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!
Options
Objective Based Death Penalty
Tyrantor
Member
I'm a little confused as to why there will be no death penalty during the objective based PvP (Guild wars, Sieges, Caravan). Shouldn't there be some sort of repair costs and/or reduced exp debt associated with these at a minimum (If not Combatant level death penalties)? On the surface it seems like Caravan attacks would have no risk associated with them outside of political fallout. If the guild wars don't have substantial guild wide reward/risk it seems to me that just killing the enemy guild in the hunting grounds would be more punishing on them. The sieges with no death penalty just rewards higher risk strategy and play for example just sending your melee to bash the wall/door within range of the enemy because well death doesn't cost you anything and it's free damage on the wall/structure.
No death penalty rewards mindless play not participation.
No death penalty rewards mindless play not participation.
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
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
1
Comments
Corruption is a good consequence for the slaying of 'innocents' ...but I would still expect (and want) other consequences for sanctioned PvP events, or just dying in Verra, in general.
Steven Sharif is my James Halliday (Anorak)
“That is not dead which can eternal lie,
And with strange aeons even death may die.”
-HPL
I get Intrepid's reasoning, but they definitely need to do something to balance it. No death penalties promotes more zerg tactics of just throwing bodies at objectives, too strict of death penalties and people do anything they can to avoid Pvp. I definitely think the latter is more detrimental to the game.
They need to just embrace open world pvp and treat their Pvp systems that take place out in the world as world pvp and balance the penalties accordingly.... but that's just my opinion.
We are recruiting PvPers!
That’s rich coming from you.
Hey I know more than most
How meaningful is the decision to attack a caravan you come across, if there is no negative to deciding to attack?
Having no death penalty on guild wars only increases my existing opinion that if you are actually wanting to hurt/disrupt/annoy a rival guild rather than have a mutually agreed upon matchup, then you are better off not using the guild war system at all - it is a tool for friendly competition, not to facilitate an actual rivalry.
Sieges I am a lot less surprised about.
But my understanding is that attacking a caravan just involves getting within proximity of it and agreeing to join the attacking side. So without a death penalty, I see no downside to attacking it ever.
One thing, though, that I think might help (and I'm not sure what the facts are on this subject)... If you are in a PvP fight with an objective and you die, can you return to it? If you are attacking a caravan, or in a siege, or whatever, and dying means you can no longer participate, that does give something of a "sting" to it. That still does nothing to alleviate the concern that there is no downside to attacking a caravan, but at least dying "matters" in the sense that the death will have the pain of failure associated with it.
All the decisions are giving incentives to engage in PvP during the themed pvp events and not to engage in random open world murder antics.
Intrepid could have just not made open world PVP an option and only had PvP during the events. Instead, they are putting in checks and balances to ensure people who want to PvP have PvP to do, and people who don't want to PvP aren't getting killed left and right.
Also there is no need to scare off attackers with death penalties.
Defending I would understand.
There should be a penalty for the attacking side though.
Without it,the only thing lost is the time taken. Remember, these aspects of PvP are supposed to be the most important in the game.
Arguing that there shouldn't be a penalty for death here kind of undermines any argument made in relation to risk vs reward in any aspect of the game.
Arguing that it will get more people involved is also a poor argument - as if you believe this argument you should also be arguing for more instanced raid content, as that will get more people in to raiding.
Or you could say that this is different and that PvP should be encouraged more than PvE, in which case you are saying that PvP players are soft and need coddling.
All up, I just don't get how you could make this argument
If you're trying to defend your node/caravan/pretty flower/etc, and the other team beats you back, your choices in a Death Penalty system are either to give up or to carry on as an even weaker underdog. At least if there was no death penalty, you'd have a fairer shout at turning the tide. I imagine that's what they're going for.
more and more people wont bother with attacking a caravan for resoyrces or gold.
More and more guilds wont bother with attacking a castle defended by top guilds.
More and more guilds wont bother with wars.
More and more players wont bother to atk a node.
Do you know why?
Because adding death penalties to all these situations will get you so much xp debt that you will never progress.
Might as well remove PvP from the game and just leave BGs.
There wont be death penalties for PvP events. End of story.
I still like the idea of not being able to return to a PvP objective if you die, or perhaps you are locked out for a certain amount of time. That will hinder the "zerging" that people are worried about.
Or it makes it harder to stop a zerg that has killed you?
Translate that to open world raiding, and then argue why instanced raiding shouldn't be the norm.
With open world raiding over instanced, more and more people wont bother participating.
This is the exact same argument you are making.
It’s not a penalty for attacking, it’s the standard combatant death penalty. It others what should be open world PvP events and instead creates instanced PvP content when we were promised meaningful open world objective based PvP. It can’t honestly be considered “open world” PvP when it functions unlike any other place in the open world.
It already functioned differently, given that there's no PvP Flagging system at a caravan/siege/etc.
In my opinion, this is more than enough of a drop in potential penalties.
If not resurrected by another player, how far away is the respawn point?
In short : how long are you out of the fight?
How much mana a resurrection spell takes away from a healer? How fast is that mana cost can be regain?
In short : how much resources is wasted on your death that can't be use to keep someone else alive?
How many times the people on the front line are expected to die vs the ranged types at the back?
In short : how fair/balanced are individual death penalties in a collective effort?
What I'm trying to say is that even if there is no death penalty it doesn't mean that dying is not a big detriment to the attack or defence. Your death can have a cascading effect that leads to a global defeat, which should always be greater than an individual temporary penalty.
Not having an increasing penalty for multiple deaths mostly means the event can last longer, or closer to its full time window.
In other words, no penalty.
Several minutes of travel is not a penalty.
The only way this could be considered as such is if you are unable to rejoin the fight once killed.
It barely functions differently as in most cases everyone involved in contention over sieges and caravans would be combatants anyway by virtue of them attacking an defending from attackers.
Sieges are instanced regardless and aren’t open world PvP, and require resource investments to declare a siege that are lost whether attackers succeed or fail, so I can accept a lack of death penalties given the cost to initiate.
But for caravans? There’s no cost to attack at all. You don’t risk corruption, and now you don’t risk any penalties if you fail, not even a tiny repair bill or any exp debt? It goes against their risk-reward philosophy that they’ve been professing to have.
And like noaani said, if PvP events are being made instanced and riskless to encourage participation, why wouldn’t instanced, riskless PvE be next? Surely people would be more willing to PvE knowing they’d never be at risk of PvPers.
Asking for the same death penalties, in situations where death is a high propability, as in situations (flagging) where death is a much loeer possibility is a petty request, without any actual, meaningful reason.
We might as well add death penalties in INSTANCED battlegrounds and dungeons. Why not?
Is one thing to wonder how come there wont be death penalties in pvp events. It's another thing to demand it without a good reason when you have been given explenations as to why not.
Again, the same arguments can be made for instancing and removing the penalties of PvE deaths in raids, since it’s content where death is also expected.
Removing consequences for failure diminishes the significance of success. That’s a very basic statement. Coming from the “participation award bad” crowd, this sudden attachment to risk-free PvP is almost funny.