Good Post/Idea
Devin
I am pasting here a response that I found in another thread. I hope
that Cabbot doesnt mind me quoting him, but I thought that there was a
good concept contained within :
-Devin
Let us all pray it is in the works. I would also like to see
implementation
of eventual
final death (10/15 resurections?) to help with the myriad others
problems
cropping up due to over development of characters. The housing glut,
tame
dragon glut, 30 GM tank mages hanging around the bank casting worthless
apparitions and lagging us all while they complain there is nothing to
do glut,
Virtue guard glut (whats next super virtue guards, then extra super
virtue
guards, then extra super duper virtue guards?), Pkilling with abandon
glut...
Other than actual software bugs that can and will be fixed in time,
All the
major problems with the game are due to our virtual immortality. There
is no
real threat to your character hence every action has no real consequence
other
than a few gold pieces. Now insert the chance for a characters' final
demise
and taming a dragon might not be too wise to attempt yet, killing
players
becomes a risky endeavor after that 8th life slips away, houses begin to
rot
making room for the next generation, living long enough to become a
virtue
guard becomes a prideful accomplishment instead of a funtction of time,
player
legends start to emerge. I can imagine a good, smart player allowed 10
deaths
could easily exist for well over a year and begin to take on legendary
status,
or truly notorious in the case of a PK :). What fun to strike the final
blow to
LoRd BeAvIs or FaTheR MaNsoN after 6 months of hunting them.
A funeral may even be in order next September when that helpful old
Grandmaster Bard finally sings his last tune... :) News worthy of
posting in
the pub. Being the strongest alive is meaningful now and there may be a
few who
are interested in knocking you off, there's your challenge, stay alive!
You may
even gain respect for your power as opposed to the (CORRECT) assumption
that
you just trained & played longer than I. Ranges of player levels would
become
dispersed and more varied and roleplaying gets a shot in the arm. The
fun of
the game is in the journey of character development and todays' promise
to
truly accomplish everything possible in time is a bleak future. You'll
never do
better next time - there is no next time and everyone will do as well
anyway
eventually.
As it is now, even without cheats, there is no way to avoid having
everyone
standing around the bank 6 months from now with 4 empty castles (save
the 4
tamed dragons and 8 bears) performing useless actions with their skills
capped
and eventually cancelling the account because there is no real
consequence to
any action in the game.
-Cabbot (your server here)
Urisk of the murky depths
(dev...@swbell.net) Devin enlightened us with:
> I am pasting here a response that I found in another thread. I hope
> that Cabbot doesnt mind me quoting him, but I thought that there was a
> good concept contained within :
I disagree completely- I thought it was a lousy idea (no offense,
Cabbot) In most CRPGs you can save your character. Online you have
unlimited lives. If I was just about to attain GM Mage status, and
died for the 15th time fighting a Lich (or PKer) I would be
seriously pissed. Maybe I died 15 times because I'm a crappy player-
who knows. But preventing me from attaining the highest levels of
the game just doesn't make sense to me...
--
~^v^~ ::: Urisk ::: ~^v^~
~^v^~< MailTo:jab...@vgernet.net >~^v^~
c h a o s . c o n t r o l
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Metro/4997/
Devin
I agree to a point with the risk factor, but it would seem, at least on my
shard (LS) that most people have hit the stat ceiling and development
ceiling already. For a game like this I believe that being easy is much more
dangerous to its longevity than aggravation.
-Devin
jack davis
I died from lag 15 times in the first week i had UO! Terrible idea,
this isn't Nintendo
Jack
Devin <dev...@swbell.net> wrote:
>I am pasting here a response that I found in another thread. I hope
>that Cabbot doesnt mind me quoting him, but I thought that there was a
>good concept contained within :
>-Devin
Jag
On Fri, 19 Dec 1997 16:40:29 -0500, jab...@vgernet.net (Urisk of the
murky depths) wrote:
>I disagree completely- I thought it was a lousy idea (no offense,
>Cabbot) In most CRPGs you can save your character. Online you have
>unlimited lives. If I was just about to attain GM Mage status, and
>died for the 15th time fighting a Lich (or PKer) I would be
>seriously pissed. Maybe I died 15 times because I'm a crappy player-
>who knows. But preventing me from attaining the highest levels of
>the game just doesn't make sense to me...
>
>--
> ~^v^~ ::: Urisk ::: ~^v^~
> ~^v^~< MailTo:jab...@vgernet.net >~^v^~
> c h a o s . c o n t r o l
> http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Metro/4997/
I agree with you Urisk. If I were to guess the primary reason
permanent death, also known on LegendMUD as perma-killing, is the fact
it was easily and often abused on LegendMUD. In the long run it only
promotes serious out of character vendetta's that carry over from
character to the next to the next etc.... It doesn't work and has been
proven a real problem and was debated into the ground on LegendMUD
before I left. The majority pretty muched agreed it wasn't a smart
system. Ghosting on UO is directly from those discussions on LM along
with MANY little tweaks and changes in UO.
Jag
Michael T. McIntosh
Jag,
Let me get this straight...your argument against PD is that it would
prohibit or reduce the chance that someone might reach Grand Master
level? Perhaps I have not made myself clear!? Permanent death (e.g. a
cap on lives) does not mean you cannot reach an expert level!!! I means
that when you finally reach an expert level it will be because of your
ability to survive and NOT your ability to log on some "x" amount of
times and play for "y" hours. Granted, not all players will reach the
hallowed halls of Grand Masterhood, but that adds a HUGE incentive to
play.
Although "the majority pretty much agreed" in LegendMUD, the majority
has yet to speak in UO. I've yet to hear one good arguement against PD.
The words "lousy" and "it doesn't work" are not solid points by any
stretch. Please make a solid argument against and I will be happy to
listen/read!!!
-Mike
Cabbot
> Although "the majority pretty much agreed" in LegendMUD, the majority
> has yet to speak in UO. I've yet to hear one good arguement against PD.
> The words "lousy" and "it doesn't work" are not solid points by any
> stretch. Please make a solid argument against and I will be happy to
> listen/read!!!
> -Mike
You'll also notice that Jags' majority, as often as not, seems toconsist
of him and the guy in his bathroom mirror if you've read his
numerous posts. His opinions of "lousy" often become referenced
fact in later posts, ask Devin :). No offense back at ya Jag!
There are problems with the idea's implemetation since server lag
does cause an unacceptable number of deaths. Auto-run like the mosters
perform may help (ie no user input, start walk-away routine at 10% life
left).
Better smoothing code on travel is needed.
Servers must be stable for this to work, There is no excuse for Origin
not to have solid server reliability at this point, it's discraceful.
(Don't cancel me and make a new rule about criticism ok LB?)
Prohibiting every crappy player from reaching Virtue guard is THE whole
point of this suggestion, thats the basic design flaw in this game. A
guaranteed population of wealthy tank mages with overcrowded landscape
is the promise we have to look forward to, and I don't feel regular 6 month
player/possesion wipes is any kind of fix for this problem. IT WILL BE A
PROBLEM. Rasing the bar of difficulty has already happened once but
you'll reach a point of preventing new customers if that continues.
We already have complaints that 1000 stones isn't enough to store my
10 plate armor suits in the bank, next we'll see houses are too small to
store my 600 chests of stuff. Boats will be parked across the entire river
and become landlocked.
PD is the only way to ensure fair and timely turnover of resources in the
game, and I BELIEVE it will add suspense, history, and excitement to the
game.
I can't imagine additional unwanted vendetta, you've got no clue who my
next character will be. But for those who think it might be exciting, I
could
create son of Cabbot and play the vendetta game. We sure do it today as we
PKhunt LoRd BeAvIs. It's just that it has no impact upon him today, there is
no
need for him to alter his play style.
Will this hand over any additional advantage to PK's because of their
agressive
play? It may provide you with additional fear, but no extra advantage is
given.
It only provides the means for a final end to the misery created by a
particular 13
year old boy.You may actually see curbing of the activity once they see only
2 lives left.
more opinions?
-Cabbot
>
Jag
>Jag,
> Let me get this straight...your argument against PD is that it would
>prohibit or reduce the chance that someone might reach Grand Master
>level? Perhaps I have not made myself clear!? Permanent death (e.g. a
WHERE did I ever mention preventing someone reaching GM?
That is a grand leap in assumption. My points were that a permanent
death model was used on LegendMUD the predecesor to UO and it failed
miserably. Promoted ongoing endless "hate" wars of permaing other
peoples characters (perma'd character would make new one, build up,
hunt down who perma'd him, that person would respond in same). It
destroyed roleplaying simply becuase it was human nature to seek
retribution. Again go reread the post.
>cap on lives) does not mean you cannot reach an expert level!!! I means
>that when you finally reach an expert level it will be because of your
>ability to survive and NOT your ability to log on some "x" amount of
>times and play for "y" hours. Granted, not all players will reach the
>hallowed halls of Grand Masterhood, but that adds a HUGE incentive to
>play.
Again based on the huge assumption you made and words you put into my
mouth.
> Although "the majority pretty much agreed" in LegendMUD, the majority
>has yet to speak in UO. I've yet to hear one good arguement against PD.
>The words "lousy" and "it doesn't work" are not solid points by any
>stretch. Please make a solid argument against and I will be happy to
>listen/read!!!
>-Mike
People decided over time that Multikilling (not intentionally
permanently killing someone but killing them in succession 4-5 times
or more) was a way to make a notorious name for themselves. This was
less than permakilling but the same in "destructive hatemongering".
When players are given the ability to "ruin" those who are not even
wanting to be involved in random pkilling, you have magnified the
problems with playerkilling exponentialy. With a localized small
community, on a mud for example, control and/or peer pressure is more
applicable. On an online service with thousands and thousands of
players, the drawbacks for actually practicing
multikilling/permakilling are not really present. In essence it would
give free reign to terrorizing players who before could only
kill/loot thier victims. Those who played more time than UO has been
available, most of those who dealt with a permanent death model (for
years) felt it was terrible! It doesn't work, even in a smaller more
contained and controled environment. If you choose to ignore those
who have actually tried it and deemed it conducive to "player abuse"
and prefer to speculate that "the grass would be greener" with
permanent death, there is little I can do to convince you that your
opinion is worse for UO than helpful.
Jag
?!?!?
In article <349B73...@splusnet.com>,
Michael T. McIntosh <emm...@splusnet.com> wrote:
>has yet to speak in UO. I've yet to hear one good arguement against PD.
>The words "lousy" and "it doesn't work" are not solid points by any
>stretch. Please make a solid argument against and I will be happy to
>listen/read!!!
>-Mike
Wouldn't the following scenerio be a solid argument against it:
Steve and John make a deal. Steve makes a character, gives his initial
money/reagants to John, John kills him. Steve makes another character,
gets killed again. Keeps this up until John has infinite whatever.
Now Steve makes a real character, and John gives half the stuff to
Steve. They both have everything they need with no real work. I'd say
make it so you can only make characters every so often but that would
suck really hard if you had a bad luck streak with pkillers and couldn't
play for a week. Permanent Death would also intensify the PK problem
cause PKers are the ones who don't need the decent stats, that's for the
people who wanna go attack that Liche and have a chance.
In spite of these problems, I'd still like permanent death...and their
may be a simple solution to these.
--
Timothy J. Simon
tsi...@iastate.edu
Michael T. McIntosh
Tim,
This would be a solid argument against it IF there were player who were
willing to waste there time dying (10-25 times b/c cap on lives) just so
another player could have a couple reagents and a hundred gold (which,
due to inflation, is worth spit) and, as you mention, the fix for your
scenario is incredibly easy to cure. First, if those who were PDed had
to wait one day before logging back on (yes, they could still play on
another server), muling would be more time consuming and, thus, more
difficult. If such a delay is to "harsh" for the gaming public, just
program the game so that, although players can have more than one
character in one day, they cannot have more than one group of starting
resources.
I also dispute the effect PD would have on PKers. If PD included a cap
on lives (25) where Dread Lord PKers lost a life for every life they
took (up to, but not including, their last life) then PKers would be in
a serious disadvantage.
I appreciate your response, Tim, and I am happy to hear that you
realize the importance of PD, but I fear that we are in a minority.
Players, it seems, lack the desire to challenge themselves in such a
manner. Perhaps UO will give us our own server (pipe dream) in which to
truly adventure.
Anthony T. Baux
One good solution would be to have another clerical/healer type spell added
to the list.
level 6 Raise Dead
This spell will be based on magery and healing skills. This spell effect
Dex/Stamia (since there is no constituion). If failed it takes away anywhere
from 1-2 dex/stamia points and you're still dead, and can't be raised again
using a Raise Dead spell. Now, you must go to the next higher level spell
listed below:
Level 9 Resurrection
Again this spell will be based on magery & healing skills cost 72 points of
mana to cast. It will not take dex or stamina. Add 10% to your chances of
coming back from a raise dead spells. If it fails you are dead forever!
start
new char. (all bank account items are gone)...
level 5 Spell Cone of Cold/or Ice Storm
Why this spell, because water elemental don't use fire (doh!) actually
fire should hurt them more, can't figure out why they're throwing fire, hell
*(either ask like a flamestrike but blue, or fireball just blue.) *
Second request, All Directional spells have a reduction in performance the
farther the target is away from you.. (also they don't go around corners, line
of sight you know).
third request, How bout some bolt/arrows with abilities...
either have magic bows that change arrows into abilites (fire, lightning,
magic missle) player still gets his saving throws(err magic resisting)
if it fails he just takes normal damage from arrow otherwise bonus (for the
spell ability of the bow)
I suggest making bows of this nature for instant, a bow of fire with 100
charges would take 100 of your normal arrow and simulate them into
fireballs(whatever). If you try and pass the arrows to someone they will
/are still normal arrows. Its the bow that has the magic.
I say this because arrows of fire/etc./etc. would require to much changing
in the programmers time and probably cause more lag. better just change
the bows.
Fourth suggestion:
OK OK OK.. when do ghost walk through doors but not tress and bushes.
well hope this make sense, Bird