[Kameron8]

I don't have a whole lot more to add here that hasn't already been said, but I do want to weigh in on the comparison to SL1 people keep making. The system in that game will never be comparable to the one in this, simply because permanent death did not happen unless people wanted it to happen. People 'died' all the time, but they respawned after visiting fate and had amnesia about the events that lead up to their demise. That was the only penalty, bar some experience loss and an hour long debuff to prevent fighting after death.

So yes, griefing was substantially more of an issue in that game, but that's because death carried no weight. In this game it's currently the dead opposite, where nobody agrees to be killed because death is actually significant.

[Egil]

I don't have a whole lot more to add here that hasn't already been said, but I do want to weigh in on the comparison to SL1 people keep making. The system in that game will never be comparable to the one in this, simply because permanent death did not happen unless people wanted it to happen. People 'died' all the time, but they respawned after visiting fate and had amnesia about the events that lead up to their demise. That was the only penalty, bar some experience loss and an hour long debuff to prevent fighting after death.

So yes, griefing was substantially more of an issue in that game, but that's because death carried no weight. In this game it's currently the dead opposite, where nobody agrees to be killed because death is actually significant.

The people describing SL1 to me were being very dishonest, then, because they spoke of that game as if death was meaningful and held weight. I am now more inclined to be accepting of the safe zones idea, but I still think that a combination of mine and Sly's would ultimately work best.

[Vyktoryah]

I've never seen anyone get forced to delete their save over dying. They just change their appearance, name, and build and then have an entirely new character with all their gear, murai, LEing, etc intact.

If you can change all of that, including even race... Than what's the point in it being restricted so heavily. If you lose literally nothing but your character's appearance, name and persona and are forced to make a new set of that, but nothing changes mechanically for you besides maybe having to LE... I don't see why people are afraid of death.

[Snake]

Want a simple answer? Because if something like death becomes so 'cheap' and 'simple', I'd personally overclock the GMs by killing my chars for the most stupid reasons I could imagine. (Stubbing a toe on the Arena? Death. Sneezing? Death. Saying hi on a bad tone? Death.)

Second, death in SL2 is permadeath. You're losing your iconic character RP-wise forever without ANY way to bring them back. Yes, the very one you worked hard to create. Put on the balance, erasing and creating, which is the easier to do?

Third, we recently had an event where a certain guy lost his genitals and one arm to a god damn explosion where Chaos didn't force anything upon anyone, and didn't complain. AKA, there are people willing to die if you're 'cool' enough to ask them kindly. So calm y'all murderboners.

Fourth, Dev already posted his part here and he 'won't' change his rule.

So like, let's stop whining about this before I start making this thread toxic and joke-worth?

Deal.

[Egil]

Want a simple answer? Because if something like death becomes so 'cheap' and 'simple', I'd personally overclock the GMs by killing my chars for the most stupid reasons I could imagine. (Stubbing a toe on the Arena? Death. Sneezing? Death. Saying hi on a bad tone? Death.)

You could do that right now, though. Changing the hard rule on death allowances doesn't affect your ability to do this at all.

Second, death in SL2 is permadeath. You're losing your iconic character RP-wise forever without ANY way to bring them back. Yes, the very one you worked hard to create. Put on the balance, erasing and creating, which is the easier to do?

If you put a lot of work into your character and don't want them to die, then don't get into situations where they could die and then OOC'ly void any harm that comes their way. That's dishonest, shitty roleplaying. (see: What Saw had to deal with as Bloeden)

Third, we recently had an event where a certain guy lost his genitals and one arm to a god damn explosion where Chaos didn't force anything upon anyone, and didn't complain. AKA, there are people willing to die if you're 'cool' enough to ask them kindly. So calm y'all murderboners.

In that specific event, yes, those roleplayers took it well and I commend them for it, but this topic exists because many players- including some of the players from that event- have voided reasonable and valid kill/maim/etc attempts and GMs upheld those decisions. That's only changing now because people are talking about it.

Fourth, Dev already posted his part here and he 'won't' change his rule.

So like, let's stop whining about this before I start making this thread toxic and joke-worth?

Deal.

lol.

[Esther]

I would like for more penalties to become a reality, but usually, what decides who loses an arm or their head?

PvP.

And what's the current state of PvP?

This isn't entirely true. PvP is skewed as all fuck, and I ~don't~ actually like to use it to resolve IC conflicts with other characters. I strongly prefer discussion, collaboration, and, where necessary, opposed unmodified dice rolls to dictate the flow of a combat encounter against another player that carries any sort of IC implications. (i.e., not just silly sparring.)

[Sawrock]

In my opinion, if you don't like the game, you should play a different game.

[Egil]

In my opinion, if you don't like the game, you should play a different game.

Just go elsewhere, where you can enjoy whatever RP you're looking for.

The usage of this dismissive euphemism for 'Fuck off' whenever someone has an idea for change that one doesn't agree with or enjoys the game in a way that the majority may not is one of the biggest reasons why I made this topic in the first place. The person that you're replying to, Sawrock, does not say that they don't like the game. They're saying very clearly that they prefer to handle conflict w/o PvP and briefly explained why and what they do in place of PvP. If they actually didn't like the game, I'm sure they would actually be playing a different game because, otherwise, they would have to be mentally unstable in some way. Thus, the only reasonable conclusions that can be made from your post is that you either can't read or you're really not as open-minded and reasonable as I personally thought previously.

Since Dev has already seen this and is open to possibly changing the rule in question in the (hopefully near) future, I am fine with this topic being locked. Thank you, everyone, for your replies and participation in this discussion.

[Sawrock]

Understood. I'll lock the topic.