|
It really depends on what the problem is from your point of view. In my eyes, the problem solved by regular permadeath is that of character stagnation, while the problem caused by regular permadeath is the fact that you throw away all of the work the player has put into their character (which, by extension, will result in a small playerbase - an issue which goes against the goals of most mud owners).
IMO that's not necessarily a bad thing - in fact, in my implementation I actually provided a "retire" command which allowed people to start as a new character which they wouldn't previously have had access to (much like a remort system). However if it's an issue with you, then you could choose to only give a percentage of exp back to the new character, or prevent them from changing back to a previously selected character concept, or limit them in some other way.
From a conceptual point of view, I don't believe in dismissing an idea on the basis of poor implementation, particularly when the poor implementation applies to other parts of the mud. If your mud has such poorly balanced classes, then that's something you should deal with before trying developing anything else - indeed, it's something you should have worked on in the design phase, before even beginning with the coding.
Well obviously not, as that's the very point it's supposed to address. The real question then becomes "do you want your players to suffer the biggest loss possible?" - and if the answer is yes, then obviously regular permadeath is the solution to your problem. As each mud is different, and each mud owner has a different vision of what they're trying to achieve, there can be no generic solution.
But for many people, the objective isn't to create the greatest sense of loss possible, but instead to create a sense of realism in respect to the exact same character springing back to life after being chopped to pieces several seconds earlier.
I'm not sure where the "I agree" came from - I've never suggested resurrection, and I've certainly never suggested that any system could be the "best" (because there can be no "best" solution to a problem which varies from mud owner to mud owner). Indeed, such a system is completely inappropriate for many themes, including that of the muds I've developed.
How does it allow for a higher caliber of roleplaying? In my opinion, your solution still retains the main disadvantage of permadeath, without the main advantage. I can plot for months to assassinate the king, so that I can put my own puppet ruler on the throne - but as soon as I do, he can just be resurrected, at which point I'm right back where I started. But on the other hand, for most players death will be permanent, and so many of them will quit when they die and not come back.
I absolutely agree. There are many issues to take into consideration when designing any feature, and each individual solution should address these in its own way.
Hardly - the "jerks" are those who are the least likely to be bothered by permadeath, as they care little for their characters. If you want to improve the process of eliminating jerks, you'd be better off screening new players more carefully.
|