Why a Map Without Boundries is a Boring One

[Pumpkin]

Which is a terrible idea.

[Blaze]

So was letting animals run away since they move faster than you and have infinite stamina.

I suppose they won't kill you until the animals are above level X or something, that'll limit how far characters can go.

[Pumpkin]

It's just a bad idea with perma death involved.

If you die to a player, you have a person to be angry at, to blame. You have a reason for your death, a story behind it that doesn't make the death so bad.

Dying to animals, especially at higher levels will just lead players to ragequit at a much higher rate than they already do due to PvP.

For example, I have over 400 melee, yet sometimes, ever so rarely, level VII-VIII bears will manage to KO me due to ridiculously bad rolls on my part, and very lucky rolls on their part. If I had died then, there is no story, just bad luck, which sucks. There's no one to blame, no one to take revenge on as it's an NPC.

If you get disconnected, like I do quite often, while fighting a hard enemy and get killed, that's another unreasonable death.

It just doesn't work, it's a bad mechanic, and I can't stand the thought of it being included.

[Blaze]

It's probably to make the full change route less of a shoe-in.

[Pumpkin]

Losing 60% of your stats to a disconnect would be just as annoying as losing 100%

NPCs killing players is just not a viable option in H&H at this stage.

[Blaze]

Not that anyone's forcing people to move into level X+ areas.

[Pumpkin]

EXCEPT THAT CRAVING FOR SWEET, SWEET LP.

THE SIREN SONG OF FLOATING WHITE NUMBERS.

[kobnach]

It's just a bad idea with perma death involved.

If you die to a player, you have a person to be angry at, to blame. You have a reason for your death, a story behind it that doesn't make the death so bad.

Dying to animals, especially at higher levels will just lead players to ragequit at a much higher rate than they already do due to PvP.

For example, I have over 400 melee, yet sometimes, ever so rarely, level VII-VIII bears will manage to KO me due to ridiculously bad rolls on my part, and very lucky rolls on their part. If I had died then, there is no story, just bad luck, which sucks. There's no one to blame, no one to take revenge on as it's an NPC.

If I get killed by a bear, I have a reasonable chance of growing bigger than that bear if I come back to the game, and being safe from him and his peers. If I get killed by a Pumpkin, I'm fucked. He'll be growing faster than I am. Revenge is completely impossible, and so is growing into a state of safety. If I get killed by a lesser player - e.g. some random goon of about my size - I'm still fucked, judging by the experience of Coriander, and everyone else who has been killed by moderate sized goons who were then protected by Delamore et al. So which situation makes me more likely to boredom-quit, seeing the prospect of having the same thing happen again by the time I manage to grind myself back to my previous stature, or sooner?

[Pumpkin]

You are a strange fellow indeed if you find killing non-sentinent, simple AI bears that respawn every hour in any way a satisfying form of retribution to the death of a character that takes days of playing to create.

[sabinati]

yeah with the frequency of crashes and disconnects the animals should not permakill