Thanks to repositories like QHCF for gear ideas and FAQ's and this site for posting uber builds on Battlefield I think I have a decent feel around the CF world but the one thing that bugs the #### out of me is the Con Loss after 3 deaths. I'd like to give some argumentative points but first I'd like to hear from the IMMs as to why was this even implemented to begin with.

It's a fine balancing act between keeping characters rotating (necessary to prevent permanent power-houses and to free up EQ and leadership positions) and creating risk, while still having longevity enough to characters to not be entirely throw-away in nature.

We don't want total throw-away characters but we also don't want permanent fixtures and there needs to be some consequences to dying.

The existing formula IMHO is as good as any in achieving those results.

I totally don't mind my chars aging and dying, it allows for great roleplay. But con loss is too fast and there are few ways to compensate for it, especially if you are relatively new to CF. I always put a lot of effort into my characters, and I hate the fact I have to keep away from fights if I want them to see old age.

Maybe that's not the matter of con loss, it's just that combat is too lethal and fast. I would totally like to have 10 PK fights in a day, of which only maybe 1-2 resulted in anyone's death. But no matter how defensive I make my build, it doesn't happen.

EDIT: Also, con loss makes it more difficult to not hold a grudge against other players when they PK you. And it makes me feel guilty every time I score a kill in PK, because hey, I'm ruining someone's day.

1) We want death to have consequences. It tends to hurt internal realism (*) as well as gameplay if there are zero consequences to taking mortal risks. The consequences are relatively minor but long-lasting. If you die once every so often to other players or NPCs, it doesn't have a huge impact on your game experience. However, there's enough pain to raises the stakes of combat-- you know you have something on the line. As an analogy, compare playing a game of blackjack on a computer for 'points', vs. playing for $5/hand. $5/hand won't make or break most people, but you're a lot more likely to be emotionally and intellectually invested in the game.

We're not interested in moving towards permadeath (as in, first death deletes the character file), which I'd equate to having a $1000 minimum at the table. I've played permadeath games, and most people get extremely risk-averse, and essentially won't fight unless they're positive they will win and no one else will want revenge.

All that said, I think our current 'death penalty' feels too light to me, but I believe I'm in the minority there.

2) It turns over characters. If you've ever played a game with zero permanent consequences (many MUDs included), you may have encountered characters with thousands and thousands of hours. Those characters will have likely built up IC advantages, whether concrete (quest rewards, other permanent character-based bonuses), or abstract (they're the leader of a powerful cabal and there's nothing you can do to change that. Put another way, if you want to lead a CF cabal, you can wait out the guy who's holding down that spot. On many games, your only hope is that the person voluntarily steps down or stops playing.


(*): By 'internal realism', I mean that while the game isn't 'realistic' in that it has dragons and wizards and whatever running around, there is a logic inherent to the setting that is consistent. Dragons are realistic within the context of the game world, because Therans know them to exist, they obey the same rules of magic and/or physics as other beings, etc.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

To play devil's advocate...

>1) We want death to have consequences.

Makes sense. So you could make con loss happen only on non-PK deaths. Even if you teleport away and aren't going to be looted, the other guy gets a check in the win column and you get a check in the loss column.

>2) It turns over characters.

How often is "lack of constitution" the reason for a character ceasing to exist?

Frequently I'd say. Go search the graveyard for all CON LOSS type deaths. Pretty common. A lot of those types are stand out leader or assistant leader types too, which reinforces his point.

Even if you teleport away and aren't going to be looted, the other guy gets a check in the win column and you get a check in the loss column.

I don't really consider that 'consequences'. It really only impacts one's ego, and a lot of good players don't mope over that sort of thing.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

The age death, the losing con as you continue to fail, the con-death, etc.

That's what attracted me to CF in the first place.

I've Con died three characters, and I hate watching that Con dwindle down to 5 and then to 4. And then Death starts asking you about the little horse...

But it's a very, very important feature of the game. It means that by whittling down your enemies' Con you can eventually make them go away permanently. If it weren't for that, you'd have a lot of characters lasting for 500-600+ hours, which sounds cool when it's your character, but not so cool when it's that Bastard who gets you every login and takes all your goodies.

Con death also prevents stagnation. I loved Knacnar, but would we really want him to still be Commander? We're into the fourth Commander of the Fifth Age (I'm counting 'None' because 'None' was in charge for a long damn time) and I think it's much better this way.

It's one of the best ways to keep the game fresh.

I've Con died three characters, and I hate watching that Con dwindle down to 5 and then to 4. And then Death starts asking you about the little horse...

I had mustang as Agantas. When I got the tell about the little horse-shaped ones, I sent in a pray to answer death: "This is how little horse-shaped ones move", shifted to mustang and ran a few laps on Eastern Road. Then, a servitor of planes brought me a horse chess piece.

n/t

The con loss is one of the points that makes me want to play CF over any other mud. All other muds you have chars that doesn't die off. The con loss in CF keeps the game roiling.

As for the healing rate I'm with TJHuron, would be good if you couldn't go below say 15 or so in the healing rate algorithm. Always annoying to just sleep for hours on end.

Help wise recovery. Very low requirement edge.

We...well, I would at least....missed you! You back??

I lurk a bit and play some morts, but Thrak is still long gone and I don't really have the time to come back as an Imm. Email me if you want to chat though.

N/T

I don't mind the con loss system as it is. Leaders get 5 deaths per con, so there is an incentive to obtain a leader type position.

I would like to see leader con given more as a reward for deserving characters as opposed to con boosts. There are a handful of deserving characters that would benefit from this that don't ever obtain leader positions. One example I can think of would maybe be Hralpek. I didn't know the character that well but from the battlefield thread he seemed to be very highly regarded by morts and imms. He also seemed to have a few things in the works for him had he lived longer. As an Anathema, a choice I understand that was made via role, he would never become a leader and get leader con.

I think as a role contest winner I'd definitely want some of the other nice rewards any day over leader con, so it shouldn't be that kind of reward. More like something a little extra, like a cabal edge.

Also, on the topic of Con. I would love it if we could get rid of diminished sleeping regen rates with lower cons. It just really takes alot of the fun out a character you've put a lot of time into. Perhaps, leave sitting/standing/fighting regen rates as they are, but, make sleeping rates all the same, no matter what your con is. Players would get more enjoyment out of the game. I know I've deleted a character that I was having fun with but started to get low on con and was getting sick of all the extra sleep time. This game has enough down time as it is.

There has been a few discussions on con loss vs regen, and how con is the only stat that constantly lowers. Think it's somewhere in this forum.

I am sure you'll get the response that if you want better regen, there are plenty of ways to do it in game already. I don't think it's hard to carry + con gear for that purpose, lots of players do it as a rot survival tool anyway, especially when they are low con, or they use slow potions.

At the same time, constantly gear swapping does get a little tedious since you do sleep quite often in the game to regen (I set up two aliases, the sleep alias is get x chest;wear x; repeated for the appropriate gear pieces followed by sleep, and a wake alias as wake;remove x;put x chest repeated for the gear). I personally prefer trying to find the gear that has + con and other good stats just to avoid the issue. That said, such gear is not that easy to come by. Not like I can get two malachite bracelets anytime I want. It tends to be easier for non-melee classes that gear for hp which is often + con, who oddly enough don't need the regen as badly for hp as they do for mana. Warriors who need the regen seldom gear for hp though, so seldom have + con gear which means lower regens.

It might be useful if all characters got a skill (Call it deep sleep or whatever) that essentially gave you unwakeable sleep for say 2/3 hours. While asleep regen raises significantly. All regen things still apply, so you can't heal with plague and such, but if you would normally be recovering, you get what you would recover doubled. Make it so you can't use it when you have adrenaline (so PK means much longer before you can use it). It would be essentially useless in raid/retrievals lots of times because knocking yourself out makes you too vulnerable and you could not use it soon enough to matter, but it would be great for ranking/exploring. I do think that would make whispers far less valuable, though with whispers you can still heal while plagued or scourged or whatever, which is insanely beneficial to an explore character. A dwarf with whispers and that skill I would envision restoring 1500 hps in three hours. So long as they had close to full con.

But again, imms will likely just say buy a slow potion, drink that. You'll get much better regen, at the cost of being slow for a period. Gear for con. You can't get a perk without an attached drawback. Something like that. But I don't think the system will change, and while it can be tedious, I don't much mind it.

And leader con is nice I imagine. They have a legacy for that too I believe. Renewal of spring I think it is. Not sure, but that may give you a con boost as well when you take it, in addition to the leader con. But I don't see many premiums with any char ever taking it. Most would rather have a more useful legacy than one which extends character longevity. I think renewal would be a great Imm reward as you said, for those characters like Hralpelk who are unique fun presences in the game.