Changing the -6 Safety Net

[Zelknolf]

I also don't understand how you can extract the meaningful fidelity from it (without undue effort) given all the things we don't log, such as the above cases or tech rezes.

A tech-rezzed character has a log of being rezzed by a DM avatar following, and its status isn't dead.

This is the sort of calculation that the AdvancedLogParser is designed to do. I made a modified build of it for the sake of wringing information out-- unabashedly a bug that missed your guy's tech rezz; the DM avatar's character id was logged as 0 and I didn't handle that.

[Ronan]

I knew we logged it, but for some reason I didn't think MySQL supported WHERE EXISTS. It does, so a query could do it too.

Fionn, we don't have a complete set of hooks for a PC regaining his feet. We also probably don't want to do anything that would prevent the PC from running away. This would include STR damage, since dropping stuff is so time-consuming in NWN.

[Zelknolf]

Well, ALP works by deserializing broader queries into collections, and counting comparisons of properties of collection members. Handy to know, for example, "Is this character Id associated with player or DM logins?" before deciding where to shuffle information about it (obv. no one with CID 0 never logged in as a DM, hence unabashed bug). Super handy for looking at high-level trending or populations, and also a very-cozy baseline from which to custom up reports. It's ugly-UI'd pappy is where I was getting statistics before the v1.90 release. Seems generally a better tool than manual queries thus far, and I'm pretty confident in its outputs.

But back on topic. I'm not sure that the answer given is a reasonable counter to my objection:
- The case isn't a very common problem.
- The change applies to a high-stakes core system with a very low tolerance for bugs.
- The required change touches extremely-fragile code that past changes have shown to be difficult to track and fix.
- The proposed design is based on timers and is thus vulnerable to race conditions, which are by their nature more difficult to track and fix.

The change looks low priority and high risk to me. If I'm wearing my TA hat, and must act as a producer for a piece of software, this looks a lot like a change I would red line. Add that the person offering to write the change has a history of disappearing and leaving other people on tech to figure out and fix his bugs? This sounds like a terrible idea, and it's what I meant by this:

I notice a pattern here, and I really don't want to be stuck handling all of the implications of 'trivial' changes again. I still haven't fixed crafting yet.

[Ronan]

Oh, I thought you were arguing from a game balance perspective. This isn't really the place to discuss tech stuff, and I don't think tech politics should affect which changes we deem desirable.

I know Bas has caught some small bugs of mine here and there, one of which (a crafting corner case causing an infinite loop in a collections library) once crashed BG - whoops. I've fixed my fair share of other people's bugs too, some of which (MA/CE interference) were the cause of a number of tech deaths (and the loss of Marcus Wands' finger). Crafting looks to be solid, except a stale ticket, some missing 2da entries for RP spells (which were not my doing), and a feature I need to add for DMs. So I'm not really sure what you're referring to.

The change I had in mind was nearly a one-liner, applying ability score damage on a floor hit. As noted we already have systems to deal with ability score damage approximating 3.5 rules. I'm certainly not volunteering to do anything major at this point.

[t-ice]

Making PCs more vulnerable after downed to a floor seems to be controversial.
But seems to me no-one is arguing against the fact that jumping back in 100% condition and fighting after being saved by the floor is a good feature. So "penalty" for being floored should be in the offensive abilities of the PC, while keeping defenses and especially the "bravely runs away" option.

I am no tech wiz, but really there is no way to effectively do this to prevent whack-a-mole as a combat strategy? The big bad direct-damage boss Ronan speaks of, the one with the ability to swath a PC down in a single blow even, doesn't need to kill that PC with that blow. The "killing blow" just needs to effectively take the fight out of that PC (=offensive capacity). The effect can last anything from a few RL minutes on up, long as it lasts at least the fight in question.

Maybe, as a DM, it would be possible to pause game upon a PC flooring and using Feeblemind, Interposing Hand etc to affect something like that. But it'd be a giant hassle, not to mention some players will take offense on the DM "wanting to kill me by stomping on me when I'm already down because the DM hates me personally". And then some DM will expect that it's not even a proper challenge if there wasn't at least one whack-a-mole per PC. So really we need common mechanics.

[Brokenbone]

Still thinking a mild Ooc penalty like an XP hit would make "entering battle assuming your party will experience some KOs" a harder choice. Much as people in re spawn worlds try to avoid like 20% XP loss on a death, Alfans may take even 100xp loss very seriously!

Doesn't impact escape ability or penalize abilities or say, apply a -1 to damaged suits of armor, just "hey second (and 3rd 4th 5th) chance and a mild speed bump in character progression. Sure the rules are "beat challenge, get xp" not "get beat and lose it" but just as our safety net is a house rule, related consequences can be too.

[Galadorn]

While I think the discussion is cool, I also think nothing will change, and that's cool, i've always supported Admin decisions, even if I don't agree sometimes - I don't think i'm that important.

But, I think, IMO, the "Delay", post -6 safety net, is a good idea.

Example: PC hits the floor at -6. If that PC is saved, there's a good long delay until s/he gets another -6 safety net op. I would like to think 24 hours real time. That means, no way, in whatever session s/he is in, DM;d or not, will that PC get another "save" (even if that "save" is not actually a garanteed save).

Remember, the safety net IS ENTIRELY an OOC "thing". It was devised to "conserve" the stories of possibly very long term PCs, or even short term PCs, "for" the players of ALFA, who are for the most part, hardcore story-creating-telling players in a game world we claim to be hardcore RP... so huge hits that slam our PCs so hard, that they dorp us to -10 with "no chance" to save them are thwarted by this safety net.

So, after ONE safety net fires, and that PC is "saved", then that PC in game becomes "vulnerable" ...RP it like you will. A psycho insane killer might throw caution to the wind and head deeper into the dungeon... or, (what we hope) a player could RP a PC who's "wounded" (mentally?) mortally enough (even if he/she has been healed fully)... to decide, to leave and lick his wounds and live to fight another day...thus taking advantage of his one safety net in 24 hours.


I trust Ronan totally, and love his hardcore/risky DMing more than anyone, honestly, but everytime he mentions "DMs choosing to possess a monster, since it's IC for that monster not to leave a dying enemy, so it finishes off that PC" wether or not the safety net is hit, and thus a PC dies (fugue plane) - makes me cringe. That to me, even if it is IC, might become a PA nightmare, where dead PC's player screams favoritism/hatred/personal-issues, etc.... whatever. Since that player might call foul, by saying: "HEY! My PC was hit to -6, and that means i should not be dead, cause my party members should have been able to save me!" - but, a DM taking a monster under his/her control and FINISHING that PC off, safety net or not, should be in that DM's realm of fair decision.... without anyone claiming that the safety net is their RIGHT to "stay alive".

So... IF people have a problemo with the -6 safety net... why not make it still there.... but only once every 24 hours.

If it works? They SHOULD RP, being some form of mentally?physically? unable to continue "adventuring"... ((If they want to make sure they are still around tomorrow))....

Otherwise, they take their chances.... finish the dungeon crawl... DM or not, but for 24 hours real time.... there's no more safety net. One hit could send them spiralling to the fugue plane, and they'd have NO ONE to blame. They should thank ALFA for that 1 chance they DID get to keep going after the first safety net was "used" up.


I know there's a lot of OOC decisions that the PC itself may or may not do based on all of the above.... but that's what's the fact of playing a Video game is anyway. We are real people trying to control fictional D&D characters. But "pushing it" should come with consequences.

[MaskedIllusion]

Example: PC hits the floor at -6. If that PC is saved, there's a good long delay until s/he gets another -6 safety net op. I would like to think 24 hours real time.

My only real issue with this right here is that it will drastically screw with DM games. Once someone hits the -6 cap, and even if they get fully healed, they are likely (and smartly with this logic) going to drop out of the game. And we all know, once players start dropping from a game it is likey over, or a LOT harder for everyone else. Which means DM's are going to start having to change everything on the fly that they may all ready have set up when you suddenly drop from 5 pc's to 4. We all know 1 pc makes a huge difference.

Now yes, in most cases, logically, all the pc's should be able to leave and say "lets assault this goblin cave tomorrow" but dm games are usually dm games and not preset spawns because dm's WANT to dm them, and if players start dropping from games they are going to have to DM the same game two or three times if the event is meant to be a challenge. Almost no DM is going to do that, and rightly so in my opnion. So it is going to be a waste of a good story, and a waste of DM's time.

On a side not here, I disagree to a point that if you hit the -6 cap you should not physically be able to go on. There is a reason we have high level spells, because high level spells do amazing things. If you are low on Hp and I cast a few cure serious wounds on you, you should (in my opinion, physically anyway) be able to get back up and keep fighting, because that is the POINT of high level spells.

[Rumple C]

My only real issue with this right here is that it will drastically screw with DM games. Once someone hits the -6 cap, and even if they get fully healed, they are likely (and smartly with this logic) going to drop out of the game.

Why?

How did anyone ever go adventuring before the -6 cap, under that logic?

Does a sword in the guts hurt any less or more before you have used the completely OOC -6 cap?

Adventuring is meant to be a terrifying experience, unless you are completely nuts. You are beating up things as they try to beat you up. If it were RL, it would be a 50/50 chance (all things being equal) that you would not survive. Not great odds.

All the -6 cap does is (as poster above shows) is let adventurers adventure with a sense of impunity. Don't worry, its doesn't hurt, i'll just dust myself off after this arrow through the eye and keep on going. My original idea wasn't to stymie adventure, it was to make people adventure smarter. Instead of "Charge!", get everyone into position, utilize spells, missles, flanking etc for the best chance of defeating the baddies quicker and safer, while being wary of the enemy, and rightly so.

(No offense intended to anyone, your ideas are as completely valid (or invalid) as mine)

[Adanu]

My only real issue with this right here is that it will drastically screw with DM games. Once someone hits the -6 cap, and even if they get fully healed, they are likely (and smartly with this logic) going to drop out of the game.

Why?

How did anyone ever go adventuring before the -6 cap, under that logic?

This ignores ALFAs XP system and wealth issues yet again. We are SLOW compared to PnP, and PnP allows players to use NPCs if their PC dies in the middle of a campaign.

People didn't mind dying because there were OPTIONS for that.

Here? You died? Too bad, res or new PC from level one. Pretending this isn't a factor does not help your case.

[Zelknolf]

This isn't really the place to discuss tech stuff, and I don't think tech politics should affect which changes we deem desirable.

I will always argue that the viability of getting the change made is the primary concern when talking about any change, and believe that posturing to get approval for something without a sound plan for implementation and maintenance is a greasy sort of strategy. It looks very much like trying to obligate tech to make the high-risk low-priority change, which is why I bring up the fallacy of misleading vividness. Humans have well-established cognitive flaws that will cause them to inflate the priorities of these issues in their minds to help provide this pressure. It's probably why Galadorn is just above me here, formatting his post like it's Time Cube.

I've said where I stand on balance many times before, though-- given infinite resources and free reign to design a death system, the safety net would be at the death event and not some quirky flag-and-timer-based system around bleeding, there would be a system of death penalties, and would probably prefer that the penalties determine the chance of whether you're saved again and should drive a system of escalating (but at least somewhat random) horribleness. Though I'll admit that what exactly I propose that they be in practice has a lot to do with my workload at the time of writing the post.

[Rumple C]

This isn't PnP, its ALFA.

Bah, i guess i just don't want ALFA to mean...

optimized toon - check
max hit points - check
(Mithral) max AC possible armor - check
heavy shield - check
numerically superior one handed weapon check
ring of clw x 5 - check
-6 safety net - check (and if it doesn't fire, clearly a tech rez)

fearless attitude towards that orc with the great axe - check (I wonder why...)

Don't mind me, i'm just venting - I know most folks just don't want to play the fighter with a halberd and scale mail (no, you cant play him - that's my next concept).

Also - starting a new PC is not the end of the world, their story (up until their untimely death - really, how many adventurers make it into old age?) can be just as compelling as the one who just bit the dust. We have far more content for lower levels that we do for anything else.

*I reserve the right to edit my spelling mistakes.

[Adanu]

This isn't PnP, its ALFA.

Yes, it is... and since our systems are slow, people have turned pragmatic when it comes to fights and the like. Mithral and the rest of the special materials are all the obvious gotos for upgrading our stuff. I'm not advocating powergaming above all... but pretending that power has no place in this system is just as bad.

[danielmn]

Too harsh an idea for our current playerbase.

[Ronan]

I trust Ronan totally, and love his hardcore/risky DMing more than anyone, honestly, but everytime he mentions "DMs choosing to possess a monster, since it's IC for that monster not to leave a dying enemy, so it finishes off that PC" wether or not the safety net is hit, and thus a PC dies (fugue plane) - makes me cringe. That to me, even if it is IC, might become a PA nightmare, where dead PC's player screams favoritism/hatred/personal-issues, etc.... whatever. Since that player might call foul, by saying: "HEY! My PC was hit to -6, and that means i should not be dead, cause my party members should have been able to save me!" - but, a DM taking a monster under his/her control and FINISHING that PC off, safety net or not, should be in that DM's realm of fair decision.... without anyone claiming that the safety net is their RIGHT to "stay alive".

Yeah, its not something you can do very often. Players need to be aware of it and make decisions based on this knowledge, else-wise they will have a different understanding of the game-world than a DM, and that is really, really bad when it leads to PC death (it invariably leads to the player feeling he has been cheated). Plus it just feels like a dick move. Also, I haven't DMed you very much Largely because Bu is not the crazed adventurer sort.

MI, DMs are going to adjust difficulty and roll with changes. We don't want an adventure ending early unless its because the party legitimately screwed up. Actually I think a called-off adventure is worse for me as a DM than as a player, because it means a lot of work and setup goes wasted.

Rumple it really sounds like we're all in agreement (except for Dan, hah) that using the floor should carry a penalty.

Zelk as I said, the change I had in mind was just applying ability score damage on a floor hit, which is already cumulative and tracked. I agree that ideally the death system would be re-written, probably modelled into a FSM in C# where type-checking could make the system pretty damn difficult to break. I was not posturing to put any workload on you (believe me I've been there, e.g. the warlock changes, and it sucks), and the vividness was there to convey my frustrations, not exploit the availability heuristic. It sounds like you think applying an ability score damage effect could be error-prone, so I will just drop it.

I do think discussing this sort of thing absent explicit tech approval is valuable, provided we don't stray too far from implementation. As the forum title says, this is brainstorming. Despite how some may turn their noses up at these argumentative threads, I've gotten a lot of good ideas from them and often changed my mind (e.g. Xan's proposed CvC rule).