Greetings, glorious adventurers! If you're joining in our Alpha One spot testing, please follow the steps here to see all the latest test info on our forums and Discord!

Death penalties during PVP events

Hi Guys, do you know will there be any death penalties during castle sieges, caravan pvp, guild wars etc etc?

I understand, that during these events, you wont suffer corruption penalties for killing other players, but what about when dying? I personally think, there still should be some exp penalty.

What do you think?
«1

Comments

  • last information was that PvE and PvP Deaths will have the same penalties.

    This is subject to change in Alpha though
  • Warth wrote: »
    last information was that PvE and PvP Deaths will have the same penalties.

    This is subject to change in Alpha though

    That's interesting, kind of defeats the purpose of accepting guild war then. I think penalties in pvp events and guild wars should be slightly lower than normal pve death or just open world pvp...
  • I'm fairly certain they said or it may even say on the wiki that siege/arena deaths will not have the same death penalties or any. I'm not sure about the caravan or guild wars however. I asked about the guild war death penalties on this weeks Q&A maybe they'll pick it... lol
    Tyrantor
    Master Assassin
    (Yes same Tyrantor from Shadowbane)
    Book suggestions:
    Galaxy Outlaws books 1-16.5, Metagamer Chronicles, The Land litrpg series, Ready Player One, Zen in the Martial Arts
  • Deaths in sieges/node wards or pretty much planned PVP events will not have death penalties I believe. In the open world the death penalty is the same for PVE and PVP unless you fight back and try to defend yourself in PVP then its cut in half I think.
  • I think I would favor no death penalties in the opt in pvp content. I think that would encourage more people to participate.
    SIG.png
    We are recruiting PvPers!
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack
    I would still like to see some death penalties in PvP events.

    I personally think the fact that corruption is disabled and all players are treated as combatants (which halves the death penalties) is enough.

    If there are to be any gains made from these PvP events, there also needs to be the ability to lose something, and the games death penalty is the only way there is to facilitate that. This simple fact of risk vs reward should always trump the need to get more people participating - and I am sure that anyone in this discussion that has argued risk vs reward in a PvE setting has no option other than to agree.
  • Noaani wrote: »
    I would still like to see some death penalties in PvP events.

    I personally think the fact that corruption is disabled and all players are treated as combatants (which halves the death penalties) is enough.

    If there are to be any gains made from these PvP events, there also needs to be the ability to lose something, and the games death penalty is the only way there is to facilitate that. This simple fact of risk vs reward should always trump the need to get more people participating - and I am sure that anyone in this discussion that has argued risk vs reward in a PvE setting has no option other than to agree.

    probably first time i can agree with you.
  • BricktopBricktop Member
    edited September 2020
    Noaani wrote: »
    I would still like to see some death penalties in PvP events.

    I personally think the fact that corruption is disabled and all players are treated as combatants (which halves the death penalties) is enough.

    If there are to be any gains made from these PvP events, there also needs to be the ability to lose something, and the games death penalty is the only way there is to facilitate that. This simple fact of risk vs reward should always trump the need to get more people participating - and I am sure that anyone in this discussion that has argued risk vs reward in a PvE setting has no option other than to agree.

    I don't think you will find any of the people who typically debate with you disagreeing. I don't want to see any risk cut out of the game whatsoever. Obviously I want to see as many systems in place to encourage as much PvP as possible. I really liked @Xyls idea in the war thread of having a tax that a losing guild needs to pay after a war.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack
    Bricktop wrote: »
    I don't think you will find any of the people who typically debate with you disagreeing. I don't want to see any risk cut out of the game whatsoever. Obviously I want to see as many systems in place to encourage as much PvP as possible. I really liked @Xyls idea in the war thread of having a tax that a losing guild needs to pay after a war.
    I'm not the biggest fan of the idea, I've yet to play a game where coin loss was that big of a deal to a guild.

    I'm similar to you in wanting to encourage as much PvP as possible, but my theory for the best way to make that happen is for the game to successfully appeal to as many people as possible, and placing them in to positions where they want to PvP, rather than making a game with limited appeal where PvP is likely all the time.

    When you consider how few instances (pun intended) of not having any threat of PvP are needed to keep a significantly larger portion of people in a game, to me, that is well worth the trade off for the additional PvP those people will bring.
  • Bricktop wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    I would still like to see some death penalties in PvP events.

    I personally think the fact that corruption is disabled and all players are treated as combatants (which halves the death penalties) is enough.

    If there are to be any gains made from these PvP events, there also needs to be the ability to lose something, and the games death penalty is the only way there is to facilitate that. This simple fact of risk vs reward should always trump the need to get more people participating - and I am sure that anyone in this discussion that has argued risk vs reward in a PvE setting has no option other than to agree.

    I don't think you will find any of the people who typically debate with you disagreeing. I don't want to see any risk cut out of the game whatsoever. Obviously I want to see as many systems in place to encourage as much PvP as possible. I really liked @Xyls idea in the war thread of having a tax that a losing guild needs to pay after a war.

    Eghm, was my idea actually :D
  • Noaani wrote: »
    Bricktop wrote: »
    I don't think you will find any of the people who typically debate with you disagreeing. I don't want to see any risk cut out of the game whatsoever. Obviously I want to see as many systems in place to encourage as much PvP as possible. I really liked @Xyls idea in the war thread of having a tax that a losing guild needs to pay after a war.
    I'm not the biggest fan of the idea, I've yet to play a game where coin loss was that big of a deal to a guild.

    I'm similar to you in wanting to encourage as much PvP as possible, but my theory for the best way to make that happen is for the game to successfully appeal to as many people as possible, and placing them in to positions where they want to PvP, rather than making a game with limited appeal where PvP is likely all the time.

    When you consider how few instances (pun intended) of not having any threat of PvP are needed to keep a significantly larger portion of people in a game, to me, that is well worth the trade off for the additional PvP those people will bring.

    Maybe something around oh I don't know just a number off the top of my head....20% instances?

    How many times do we have to beat this to death. This horse simply has nothing left to give.
  • Mojottv wrote: »
    Bricktop wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    I would still like to see some death penalties in PvP events.

    I personally think the fact that corruption is disabled and all players are treated as combatants (which halves the death penalties) is enough.

    If there are to be any gains made from these PvP events, there also needs to be the ability to lose something, and the games death penalty is the only way there is to facilitate that. This simple fact of risk vs reward should always trump the need to get more people participating - and I am sure that anyone in this discussion that has argued risk vs reward in a PvE setting has no option other than to agree.

    I don't think you will find any of the people who typically debate with you disagreeing. I don't want to see any risk cut out of the game whatsoever. Obviously I want to see as many systems in place to encourage as much PvP as possible. I really liked @Xyls idea in the war thread of having a tax that a losing guild needs to pay after a war.

    Eghm, was my idea actually :D

    Hey don't claim credit on my ideas. I made it, you just approved upon it. B)
    SIG.png
    We are recruiting PvPers!
  • Noaani wrote: »
    I would still like to see some death penalties in PvP events.

    I personally think the fact that corruption is disabled and all players are treated as combatants (which halves the death penalties) is enough.

    If there are to be any gains made from these PvP events, there also needs to be the ability to lose something, and the games death penalty is the only way there is to facilitate that. This simple fact of risk vs reward should always trump the need to get more people participating - and I am sure that anyone in this discussion that has argued risk vs reward in a PvE setting has no option other than to agree.

    Some death penalties are fine, but not the same as in the flagging/corruption sytem. You are going to die a lot more during pvp events then you are in the open world... even open world pve content.
    SIG.png
    We are recruiting PvPers!
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack
    Xyls wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    I would still like to see some death penalties in PvP events.

    I personally think the fact that corruption is disabled and all players are treated as combatants (which halves the death penalties) is enough.

    If there are to be any gains made from these PvP events, there also needs to be the ability to lose something, and the games death penalty is the only way there is to facilitate that. This simple fact of risk vs reward should always trump the need to get more people participating - and I am sure that anyone in this discussion that has argued risk vs reward in a PvE setting has no option other than to agree.

    Some death penalties are fine, but not the same as in the flagging/corruption sytem. You are going to die a lot more during pvp events then you are in the open world... even open world pve content.

    The corruption system is already disabled in the events being discussed here.

    That leaves the only death penalties as experience debt (which includes reductions in health, mana, stats, skills, proficiencies and mob drop rates), and gear degridation.

    Since these events also see players flagged as combatants, the above penalties are already applied at half the normal rate.

    This is already too low a penalty for death in such events, as far as I am concerned.
  • Xyls wrote: »
    I think I would favor no death penalties in the opt in pvp content. I think that would encourage more people to participate.

    I can't quite agree with this.
    The risk/reward system should be a part throughout.
    If you want that castle ownership, then you should be ready to risk your gear durability/ exp to get it.
    If you want to destroy someones Node, then you shlould risk it as well.

    Your suggestion would just support suicide monkey playstyles. "You die? Who cares, wait 30 seconds and join back into the fight". This just promotes idiotic patterns in a mass pvp scenario.
    A death should sting, no matter where it happens. Avoiding it should be a secondary objective in every type of content.

    No death penalties make mass pvp simply worse.
  • Warth wrote: »
    Xyls wrote: »
    I think I would favor no death penalties in the opt in pvp content. I think that would encourage more people to participate.

    I can't quite agree with this.
    The risk/reward system should be a part throughout.
    If you want that castle ownership, then you should be ready to risk your gear durability/ exp to get it.
    If you want to destroy someones Node, then you shlould risk it as well.

    Your suggestion would just support suicide monkey playstyles. "You die? Who cares, wait 30 seconds and join back into the fight". This just promotes idiotic patterns in a mass pvp scenario.
    A death should sting, no matter where it happens. Avoiding it should be a secondary objective in every type of content.

    No death penalties make mass pvp simply worse.

    Not in my experience. If you go into a castle siege that is going to last hours, you are going to die quite a lot. You will die more in that 2 hour siege then you would probably in an entire week just running around the open world.

    I am fine with some penalties during PvP content, gear durability could definitely be one. I think exp loss, even at 50%, is too much for PvP content where you are auto flagged.

    With all that said, having the full death penalties is fine with me as well. This is a minor topic to me when it comes to the overall AoC game.
    SIG.png
    We are recruiting PvPers!
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack
    Xyls wrote: »
    exp loss
    The penalty is not experience loss, it is experience debt.

    These are drastically different things.
  • Noaani wrote: »
    Xyls wrote: »
    exp loss
    The penalty is not experience loss, it is experience debt.

    These are drastically different things.

    Should have said debt but they aren't drastically different. Debt is just a slower, gradual decline of your character's ability to function. Whether it causes your character to delevel or not (AoC won't allow you to delevel), your character gets weaker.
    SIG.png
    We are recruiting PvPers!
  • Well, the way i understand exp dept is that its bqsically the same as loosing exp, as in order to progress ur character you will need to een dept amount of exp and only then you actually earn exp to lvl ur char.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack
    Mojottv wrote: »
    Well, the way i understand exp dept is that its bqsically the same as loosing exp, as in order to progress ur character you will need to een dept amount of exp and only then you actually earn exp to lvl ur char.

    The key factor between experience debt and experience loss is that experience loss only has a penalty associated with it if you lose a level.

    Experience debt allows the developer to place a penalty on the character as long as they have that debt owing.

    In Ashes, As xlys said, you will not be deleveled due to experience debt. As such, experience debt is a significantly lesser penalty than experience loss (ask anyone that found themselves in a bad situation in EQ and lost 5+ levels in a day).

    However, the other side of this coin is that the full penalty will be applied immediately when you go in to debt, rather than only applying if you lose a level.

    In both cases, the need to re-earn the experience holds true, but in regards to experience debt that is almost a complete non-factor. The only time you won't make that debt back up is on top end content where you spend several dozen deaths figuring it out, and then get a single boss kill for your efforts - or in a PvP situation where you are losing badly.

    All other situations will see you either wipe your debt before finishing, or coming very close to it.
  • KneczhevoKneczhevo Member
    edited September 2020
    Experience loss, means it's gone, and you can delevel. Leaving you naked, if you don't meet the requirements to wear your gear or use your abilities.

    Experience debt, does not do this. You retain all your abilities and gear, they are just diminished (effectiveness), until you work off the debt.

    I don't see Death Debt being a huge issue, especially for PvP. Dying and loss is a huge issue for the player base.

    If a player is capped (in level and exp), and dies so much, they "delevel" (effectiveness), they really need to reconcider their play style. Besides, it works in favor for attrition.

    Question is: what is the debt like? 10 deaths or 100, before losing your effectiveness?
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack
    Kneczhevo wrote: »
    Question is: what is the debt like? 10 deaths or 100, before losing your effectiveness?
    To me, the question is - does being in greater debt even increase the effectiveness?

    If you die, you gain experience debt of, say, 1,000 xp. You have a flat 10% penalty to stats, skills etc, along with the other penalties of death.

    You then go off hunting mobs that give you 10xp per kill, and kill 26 of them before you die again. So, at the point you die, you have worked off 260 of your xp debt, leaving 740 left.

    When you die, rather than that penalty now being 20% to stats and skills etc, the penalty is still 10%, but the debt you have to work off to get rid of it is now 1740 xp.

    This is how I understand the system to work - so that the actual penalty is the same no matter the number of deaths. You lose the same level of effectiveness with one death as with 100, the difference is in how hard it is to work off.

    Now, we don't know this is how it will actually work, but this is one of the major advantages of experience debt as opposed to expereince loss (the penalty being consistent regardless of number of deaths, but increasing deaths taking longer to clear off than fewer). It would be really odd for it to work any other way, imo.
  • Balrog21Balrog21 Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    There are no death penalties during pvp events. Steven has said this on many occasions and interviews.
  • Noaani wrote: »
    I would still like to see some death penalties in PvP events.

    I personally think the fact that corruption is disabled and all players are treated as combatants (which halves the death penalties) is enough.

    If there are to be any gains made from these PvP events, there also needs to be the ability to lose something, and the games death penalty is the only way there is to facilitate that. This simple fact of risk vs reward should always trump the need to get more people participating - and I am sure that anyone in this discussion that has argued risk vs reward in a PvE setting has no option other than to agree.

    When it comes to sieges, there are things to gain and lose for participants. Your city drops or your city can increase. People with houses can lose stuff
  • insomnia wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    I would still like to see some death penalties in PvP events.

    I personally think the fact that corruption is disabled and all players are treated as combatants (which halves the death penalties) is enough.

    If there are to be any gains made from these PvP events, there also needs to be the ability to lose something, and the games death penalty is the only way there is to facilitate that. This simple fact of risk vs reward should always trump the need to get more people participating - and I am sure that anyone in this discussion that has argued risk vs reward in a PvE setting has no option other than to agree.

    When it comes to sieges, there are things to gain and lose for participants. Your city drops or your city can increase. People with houses can lose stuff

    well, to be honest, what youre talking about doesnt depend to much if the payer is participating or not, and only encourages to participate, as theres actually no risk in participating in sieges. but theres only reward, as if you defend, you wont be looted, if you are attacking you can get loot. Death penalty would be the only risk.

    I think pvp events should have death penalties, maybe lower than normal, but there still should be something.
  • Mojottv wrote: »
    insomnia wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    I would still like to see some death penalties in PvP events.

    I personally think the fact that corruption is disabled and all players are treated as combatants (which halves the death penalties) is enough.

    If there are to be any gains made from these PvP events, there also needs to be the ability to lose something, and the games death penalty is the only way there is to facilitate that. This simple fact of risk vs reward should always trump the need to get more people participating - and I am sure that anyone in this discussion that has argued risk vs reward in a PvE setting has no option other than to agree.

    When it comes to sieges, there are things to gain and lose for participants. Your city drops or your city can increase. People with houses can lose stuff

    well, to be honest, what youre talking about doesnt depend to much if the payer is participating or not, and only encourages to participate, as theres actually no risk in participating in sieges. but theres only reward, as if you defend, you wont be looted, if you are attacking you can get loot. Death penalty would be the only risk.

    I think pvp events should have death penalties, maybe lower than normal, but there still should be something.

    Well, it seems like defenders have stuff to lose but nothing to gain. I don't really see it as a reward. But attackers can loot but not lose anything.

    But if there are penalties for dying, people might end up not being able to do anything doing the siege. Or people won't bother participating
  • insomnia wrote: »
    Mojottv wrote: »
    insomnia wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    I would still like to see some death penalties in PvP events.

    I personally think the fact that corruption is disabled and all players are treated as combatants (which halves the death penalties) is enough.

    If there are to be any gains made from these PvP events, there also needs to be the ability to lose something, and the games death penalty is the only way there is to facilitate that. This simple fact of risk vs reward should always trump the need to get more people participating - and I am sure that anyone in this discussion that has argued risk vs reward in a PvE setting has no option other than to agree.

    When it comes to sieges, there are things to gain and lose for participants. Your city drops or your city can increase. People with houses can lose stuff

    well, to be honest, what youre talking about doesnt depend to much if the payer is participating or not, and only encourages to participate, as theres actually no risk in participating in sieges. but theres only reward, as if you defend, you wont be looted, if you are attacking you can get loot. Death penalty would be the only risk.

    I think pvp events should have death penalties, maybe lower than normal, but there still should be something.

    Well, it seems like defenders have stuff to lose but nothing to gain. I don't really see it as a reward. But attackers can loot but not lose anything.

    But if there are penalties for dying, people might end up not being able to do anything doing the siege. Or people won't bother participating

    well, if theres no pvp death penalties, then defenders have nothing to loose by actually participating in the siege. I mean, if they dont, and they loose, they loose loot, if they do participate and loose, they still lose same loot from warehouse, but if they win, they don't loose anything, so in its own way, they are gaining stuff by not loosing, if you know what i mean.
  • Mojottv wrote: »
    insomnia wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    I would still like to see some death penalties in PvP events.

    I personally think the fact that corruption is disabled and all players are treated as combatants (which halves the death penalties) is enough.

    If there are to be any gains made from these PvP events, there also needs to be the ability to lose something, and the games death penalty is the only way there is to facilitate that. This simple fact of risk vs reward should always trump the need to get more people participating - and I am sure that anyone in this discussion that has argued risk vs reward in a PvE setting has no option other than to agree.

    When it comes to sieges, there are things to gain and lose for participants. Your city drops or your city can increase. People with houses can lose stuff

    well, to be honest, what youre talking about doesnt depend to much if the payer is participating or not, and only encourages to participate, as theres actually no risk in participating in sieges. but theres only reward, as if you defend, you wont be looted, if you are attacking you can get loot. Death penalty would be the only risk.

    I think pvp events should have death penalties, maybe lower than normal, but there still should be something.

    So not saying you're wrong or anything but here is something to think about.

    In a massive siege that lasts hours, If one side gets wiped two or three times in the first while of the siege and they get stat dampening and other death penalties, the siege is ultimately already over at that point because the side that was a little bit weaker to start (but still could have possibly come back to win) is now extremely weaker due to death penalties.
    SIG.png
    We are recruiting PvPers!
  • There should be monetary/mat costs for dying in the siege in addition to some death penalties that are on a relatively short duration. What I mean by this, it should cost people for carelessly dying (Insert your guilds Leroy Jenkins) - then there should be a delay on when you can re-engage in the battle at full strength so if 30 people just got wiped they can just respawn and fight again immediately. There should be a debuff on each character on death for a short duration (+/- how long it would take for a group to heal/mana/stamina up after a fight) - to prevent fights from just going back and forth based on respawning with full stats and rushing back in.
    Tyrantor
    Master Assassin
    (Yes same Tyrantor from Shadowbane)
    Book suggestions:
    Galaxy Outlaws books 1-16.5, Metagamer Chronicles, The Land litrpg series, Ready Player One, Zen in the Martial Arts
  • I don't agree with a cost (mat/gold). This really discourages people from participating, as petty as it may seem. Initial declaration and siege equipment costs, fine. But, that doesn't effect the individual, and I believe that's what we are discussing.

    If there are no penalties to the player, upon death. Then we will have zergs. It's evident in every PvP game (FPS arenas, die respawn, repeat). And wins will all become a matter of stamina (playtime).

    So, the only way to prevent the endless Zerg, you have to implement a death penalty. That way, if a player is so far indebt, s/he quits the match. Slowing the endless Zerg.

    But, death penalties (loss) are not popular and discourages most to join pvp. Carebears don't like dying, reason they avoid pvp. How do you encourage them to join?
Sign In or Register to comment.