Consequences and Mechanics of Death, plus possible adjustments

[Grido]

Because killing has a more permanent effect on people and is generally seen as being wrong (note, not bad).

[Rophs]

Otherarmy's effect is permanent and cannot be reversed

[No one]

Because killing has a more permanent effect on people and is generally seen as being wrong (note, not bad).

 

Really ? Should I look for how many of them CHOOSE to remain dead when they have a revival tool at their disposal ?

What you say is indeed true but it is also highly subjective.

 

I have a revival tool and I am still looking for ppl that didn't deserved to be dead or want to remain dead. Maybe you could help me find a candidate, it seems I lack the skills or they fall outside the above mentioned limits. (do remember the date when I got the item so that you can make a shorter list, thank you)

[Tal]

Otherarmy's effect is permanent and cannot be reversed

 

the statdamage from otherarmy has very little consequenses.

easily reversed by logging in daily, and just training a little, or saccing some crits.

[Rophs]

 

the statdamage from otherarmy has very little consequenses.

easily reversed by logging in daily, and just training a little, or saccing some crits.

The statgain that would "reverse" the skilldamage from otherarmy would increase your stats had otherarmy not been cast.

[DARK DEMON]

Talking about otherarmy is offtopic but since that's where the discussion's going...

 

I'd honestly say that if otherarmy was becoming a big problem for someone, they'd eventually work harder, train and interact to gain the stats back, which imo is a good thing. Anything that promotes interaction is a good thing in MD.

 

However, when killed, you literally can't do anything or influence your revival in any way. Yes, there's interaction between others to fix the problem, but that's the point: you are forced to solely rely on others. In the meantime, you cannot do anything at all; it is purely a negative thing with zero interaction. Yet at the same time, it is perfectly 'allowed' in the game rules of course. So why not have a way to either fix-with-interaction or make it harder (and greater consequences) to get killed?

 

If a person really deserves to die, in the community's opinion, nobody would object to the killing anyway, i.e not try and get 'revenge'.

[Eara Meraia]

However, when killed, you literally can't do anything or influence your revival in any way. Yes, there's interaction between others to fix the problem, but that's the point: you are forced to solely rely on others. In the meantime, you cannot do anything at all; it is purely a negative thing with zero interaction.

 

Well, this is just wrong.

 

Last time I was dead, I was willingly staying in that state for a longer time.

 

Firstly you can do a lot for your revival. what?

 

1) Speak to Molquert. He is really glad to help you with your revival! Talking to him, playing games with him, fulfilling his tasks for the sake of revival was one of the most interesting quests I had to do in MD for a while! A part of his tasks were really organizing people, talking to them, getting stuff etc. but some of them I had to do on my own. I think if there is no possibility for you at all to talk to people (let us say according to your role for example). I am sure, molquert would give you a task you can do on your own.

 

2) talk to people. YES. Isn't it what MD is mainly about? Isn't it what we actually all missing, when we just see a few idle people at GoE? Interraction is an important element of MD and if the killing encourages that, why not?

 

Personally I would just make a life of the dead a bit more interesting, giving them opportunity of some mobility. For example creating something like the "Road of the dead" there the dead person who be teleported (automatically) to another scene every day (one scene a day) For example> Day 1:Cemetery, Day2: Path of Torment, Day 3: GoE etc. This way the person would come into interraction with people, could even ask to follow them on their path and to break this everlasting circle at some point. Kind of "dead walks" (after the pattern of Rophses seed walks) if you want.

[DARK DEMON]

 

Well, this is just wrong.

 

Last time I was dead, I was willingly staying in that state for a longer time.

 

Firstly you can do a lot for your revival. what?

 

1) Speak to Molquert. He is really glad to help you with your revival! Talking to him, playing games with him, fulfilling his tasks for the sake of revival was one of the most interesting quests I had to do in MD for a while! A part of his tasks were really organizing people, talking to them, getting stuff etc. but some of them I had to do on my own. I think if there is no possibility for you at all to talk to people (let us say according to your role for example). I am sure, molquert would give you a task you can do on your own.

 

2) talk to people. YES. Isn't it what MD is mainly about? Isn't it what we actually all missing, when we just see a few idle people at GoE? Interraction is an important element of MD and if the killing encourages that, why not?

 

Personally I would just make a life of the dead a bit more interesting, giving them opportunity of some mobility. For example creating something like the "Road of the dead" there the dead person who be teleported (automatically) to another scene every day (one scene a day) For example> Day 1:Cemetery, Day2: Path of Torment, Day 3: GoE etc. This way the person would come into interraction with people, could even ask to follow them on their path and to break this everlasting circle at some point. Kind of "dead walks" (after the pattern of Rophses seed walks) if you want.

 

I'm sorry, I totally disagree too.

 

Having fun with Molq is entertaining the first time, maybe the second time, but really, after that when you die it becomes boring and repetitive.

 

Talk to people? From the graveyard? Again you can only rely on others to create interaction and move you about and what not. Please read my post again, Eara, and see that I am encouraging more interaction myself and suggesting changes to promote just that. Currently killing forces very little interaction.

 

Your case may have been different because you may not have faced such problems due to your privileges, and because the graveyard is in your land anyway.

 

When I was dead, I too willingly remained dead for a few days than I could, but then it also became a nuisance to people to have to keep moving me all the time.

Edited November 17, 2014 by DARK DEMON

[Eara Meraia]

lol, DD, you also had all the same priviledges as I do and many other people have them too. I don't think that home land or not home land is a big difference in this case.

 

As for the rest - yes, I do think dead people should have some more mobility. That is why I proposed something in the previous post of mine. But I also think they must suffer some limits, otherwise, the whole concept makes no sense anymore.

 

[DARK DEMON]

 

lol, DD, you also had all the same priviledges as I do and many other people have them too. I don't think that home land or not home land is a big difference in this case.

 

As for the rest - yes, I do think dead people should have some more mobility. That is why I proposed something in the previous post of mine. But I also think they must suffer some limits, otherwise, the whole concept makes no sense anymore.

 

I was not in any alliance nor had any leash when I was killed :P

 

I am all for restrictions to dead people, such as attacking and some movement/actions, but not so much that it doesn't allow them to interact in any way except talking in the scene they are moved to (or PMs/mood panel).

 

Maybe add 150 AP cost +visc for moving in every single scene when dead, instead of not allowing to move at all? (aka difficult for the spirit to move away from the body)

Edited November 17, 2014 by DARK DEMON

[Aeoshattr]

Maybe add 150 AP cost +visc for moving in every single scene when dead, instead of not allowing to move at all? (aka difficult for the spirit to move away from the body)

 

Also, this. How about we let the "ghost" walk and roam around, as usual, but have it re-summoned to the graveyard say every 10 minutes?

 

EDIT: that was meant to be in the post above, didn't realise that it would make a new post if I use "quote" when editing my old post. 

Edited November 17, 2014 by Aeoshattr

[DARK DEMON]

 

Also, this. How about we let the "ghost" walk and roam around, as usual, but have it re-summoned to the graveyard say every 10 minutes?

 

EDIT: that was meant to be in the post above, didn't realise that it would make a new post if I use "quote" when editing my old post. 

 

They are already re-summoned to the graveyard every two days. This is what I was referring to when I said that it becomes a nuisance to constantly bring the dead person to civilization just so that he can talk... its something that prevents interaction, and IMO anything that prevents interaction should be dealt with.

 

Roaming around as usual wouldn't really be restriction. The logic of 'difficult for the spirit to move away from the body' sounds nice and makes sense to me personally, hence I made the suggestion.

 

 

Edit: I agree that this has gone off-topic... may it be split please?

Edited November 17, 2014 by DARK DEMON

[No one]

I HATE YOU BURNS ... stop moving the posts :D

 

[spoiler]

I see NoOne's point about otherarmy - however, the way I think of the whole role (to relate it to "social issues") is something like this: in MD, the use of spells is liberally permitted. Use them as you see fit. However, I can't think of a single example of a society where killing (let's say murder, not execution) isn't condemned by society. Thus the act of murdering someone would be condemnable and I like the idea of someone having the responsibility of bringing murderers (or rather those that asked/planned murders, in the context of MD) to justice.

 

I think it adds a nice element of complexity to killing, which so far really is "I'll give you 1 gold to knife someone" (put in rather non-diplomatic terms). I think it's perfectly reasonable to make killing people more difficult and add repercussions for it. Revival on its own isn't easy - you can't just say "I'll pay you one gold to revive me". I can give Mya's revival as an example (yes, I am well aware that LR has a revival item and as a former citizen I voted that we use it): we were asked to gather resources on her behalf, we tried to get some activity going with the heat jar swapping, etc. It was nowhere near as quick and easy as killing her.

[/spoiler]

"However, I can't think of a single example of a society where killing (let's say murder, not execution) isn't condemned by society."

Should I remind you how Mur's proposal of thievery was encountered ? So, having thieves among us would be OK ?  having vengeful players with lots of spells would be OK ?  To have players using LOTS of spells on you just because they don't like your name ... is OK ?

 

Cool, I'd like to see how you solve this "social issue". If possible, please explain the solution before asking for its implementation, it would give me time to expose my reasoning too.

(unless you want to go to : I will do it because I can and I want to , nananana)

 

In the mean time ... I think I should hint you into another direction and ask you this: how long would one player be dead if all players would agree that no players should be ... "dead" ?

Another hint: take into consideration the cooldown of the items.

 

So, considering that some players are not resurrected on the spot (if they really want to ) should tell something about them.

So, coming to the proposal : "punish the killers" ... why not punish those with resurrect items too ? Isn't their job to resurrect players, isn't it ?

[Aeoshattr]

"However, I can't think of a single example of a society where killing (let's say murder, not execution) isn't condemned by society."

Should I remind you how Mur's proposal of thievery was encountered ? So, having thieves among us would be OK ?  having vengeful players with lots of spells would be OK ?  To have players using LOTS of spells on you just because they don't like your name ... is OK ?

 

Okay, I'll give you that. I agree with you here. I wouldn't like the existence of thieves among us. I wouldn't like the existence of vengeful players with lots of spells (though I doubt there are none already in the game). 

But following what you just said above, why should there be murderers among us? Isn't killing more severe than stealing? I am saying that killing is NOT ok in general (IRL for instance) - therefore how could I possibly suggest that stealing would be ok?

That is why I am saying it would seem natural for there to be some sort of "implications" for killing another player, or at least the possibility for there to be repercussions. 

 

At any rate, my point was nowhere near this. I won't reiterate it as it will go off-topic. I'm only replying because I feel this is a gross misinterpretation of what I said.

 

 

Cool, I'd like to see how you solve this "social issue". If possible, please explain the solution before asking for its implementation, it would give me time to expose my reasoning too.

(unless you want to go to : I will do it because I can and I want to , nananana)

I find this similar to when the spell cooldown was suggested you argued that nobody has the authority to restrict what someone does with the spells they have. I.E. "I will use them because I can and I want to, nananana". 

 

 

In the mean time ... I think I should hint you into another direction and ask you this: how long would one player be dead if all players would agree that no players should be ... "dead" ?

Another hint: take into consideration the cooldown of the items.

 

So, considering that some players are not resurrected on the spot (if they really want to ) should tell something about them.

So, coming to the proposal : "punish the killers" ... why not punish those with resurrect items too ? Isn't their job to resurrect players, isn't it ?

1. I believe the purpose of this whole "let's have a detective" thing is to get players moving when someone dies. Rather than go "oh that's a shame, let them fend for themselves while they're dead" it might encourage them to -do- something.

Not just speculate "I think it's X who did it" - they would need to interact with others, get under suspects' skins, etc in order to obtain proof that X is the killer. This isn't about players agreeing that nobody should be dead. This is about inciting some activity when someone dies, giving people a direction, somewhere to go and something to do. I'm suggesting that perhaps friends of the deceased might want to contribute to the warrant officer's investigation; or that the warrant officer might actually demand their contribution. The role seems rather flexible.

 

2. Or it might tell something about the resources at their disposal, relationships, etc, not about them directly. I don't find that argument valid. 

 

3. I will try not to be too aggressive about this, but this really isn't about punishing killers; if anything, the "plotter" will be condemned, not the killer. And even so, it isn't about punishing. Nobody's trying to say that killing is against game rules and thus it should be punishable. I believe the argument is "killing is morally wrong" and thus someone who decides to have someone killed should face the possibility of repercussions for their actions.

The punishment doesn't even have to be jail - and sometimes, the "warrant officer" may not even be notified of the kill or called to help in the first place. However suggesting that killers are being punished just sounds like victimisation. (vaguely related, most kill items I've seen have a cooldown, whereas most resurrect items I have seen are single use - thus it's a lot harder for people with resurrection items to do their jobs, IMO and that forces them to be a lot more selective)

I myself have asked for a kill not only once, so this would put me in a position where I could be condemned and yet I argue for it. If anything, this new role should make killing more interesting and exciting.

 

TL;DR - Think about the context being roleplay rather than game rules (i.e. stuff you can get banned for). I think this role could make killing and resurrection a lot more exciting than they are now.

I won't be posting any further here. 

[Grido]

Should I remind you how Mur's proposal of thievery was encountered ? So, having thieves among us would be OK ? 

If you recall, there was also the mention of a chance to fail, and get caught in that suggestion, again cause and effect.

 

 

So, coming to the proposal : "punish the killers" ... why not punish those with resurrect items too ? Isn't their job to resurrect players, isn't it ?

Much like a person with a kill item has the choice to use it, so does the revival use, rather than any job. But you hold a point as to the philosophical nature of whether killing someone is just as bad as not intervening and allowing someone to die.

[Curiose]

Personally, I think it would be fun to thwart ne'er do wells.  It wouldn't be done in vengeance, but rather, done in the spirit of the game.  

 

For instance, I thought of killing someone myself just because I want to.  

But I wouldn't be upset if someone countered my actions, or, more realistically, gave proper cause and effect for my actions.  

 

Say for instance I kill someone successfully, a d someone was able to prove I was the killer.  I'd be happy to serve my time as my job was completed, and that the victim(s)  were successful in bringing me down.  

 

I'd be sorely disappointed, however, if someone didn't do a thing.  What's the point in being a baddy if it doesn't generate action? 

[dst]

Eon's contract CAN be countered. And it has been done several times. So there IS a chance of failure. What exactly do you want more? Killings in the back alleys?

[Curiose]

Eon's contract CAN be countered. And it has been done several times. So there IS a chance of failure. What exactly do you want more? Killings in the back alleys?

That would be cool... Kind of like old time detective movies with the bodies left for dead. : D

But I digress.

 

I'm not personally familiar with how Eon's contract can be countered. I know there was an attempt at killing him as a temporary cure? Which never went through because of a leak. Would you mind explaining the counter, if you are able or willing?

[phantasm]

attempt?  Eon was killed once, he was just resurrected in like 3 minutes.

[dst]

attempt?  Eon was killed once, he was just resurrected in like 3 minutes.

That's a lie and you know it.

 

So please don't stat things for which you have no proofs.

 

 

 

And yeah, I get that's it's envy that's easting you but I will not tolerate LIES.

Edited November 17, 2014 by dst

[Curiose]

Phantasm, I believe you may be embellishing a little bit. Not only that, but I also feel that you fail to fully read what I said earlier.

 

1. I said I was not entirely sure of the situation regarding the attempts on Eon's death. And for that, you made the assumption that what I was saying, was fact. Well, here is some fact for you, now that I have it. 

 

2.  Eon was killed successfully (woohoo?) and it took him about 10 hours to be revived. That's pretty hefty if you ask me.  So three minutes is an embellished hyperbole, if you ask me.

 

3. I wasn't even referring to his actual DEATH. I was referring to his death being countered due to supposed leaks (if my memory serves me right) and also asking a question of how his contract can be countered.

 

Please read. It will save me time and energy that is precious to me.

[Maebius]

I can confirm the Contract killing can be countered.    When I set out to take down the entirety of the TWs, it was tricky to even get the three folks we did kill, killed.   Partially my own schedule, partially Things Folks Did, to prevent us from executing individuals.   That's almost one reason I enjoyed the two we did manage to kill off, beyond the first "surprise!". 

 

I can't speak towards OtherArmy or any of that, as I am not a combat-oriented person here.   

However, being dead myself a few times,  I think that there is ample opportunity to interact with the community, with the caveat of IF The Community interacts with you.

 

I can't recommend any new mechanics or such, really, as I agree with the current situation, but do think that most folks who are "killed" are not new folks who would have fewer "friends" to contact and help out.  This is good.

That being said, if the person killed was "unpopular", and that definition is up for debate, it's rather easy to make their life frustrating by killing them, not reviving, and letting them deal with Molquert and such alone.  

As DD stated, this is fun, the first few times.  

 

Guess I don't have any real answers to add to the topic, other than to state that I see some potential weaknesses it the current system, but overall Agree it is a good system for most and does not really need too many changes, IMHO.  

c'est la vie.