Reset Password
Existing players used to logging in with their character name and moo password must signup for a website account.
- BelladonnaRP 2m
- SoftAndWet 1m
- Byte 8m
- Baphomei 2m
- Wonderland 35s
- zxq 11s
j Fengshui 6m
- SacredWest 33m
- Tpritchett 25s
- RedProtokoll 28m
- Diamond 9m Back again
- Yvonne 4h
And 17 more hiding and/or disguised
Connect to Sindome @ or just Play Now

Clone Failure
Is it viable?

I know clone failure has been kicked around in idle discussions and even on some archived threads, but I have noticed throughout the years in the game itself, as well as in the forums, a great number of people do not fear death due to the clone culture.

Understandable. It’s only natural. However, I believe that with a looming element of clone failure, people would be more apt to not make deals with their pals to collect their CnC bounty, or carelessly through themselves into perilous situations. Really consider death to be the powerful force that it is.

Yes, I know. We have DCD. It’s a bitch, but if you are that elite wealth bucket, it’s not that big of a deal (and maybe it shouldn’t be given your status)

So, this is more of a question of would clone failure be viable in Sindome?

Would a cloning facility in the mix that has a notoriously high failure rate, but cheaper fee, detract from the forced collision of worlds that is supposed to take place at the reliable and normal facility topside?

Would Uber solos be more meticulous in their planning and Feel a little more rush or fear with knowing that should they get killed, this might be their ticket being punched (barring corpse clone)?

There are just a lot of interesting questions for ideas I thought would be neat to discuss. Thanks.

I could see it. But it would make certain characters a lot less cool or fun. For example, from the stories I hear and the mix legends of Old, some of the badasses wouldn't have happened. Seven had an absolutely mad amount of clones, and it would have been likely one of those would fail and that character would be no more.

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.

I think from a gameplay perspective, the fact that cloning is a reliable safety net encourages risk-taking. If cloning was less certain I know I would be a lot less eager to put my character in danger and that would mean that there would be less action happening overall.

Some players' attitude toward death is a little silly but at least they're out there making stuff happen.

My question to you would be do you think there's already combat aversion in game?

From what I've seen, the ratio of victims to villains is far greater than it used to be.

I think people are more likely to "rollover" and make those sort of deals because they're conflict averse to begin with. Do you think it would help or harm the (what I perceive as) prevalent disinterest in situations where they might die at all?

It's something I've been thinking about a lot for a while, and I don't have answers, but this could definitely be a solution... or it could create even more fear in players not wanting to get involved in violent delights with violent ends.

Maybe if you can re-earn your UE and spend them again if you're capped out then that wouldn't be a big deal.
Seir, I was there. Many of these characters that lasted so long can partially be attributed to a smaller playerbase and other factors. Many things we did back then would not be allowed in today’s Sindome, so I don’t really consider the past “legends” to be that viable. My character probably died almost as much and would have been on the same disadvantage.

Maybe clone failure would have eliminated us quicker at the cost of rp and antics.

Maybe not.


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

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

I'm not a fan of this idea at all, sorry to say. I feel like random perming would diminish interest in taking any risks at all, or even drive risk averse people from the game because they wouldn't want to invest time only to die via RNG.

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


This is not an idea.

Ya that's the problem with DCD, if you have bottomless loot, you don't care. If you don't, it might as well be a clone fail.
yeah nah, id rather not perm because lol rng

this'll just make people get shit done less, imo.

@XXXXXX Maybe that's the problem.

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

Incentivizing combat. Just getting people involved with it to begin with.

It's really just like convincing someone to get on a rollercoaster. Most of the people with no interest have never ridden one, or done so unwillingly. But if you let loose and stop worrying, you enjoy it far more.

Teaching players that a single death is not the end is the way to go in my opinion and creating even more threats from death isn't.

As far as making deals with bounties, the GMs are quick to reap the karma from those situations. While the players might think they're being smart from a PC perspective, what they're doing is diminishing conflict from an OOC mindset.

We should remind players that people who seek out conflict and die are rewarded more for their efforts than the people who do everything to avoid it. Not punish people for UE comparisons, bad luck, and the results of that conflict seeking RP.


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.


So nobody freak out!

I'm with HolyChrome here. DCD is more an opportunity for RP and a reminder that dying matters than a punishment for doing it. Unless you're playing suicidally it's not that hard of a situation to get out of.

Losing years of RP on a die roll is =(

This topic horrifies you Stiza!

Just kidding man.

I am also not saying that DCD is not effect or interesting or an RP opportunity either, if that makes sense.
It does horrify me

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.

When I left back in December the popular thing to do was necksnap, get loot, ditch body. Things were super competitive especially at the top end and conflicts frequently resulted in corpses.

People are still dying but now it seems like everyone's a little more willing to stop short of a murder and idk if that's just a perspective thing or if there's been a shift in the RP culture around conflict but I like it. Pulling a lethal weapon on someone feels like a weightier decision now.


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.

Mix is too soft to implement clone failure so people that actually do shit just perm out and mix continues to remain soft

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.

As poorly worded as what Stiza just said was, I agree.

There aren't enough street muggers and weird crazy fucks that this would make sense.

The people that do throw a pipe bomb in your bar and light a smoke would just perm constantly.

The street muggers that aren't really fluidly around would get stomped on even further too when it goes way south.

The people actually down to do crimes in withmore would perm out way super fast when it's already incredibly stupid hard to have fun and get good RP doing that outside of a gang, where, already, you won't die and can't kill.

Well Seir, to that I can only say that while I agree to a point, imagine how many people, ambient and pc/npc, are gonna wanna beat the brakes off of the person who threw a pipe bomb into their titty dance.

Sometimes you gotta expect trouble for what you do.


That's a mix of elements there.

I lay fault on the crazies causing shit every day without room to breathe, recuperate, and build up savings to go at it again as much as I do the white-knight swarms who will grab the pitchforks to take down the horrible villain plaguing the... crime ridden slum sector.

Again, balance.

Oh absolutely. It should be that way. But it's not happening already. Imagine if there was another looming "Fuck you" past an already likely absolute destruction from the bartender.

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.

Exactly. I say we find ways within the system already to help the antags learn to pump the brakes as much as hindering the big groups of moral crusaders in the Mix. Not adding another threat to the people who do take conflict risk.
Chrome, I agree. It shouldn't have to be that way. But honestly there is no middle ground. You fuck shit up and die repeatedly from everyone ever because you're a bad guy in what's supposed to be a bad place, or you sit in a bar and juice UE to go fuck up the meanie again.
Yeah. Agreed.
Limit combat to three combat rolls a day per person

"Okay boys this is a one hit spar, no foul plays."
To borrow from my own experience again I've done some tremendously violent things and every time I died it felt like a huge loss. I don't know if other players saw that second bit or if they felt like I was just being OOC and ignoring consequences. A big part of building rep is downplaying your losses for the public even if privately they're terrible.
There is a middle ground though.

There are successful antags and have been in the past.

It's a cultural change, and those don't happen overnight.

Learn to space out pissing off the angry moral mobs as well as finding ways to fuck them over for doing so.

Things usually move and turn like the waves in the water.

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 use white knights kinda derogatorily on purpose, yeah. Because it's exhausting and I dislike the idea of it incredibly.
Another point of discussion, is that I THINK this has been formulated successfully in another CP moo. I briefly played Cybersphere and believe, but never experienced, the clone failure being a thing. I have very limited knowledge about that game.

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.

It's funny you say that. CS is the most stagnant and really risk-free RP-less game in comparison. Like clone fails. Great mechanics, trash for roleplaying.

It's really sad too because that game has some absolutely bad ass gang history.


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.


Do you think that clone failure plays a big role in that perception?

I did really like a lot of the mechanics but could hardly find other people.

Not really, probably. But the game is dead as a motherfucker. It's sad. I wish I found it like a decade ago because there's some wicked cool lore that was there once upon a time.

There's more fundamental issues with that game than just clone failure that would take an essay to write and I can't be bothered.

Yeah it was amazing 10-12 years ago. Interesting matrix features.

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


Yeah, I can imagine. I’m only interested in the clone failure aspect though, heh.

The game has fundamental issues and is not a good base to compare RP features to, is really all I meant.

Clone failure there is functionally weak compared to DCD or your own proposed version.

You take a singular big stat hit with no cap on their UE analogy, take a disadvantage, or maybe your skin turns a wonky color like orange that can be fixed at a booth every time you clone for the equivalent of 500c. Oh, and you might get fire breath.

Well then. Not what I had in mind at all.

You can also just lose all your limbs and die on the floor outside the vat.

It definitely can be the classical clone fail.

one thing that was suggested in OOC-Chat was that Deckers could mess with your clone file.

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

"Oh nooooo, I got a sex change. How hooooorrible."

So it is true! Larri's NOT a Mano! Q just fucked with her clone file!

Imagine cloning out and being so discombobulated from the cloning process.

You walk past a mirror and wonder who that ugly dude with the hair lip is.

You cry in horror as a good deal of your diamondweave bras are now useless.

I thought it was funny.

I think variations in sleeves (Stats not skills,@nakeds, desc) and possible name swaps/changes resulting from them would be far more interesting. Deckers being able to fuck with this sounds legendary.
I was actually about to bring up that deckers should be given the ability to mess with clone data when Grid 3 is released. If they're able to delete clone data then the holder of that clone could receive a notification via SIC that something is wrong, preferably right before being taken out by the squad of ferrymen waiting outside their door. If this were ever to be a thing the decker should face the risk of perma-death on their end too though, if they fail.

Alternatively deckers could be limited to being able to screw with clone data to the point where if the victim is killed they were certainly, 100% clone out with DCD that requires more treatments to cure that it usually would.

I think putting stuff like this in the hands of appropriately skilled characters would generate more RP than the chance of randomly perming out because someone hid your body when they got you and you ended up with a bad roll in the vat.

All I can imagine is some poor newbie cloning out for the second time and getting 'your clone failed' and being sent back to chargen. While with DCD, you CAN get it stupid early, but it also can be fixed even that early on. It's just not a good time..

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.

@deaddragon: Boothing because I accidentally chose my badass solo clone map when I needed my decker clone map.



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.

I do not disagree hek, I think that was more of a question about combat-leaning character types being risk adverse because they finally have their big shiney gun but don’t wish to use it.

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.

I could tell you about what you are saying but it is IC. Higher end people (such as syndicate) have no reason to be risk averse. Winky face.
The amount of chilling effects in game are profound, and half the player base is already cowed by them -- you think random perms out of nowhere will make things better?

'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.

Pranking someone's clone data seems like a fun plot idea if the target really had it coming. I can imagine a lot of nasty repercussions too.

If it was a random chance or something you could do any time, people would never stop doing it and it would get old (see: car theft).


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

This has been an interesting read and the topic seems to have diversified from the OP topic "how do we avoid people treating death as a mere inconvenience" to "how do we encourage appropriate risk taking", arguably the two topics are two sides of the same coin so it makes sense. Perhaps the second topic should be in its own thread however?

Ultimately my conclusion on the OP topic is that the clone system should be left as is. Random clone failure would be an unsatisfactory ending for not just the character who permed in the incident, but every character invested in that characters story. I'm also against direct intervention in the cloning process given we are all here to experience a story and simply "deleting a characters clone file" prior to killing them the first time has the potential to cut that story arbitrarily short.


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.