Quote:

Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom abstract- your idea has a lot of similarities with the "legacy" method that we've discussed here before.(i think Wavinator or Oluseyi was the original author), my problem with his idea and your own is that level will still be a direct reflection of time spent and not necessarily skill at play. To be meaningful, the level should be a badge of competence and skill not a reflection of time invested.

Honestly, I'm a big fan of player skill being weighted reletively more than time spent, even in an RPG. The design challenge is lag, but I've got some ideas about that. The point is that tactical expertise should be rewarded, to the point that it can overcome a certain "time spent" window. Skills earned by time spent should still dominate, but a player who is "good" should be able to beat a player who is "bad, but with more time spent." Like I said, though, there should be a window for this. An early game swordsman with perfecto player-end tactics will not be able to beat an "end game" char who plays incompetently. This is an RPG, after all.

Quote:

what specific issue pushed you to eliminate a real permadeath system and consider the "unlocking" system instead?

Actually, I mentioned that this wasn't originally a permadeath system, but an "unlocking" one, I just notice that this system would provide some of the benefits of permadeath, like risk vs. reward and true looting.

And while I'm at it, I'm against monster loot drops. "loot" should be predominantly produced by players, and the NPC monsters should provide obstacles to resources, rather than treasure farming oppertunities. Of course, that's not to say a theoretical orc couldn't wield a sword formerly owned by a human it had killed (another advantage of true death).

Please see these two:
Bloodline system for a MMORPG
And following:
A Case for Permadeath in an MMO?

-Greven

Quote:

Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstromi still believe that a half measure, which is what is being discussed, can only be half right or half wrong. its like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

I'd say it's more like finding a life preserver and getting into a boat, whereas your idea seems to be the equivalent of stripping naked, diving off the side and repairing the rent hull with your hands.

Quote:

you admit that some of the staples have to be challenged but then scoff because that must be a predicate of another idea. im not sure i understand.

I'm enthusiastic about pushing the envelope and furthering the genre, but to strike the first blow at something as sacred and central to the current paradigm as the permanence of the player's avatar in the game is like deciding that the best way to bring peace to the Middle East is to go in there and start hurting people until they see things your way.

Quote:

my problem with his idea and your own is that level will still be a direct reflection of time spent and not necessarily skill at play.

The two are identical in the overwhelming majority of games. Anyone who's tried to play StarCraft or Counter-Strike casually can tell you that. These "skill-based" games are 100% dominated by the decade-veteran players, and it take months of research, training and genuinely hard work to become competitive in the game. The grind and levelling system offers a fairly level gradient by which players can perceive progress in themselves. The first round of CS, you can laugh off the ten consecutive headshots from enemies who apparently have been firing their guns at the corner of that building BEFORE you peeked around it. You can offer a good-natured compliment the the guy who just stormed your base with eight zealots as you bagan construction of your barracks. By the fiftieth or three hundredth game, after hours of poring over GameFAQs and countless single-player practice runs, you're ready to burn the disc and pretend that never happened.

To make a game that's skill-based, yet offers a remotely even playing field for players, is an ambitious project to say the least. And it brings up so many terrible problems. If two high-level warriors fight, and one dies, are those players still enemies? What keep the high-level character from holding down the pillow and ganking every new guy the other player brings out? If they aren't enemies anymore, how can anyone become immersed in the role-playing aspect? Does each new character bring a new identity? New goals? A new profession? Would you really want to play through the same career path again and again, losing to the boss in fifteen different lives? The greatest downside of permadeath, for me, is that it's too much like real life. too many of the players would be level-headed and just go about their daily lives, wussing out and grinding their skills in safe ways until they get tough enough to pick fights they're sure to win. There would be no epic duels, only griefing and oppression. You'd never rustle up fifty guys who have the skills and the courage to fight in a battle. It would be weaksauce.

Quote:

In order for this to occur the game must be very deep. with wild variations in efficiency between two like levelled players of varying skill. Single player games accomplish this as the norm, so it is not beyond the scope of a well made MMO.

No, they don't. Most single-player games with levelling are specifically engineered so that the player is compelled to level at a certain rate in order to advance through the game. Playing a classic SNES RPG, I can easily see the learning curve, and I can tell when it's time to take a few hours to grind before advancing to the next boss. Every player figures out, either by trial and error or a strategy guide, the most efficient combinations of attacks and equipment so that they can get the most out of their characters and grind efficiently when they need to.

I suppose that in a game with the "real permadeath" system you describe would in fact develop a pantheon of heroic players, and would cause their exploits to be celebrated or despised, for their deaths to be the cause of sorrow or delight, and would deepen the community in that direction. But the flip side of that coin is that the other 98% of players will be the equivalent of NPCs in the game world. Impotent, expendable and unloved, they'll be fodder in combat and peons in other fields. The fact that you as the game's designer, hold them in contempt for their weakness will not assuage their suffering, and they will announce to the world that your game is teh suxxor, and quit playing it.

I think the unlock system abstract immersion describes here is vastly preferable to a true permadeath system, although I think that even this small step is too ambitious, and that many other barriers must be broken down before this step can be taken.