Clone Failure
Is it viable?

Such characters with a common death rate would be at far more of a disadvantage than already, seeing as there is already the inevitable stat degeneration.

But I don't know. I could certainly see it being possible if done in the right way.

This is a valid point too. Thank you for reminding me of that.

However, is there really a solution for combat-averse people?

Right, but there is always corpse clones.

I think DCD kind of has the same level of effect on poor people who cannot afford a single treatment let alone multiple, however it has an easier out.

But also good counter point

(Edited by Johnny at 5:55 pm on 3/5/2020)

A single death usually isn’t the end. If Clone Failure was such a thing, I imagine it would be far less commonplace then DCD, but one of those looming possibilities.

I am just looking at this from another point of view and appreciate the input.

THIS IS ALSO NOT IN THE IDEA THREAD OR SOMETHING BEING SUGGESTED AS AN IDEA JUST SIMPLE POLITE DISCUSSION!

So nobody freak out!

If you re-read my post, I think I make the same point you did just reworded.

Bear with me on this one. The Code (despite the gripes I know we both have, so please God, lets not get into the semantics on that) was implemented to diminish the amount of cloning out while also increasing the amount of combat and I can say that despite my problems with it, I have seen the effects. I think an implementation like complete clone failure would be a back step to this admittedly good outcome of a controversial system.

"How do we build upon this trend?" is my question. This is a good idea in the right direction, but I say we look at expanding the gulf, not reigning in one side or the other.

Hmm, I thought You were saying that we need to encourage more death-risk taking and lower DCD rates. Maybe I misread, and I’m not discounting that logic either.

I am one of those rare birds that prefers takeout to a home cooked meal, and who even at max UE wouldn’t just let someone kill me or jump into a “you definitely won’t have a shot at living” scenario. That is not to say i was risk averse as most of you probably know.

I just resist. So when people talk about walking up to the guy that wants to murder them to sacrifice the “beef” in exchange for their life it is something I understand but don’t really....get.

Dr. Combatlove or: "How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Learned to Love Dying"

It's a balancing act though. As time goes on in the game, you start to see the biggest picture. Yes, you can play smart and not die as much, but to not only take the losses you do take but to take them and run with them is what separates good and great players.

Sometimes you gotta expect trouble for what you do.

It would promote stagnation and I imagine it would just end up as way more artistry characters and chex drivers who multi into bokkens at a year of UE.

Right now, there might be the trend to be less violent, to be less of a jerk, but that will change again, as well. I would not take it for more than a simple trend, that will inevitably change again.

Hell, I even find calling them "White Knights" quite degatory, as they simply play street sherifs. Some of the faces you see, may not even be the way you may anticipate them to be. Masks are far more easily worn than they should be, even more so on text, than in a world with all senses in use.

Finally, I often see the exact same people discuss and talk, but with how many people I see at times, that would mean that the people discussing, are a minority, that lacks the input from the other half of people, those that do play these types of "White Knights". Now, also consider that fucking with people, is a far higher risk now. Because fucking with the wrong one, because you were a naive idiot to believe all these peaceful people would be everywhere, well, it makes it far more horrifying, far more tense, than when you have it with everywhere and are pretty much completely used to it.

I know there are people who play both or played heavily there that play here who could better say if that was a viable system or not. Not to trashtalk or try to steal an idea or concept from another moo, just looking for an example of success/fail.

The pendulum swing of policy change. In the efforts to enact policy to swing the other way, you'll always go a bit too far.

I will give credit to the point that early starting antags are either naive or ignore the political landscape. The problem lies not in people being "sheriffs", but that so many people will take up the cause of one because they believe they'll be able to take part in combat when they have the clear advantage of six "white knights" on one antag.

Personally, I'd ask the GMs to find these circles and start breaking them up. Create conflict between the circles forming so they can take what's already there and turn it inward.

I don't think the clone failure system was a chief issue, nah. What HolyChrome said.

Maybe not perm-death you, but vat you as the opposite gender :D

The only way I see clone failure working is, rather than outright perming your character with a shit roll you can't control or manage with stats, it gives you effects akin to a corpse clone.

Also, the foreseeable concept of multiple clone maps being added to avoid the concept of perming with rich characters, which would have its own IC problems when it comes to cockroach characters.

You asked...

However, is there really a solution for combat-averse people?

That question was almost the opposite of your original post which was (paraphrased) "How do we make people take death more seriously."

Are you looking for examples on how to make people take death more seriously? Or are you looking for ways to encourage combat-adverse people to be less adverse?

If it's the former, I don't know the answer. I do understand the problem. I have seen first hand gangers getting beat to the edge of death, passing out from the pain, then waking back up and continuing to talk smack, only to get beat down again, wake up again and continue the process. It was STUPID. The player obviously had zero fear for their character.

The only thought that I have on how to make people take being beat nearly to death seriously is to take characters away from players who don't take it seriously. Staff can give them one or two OOC warnings to remain IC. But if the third time comes around and they're still short selling it, just take the character away and make them re-roll. This is a pretty extreme "solution", but it conveys the seriousness of it. If a player is going to act stupid / unbelievable ICly because they do not have any OOC concern for their character (eg the "Code" protects my character), then there should be an OOC response to it. My two cents.

What I really wanted to talk about is "combat aversion" and why that is something that needs to be "fixed".

My character is combat adverse. He is not a "combat" character. He is trying to play a supporting role. I am one of those people who is here for the roleplaying. I am not here to win. Or to create a big, powerful character who can curb stomp anyone they come across.

The way I see it, the ability to play a non-combat centric character is a good thing. It is a testament to the size of the player base and the stability of the MOO that it can support non-combat characters. Those characters expand the world and give it additional depth and complexity. Those characters have their own needs and wants that they will have to work with, and likely against, others to achieve.

I think what I am trying to say here is that player base is large enough at this point that there is plenty of combat and PVP, stat based conflict to be found. There are enough players here engaging in those kinds of activities, that a dozen or so people playing non-combat, or "combat-adverse" characters is not going to be detrimental to players who want to log on and have people to fight with.

The fear of loss is real. Since you brought it up, and now that I've thought about it for a second, that is EXACTLY the reason that I don't want anything to do with combat. I weigh the time it takes me to earn something, and the time it takes me to replace something, against the benefit of risking it and losing it.

Every single time I've done that math, it doesn't add up. I am probably not "playing the game right" because I have yet to find a match up where I am going to make more than the cost of the gear. Or even make half as much as it costs. I don't mean to imply that I am literally sitting here with a spreadsheet and breaking it down like that. That's just the essence of my mental math on the subject.

So one of my strategies here is to support other characters who are out doing Bad Things in exchange for a part of the profit. It's the old strategy of reducing risk by spreading it across multiple parties.

A suggestion to make people less hesitant to fight, and this is probably already a thing, is for groups, gangs, syndicates or whatever to have "backup gear" available. A depot. A stockpile. A cache. Whatever you want to call it.

Members of the group should know that if they take a vat nap, they have something to come back to. It's another variety of the same risk mitigating strategy above. Spread the risk across the entire group, and provide a safety net for when individual members "lose" a conflict.

One final point on combat aversion is that there is the very real fear of the domino effect. Let's say Character A has enemies B, C & D. C & D might not be strong enough to beat A. But Character B can beat A. So A challenges B and loses. Not only has A lost to B, but now C & D are also in a position to settle some scores that they previously couldn't.

'Take more risks!' Oh except you lost your multiyear character because someone decided to roll the dice and sonic you on Gold. Offer to take up a special assignment for the weekend? Better kiss your partner goodbye for possibly the last time.

This basically reads to me as: 'Perming is too hard'. Yeah, because most people wouldn't play at all if permadeath was more common.

It’s just a simple discussion in theory in response to some things that have been commonplace in the game for awhile. I remember a very cleverly crafted rumor that was spread by pc’s that if you die in a certain part of the game you permed even with a clone because of reasons. People believed it and still did their thing there.

I’m not really saying it would be better or worse. Just exploring the concept for some ideas for other things. Thanks for your response :D

You've managed to summarise my characters exact situation and with it some of the reasons they might not engage directly in conflict. My character is combat-adverse, not conflict adverse. All too often despite my best efforts and intentions this does work out one and the same as working through minions limits how directly one can engage in conflict rp.