Original post by IronLion85
Depending on how you implemented "safe cities" they might nearly be 100% safe. Perhaps guards would attack someone who even drew their weapon (long before they could attack you with it) for example. The goal would be to make these safe areas safe enough to where you don't need to worry one bit about being killed. Or... perhaps you can only knock people out in cities on top of them being guarded. Try to find solutions, don't just point out the problems.</quote>

The solution is to disable attack/skills in safe areas that could hurt other players. Just because there is permadeath there shouldn't have to be omnidanger.

Quote:Original post by IronLion85
"Those area's would actually make you watch your back again. Nice."

You SHOULD have to watch your back in dangerous areas. I don't see the problem there. If you don't want to be afraid of dying stay in the safe areas and craft or do some business. Or were you really saying that that's a good idea?

Yeah I wasn't being sarcastic, I like how a forgotten tomb isn't just cool but also ominous.

Quote:Original post by IronLion85
Levels are not a good idea for a permadeath game. Skills levels, yes, character levels, no. I truly believe a group of "noobs" attacking a higher level character would not be a problem, most people would probably travel in groups anyway.

Here you are assuming player behaviour. You are forcing people to travel in groups, but I much enjoy travelling alone.

Quote:Original post by IronLion85If I were to make this game I would make running away from battle an extremely viable option as well, so if you were being attacked by a group you could run away, and a more experienced character could run a lot faster and further than a group of noobs.

Cheers!

Quote:Original post by IronLion85
"Playing isn’t fun unless you’re taking risks

This is completely untrue"

I was trying to imply that that might be a complaint that someone would have, I wasn't making a statement. I know not to contradict myself ;). You're nitpicking a little bit don't you think?

I may be, but I feel it is an important point. Many game designers set out to add risk to games. But most of the time people play games to avoid risk. If I wanted the most realistic fighting game ever with all the risks, I would just sign up for a freefighting competition. We play games because games are safe. Politics board games are a safe place to backstab friends. FPS games are a safe place to kill people. I believe this game should be a safe place to die. What I'm saying is that death shouldn't be 100% negative. Although your character should truly and honestly die, the progress of this game could be measured in more things than skill alone. Dying might be a stepping stone to learn skills that your previous character didn't have the aptitude for. The character before that did have the aptitude, but back then you didn't have the money yet.

Quote:Original post by IronLion85
"I think that the most important thing is, that death is at the center in the game design."

I completely agree with you there, most game elements need to be thought up with permanent death in mind.

Fantastic.

Okay, first I have a bit of a problem with letting people die from disconnects. Sure, some people may use that as a way to cheat the system but some of us simply have troubles with connections. So no permadeath from disconnect!

==========

Also, I imagine in a game there may be at least a few ways to allow a character a second chance. But these must cost something. In a fantasy setting I can think of a few ways to 'cheat' permadeath while retaining the effect.

1. ghosts- when you die, you die. but its not always over. You become a ghost and can wander the world but can't interact in physical ways. Also, your possesions are sort of kept safe through a 'will' or estate. So you can theoretically find someone to ressurect you (which will be expensive) by spending money from your estate.

2. Perhaps ghosts can become some type of monster. Higher 'level' the player was when they die, the more powerful the monster they become. examples, vengeful ghost who refuses to depart, zombie if a necromancer animates your corpse and you agree to keep playing.

3. Also... if it would fit. If someone dies and they don't have enough money to afford a ressurection (i.e. newbies that just started) . There could be a chance for an organization of 'soul slavers' to summon your ghost and offer you ressurection in return for working for them. Basically do jobs for them like craft items for sale at the market, be semi-forcibly organized to kill monsters or whatever. Basically, told to do things that may make it easier to play the game ( kind of like a tutorial but not) . This only continues until you 'pay off your debt' and then you're free to go. or you can refuse and lose the character.

===========


Basically, have a system of permadeath with some opportunities to escape for the weakhearted ones. though stuff like your char becoming a monster, slave, ressurected should have some effect on a decendant, like limiting whatever bonus they receive from the parent.


wonder how permadeath and a 'death tax' would affect inflation in MMORPGS?

heh, quick posting. This is like a chat room.

One thing about the prestige, I didn't mean arbitrary prestige points to actually show 'look at me! look at me! I'm at level 23... uhm I mean prestige level 23!'
My goal for adding 'prestige points' is that you could still advance after a death. Not necessarily character strength, but maybe it's your standing in court and allows you access into new areas in the castle. Maybe the only way to be a magician is if your father was liked by the king. Maybe the only way to be a priest is if your mother performed certain duties to the church. Maybe you can convince a hunter to give training to your son when he comes of age. Many ways in which you aren't just playing with your current character, but also planning for the next in line. This is why I mentioned prestige, but I feel these examples are already better, more refined versions.

*edited to include answer to shadownose's post*

The game has permadeath. After a disconnect your character should go on... say... 30 seconds. If he dies, it's permadeath. Don't forget that death is not final in such game. This is not a MMO as you know it. But to make losing a connection completely safe is too easy to abuse, despite how the bad connection people may suffer. I've been one, I know it sucks, but it's the least bad solution.

I really like the ghost idea. But if I were designing the game, rather than being still on the player side, you would go to the computer side as a baddie. After permadeath, there is also a single-lifed ghost that can harass players and give more challenge than a giant bat.

Quote:Original post by Dunam
The solution is to disable attack/skills in safe areas that could hurt other players. Just because there is permadeath there shouldn't have to be omnidanger.

Hmmm. I'm hesitant to want to disable anything (I'm all about realism) but you may be right about this one, it would be nice to have a place where you don't need to worry at all. The only problem I can think of with that is what if your character got pickpocketed in town? You couldn't do anything about it?

Quote:Original post by Dunam
Yeah I wasn't being sarcastic, I like how a forgotten tomb isn't just cool but also ominous.

Yessss exactly.

Quote:Original post by Dunam
Here you are assuming player behaviour. You are forcing people to travel in groups, but I much enjoy travelling alone.

As do I, I guess the running away part solves that though.

Quote:Original post by Dunam
I may be, but I feel it is an important point. Many game designers set out to add risk to games. But most of the time people play games to avoid risk. If I wanted the most realistic fighting game ever with all the risks, I would just sign up for a freefighting competition. We play games because games are safe. Politics board games are a safe place to backstab friends. FPS games are a safe place to kill people. I believe this game should be a safe place to die. What I'm saying is that death shouldn't be 100% negative. Although your character should truly and honestly die, the progress of this game could be measured in more things than skill alone and dying might be a stepping stone to learning things your previous character didn't have the aptitude for and the character before had the aptitude but not yet the financial situation.

People play games to avoid REAL LIFE risks. Games need to give players choice, and for players to decide they need to weigh RISKS and rewards. Inheritance of financial and material goods is a better idea, I think, than getting bonuses in skill or attributes from "ancestors" is. I think you're right, and that would be a huge incentive for someone to keep playing when their first character dies.


The most important thing IMO is to take emphasis off of the character and put more into the world. You don't want your players to be overly concerned about improving their characters, you want them instead to be interested in travelling the world and seeing new things and exploring exotic destinations or making some interesting new sword or article of clothing or castle etc. That way when a character dies the player is eager to make a new one to get back into an engaging, interesting world with a good story etc.

Quote:Original post by IronLion85
If that's not clear... in your average mmo lets say character levels range from 1-100. Level 1 characters can only fight level 1-4 monsters, level 5 characters have trouble with level 10 monsters etc. etc. all the way up to 100. Well lets say that in that same game they decided to do away with levels 10-100. No more ridiculously powerful characters means more content for all the 1-10 level characters. You will be more likely to compete with more monsters than in the other system no matter what level you are. (I'm not sure if that makes sense, but maybe some of you know what I mean.)

Yes I agree. Most MMORPGs have some artificial barriers to stop you from killing monsters you are not supposed to kill. Ultima Online did this in a good way imo. They had a skill based and not level based system (which makes it easier to even it out, but it's possible with levels aswell) where you usually was able to kill anything you wanted to kill. It just took a lot of time, and a high risk of dying, but it was usually possible (Atleast for a mage). A starting warrior had around 60 HP and an experienced warrior had around 100 HP (if I remember correct), this way it was a lot easier for the experienced warrior not to die, since he could take almost twice as much beating before he had to heal, but it's still not so much more that he is in another league when it comes to fighting. But the game was also designed in a way so the experienced warrior would kill the inexperienced warrior in a fair fight each time, and they would have to gang up to bring him down.

In a permadeath game it would also make a huge different if you make the game as a life simulater or a dungeon crawl. Both The Sims and Nethack are good games imo, and you would probably want to find a good balance between the two. Nethack is an excellent example of how permadeath may work in a single player RPG, but it makes it quite easy to give up forever after dying far down in the dungeon.

Quote:Original post by Dunam
heh, quick posting. This is like a chat room.

One thing about the prestige, I didn't mean arbitrary prestige points to actually show 'look at me! look at me! I'm at level 23... uhm I mean prestige level 23!'
My goal for adding 'prestige points' is that you could still advance after a death. Not necessarily character strength, but maybe it's your standing in court and allows you access into new areas in the castle. Maybe the only way to be a magician is if your father was liked by the king. Maybe the only way to be a priest is if your mother performed certain duties to the church. Maybe you can convince a hunter to give training to your son when he comes of age. Many ways in which you aren't just playing with your current character, but also planning for the next in line. This is why I mentioned prestige, but I feel these examples are already better, more refined versions.

I see what you mean, but let me give you some examples of why you wouldn't need "prestige points" for this.

The king in your example should be a player's character, and if he knew your original character and liked him for his bravery etc. then he'll like your next character when your original character dies. See why you wouldn't need prestige points for that? Prestige would have a role in the game but it wouldn't need it's own game system it would exist on its own.

Quote:Original post by The Shadow Nose
Okay, first I have a bit of a problem with letting people die from disconnects. Sure, some people may use that as a way to cheat the system but some of us simply have troubles with connections. So no permadeath from disconnect!

==========

Also, I imagine in a game there may be at least a few ways to allow a character a second chance. But these must cost something. In a fantasy setting I can think of a few ways to 'cheat' permadeath while retaining the effect.

1. ghosts- when you die, you die. but its not always over. You become a ghost and can wander the world but can't interact in physical ways. Also, your possesions are sort of kept safe through a 'will' or estate. So you can theoretically find someone to ressurect you (which will be expensive) by spending money from your estate.

2. Perhaps ghosts can become some type of monster. Higher 'level' the player was when they die, the more powerful the monster they become. examples, vengeful ghost who refuses to depart, zombie if a necromancer animates your corpse and you agree to keep playing.

3. Also... if it would fit. If someone dies and they don't have enough money to afford a ressurection (i.e. newbies that just started) . There could be a chance for an organization of 'soul slavers' to summon your ghost and offer you ressurection in return for working for them. Basically do jobs for them like craft items for sale at the market, be semi-forcibly organized to kill monsters or whatever. Basically, told to do things that may make it easier to play the game ( kind of like a tutorial but not) . This only continues until you 'pay off your debt' and then you're free to go. or you can refuse and lose the character.

I like idea number one somewhat, and had actually thought about it a little bit myself. I don't like the other two though.

My idea was that certain priests would be able to see and communicate with dead people, and the dead would have a certain amount of time to find a priest who they could lead to their body (no money need be involved unless the priest asked for it).

Oh, and as far as safe areas. The NPCs would have some affects:

Guards: rush in and attack whoever fights in town, possibly through disabling attack like sleep or disarm or such.

Easily startled women: Scream 'Bloody Murder!' when she sees a fight start and attracts guards or whatnot.

Healers: Often found in temples, bars, or just wandering around town. When they see someone critically wounded, they rush in to heal and charge money. They may accept credit.

Good Samaritans: See citically wounded people and offer aid, often for free though not as much as a professional healer. Just enough to get you to a healer.

Pickpockets: See wounded chars and take opportunity to snatch coins from you. They don't want to kill or jurt you, they just know wounded people are less likely to fight back.


different towns have different ratios of people. so ones with lots of guards, healers and good sameritans are safer than ones with pickpockets.

Heck with items selling for more than the game sells, losing things in a succesful MMO is a REAL life risk. But I agree that attributes / skills should not be where the parent bonus comes from.

I think that realism isn't worth persuing. I'm a game designer, not a simulator designer. I'd like to suspend disbelief, but I actually like games about flying dragons and equally chanced teams of terrorists & antiterrorists. I also like games where there are positions that I can walk away from my computer to pick up the phone, open my door, help my family, eat or put out a fire without losing equipment or dying. So to me, pickpocketing is impossible in safe areas. I don't see the point of adding pickpocketing to a game.

Quote:Original post by IronLion85
The king in your example should be a player's character, and if he knew your original character and liked him for his bravery etc. then he'll like your next character when your original character dies. See why you wouldn't need prestige points for that? Prestige would have a role in the game but it wouldn't need it's own game system it would exist on its own.

I see 'the king' as a pivotal place in the game and thus'it can not be filled by a player character. The degree in which the king likes you may open up new content / proffessions for your children (the characters you play when you die).