I'm not sure if this is how it works at the moment, but I'd like to suggest that the amount of experience you lose for a death be scaled based on your racial learning capacity. That is, if you have a level 1 slower experience gain, you lose less experience at death than someone who has a level 1 faster experience gain.

For example, if a level 2 experience gain disadvantage means you gain 50% less experience on each creature than a viscanti would, then you should lose 50% less experience on death.

Why? Well, as I see it, the experience you lose at death gives battle or other dangerous situations an element of realistic risk - there is something valuable you could potentially lose. However, just as many people are more willing to die off-prime than on because the experience loss is reduced, if one race loses more (in terms of effort required to recover it) experience at death, then they are also risking more than others, and are less inclined to 'brave' actions. I don't think this is the intent of the disadvantage.

Changing the experience loss at death also wouldn't decrease the effectiveness of the disadvantage, because it still means it takes much longer to gain levels.

First, is this how death works currently? If not, what do you think?

I doubt that it works like that. If not, it should.

I think this would kinda suck for the humans though. Their ONLY advantage is that they gain exp faster when they die, which is likely frequent since there's so much war going on.

Well, they gain experience much faster in general. So it is likely that they are already much higher in level before any deaths adjust the equation. I think thats an incredible advantage.

Well, on a disconnected idea about Death, I want an underworld, like the one on Imperian. Then instead of sitting through a series of messages that are wonderful at first, but then bore you to death, you'd be doing a few quick quests in the Underworld and be right back.

Not sure if this would fit with the charecter of Lusternia, but it'd be cool.

That's as may be, but it's apparently felt that humans are kinda underdone here as is, without reducing the effectiveness of their advantage by improving the matter for everyone else.

I don't think they are underdone at all... all the other races have a clear ineptitude for some activity, be it offence, defense, influencing, etc. Humans are capable of doing reasonably well at all tasks, they don't naturally excel, but they certainly have the capacity. Add the -enormous- benefit in terms of levelling, and they are a fairly useful race. Really though, that is a side issue, since I don't think this idea would disadvantage them.

Again, the problem is one of incentive. If person A needs four times as long and four times as much effort to recover from a death as person B, who will be the most ready to jump to the defence (or join in the raids) of their organization in times of conflict? I'm not so much concerned with humans, as I am with other races.

To draw on my experience, my character is a Faeling, so I basically have chosen the worst race for combat. It means that others (and denizens) are able to kill me rather easily, but I need to work reasonably hard to regain levels with a level 1 experience drain. I don't mind having to work more than others in levelling, because it must offset the superiority of my other racial advantages (hmm). However, being weaker I can die more often, yet death costs me a lot more than say, a Viscanti, who is actually built to survive combat.

I think this change would benefit the other slower xp races just as much, and ensure that no one group gains too much of an advantage in the experience game.

Part of those (dis)advantages is death. Just because you don't like losing exp dieing, and having a level 2 slower exp gain, doesn't mean it should be changed.

Hmm, did you read the whole topic? I hope I didn't give the impression that my only argument is that I don't like dying, and I want it recoded so I don't. Nor do I want the experience disadvantages/advantages changed.

I just think that death (or the influencing parallel) is common to all characters, and in some measure influences their actions. I believe everyone should be risking roughly the same consequences, for going into danger.

Why would someone who naturally gains less experience, lose less when they died?

If anything, they should lose more. Having everyone lose the same amount, though I think its relative to your level, is much better.

I'm not sure what the in-character explanation of experience advantages or disadvantages are... in fact, I'm not sure there are any. I've always thought it was that a race was a quick learner... so if that is the case, perhaps it makes sense that someone who takes just a bit longer to learn from their mistakes, actually remembers them a lot more for it.

I like this idea, and I think it makes sense that if a character races through experience quickly it wouldn't sink in as much as a character who takes more time to get that experience. Maybe there shouldn't be so much of a difference that all the races lose equal amounts of time to get their exp back when they die, but making it a little more equal would be nice. Perhaps they should introduce a "loses more/less experience on death" racial things?

Humans aren't 'okay at everything'. They are below average in every regard; they can't take much damage, and deal little damage. Extremes are always the best way to go in a MUD. The creatures with 1 strength and constitution but 700 intelligence will always be the best mages, and vice versa for warriors. Extremes are the best, and humans are as far from an extreme as you can be.

This would almost cancel out the current gains and drawbacks that the exp penalties/bonuses provide. It does make some RP sense but would require a re-balance of the races, which wouldn't be terribly fun.

Actually, isn't the average about 11 or 12 for each stat? That would make them average by definition. I understand what you're saying about extremes being better for particular purposes, and I agree... but that doesn't change the fact that humans aren't -below- average in anything. They'll never be great in any area, as you say, but they won't be completely useless in anything either.


I disagree entirely, to me the entire point of gaining experience quicker is to advance levels faster than the other races. This change would not affect that in the slightest, since the races with the advantage would undergo no change.

You could be right about the rebalance though (if you mean a significant recoding which allows everyone a reincarnation).

No, I meant the racial balance. Some races would lose less experience upon death, some would lose more. That would throw off the balance of the races, forcing other changes to be made to bring them back into balance. Racial stats, regens, etc would have to be changed.

As for humans, specialization is worth more than you give it credit for.

From a purely numerical angle, yes, they are average, but when you apply those numbers to the game you'll find they really can't do a whole lot. Mine still rockz da hizzous because i'm cheap with fly, but that dosen't count.

The idea is that all races lose the same equivalent amount of experience, just not the same numerical value. At the moment, an experience disadvantaged race loses much more expended effort on a death, than a race who isn't.

The thing is, that's rather the point, the way I see it.

That problem I see happening, is that once a person sort of levels off their experience gain, that is gains as much experience as they lose, this idea would completely negate the experience advantages and disadvantages. So, when a human dies, then regains the lost experience, it would take exactly as long as if they were any other race. That's just not fair for them.