[Kaimetsu]

Originally posted by konidias
There are always going to be players that whine, no matter how well the server is made.

Indeed there are, but you can minimise that number with good game design.

I didn't say there would never be ways for players to die unfairly. If a way does appear, then I will do everything I can to fix it and balance it.

Which is fine, except that it's not usually immediately obvious - in the best case you might know what the player was doing at the time, but that doesn't always narrow it down much.

I really doubt that there will be any bug that would just repeatedly kill players though, so I don't really see a big problem with it. It's not permadeath, it's semi-permadeth. There is a difference. If a player runs into a bug and dies, they will more than likely have more than one revive left

Except if they're already on their last revive. What happens to such people? They lose everything because of a bug? What about bugs that griefers can purposefully use to repeatedly kill people? These are all feasible occurances.

Sure, then if it comes to my attention during private group testing, that newbie players are at too much of a disadvantage to survive, I will implement something to let them survive longer.

And are you going to be hiring immature idiots for this private testing? If not then it won't be a realistic sample of players.

I would of course try to avoid "level limits" like high levels absolutely can't fight low levels, as that would be a disadvantage for high levels. (what if a group of newbies corners a player that can't fight back?)

You could always turn it into a two-way deal. Lowbies can't fight high-bies and vice versa. Not a perfect system, but probably better than a one-way.

Maybe a protection for new players for a short length of time, I dunno, again, this isn't finalized, it can be modified.

It can indeed, but a good designer should have most of it planned out long before implementation.

They can't get away with it. There is justice to those who kill. I'm not just talking player justice, I'm talking justice in the form of actual laws in the game. Meaning if you want to run around killing people, you're going to pay a price if you get caught.

And who does the catching? How do you distinguish between griefing and self-defense? How far is too far? You can't realistically regulate these things, there are too many variables.

Again, I have to bring up the fact that you're playing my game here, and in turn, it's impossible for you to be "right", so to speak. If you say "well this won't work because of this and this" I can just say "well I can change that then". Since none of this is set in stone, fighting over this is rather moot.

I think you're missing the point. All I have done is pointed out flaws in proposed systems. I am not saying that you suck or that Oasis sucks or that you'll never be able to make a system that doesn't suck. If you replace a flawed system with a good system then great! Isn't the whole point of this thread to gather ideas and constructive criticism?

Then those people should not do stupid things, like trying to fight monsters that are way over their level. If you play smart, then you can easily avoid losing your character.

Playing smart isn't the same as playing safe. People take risks, they run past dragons and then go linkdead, they get into fights with even-leveled players and then get hit by incapacitating lag. People don't want to be forever constricted by the chance that they could lose everything, they don't want to be trapped in a cage of restraint, unable to go on any risky ventures.

The fact of the matter is. This is an RPG. If dying were to mean absolutely nothing, then people would not fear it.

Of course, I wouldn't ever argue with that. But there are ways to penalise people without destroying hours of work. Almost every penalty in an online game is a time penalty. Example: You lose experience, you need to spend extra time to catch up. In a permadeath system, you're exacting a time penalty of days.

I still feel as though you're playing it safe, and afraid to take the risk for something more enjoyable.

And I feel that you're not seeing this through the eyes of a player. Why would I be afraid of an event in a game that I'll probably never play for any more than an hour?

People like to gamble. That is why Las Vegas is so popular.

Yes, but your foolish system wouldn't achieve that effect. Either:

1) People can top up on revives easily and thus remove most of the negative effects of dying.
or
2) There's a finite number of revives, and potential loss of character dissuades anybody from taking any risks at all.

It's just a game, and I would like to make sure people understand this. If you make mistakes and lose your character, start fresh, and learn from the mistakes that you made.

Sure, it's just a game. But your game will fail if players don't feel any attachments to their characters.

I don't know how many times I can say this before you understand. This is not classic, 2k1, gk, or any other online rpg. This is my online rpg, and it's not like the rest, at least in certain ways. I think I'm done making my statements on this. Go ahead and continue to believe that this won't work, but I'm not going to waste my time trying to make you understand.

Sigh. You're an arrogant, pig-headed fool. I disagree with you, I don't misunderstand you. I don't see how anybody could fail to understand your simplistic view of game design. If you're gonna make a thread asking for opinions, don't guttersnipe at everybody who disagrees with yours.