:

[Phalynx]

I am very much in favour - now a characters life has some value from the very start.. a slot.

Fine if you want to throw away characters in random acts of violence and theft, go ahead but lose your gaming expereince for 40 days..

If you want to join an army and fight a war, fine go ahead, but you might just want to make sure you get a decent sheild and try diplomacy first..

If you are unfortunate to spawn in violent circumstances, fine but now you might just beg for your life and be a little less arrogant in an attempt to keep your character alive....

[Mykey]

The valuable information

[Mykey]

I can not with you will disagree.

[Solfius]

The 40 day rule isn't a CRB because it encourages IC behaviour:

Your character doesn't know if there's life after death, and whether you can spawn a new character straight away or not is hardly any consolation to him/her if they die. The 40 day lock out encourages players to consider more carefully whether their character will survive a given situation. It encourages players to act as a character should think; that is with a sense or mortality.

[Mykey]

It is a pity, that now I can not express - it is very occupied. I will return - I will necessarily express the opinion.

[Hellzon]

If you are unfortunate to spawn in violent circumstances, fine but now you might just beg for your life and be a little less arrogant in an attempt to keep your character alive....

There's the usual answer to that: Animals tend not to listen.

Not that I have a solid opinion on this...

[Mykey]

I join. All above told the truth. We can communicate on this theme. Here or in PM.

[viktor]

well i can't say this is entirely bad but it does have it's faults
perfect example being animals
i have 1 french char, he has watched a couple of his friends die one who was younger than him by rabid animals, my char is under 25 and just barely holding on as he is the only target and spends his days gathering ehaling food to keep caught up to the damage. he cannot build a building because he cannot stop getting healing foods, and if he just runs to another town all he can do is stay inside cuz it too has loads of animals and dying people but no ehaling food, so animals are very realistic but being killed by then and then punished with 40 day lockout is bad in this case
also *looks at the calendar* i cannot go into detail but war is a perfect example if you are in war as a soldier legitimatly fighitng and get killed as people do in wars, again this lockout in that instance as well is also bad.

i should also mention i played timmy jaguar, a kniving slippery sneaky lil bugger who stole assaulted and eluded every attempt that was made to hunt him down and died in his 50's as ruler of a city. though he could ahve very easily been reported as a suicidal newspawn(which he certainly wasn't) early from his time of spawning in flonder and on his litle crime spree in that region.

now with this said we can't expect someone to be staffed to sit there and review every death there is to lockout case by case that's just rediculous to ask for and impractical so really i dunno what to say and cant really come up with any good suggestion to "make fair" this new rule. but i am a person with more than 1 char under 25 who are not suicidal newspawns and among those few are a couple who can very likely die before reaching the age. and have also lost in that same age range throgh legitimate death(before this rule popped up) so i have not yet been unjustly punished

just needed to let that out, not saying that the rule is bad, but it is somewhat faulty.

[formerly known as hf]

I think my position is quite clear on this.

Even though I think it is actually quite impotent - not many players use all 15 slots - so loosing a slot for 40 days, will only actually be noticed by a small number of people.

The issue I have is that knowing that a death of an under 25 will negatively affect the player (no matter how slightly) will certainly have consequences on how the player plays that character for the first five years of their life.

Thieves aside for the moment - consider 'town guards' - something many players I expcet would see as a 'good' role. Consider a town, which is under threat from pirates, and has a handful of active under-25s. These under 25s, beause of their alertness, may well be the key to the survival of the town.

What happens now? The players will not let their characters defend the town, for fear of death, not because their characters fear death, but because the player doesn't want to deal with the consequences.


This is aside from my main point, which is that Cantr needs players to shake it up, to be annoying, to steal, to pirate and so forth. It needs newpsawns to run amock - shake things up - things are too cosy and nice.

And, finally, penalising a player for spawning into an animal death-trap is just plain unfair.


Is suicidal newspawns, for reasons of not liking spawn location or skills, really such a huge issue? When I've read the forum reports, which I know isn't all reports, half of them don't seem to be suicidal, they just seem to be trying their luck, seeing if they can steal and run. There is nothing wrong with that.

[Ahoyhoy]

And, finally, penalising a player for spawning into an animal death-trap is just plain unfair.


Is suicidal newspawns, for reasons of not liking spawn location or skills, really such a huge issue? When I've read the forum reports, which I know isn't all reports, half of them don't seem to be suicidal, they just seem to be trying their luck, seeing if they can steal and run. There is nothing wrong with that.

Perhaps it is unfair, but I have yet to have one of my players die from an animal attack. I'll bet only 1% of players die from animal attacks at most. 40 days really isn't that long of a penalty also. I have a character who spawned in an animal rich area and he's still alive and doing well.

As far as a character "trying their luck". That's fine. They can still do it, but they'll just have to face the fear of being killed and waiting 40 days to fill in that character slot just like someone fears death.

[Seeker]

I think I was originally against this idea but now I'm in favour, it makes cantr char lives more valuable. However when I saw this topic I thought it was about a "40 day rule" as opposed to the "4 day rule"...scared me there for a second.

[Marian]

I don't really understand all the complaining...is losing one character slot for a little while really that big of a deal? Does anyone seriously think they're going to be at risk of losing all 15, or even 4 or 5 characters in less than 2 months?

I don't think this is going to change the behavior of anyone who actually bothers to RP, and I would like to think that most players already cared enough about their characters to not throw their lives away for no reason. This change has been aimed directly at CRBers, and I wonder if they're the one's doing most of the complaining. I've lost count of how many times I've come across a newspawn who begged me to kill them, and there's always the morons who would rather die on the road than do a little community service...how is that realistic in anyway? Most of them are just trying to get a char spawned somewhere else.

And another problem that's not as noticeable baecause the players are a least polite in their CRing, is starving your chars. I've done that a few times myself when I made more chars than I could handle (locking the slots wouldn't have been a big deal in that case though, since I wasn't wanting to use them anyway), but it was of course completely out of character for them and just as much of a CRB.

But anyway, I'm sure any RPers that are worth anything are still goingto have their under 25 chars take plenty of risks, just not stupid, OOC risks. Yeah it's a risk to go to war (not that there's many wars in Cantr anyway) but it's a risk people in RL take all the time, and I'm sure they value their lives a heck of a lot more than you value your character slot.

As for the people who happily spawn and kill half a dozen chars in the same day, maybe they're mad now at having to keep a char who didn't spawn exactly where they wanted to, but if they stick it out, I bet by the tiem they're 25 their char will have friends and gotten involved in a town and they'll have a hard time believing they were ready to kill it not to long ago. (But the only problem I see is that if you want to get rid of your char, it's still "cheaper" to kill them off right away than to wait till they're 25, since you only have to wait 2 years, so people might be more likely to take that option)

And for the record there's nothing wrong with spawn and run thieves. I've had six spawn thiefs, five of which are still alive, even though out of those five, four of them got caught. They're still alive because they were not suicidal!

[viktor]

there is another fault, this sort of enforces a "play nice don't comit crime in game" rule, which forces a social order so people play nice and don;t cause trouble. by the time a person is over 25 they are likely to still "play nice" so as not to loose all they gained from 5 years of hard work.
this basically disallows young roaming bandits and only allows boat owning pirates who spend the first few years of their lives collecting wood and making a boat so they can pillage the coastline.
and another instance where it makes an "unfair" punishment, you are spawned in or when young wander across a territory of bandits who just love the sport of shedding blood. and because someone likes to play a bloodthirsty bandit you get punished, unless you use OOC knowledge to divert your path around thier territory just so you don't suffer this rule.
i remember one time PUK was home to bandits, i had a char wander through thier territory and i knew OOC that there were bandits there but IC my char had reason to go somewhere not knowing there were bandits, now if this rule existed back then, i for one with this young char would have changed my path and avoided thier territory thus being in crb.

again, not saying this rule should be tossed but it is too flawed as is in it's indescriminate punishment

[Doug R.]

Good post, Marian. I'm sure in 4-6 months, this change will just seemlessly blend into the greenwork.

[Marian]

there is another fault, this sort of enforces a "play nice don't comit crime in game" rule, which forces a social order so people play nice and don;t cause trouble. by the time a person is over 25 they are likely to still "play nice" so as not to loose all they gained from 5 years of hard work.
this basically disallows young roaming bandits and only allows boat owning pirates who spend the first few years of their lives collecting wood and making a boat so they can pillage the coastline.

Newspawn thieves, even boat thieves and pirates, are just an annoyance anyway. I've never seen one cause any serious trouble for a town, usually their attacks are just met with a bunch of eye rollign and they're quickly killed.

In fact I think this change might actually encourage better, more organized criminals who can pose an actual threat. I don't know who started the Barons, but if they'd decided 'I'm going to be a heartless killer!' and then punched everyone in town with their bare fists, how far do you think they'd have gotten?

and another instance where it makes an "unfair" punishment, you are spawned in or when young wander across a territory of bandits who just love the sport of shedding blood. and because someone likes to play a bloodthirsty bandit you get punished, unless you use OOC knowledge to divert your path around thier territory just so you don't suffer this rule.
i remember one time PUK was home to bandits, i had a char wander through thier territory and i knew OOC that there were bandits there but IC my char had reason to go somewhere not knowing there were bandits, now if this rule existed back then, i for one with this young char would have changed my path and avoided thier territory thus being in crb.

There's lots of temptations to use OOC knowledge in this game. If one char knew someone as a thief or murderer, and then they showed up in one of your another char's town and introduced themself, would you aurtomatically distrust them even though you had no reason to? There isn't any way to regulate that kind of thing and it all comes down to whether the player makes the extra effort to not CRB, and with this rule it's no different.

Good post, Marian.

Thanks!