gorboth wrote:So, I've worked with some people's suggestions, and have devised a potential scheme for a new death system. This explanation involves some wizardly gibber-jabber about the way the information is stored and handled, but it doesn't have any wiz-info that I feel needs to be kept secret. Rather, it just clearly explains what I thought might work.
Please discuss and comment on if you think this would be a good idea, and what you predict might result from such a situation in terms of pvp and player dynamics.
Thanks!
G.
So, I do like the spirit/concept of your proposed changes. I like the concept of rewarding a player for not just idling during their 'sentence' and like the concept of placing a stat restriction on the player during their 'sentence.' I think, though, that your implementations of these concepts won't quite work the way you hope.
On the reward for un-idle play, I would like to echo Amorana's thoughts. When Irk dies, 25% means he's still a myth (probably). When Jhael dies, I'm probably an expert, stat-wise of course. I remember being expert sized ... it sucked; I couldn't do anything worthwhile on my own. Irk still being a myth, though will likely not effect him as much (PvE-wise). Irk will still be able to sneeze on the Barrow Downs and collect all their loot. Jhael will struggle to farm Gont guards. Because a smaller player will be penalized so much harder, it will be nearly impossible for them to do anything worthwhile during their sentence, and gain the desired boost at the end. I think we'd see many smaller people just idling during their sentence and the bigger folks be (nearly) unaffected by it. Still, don't get me wrong, I like the concept.
I'm not convinced that the new death system can be created in a static manner and be fair for all players of all sizes. I think you might need to consider a dynamic approach based on the characters size. Unfortunately, I don't know enough about the backend to really be able to suggest anything meaningful here (ie. I don't have the numbers here to really understand the full implications of what 25% does to each size). Just that perhaps if an adept dies, they shouldn't take a massive (to them) 25% stat restriction and a super myth probably ought to be subjected to a bit more than a measly 25%.
The only thing that I dislike about the stat restriction is that stat imbues, or effects, would be rendered useless for a minimum of 10 days. There are many situations where I think this concept, as it currently stands, would backfire and piss people off. If I spend hours and hours and plats upon plats to acquire enough stones to imbue something with a wisdom imbuement (for example), I would likely be doing it to gain enough power to attempt something cool (risky). But, if dying during that attempt would mean that I could no longer use that imbuement, likely for the remainder of Arma, I wouldn't have any reason to create the item ... or gather the stones. Stat-imbuements would lose a lot of value, in my mind.
Again, I like the concept. I think if you take into consideration some sort of sliding scale to adjust the 'sentence' according to player size and reconsider your stance on imbuements, you'd have a better system.
I really like the idea of the sentence lasting X time from the first death. This allows for multiple deaths (ex. Fluffy vs Kiara) to still serve a purpose without falling
as quickly into the realm of griefing.
Amorana wrote:Also, your math on where to cap is off... It's not as simple as 39 times is the limit. It would have to be a hard cap at some percentage no matter the number of deaths. Just trying to make sure that's understood before some drastic bug is set in motion.
For example... If your health pool is 1 million (and therefore you have whatever stat level would get you to 1 Million health), you can die 50 times before your max available health pool gets to the point that it no longer rounds to 1 (aka, drops below 0.5).
However, if your health pool starts out at 2 thousand, you can only die 28 times before your max available health would no longer round to 1.
Just wanted to point out that flaw in the 39 number. I'm sure it was meant theoretically somehow, but just in case. Don't want someone to find out the hard way. My numbers are obviously examples, but I'm just trying to get to the point that the max number of deaths before you hit 0 will vary dependent upon what your starting stat level is.
I think one of us misunderstands G's thought here. I understood that it would increase the penalty to 2%. So...
Code: Select all
First death - 25% penalty
Second - 27% penalty
Third - 29% penalty
....
Thirty sixth - 97% penalty
Thirty seventh - 99% penalty
Thirty eighth - 99% penalty
I guess after working that out, I'm a bit confused about the 39 number that G mentions. But I'm sure he would be willing to clarify. :hope:
Either way:
X% of N, where X >= 1 and N > 50 will never = 0, if default rounding is followed.
I guess the key is to round up if N can be less than 50 since 1% of 50 is 0.5, which would default round to 1 and 1% of 49 is 0.49, which would default round to 0.