Permanent death (good or bad)

[Robben_DuMarsch]

That only solves a small portion of the worlds murder woes though, lets be honest. The majority of killing is done against players who cannot defend or avenge themselves even given the chance. Griefing of defenseless players is bad for long term game population. I'd rather see hermits getting stolen from regularly but left alive type thing if they're living near big baddies. Not dead and gone from the game for good.

Also just to be clear to anyone reading this: I was not giving that suggestion I made in earnest however, it was a half assed example about how trying to put in more serious penalties could really shift how pvp works in unexpected ways.

It gives anyone who gets the scents of those murdered defenseless players the ability to retaliate, not just the murdered player.

The little hermit could plea for justice on The Moot.... or perhaps with friends in a large faction.

I'm sure that would make the murderers think twice, unlike now.

Would it absolutely solve the problem? Maybe not.

Maybe it would mitigate it to the point we no longer consider it a problem, but rather fair play because the murders are rarer and done at with some risk.

Do you at least agree it is an interesting alternative to the current situation?

[Sevenless]

I think it's an interesting idea, but I don't feel it solves enough of the current issues to be worth implementing. The part where hermits need to plead in the moot, it goes back to overpowering the warriors in that balance. Solo crafters are completely at the mercy of warriors, they need to plead not to die, they need to plead for revenge.

The real kicker though: For the strongest faction in game it's literally zero penalty. That's the problem with the current system too. If you're literally the strongest, the crime system is completely meaningless to you if the game requires other players to enforce the penalty. So long as that issue stays, this system will be unbalanced and obviously so if the strongest faction likes killing people.

This is why we need some aspects of the crime system to be server enforced. The red handed debuff for example is part of that. How much and what types of penalties to apply is hugely up for debate.

[Robben_DuMarsch]

I think it's an interesting idea, but I don't feel it solves enough of the current issues to be worth implementing. The part where hermits need to plead in the moot, it goes back to overpowering the warriors in that balance. Solo crafters are completely at the mercy of warriors, they need to plead not to die, they need to plead for revenge.

The real kicker though: For the stronger faction in game it's literally zero penalty. That's the problem with the current system too. If you're literally the strongest, the crime system is completely meaningless to you if the game requires other players to enforce the penalty. So long as that issue stays, this system will be unbalanced and obviously so if the strongest faction likes killing people.

In some ways, that's exactly the goal I was trying to reach. There is, perhaps, some merit to solo crafters being vulnerable. The Warriors have good incentive to provide protection.

If the strongest faction uses their power oppressively, it wouldn't be beyond the lesser powers to form a coalition to retaliate.

Your right in that it doesn't immediately and irrevocably validate certain playstyles, but I submit that it at the very least provides the player base with tools to control murders and shape a world where different styles of play are more viable.

I also submit it would make conflict between powers much more meaningful, rather than a long gradual attrition that is won more by players going inactive than one group actually winning conflict.

[Hervarth]

One thing that is "nice" about the current combat system (or, when its finished) imo is how fragile it is - since defense is active now, if you make a small mistake someone with lower stats can *potentially* beat you (by nice, i mean nice for people who don't like exploiting stat advantage to kill weaker players). So attacking other people *in theory* is always very risky - if they actually defend themselves and have a decent amount of development. Ofc that is spoiled by the primacy of chop and the way that combat is currently exploitable, but hopefully this will change...

Killing newbies who have no idea what they are doing will always be low risk, I guess, since they'll just run in circles or whatever. But trying to kill a player who is actually gonna defend themselves should always be able to go wrong.

I think Robben is right, in that its too hard to get through a criminals vault - maybe some sort of protection for a ram, that can only be disarmed once the ram is set, by the character whose scents you have tracked back to a (nearby, within X tiles) claim? Obviously mechanically this is insanely complex, but something needs to be done.

[Ants]

I think the most annoying thing about permadeath is that you lose the ability to do certain things. You have to discover every item and crafting recipe again and you have to re-learn all the basic skills.

[simimi]

tl;dr , if you dont like this game why do you want to play it, just search and find a game you like and let the niche players play there stuff.

[Bowshot125]

tl;dr , if you dont like this game why do you want to play it, just search and find a game you like and let the niche players play there stuff.

Maybe because this game is what everyones looking for but just aren't happy with permadeath, I don't get people like you who tell others to find a different game.

[Yasgur]

Maybe because this game is what everyones looking for but just aren't happy with permadeath, I don't get people like you who tell others to find a different game.

This game is what I'm looking for and I'm not happy with permadeath, but I'm less happy with 6 years of threads trying to convince Jorb/Loftar to change their minds. You've been here long enough to have seen this all before. The OP has a new forum account, but I sense he also played in legacy. This thread started out as an opinion discussion, then became suggestions on how to make permadeath less permanent, which is going to elicit responses like Simimi's

[Sevenless]

Maybe because this game is what everyones looking for but just aren't happy with permadeath, I don't get people like you who tell others to find a different game.

This game is what I'm looking for and I'm not happy with permadeath, but I'm less happy with 6 years of threads trying to convince Jorb/Loftar to change their minds. You've been here long enough to have seen this all before. The OP has a new forum account, but I sense he also played in legacy. This thread started out as an opinion discussion, then became suggestions on how to make permadeath less permanent, which is going to elicit responses like Simimi's

Yeah we've been around this merri-go-round about 70 billion times. That's why I never even touched on the permadeath concept. In fact that's probably why pvp balance always comes up in these threads.

Haven is going to be permadeath. There's no point debating it. And quasi permadeath was sucky and unfair in previous worlds so lets not go back to that.

[MagicManICT]

Well, since so much of the old forum got scrambled and minced, there's nothing wrong with one thread on the subject.

but yeah, anyone that has forum warriored here for long enough has seen this come up at least once a year since I started playing if not before.