Training system: how I see it

[Brickbreaker]

Aging death? It won't solve the problem of the LP-gap between players.
If an older player dies he looses some of his LP, but so will the newer player loose some when he dies eventually too.
This will only mean the newer player might have similar LP to the older player for a certain amount of time (If they play for the same length of time ofc).

Personally I say there is no way you can truly catch up to an older player (If you play for the same length of time) with uncapped stats in place.

[Talvara]

aging-death? NO!

I dont wanna waste a fucking 500 hours on a character that suddenly dies all of a sudden without warning and I lose 75% of everything... T_T

I agree that it shouldn't be without warning (although pvp perma death could very well be without warning).
basically a hearthling has a certain lifespan, and I think the player should be able to see that lifespan.

a system could even go asfar as to tweak the lifespan depending on 'how healthy' the player lives. (disease could be introduced which when left untreated take away 'lifespan') regenning HHP could cost a minimal amount of lifespan. etc etc

Aging death? It won't solve the problem of the LP-gap between players.
If an older player dies he looses some of his LP, but so will the newer player loose some when he dies eventually too.
This will only mean the newer player might have similar LP to the older player for a certain amount of time (If they play for the same length of time ofc).

Personally I say there is no way you can truly catch up to an older player (If you play for the same length of time) with uncapped stats in place.

just adding aging death wont solve anything yeah... it would just turn into an annoying reoccuring setback (maybe even disastrous if you forget to tweak your tradition slider) so perhaps there could be only a certain amount of (LP)/(skills)/(whatever system we're going to use) that gets transfered to your new char, essentially introducing a CAP. but instead of the cap being a maximum that can be obtained the cap introduces a max starting point. infinity is still reachable but only for the lifespan of your char, when that is up you get set back to that cap.

Personally... I don't really know how I feel about any sort of cap, the last thing I would want is to play 'just another generic mmo' I think everybody that is drawn to HnH is here because it has its quirky differences with other mmo's.

I do however like the concept of reincarnation/resets/a level playing field.

[Repercussionist]

Yes, I i see a point in your math but I suppose that those l and p have some average value.
While this system when your average lp-level depends on average level of your village may even partyally defeat the "I cant play 24*7"-problem. For example I can play (I really can) some two or three evenings a week. I strongly like this game but I hate an idea that my playtime makes me not even an average player. I'm not even quite useful for my village for a couple of months. My (player's) skill in hunting could make me a good supply of meat, skins and so on, but I don't have any around my village's level of survival skill so my meat, skins and bones are quite bad.
But with books and aging I will be able to make use of my (player's) skills for my village. I won't be able to write any useful books for it (since it will become priviledge of power-players) but I will be able to use the village's level of education and make some useful stuff for my people.
Again: I see in this system a way in wich character level will depend much on the village-level.

That's all I'm saying. L has to be greater than P. You said that someone who starts playing at a later time than someone else could NEVER have more lp, and I was only proving that they could at some point. As far as it applying to yourself, that's just an instance that follows the rule (whether it meets the stipulations or not). I myself don't get to play as much as I'd like (and uselessness is why I left my first village).

Of course, now that I think about it, books cut out all of the fun in "lping up". The majority of fun derived from a normal player (and I'm not going too deep into game theory) in a game like this is from the leveling up so that they can over come the challenges posed by lower levels and get a feeling of accomplishment. Also, if books were implemented, it would op villages greatly. I could recruit a new player and have him up to awfully high levels in no time, kind of like when you play old games on emulators with "turbo" keys, you can get the grind out of the way before you even really start playing, then own every monster's soul. That would create a lot of high leveled players in villages while hermits would have to get it all themselves. Villages already have the advantage of having people so that each can specialize and use their lp more efficiently for the tasks they perform. I don't think it's fair to the hermits who already have to struggle just to get their hands on all the resources.

[moor-i-arthy]

Hermits will be still there.
Basically hermit can be a vital part of HH economics. What are villages? Afaik they are simply farms around mines. Mine, couple of manufactories, farms and soldiers to guard it all. Rarely they do have a good source of high-q water, clay, chants, bulbs or huntable animals. All of that can be supplied to them by hermits. Sometimes even crops may be supplied by hermits too.
Hermits may even make kinda taverns to make trading more efficient.
So, hermits may produce some valuable goods and villages, as main consumers shall be interested in supporting them with skills. With books. Maybe empty, maybe even written already. It should be self-regultaing system: hermit is producing, say, meat and bearskins, or collecting cavebulbs, selling it to village. If he is efficient, he will be able to buy a book and train his next char etc.

If hermit is not attracted to any economic relations, he will be almost unaffected by aging system imo. And "tradition" may save him all lp he needed.



And one more time for everyone: I dont see aging system without learning system and vice versa. Point is that skill level MAY depend on village development. Or may not. There is a tradition for that.

[loftar]

I haven't read the proposal in its entirety yet, but as an aside, I should mention that I and Jorb have been playing with the idea of introducing character aging and age-death from time to time. In its latest incarnation, the system would involve a character starting with a certain amount of "time", which would be spent on actions, kind of how LP is gained. Fishing could consume quite an amount of time, for instance. Walking and/or travelling might consume a little bit of time, but that might not be necessary. In any event, there would be no "idle consumption" of time while doing nothing. When a character runs out of time, he dies, obiously. There could, then, be some different objects and/or items (such as clocks) to modify the amount of time consumed by a character.

[moor-i-arthy]

Looks pretty much good. I like it. But what about learning?

[Koziolek]

Clocks ? Were people able to construct clocks ? Maybe sundials or something with astronomy and the moon ?

[AnnaC]

I haven't read the proposal in its entirety yet, but as an aside, I should mention that I and Jorb have been playing with the idea of introducing character aging and age-death from time to time. In its latest incarnation, the system would involve a character starting with a certain amount of "time", which would be spent on actions, kind of how LP is gained. Fishing could consume quite an amount of time, for instance. Walking and/or travelling might consume a little bit of time, but that might not be necessary. In any event, there would be no "idle consumption" of time while doing nothing. When a character runs out of time, he dies, obiously. There could, then, be some different objects and/or items (such as clocks) to modify the amount of time consumed by a character.

I don't really like that because it makes it so every Hearthling basically has an expiration timer. Players will scramble to grind clocks or other items to extend their timers, and I think it would put too much focus on the inevitable death, than living in the Hearthlands. I like how the aging doesn't occur unless the hearthling is active, though; this is a good distinction as it wouldn't give no-lifers an insurmountable advantage.

In general I don't like mandatory/automatic age death. Let the gameworld kill your characters off. Perhaps after a certain age, a Hearthling can no longer recover HHP? This would make it so you live as long, as you are careful (which is how it goes anyway).

[babyhero09]

What about just giving older players disadvantages like walking poorly and tripping if not using a cane or when lifting objects maybe hurt their backs or something.

[Repercussionist]

Because they want people to play for more than a week.