` and how heavy are skill hits I would leave to wizs. If even that cant stop player, then after some certain time he would be back to his real place - newbie level.
Losing stats is nasty, but one can survive if skills are high enough. Losing precious skills would make PvP eager people really rethink before running in suicide missions. Additionally it would not hurt people, who dislike PvP.

User avatar
Vargrahim
Master
Posts: 189
Joined: Tue May 09, 2006 5:47 am
Location: VALHALL

#12 Post by Vargrahim » Tue Mar 06, 2007 2:02 pm

Abharsair wrote:Unfortunately it's not just a roleplaying problem, but one which hurts the entire game. If the only way to resolve a conflict is to kill the other side until the enemy either stops playing, or you get too tired of killing and just ignore the whole issue, then it actually harms Geas. It's a shame if stubbornness is the key to success, and not skill and intellect.
I am a little skeptical to that statement. I do not think it is possible to see roleplaying as just one part of many of the game. Roleplaying must be the fundamental basis of everything a character does. If someone does not RP while PvPing, it hurts the game. If someone does not RP while dancing or drinking, it also hurts the game. The problem is that for some reason such a person does not RP.

After death, rather than thinking something like "Hmm.. I just died, how do I feel? Should I get out of this temple? No, I probably can't walk right now because I am too weak.. Should I continue this war? No, I migth even have lost a bit faith in my own struggle..." etc etc, I belive that guy thinks "Ouch I died! Time for revenge, here I come!", completely ignoring all the aspects of what roleplaying means.

So, I think the problem lies in the fact that some are not truly RPing their characters and not, heaven forbid, actually do something that does not favour yourself for the sake of consistency. It shows extra well in extreme situations as in death. They do not base their decisions on the circumstances of a situation, on their character's feelings and values, and even the most fundamental parts of RP go out the window when it boils down to something important.

I do think this is a RP-problem, and we should be asking ourselves why it is that it happens over and over that these problems re-occur. I don't think it is because we lack another rule or forbidding.

Personally, I belive that more can be done when it comes to promoting roleplaying. More time can be taken from extending the world, adding code etc and put into building a foundation for RP. Of course, this is not my right to say, I am just suggesting. It would take more history written, more help for those not yet introduced to the concept of RP, more emphasis on such things that are not directly related to hack and slash or PVP, etc. If people are supposed to RP at all times, the MUD must invite you to do it, not only forbid when you don't. It's about creating an atmosphere of RP.

I feel like a lot of players (most actually) sincerily try to roleplay and do the best they can, but somehow the "default" mode is not to RP but to mindlessly hack'n slash for your own greater glory, and thus there are always some who do not RP. A question in this area is also of course, what kind of MUD is this intended to be? What kind of everyday events do you wanna see take place?

I'm sorry for not writing my opinions on every option you suggested but I belive none of them will work particularly well.
"The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil." - Albert Einstein

User avatar
chara
Wizard
Posts: 456
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 7:54 am

#13 Post by chara » Tue Mar 06, 2007 3:36 pm

Well, more history is always nice, but the mud is kind of rife with it right now - if people pay any attention to it (which they usually don't). If people don't want to roleplay, they certainly don't want to read lots of history. This has been proven time and time again, as wizards spend hours writing and coding areas to enhance history, only to hear complaints when it doesn't have enough cool treasure inside.

I think that punishing bad roleplay and rewarding good gameplay within the game mechanics is a better way to achieve the goal than just writing more history.

Plus, this mud is supposed to be active and adventurous. We do not want to go to the other extreme and have people sitting around the crossing, roleplaying sitting on their hands, or whatever. We want to strike the balance of a fun and exciting game with strong in-character reactions, and that has to be supported by game mechanics, not history books.

We also very much need the players and the wizards to work in concert to achieve this balance. Players can't sit around waiting for wizards to do everything, nor can wizards fix everything with code. Players should be active in teaching, promoting, and enhancing fun and exciting roleplay, both for their friends and for their IC enemies.

User avatar
Tatiana
Apprentice
Posts: 28
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2006 4:43 pm
Location: Warsaw

#14 Post by Tatiana » Tue Mar 06, 2007 4:18 pm

I must agree with Itenin on the 'elitist' idea. So it mostly excludes any hardcoded penalties for certain characters.

From my experience what Kaspars says is true, wizard interference of this sort would encourage ooc gossip and accusations. It's better not to go in this direction.

Perhaps Itenin's idea from point 1 could be transformed to create areas of influence for players/fractions that can be adjusted by the code depending on who has gained control over them.

The problem is how the code would recognize who gained control over those areas, but we have similar solution sin game already. A good example is the Tower of Pain and the runecircles.

There could be many reasons to stop a war then:
Perhaps a shortage of food in a town which has been cut off a supply line and people starving on the streets?
Citizens complaining that they can not travel/trade with other towns.

It won't solve the problem but it could diminish it by taking the stress from the PVP war (kill as many high level chars as you can) and placing it into other aspects of war - tactics etc.

- I just thought of another thing: Perhaps it can be helped with something really simple. Little RP hints appearing for some time after you die. Similar to those appearing when you're hungry or thirsty. For example:

You suddenly feel so weak and tired.
You wish for nothing more than just a bit of rest
You can still feel the pain of death.
Your muscles seem stiff and unresponsive.

Often it's not that people do not want to rp, but that they simply forget about things, that their character just died, that they are supposed to play to be down, weak and tired. This would remind them that they are to respond to what happens in the game.

Blizt
Hero
Posts: 263
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2005 12:14 pm
Location: Tennessee

#15 Post by Blizt » Tue Mar 06, 2007 6:41 pm

I think that number 1 is the best solution, for various reasons.

Deciding how to win a war before its even fought, IC or OOC just takes away the fun in fighting it. Why dont you just spar to settle the differances? Setting a limit before the war even begins does not make much IC sense to begin with and would just encourage more OOC talk and gossip while trying to set the limits.

Increasing the penalty for being killed by other players would effect certain groups more than others, like groups who are already forced into a never-ending war when they join their guild, not only would it discourage PK when PK is actually warranted or neccassary.

Increasing the penalty for being a certain number of times in a row could be unfair to people who just have unfortunate accidents.
Someone dies, they ress and go to retrieve their things, but die again. They ress and go to retrieve their things and die again, and so forth.
Perhaps if it was a certain number of times in a row by other players, it would probably be the most desirable option.

The 4th one would also eliminate all the problems, but may annoy some players and screw over some guilds who are always in a war, and need all the help they can get.

Maybe doing something even more simple that would not even require code support could work. Simply capture your enemy and throw them in jail until they comply. Torture them relentlessly, remove some limbs, burn out their eyes and so forth. Sure this may be no fun to them, but neither is fighting a constant, never ending war that should have ended long ago.

Extreme situations require extreme measures.

User avatar
Alamar
Master
Posts: 249
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 8:39 am
Location: North Carolina, USA

#16 Post by Alamar » Tue Mar 06, 2007 7:32 pm

I am against the idea of permanent statloss and/or skill loss due to deaths (pvp or otherwise). For players it would destroy their sense of accomplishment to have that even be an option, and it would also create a hostile environment in which players would be able to inflict more serious lasting damage on their opponents.

I like the idea of having a kind of "penalty period" after a character dies, in which time he CANNOT participate in pvp. He can go back and reclaim his gear and maybe yell and harass the other player, but he cannot participate in a brawl of any kind. It is not great for roleplay, but it might be good in terms of game mechanics.


If I might insert a different option though:

Most players who are highly active in pvp (the vast majority) are tied to a god or goddess. Perhaps if a character of a particular deity dies multiple times in pvp it would begin to hurt his deity's earthly power ALOT.

It would encourage players to realize that they are part of a larger network of characters and that their decisions affect the world around them more than they think. It also provides a good IC reason for a defeated character to NOT run out and try to die gloriously every chance he gets.

The person who died might start thinking "If I die again, it will weaken (Deity) and (he/she) might not like that and grow angry at me, maybe I'll build up and try again later."

This should only be utilized when a character has died in pvp multiple times (starting with the third death within 24 hours of gameplay). --I have had two pvp deaths within a 24 hour period before, and perhaps more at times, not from stupid roleplaying but from being hunted by every other person in the game (it's not easy being a darkelf :cry: ). It seems to me that what we are trying to prevent is "ridiculous" amounts of deaths in pvp, which is a hard line to define.

Each death should be accompanied by a message of increasing severity:

1st Death "(Deity) takes notice of your death"
2nd Death "Deity is disappointed in your weakness and foolishness"
3rd Death "Deity is weakened by your death"
4+ Deaths "You feel the deity scream in agony as more of his/her power is lost"

Similarly, as each of your deaths is "gotten over" you might get a message like:
(Recover from only death) "Your god has regained his trust in you"
(Recover from one of two deaths) "Your god is less disappointed with you"
(Recover from one of many deaths) "Your god is slightly less dissatisfied with your services, but tread lightly you foolish mortal!"

I offer this as another possible alternative that will give the victors in pvp a reasonable chance to gloat without the guy who just died showing up to fight again. And it will also give the person who died a very good IC reason to not go out and get himself killed every few minutes.

-poAlamar

User avatar
tessa
Overlord
Posts: 1093
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 6:03 am
Location: My own imagination.

#17 Post by tessa » Tue Mar 06, 2007 11:23 pm

#3 and #5 are the best options I see. I'm really against #4 though. I don't pvp, but there's been a few times Tessa has died repeatably for several problems, and since skills are already impossibly hard for me to learn, and decrease on their own from decay fast enough, I think it would be nothing but frustrating and no fun to then turn around and stump my skills even more by permanently losing points. I could only see it being something that would make me ask myself why I spent 2 months to finally get knife to 60 only to lose it and have to powertrain another 2 months to get it back.

Or maybe there can be an option. Normal stat loss and skill loss, or massive stat/vitality drain and no skill loss. I think I'd rather recover from a death that reduced my stats to a newbie level than try to recover the hard-earned improves I've gotten in skills.

User avatar
Delia
Overlord
Posts: 2782
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 11:22 am
Location: Finland

#18 Post by Delia » Wed Mar 07, 2007 3:43 am

1) In my ears this sounds good, I'm not sure how other players think, but I for one trust the judgement of the wizzes. I don't recall any case of wizzie favoritism during 5+ years of playing and they've proved they don't like bs to be flying around. So I'm completely good with this.
That being said with this option I can also see a lot of little annoyances popping up for different factions as the opposing side gains ground. Perhaps if the Asrals have a clear advantage against the Taniels the patrol is replaced entirely with Arboreans, or the little Taniel chapel suddenly becomes a temple dedicated to Asral and guarded with his priests. When the forces of Taniel begin advancing on Sathonys' the tundra exits become guarded by Elvandar forces and lone Crusaders begin wandering the tundra. When Sathonites have the upper hand they place their own guards on the tundra, and possibly begin shutting down/increasing costs of using ports.
If things like these are added...sounds even better, if code could somehow recognize situations and adjust things during reboots or something. This would affect HUGELY how much the characters care about the wars around them, as sometimes its hard to perceive how the situation is currently, the multiple deaths being vague, abstract and meaningless.

2) I see much OOC chatter before, during and after any conflict. Who actually decides? A mutual decision is hard to come by when things get heated after all...I think there should be some global rules regarding "wins", which could be tweaked a bit if circumstances are suitable(other side significantly stronger than the other, etc...).

3) Actually, this sounds good too, I'm all for it. I would personally like some small resurrection delay, or the "player-cooldown-period", if you will. Perhaps skills could be hit, but only temporarily. If skills drop by 30-50% after a PvP death for a while, it would surely discourage people from going in again. Problems of abuse follow though, as that godly swordsmaster suddenly has trouble with shaking hands and finds himself surrounded by a metaphorical pack of wolves...

4) *ponders*, Why not? Any permanent losses I'd abhor though, being accustomed to things as they are, but an incresed lost percentage of vitality and skills per subsequent death? Perhaps add difficulties to using magic and miracles too?

5) I have to agree that this indeed sounds ugly, but I must also say that this would be quite effective, but still, very ugly.

Delia doesn't die that often, but on the otherhand I don't participate in PvP that much. Delia tends to avoid conflicts that seem "pointless"(to her) and I like to see death as a more complex matter than just kill the bugger and be done with it, he'll be around a minute after scenarios. Then again, my usual playing hours are horrific when it comes to PvP, after seering the whole enemy-list for multiple times with no effect and wandering around pointlessly the whole process starts to lose its glamour :)

Still, increasing the death penalties would not hit me THAT much, so its easy for me to say. Like people have stated, some factions are more or less, in a state of constant war, and would feel the hits much harder. A crusader(or satho for that matter), for example, could die once/twice in a conflict, then lay low for a while, but suddenly(and quite easily) be drawn again into the conflict and dying once more, possibly in a short period of time, and possible because of no fault from the player. If that player stands a chance of permanent losses, I can only see that he would not play for a while, until the way is clear. Should that be preferable? Players not playing the game(for short periods of time, then and then again)? Perhaps if death penalties are increased, maybe the RL time spent NOT playing should count (not much though) towards recovery? I can see the frustration of dying three or four times in a row due to real bad luck and not be around for a month or so. When logging on again, instead of the profound disappointment of seeing the crappy stats there would be a comforting "The time away from strife has strenghtened your body somewhat" message or something.
"To be is to do" - Sokrates
"To do is to be" - Jean-Paul Sartre
"Do be do be do" - Frank Sinatra

User avatar
chara
Wizard
Posts: 456
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 7:54 am

#19 Post by chara » Wed Mar 07, 2007 3:56 am

Alamar, I like your idea.

User avatar
Delia
Overlord
Posts: 2782
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 11:22 am
Location: Finland

#20 Post by Delia » Wed Mar 07, 2007 4:04 am

Yeah, its good, forgot to comment it :)
I offer this as another possible alternative that will give the victors in pvp a reasonable chance to gloat without the guy who just died showing up to fight again. And it will also give the person who died a very good IC reason to not go out and get himself killed every few minutes.
AND...it will surely force the clerics to tend their flocks and berating them for dying needlessly/stupidly ;)
"To be is to do" - Sokrates
"To do is to be" - Jean-Paul Sartre
"Do be do be do" - Frank Sinatra

Post Reply