What?

Normally when a denizen beats me, they argue once and then shut up, go smug and can't be influenced. You were probably influencing multiple denizens when that happened for some reason, like perhaps moving ones.

Nope, the icelords on frosticia, all stationary as rocks. Was only one in the room aswell. I have two witnesses in this case, but I am not sure they noticed. I simply watched the dents in the experience bar happen while the mob kept arguing. (Nexus client, woot!)

Hrm, I think the problem was that you were shattered midway influencing and denizens just don't check for that. You started influencing the mob, Forren ran in, you stopped influencing and mob kept going, Forren shattered you, I managed to refill your ego before mob hit again, mob hits, I refill, mob hits etc. Oops...

Here is a perfect example why influencers are forgotten, we do not have an influencing emoticon for the situation!

Thats exactly the type of thinking that people were excited to see broken. That is just an unnecessary assumption.

I do believe the whole leveling system first came about from DnD, and in DnD you don't lose xp when you die.

Not all computer games make you lose xp when you die either.

Indeed. You're going to have to provide better reasoning than "it's like that in other games" - it's not something you can just assume. If you think about it a fluid experienced ladder has a couple of advantages but also marked drawbacks.

There are also multiple ways of adding discouragement. If you suffer a hit to skills or stats so you can't fight properly, that's -more- of a discouragement to constant raiding than experience loss - yet it's less of a discouragement to offhand participation, since you're not set back so much if you die and even if people you have no chance of beating come to harrass you later for it, you don't have to spend time actively working to recover the loss.

"People should be able to kill you out of levels easily" is -not- a given.

Isn't it also in DnD if you die, you tear up your char sheet and have to make a whole new char?? aka Permadeath

Yeah, D&D was a pretty horrible example even if that wasn't the case...he's right anyway though.

(Actually wait, in D&D you -do- lose a chunk of XP if you get rezzed. At least you did in 3E.)

The old school D&D that I play, you can get resurrected but have a chance of losing a point each of constitution and comeliness--wouldn't that be fun!

Comeliness?

Was that the actual name of the stat? Because that's hilarious.


"Oh no, you've died. Roll a 17 sided die. If you lose the roll, your health sucks a little harder, and you get a little Fuglier."

If Lusternia had this rule, the whole game would be populated by grotesque, personality-less zombies who could be blown over by a light breeze.

Not to mention, doesn't this seem to compound the whole "died in the first place" problem? Losing constitution? I mean, it's better than dead forever, but still.

It isn't?

Comeliness is just oldschool for charisma.

Lose a few stats of constitution if you die, lose a few stats of charisma if you lose a debate. Makes sense to me!

I die. I do not lose my skills. Therefore, skills, once learned, are not supposed to be lost (aside from doing it on purpose).

I die. I do lose experience, possibly a circle. Therefore, experience, once gained, is supposed to be able to be lost, as well as circles.

Doesn't seem like an unnecessary assumption to me.

I take it you didn't read the first post of the thread, where it was declared that they were thinking about changing this entire game concept.

Thus, the assumption is invalid. They don't really like the way it works now and are considering a revamp. Hence, this thread.

I did read the first post of this thread, and every post after it. I just flat out think it's a bad idea. Also, because you want something changed does not mean it is not built a certain way. You may not like that you lose XP when dying, but that's they way the system is built to work right now. Simply saying that it's not supposed to work like that is false, as right now, it is. It was specifically designed like that.

It's called the BUG command! You aren't forgotten afaik.

Yes, you may think it is a bad idea. That does not give you the ability to say, "Hey, it works this way now, so it must ALWAYS work this way and cannot be changed. Even though the Admin created this thread to ask our opinion on that change."

You really can't just make the assumption that that is how it always must work. This thread has a number of ideas for alternatives that could work just as well in their own ways. Your assumption is inherently flawed.

Disagreeing is fine, but trying to quell discussion by saying "This is the way it works, so this is the way the Admin intend it to work and we should not think about changing it even though they're interested in hearing our views" is... heh. I'm sure you can think of a proper adjective for that. And that's exactly what you're saying with the following:



The very first post says that this is incorrect. It's something that they're very seriously considering.

Wasn't that only if you had someone who "could" ressurect you? Like a cleric in your party or something?

Unless you say screw the rules and don't play by all of them