Announcement

Collapse
1 of 5 < >

Forums Reversion

The cloud server that hosts the main Skotos web site and the forums experienced a hardware failure on Saturday morning that unfortunately led to severe database corruption. Several attempts to restore it failed.

This led us to our backups, but the timing was a bit unfortunate. Since the failure occurred on a weekend morning, we didn't see it until after a new backup occurred, which contained the corrupted data, and which removed our previous daily backup. This forced us to our weekly backup, which was unfortunately at the end of its time: six days old.

So, the forums are back, but we had a six-day reversion.

This should not have affects on the rest of the site, since the majority of our data is saved in our main-user-database or our games, all on remote machines.
2 of 5 < >

Forums REversion

The cloud server that hosts the main Skotos web site and the forums experienced a hardware failure on Saturday morning that unfortunately led to severe database corruption. Several attempts to restore it failed.

This led us to our backups, but the timing was a bit unfortunate. Since the failure occurred on a weekend morning, we didn't see it until after a new backup occurred, which contained the corrupted data, and which removed our previous daily backup. This forced us to our weekly backup, which was unfortunately at the end of its time: six days old.

So, the forums are back, but we had a six-day reversion.

This should not have affects on the rest of the site, since the majority of our data is saved in our main-user-database or our games, all on remote machines.
3 of 5 < >

Forums REversion

The cloud server that hosts the main Skotos web site and the forums experienced a hardware failure on Saturday morning that unfortunately led to severe database corruption. Several attempts to restore it failed.

This led us to our backups, but the timing was a bit unfortunate. Since the failure occurred on a weekend morning, we didn't see it until after a new backup occurred, which contained the corrupted data, and which removed our previous daily backup. This forced us to our weekly backup, which was unfortunately at the end of its time: six days old.

So, the forums are back, but we had a six-day reversion.

This should not have affects on the rest of the site, since the majority of our data is saved in our main-user-database or our games, all on remote machines.
4 of 5 < >

Forums REversion

The cloud server that hosts the main Skotos web site and the forums experienced a hardware failure on Saturday morning that unfortunately led to severe database corruption. Several attempts to restore it failed.

This led us to our backups, but the timing was a bit unfortunate. Since the failure occurred on a weekend morning, we didn't see it until after a new backup occurred, which contained the corrupted data, and which removed our previous daily backup. This forced us to our weekly backup, which was unfortunately at the end of its time: six days old.

So, the forums are back, but we had a six-day reversion.

This should not have affects on the rest of the site, since the majority of our data is saved in our main-user-database or our games, all on remote machines.
5 of 5 < >

Forums REversion

The cloud server that hosts the main Skotos web site and the forums experienced a hardware failure on Saturday morning that unfortunately led to severe database corruption. Several attempts to restore it failed.

This led us to our backups, but the timing was a bit unfortunate. Since the failure occurred on a weekend morning, we didn't see it until after a new backup occurred, which contained the corrupted data, and which removed our previous daily backup. This forced us to our weekly backup, which was unfortunately at the end of its time: six days old.

So, the forums are back, but we had a six-day reversion.

This should not have affects on the rest of the site, since the majority of our data is saved in our main-user-database or our games, all on remote machines.
See more
See less

Death: It's neither permanent -nor- serious business

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Death: It's neither permanent -nor- serious business

    "<####/Ideas> filed by Zeiss[####]: I really think there should be a % chance that characters can be permanently removed from the game upon death. It would make death have meaning, and make the choice of @yes or @no when asked if you consent to being killed require more thought. Of course, players would need to be aware of this change (but I think maybe the actual perent-figures should remain un-spoken, to add to the "What-if?!" posibility). It would also serve to make it less of a huge "thing" when a character is permanently killed, sine it would be less rare, and then people would be charged with equal "murder" whether the char returns or not, because they might -not- have. As it stands, death is like in CM, but even -less- worse. "Oh no, a can't play for a period of time." without even having the loss of skills as punishment. Sure, that period of time is longer, but ICO also offers more character slots per account than CM, so there's more options to "play something else while waiting"."

    I'd type more, but I think that succintly states my opinions on the mater.

    Shall we discuss death, then?
    OOC -- Doctor Hush says, "he eats blackholes"

  • #2
    Have to agree, though I think the % should increase based on the number of times you've been killed. Killed once? Shouldn't be too hard for priests to perform their rituals, etc to resurrect you. Killed 5 times? Your body and soul /have/ to be tired, rituals have to be less effective. People would probably have to start wondering why they're resurrecting you over and over only to see you dead again. It's very important to have the possibility of death being permanent. Our characters are not meant to live forever, and with all the politics in the game world, and all the enemies you can make there should be a chance you can take someone out completely. It would make both victims and attackers think much more about their plots and their decision to kill or not to kill.

    I don't know. Maybe some sort of residual percentage that builds up over time? 10-20% probability with each death that the next time your character dies, it might not be able to be restored?

    Comment


    • #3
      This is the reason I decided that if Leah died a 2nd time, it would be permadeath.

      It made sense the first time to come back, she still had work to do, S'Allumer gave her a reason to return. The second time, oh no, she was too happy about being in the Light to ever want to return to earthly life.

      Interesting discussion here
      Reeve of the fair City of Triskellian, seat of the Rinaldi

      Comment


      • #4
        I would agree: See, if say you get someone assassinated to get tehm out of the way, it kinda looses it if they come back...
        Ximen: "Burn the heretic, purge the unclean, kill the abomination."
        Sang: "What happensssss happenssssss."
        Myrddin: "You, ah, you shouldn't really be, ah, doing that."

        Comment


        • #5
          The per death increasing chance of resurrection failure I find to be a great idea. It would still not mean that you can get someone out of game you OOCly don't like as death further on will be a consent based event, but it would increase the value of life and the seriousness of death.

          Comment


          • #6
            I'm a firm supporter of perma-death without consent. People moan and bitch about realism in every game I ever play so here it is. Don't want your character to die? Don't put them in situations where they can. Don't want your character to be assassinated? Don't do things or screw with people that will cause it. Personally, I get tired of a world where people run their characters head-first into the most dangerous activities they can think of then expect to live when they try to fight the big flesh-eating muffin with 500 hitpoints alone with their fists while mini chocoalte chips gnaw on their organs.

            Comment


            • #7
              That would mean that people who dislike someone OOCly reasonlessly can kill people from the game, which is just wrong. So no. Consent helps.

              Comment


              • #8
                Of course we have consent.

                Though implicit consent in danger areas could be very interesting. Enter the sewer and you consent to possible death. That I like. Not that I would ever go there myself. A lady has nothing to do in a sewer. We have minions we can send there instead.

                <devious smile>
                To accomplish great things,
                we must not only act, but also dream;
                not only plan, but also believe.

                Anatola France

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Lianaar View Post
                  That would mean that people who dislike someone OOCly reasonlessly can kill people from the game, which is just wrong. So no. Consent helps.
                  I really hope that ICO is not filled with so many immature, petty people that this would be a constant issue.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I assisted something almost exactly to this when I was playing. I received the response almost automagically from one staff member saying that a mechanism of this sort was being studied and considered, but that there were no promises of implementation.

                    I remember that the conversation did say that it would be more than interesting to have an ever-increasing chance of permadeath with each subsequent death. The first one is a freebie (unless it's plotted otherwise, which is always cool), but after that you would receive 5-10% increments until hitting a cap of, say, 50%. So there comes a time where keeping your character or losing it is a coin toss. Even though I'd prefer to have an initial 10% of ultimate death risk even if just freshly out of chargen, I can see how some people who aren't used to the system or aware of it could seriously lament the loss of their main.

                    I believe it would add more excitement to martial paths, particularly the shady kind. Because, as it is, there is no dire need for assassins (and guards exclusively prepared to detect stealthy types, there are some skills that would work for this) because if some noble gets killed, you're basically guaranteed a return. Why hire a cloak-and-dagger type if you won't shift anything to your favor? Why be one when you have no substantial impact in the game? And you wouldn't have "cheap heroes" that stupidly dash head-first into danger to face the nigh-undefeatable bad guy because the only loss is a few days with your character in the limbo.

                    Of course we're not saying that people should drop like flies and perma-death is something that happens daily. But to know that meddling with the wrong person can mean the end for your character just adds a bit more risk and reward to the game.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I agree and I disagree. I think that death should have a serious consequence, but I disagree that anyone should have to suffer perma-death without wanting to. And there are plenty of other options that would be almost as serious for players and characters alike without causing someone to lose the character that they've been building for months or years.

                      For instance, amnesia, represented by losing the last skill you bought, which is a big thing when you're in the higher skill ranks and skills take a month of playing to increase or more.

                      Extended death, a chance of taking longer to be revived, due to the damage to your soul, or due to the person who killed you hiding the body, or whatever.

                      Problems with the reincarnation, meaning that your body becomes warped or scarred.

                      Things like that will make people take death more seriously, and add to roleplay, far more than removing a character permanently from the game. Because you do that, and people start losing the characters they love, and people are gonna start stopping playing.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Interesting discussion so far, guys.

                        One thing to bear in mind is, in our game design, we are meant to have adventure areas (like the swamps) with creatures that can kill PCs. We'd intend to have varying difficulties in different areas, including some creatures that could kill a PC with ease. As you've all seen, I never have time to code everything I want, so this hasn't become a reality yet. Even so, when discussing death we need to take into account that in the future not all death will be PC-caused. I doubt many people will be happy loosing their established character to an NPC. Then again, if this is a problem, perhaps there could only be a %chance if it's a PC that kills, and not if it's an NPC. (or maybe we want the risk with the NPCs too)

                        Originally posted by Xena View Post
                        Have to agree, though I think the % should increase based on the number of times you've been killed.
                        That would be easy enough to do. Then again, even if we don't increase the chance, more deaths mean more possibilities of not returning.

                        Originally posted by Magister View Post
                        I would agree: See, if say you get someone assassinated to get tehm out of the way, it kinda looses it if they come back...
                        Indeed. But we've been told by many players "all the plots are about death" - which is interesting since almost all the plots that we've run have had non-violent possibilities. Many people "fall back" on death as a solution, because it's dramatic and feels permanent. It's an "easy option"

                        Originally posted by ~Bayard~ View Post
                        I'm a firm supporter of perma-death without consent. People moan and bitch about realism in every game I ever play so here it is. Don't want your character to die? Don't put them in situations where they can.
                        Mmmm, but realism is only really a good argument once players start roleplaying realistically.
                        And we need to bear in mind that we're playing a game here, not a simulation. Fun gameplay and story is more important than realism.
                        If we can add realism, and have it support the gameplay and story, then obviously, that would be a double advantage.

                        Originally posted by Lianaar View Post
                        That would mean that people who dislike someone OOCly reasonlessly can kill people from the game, which is just wrong. So no. Consent helps.
                        Originally posted by ~Bayard~ View Post
                        I really hope that ICO is not filled with so many immature, petty people that this would be a constant issue.
                        It happens. And it doesn't have to be a constant issue. One established character permanently dying causes a lot of upheaval. Often it leads to a regular player leaving the game (if they only really played that one main)
                        - If that happens because of an OOC dislike rather than from IC actions, that can cause a lot of bad feeling. It's also the sort of thing that's very hard for staff to enforce fairly, since, well, it's almost always easy to come up with an in-character excuse.

                        Originally posted by Lady Gabrielle View Post
                        Of course we have consent.

                        Though implicit consent in danger areas could be very interesting. Enter the sewer and you consent to possible death. That I like.
                        I agree entirely. And we can then put greater rewards for the ones willing to take the risk.
                        But... if the costs are too high, people may not be willing to risk things. Or we'll see a slew of alts used to check the sewers, dying or being deleted, then recreated. Which would cause its own problem.


                        Originally posted by Brohm View Post
                        I assisted something almost exactly to this when I was playing. I received the response almost automagically
                        Cool how efficient we are at responding to player suggestions, isn't it?

                        Originally posted by Brohm View Post
                        ... from one staff member saying that a mechanism of this sort was being studied and considered, but that there were no promises of implementation.

                        ...

                        I believe it would add more excitement to martial paths, particularly the shady kind. Because, as it is, there is no dire need for assassins (and guards exclusively prepared to detect stealthy types, there are some skills that would work for this) because if some noble gets killed, you're basically guaranteed a return. Why hire a cloak-and-dagger type if you won't shift anything to your favor?
                        My potential worry is that martial paths will, while having this added excitement, also devolve into just "I'll permakill them! Ha! I am strongest"

                        Guarding nobles, etc. is also fun, but... for every plot where the assassin might attack the noble and the guards fight them off... if the assassin is facing possible permadeath, my prediction is they will wait until there are no guards around before attacking the noble. And a cautious noble would then not be able to go out unless the guard PCs are logged in, which would be bad for the game.

                        Originally posted by Brohm View Post
                        Of course we're not saying that people should drop like flies and perma-death is something that happens daily. But to know that meddling with the wrong person can mean the end for your character just adds a bit more risk and reward to the game.
                        The risk and reward is a good point, but how do we stop perma-death happening daily, and PCs dropping like flies?

                        And more importantly, how can we avoid *players* targeting the characters of other players they dislike? (after finding an IC excuse, of course)

                        Oh, a random question: are we still assuming that the player gets to choose @yes or @no when they are killed? If so, then a lot of the concerns are lessened (since a harassed player can just choose not to die, and not risk permadeath)

                        Originally posted by Pyjamas View Post
                        plenty of other options that would be almost as serious for players and characters alike without causing someone to lose the character that they've been building for months or years.
                        It's certainly worth considering other options to make death more meaningful, without removing the character. When a character vanishes, their guild needs to replace them. The other PCs who built up a relationship with them loose that, any ongoing plots are left hanging, etc. Often there are more people invested than just the specific character who dies.

                        Also, it's a trend in many prose games, that when an established main dies, the player often leaves the game. Not always, of course. If the player is going to leave the game anyway, that's fine, but if we're trying to build the playerbase, we really don't want to encourage anything that will result in people leaving. Unless it *significantly* improves the game.

                        So... other options to make death "serious enough" would certainly be good to also look at.

                        Originally posted by Pyjamas View Post
                        For instance, amnesia, represented by losing the last skill you bought, which is a big thing when you're in the higher skill ranks and skills take a month of playing to increase or more.
                        Interesting thing about this is the penalty is greater the more experienced the character is. So new alts can die with less concern. I'm not sure if that's good or bad, or neither.

                        Originally posted by Pyjamas View Post
                        Extended death, a chance of taking longer to be revived, due to the damage to your soul, or due to the person who killed you hiding the body, or whatever.
                        Could certainly be an option. Perhaps the first time the body is raised in a day, the second time in a week, the third in two weeks, four weeks, then stays at a month or something. So an assassination will remove the PC for long enough to get whatever the plan is done, but the player can still have their character back if they want it.

                        Originally posted by Pyjamas View Post
                        Problems with the reincarnation, meaning that your body becomes warped or scarred.
                        Yup. Although will this really be considered a "consequence" or will players just "collect scars" and otherwise not care?

                        On that idea might suggest...

                        sickness - for a time the character is too weak to do a lot of things (such as fighting) and needs to take IC actions over time to recover. So they may have, I dunno... coughing up blood. Can't fight, and have to eat chicken soup. After a certain number of days where they eat chicken soup, they'll be recovered enough that they can start fighting again. So instead of permadeath, it's more "heath was damaged by the resurrection"

                        permanent disfigurements - Perhaps the % chance is for permanent disfigurements. Things like "limp" which may reduce their speed rating, or "missing hand" which means they can't wield a weapon. A lot harsher on the player (who may decide to just delete the character anyway) - but gives the option of keeping the character (and maybe moving into a new field if they can no longer do their old job)
                        Mea squints at you, "For a magical nudist he sure is carrying lots of pie."

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          ---

                          Most of the discussion seems to focus on one of two situations. Either PCs getting in a fight with each other or assassinations.
                          They're kind of different, because in a case of two characters fighting each other to the death, both players got involved and decided to fight. In the case of an assassination, the target didn't necessarily even know something was going to happen (especially in the case of a sneakattack)

                          If we ignore assassinations for the time being, we have another few options (that I can think of. Suggest more!) with permadeath. Such as:

                          Fight club - Maybe there isn't a chance of permadeath based on how many times someone died, maybe instead there are special combat "moves" that can lead to permadeath. So a brawler may be able to learn the "neck snap" move. When they kill someone, they could try to snap their neck, and depending on their skill it may result in the corpse not being resurrectable. It would also possibly give clues to the investigators for the murder (if they know who's able to snap necks) - and would mean that before a character can cause permadeath they need to go to effort to gain the ability (so no swarms of alts)

                          Opt-in - Perhaps there could be certain skills or options available for people who opt-in, but at that point they risk perma-death. So one obvious example is... a martial character opts-in. They can now be permakilled, but ONLY by someone else who opted in. So if you fight someone else who opted in, you have the tense situation where your character could die forever. But players who don't want to risk this can avoid it. There would need to be a non-martial version of this, of course. Something like sending the Don a petition to have a PC executed for crimes. (so if Lady Blah wants Chinco to die, she'd try to have him arrested and permanently executed. But, by doing so, she's now opted-in, and someone else who opted-in can assassinate her, with the risk of her perma-dying)

                          Just how tough are you - I've been toying with this idea for a while. In combat, currently, you are either "able to fight" or "broken from combat"
                          What if there were various levels. You start a fight, trade some blows, but it is very unlikely anyone will get hurt (maybe a few scratches) because both fighters are "fresh" enough to avoid serious injuries. Instead of damage it's "tiredness" - once someone is "beaten" they are too tired to keep fighting safely, and get a warning about that. They can stop fighting if the player chooses. If they keep fighting, they now risk taking cuts and other injuries. After they take too much damage from this, they get another warning, and now risk serious injuries (maybe things like getting a limp, or a wound getting infected) - something that will require medical attention over a period of time. After they're beaten at this level, they can keep fighting, and risk death. Could maybe make another level where they can choose "I don't want to die yet, let me keep fighting" - but they'll risk permadeath.

                          That way those "tough as nails" characters can fight on as long as they want, but take greater risks than the characters which back down sooner. And permadeath is a serious risk for the heroes that fight to the last breath, but not for the average tailor who gets mugged in an alley.

                          ---

                          Anyone else have ideas?

                          Random question: Is permadeath *really* necessary? This is a cooperative game. Could two fighters say "Let's risk permadeath. Whoever dies does a @roll and if they get a 1, deletes their character."? Or is this something that we need to enforce?
                          Mea squints at you, "For a magical nudist he sure is carrying lots of pie."

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by SHAzrael View Post
                            Random question: Is permadeath *really* necessary? This is a cooperative game. Could two fighters say "Let's risk permadeath. Whoever dies does a @roll and if they get a 1, deletes their character."? Or is this something that we need to enforce?
                            That sort of permadeath can be arranged between consenting parties and with staff if one is willing to go in that direction.

                            But what I personally find fun about the risk of permadeath is that it is a result that is completely out of my control (once consent has been given, that is). I acknowledge that the actions taken by my character and taken against him can have surprising consequences. While, yes, it may tempt a minority of unsavory players to target characters they dislike, those other players still have the right to say @no to death. And the upside, to my eyes, is that you raise the bar for those that are willing to put their characters on the line for the sake of plot and roleplay, for the enjoyment of all. It certainly adds to the drama and tension of a scene if you wonder "Wow. Could this be the end of Dio, or could this lead to Marcus' tragic sacrifice?". And I will put more effort into giving a good scene, because if it's my character's last, then I'll make it worth it.

                            Perhaps only PCs can permakill, and those NPCs in adventure areas don't have that ability. Since permadeath is meant for dramatic purposes, it's not very dramatic for a player to have his character disappear because he couldn't beat an aggressive bot, and there wasn't even another person around to tell the sad tale.

                            Or those areas could prompt the player to decide if he's willing to risk permadeath at the hands of some coded random creature/brigand (@yes or @no?), with the bonus that if you say @yes, you may get better rewards out of the area.


                            Perhaps, yes, that possibility of permadeath being activated if you are already wounded to X level and decide to disregard your injuries is another way to go. The difference between admitting defeat, being knocked out, or passing out from blood-loss and fighting until your final breath. I like that. Though I wonder if we'd see the same stubborn fools permadying over nonsense anyway. But at least you gave them the warning!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Brohm View Post
                              While, yes, it may tempt a minority of unsavory players to target characters they dislike, those other players still have the right to say @no to death.
                              True, this is a good safeguard. But only applies in safe areas. In the swamps, etc. people can be attacked and killed without consent. But the player consented when they entered that area.

                              Originally posted by Brohm View Post
                              And the upside, to my eyes, is that you raise the bar for those that are willing to put their characters on the line for the sake of plot and roleplay, for the enjoyment of all. It certainly adds to the drama and tension of a scene if you wonder "Wow. Could this be the end of Dio, or could this lead to Marcus' tragic sacrifice?". And I will put more effort into giving a good scene, because if it's my character's last, then I'll make it worth it.
                              I'm not sure that I 100% buy this point... people will roleplay better if they know they might loose their character?
                              Would they? Or would they just protect their character more?

                              Originally posted by Brohm View Post
                              Perhaps only PCs can permakill, and those NPCs in adventure areas don't have that ability. Since permadeath is meant for dramatic purposes, it's not very dramatic for a player to have his character disappear because he couldn't beat an aggressive bot, and there wasn't even another person around to tell the sad tale.
                              We can do this.

                              Originally posted by Brohm View Post
                              Or those areas could prompt the player to decide if he's willing to risk permadeath at the hands of some coded random creature/brigand (@yes or @no?), with the bonus that if you say @yes, you may get better rewards out of the area.
                              Also an option. And it could be RPed as the character not being willing to rush into the same sort of danger if they choose @no.

                              Originally posted by Brohm View Post
                              Perhaps, yes, that possibility of permadeath being activated if you are already wounded to X level and decide to disregard your injuries is another way to go. The difference between admitting defeat, being knocked out, or passing out from blood-loss and fighting until your final breath. I like that. Though I wonder if we'd see the same stubborn fools permadying over nonsense anyway. But at least you gave them the warning!
                              I don't know if we'd see the same behavior as before. Right now death is "just death" - the same penalty whether you were defending your king, or wouldn't back down in an argument. If there is permadeath for people who carry on too far, we may see players deciding that their character backs down earlier. Maybe that "earlier" will be "death but not permadeath" and we'll have the same as now. Not sure.
                              Mea squints at you, "For a magical nudist he sure is carrying lots of pie."

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X