No death

[T-shirt]

so you say cantr is dying.....THEN STOP KILLING IT!

as a video game perfectionist i too am guilty of causing harm to the game by simply having too many good characters. no one wants to play a game that has absolutely no violence ( which is something i never really thought of untill half way into my second account ). here is a solution....when you spawn an evil character DON'T have him ( or her ) kill people. i know that ruins the point of having a bad character but then again if you had a seventy year old succesful town leader with a girlfriend ( or boyfriend ) wouldn't you be pissed if someone kidnapped and killed them for no reason? also wouldn't it create a lot of excitement if you kidnapped a town leader? depending on which town you attack you could have up to 10 or maybe even 20 people after you.

so basically do all the evil things you want WITHOUT ending another characters role and if you get caught surender. they won't kill you if all you want to do is raid and steal stuff especially if you cooperate when you are caught....or maybe they will.

and don't do this for the sake of having a successful role. do it simply for the sake of excitement. if your guy dies so what. you made him ( or her ) simply for the purpose of causing trouble. i did the same thing with a guy called Clepto and he ended up staying alive for a while.....and WOW did his role suck but it was not in me to starve him. he was mainly a wiseass in the end and not much of an evil character.

People should not die from wounds or hunger; only from heart attacks (or when the player lets his character pass away from hunger or wounds.

[Tiamo]

Why?

[Chris]

In another thread, someone proposed a near-death state. The character would be helpless to do anything, could be robbed or killed at will, etc. But he/she could also be nurtured back to health over time. That would at least make accidents and impulsive actions less likely to result in death. People who just wanted to rob someone would also have an option to leave the victim alive.

[Xanalsir]

People should not die from wounds or hunger; only from heart attacks (or when the player lets his character pass away from hunger or wounds.

Perma-death is one of the main reasons I like Cantr. It's part of what makes us a society simulator instead of multi-player Harvest Moon. Reducing someone to an "unconcious state" from which they do not recover for X hours and from which they can be "finished off" by anyone who sees the corpse would be good, this way if someone is robbed (and there's no psychos in the town), that person will live.

[SekoETC]

If suggesting that a person would not die until the player has had time to check it and accept the death, that's a duplicate of the near death state suggestion. There have been other topics for knockout as well.

Not having people die of hunger without their consent would be, in my opinion, very stupid. Food is so easy to get that if someone starves, either they did it on purpose or the player couldn't bother to log in or the character took a risk traveling too far when they should have turned back. I think I suggested somewhere that you should consume less food while resting, then you could make a conscious decision to preserve energy when you're running low on food. But if people could just idle without consequences, that wouldn't lead into those people becoming active, they would just be living corpses.

[Xanalsir]

I'm not suggesting we let the players choose whether they want to die. I'm suggesting that they don't die until someone else decides to finish them. Thus, only in war or in cases of murder, where death is the objective, will people be killed.

[SekoETC]

Yeah, I'm ok with your suggestion. It was T-shirt who was writing silly things.

[Sekar]

If perma-death were taken away, it would be a sad day indeed. I think we should actually go one step further and have death from old age be implemented. Though, I think the characters should be able to live longer than what human beings can live for(Just comparing the number of years, not the actual amount of time).

[Xanalsir]

It shouldn't be a set year, though. I say once you hit "very old," every day there is a small chance you have a heart attack or something similar, and die of old age. That chance gets greater and greater at every birthday after that. The chance would still be slim, however, maybe one in ten thousand at start.

[Sekar]

I'm sorry, but I must disagree, I think enough players will already be upset once death by old age is implemented. To make them have to constantly worry about dying, instead of having a set time, would just be cruel. Instead I propose a set year, maybe once they reach 200 years old or something. Thats a lot of game-play, but not infinite game-play. I believe the whole very old thing actually should be changed. We keep forgetting that cantrians do not have to have the same life-span as humans. We can make them live longer. I already look at my forty year old character as being much younger. I feel that turning forty in such a short amount of time, and it being looked at as if my character is a human who just turned forty..well it annoys me. When do most people today reach the height of success? Usually in their fourties or fifties. What about cantrians? Usually they reach their height at sixty, seventy, maybe even later. My oldest character, he is in his sixties, and it feels to me like he still hasn't reached his goals in life.

[tiddy ogg]

For a while - quite a long time - I thought heart attacks were game generated, and I was very apprehensive. So I will be about any "old age" death, as I have several chars in their seventies.
I don't think we can afford to lose long-time players, which is bound to happen. Were circumstances different, thenm yes, it makes snese, and old town leaders would have to make provision for their successors... but we then get on to the subject of hereditary rulers, families and children and that can of wormlets.

[Sekar]

Old players have a major advantage over new players ,and that is why death by old age should be implemented. It will bring out change, and allow new players to have the chance of being in a leadership position.

[Xanalsir]

Since Cantrians are both mostly incapable and, even more regrettably, mostly unwilling to carry out assassinations, Sekar has a point. He also has a point about Cantrians peaking out about 60-80 as opposed to 40-50. We might just want to lengthen the duration of a year a bit to reflect this.*

200 years really is long enough, it's true. Most character don't even last that long because of natural deaths, so that might work.

*That's a 50% difference (ish), so making years 30 days long instead of twenty should do the trick. If a real math geek wants to correct me on this, feel free to do so.

[Gran]

Excuse me, but any sugestion in this topic would affect the lifespan of the younger?

[Xanalsir]

No. At this point at least, having your life cut short at a young age due to simple bad luck with disease would be disastrous for our playerbase. Perhaps when we're established we could do something like that, if we so choose, but for now it would be unthinkably damaging.