Objective Based Death Penalty

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.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Sathrago

I was pretty surprised when he told us this tbh, I always assumed that objective based pvp would have everyone dying with combatant rules.

Lore Dynamic

I really enjoy substantial consequences for death. Like the OP mentioned, death penalties encourage healthy strategic play styles, vs. wanton lemming sacrificial plunges.

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.

Atama

Yeah I’m a bit worried about this too. A robust death penalty was one of the key reasons why this game was offering an old school “feeling” and was a big selling point. I can’t help but think this undermines that somewhat. I’m leaving my pitchfork in the barn and my torch is unlit for now, as I hope to hear some reasoning behind this. It might fit into some other plans they have for objective-based PvP and it might make sense in the bigger picture. But I do worry.

Xyls

They are treating all Pvp systems with a "instanced Pvp" mindset instead of a "world Pvp" mindset. Look at other games that have instanced Pvp, generally they don't have death penalties tied to their instanced Pvp.

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.

Nagash

Yeah it was a surprise, I really want death to mean something in ashes and not just a "please wait to respawn"

Caeryl

That is such a bad decision. Death needs to have penalties at all times or else it’s no longer a deterrent to reckless, stupid play patterns.

Atama

Nagash wrote: »

I really want death to mean something

That’s rich coming from you.

Nagash

Atama wrote: »

Nagash wrote: »

I really want death to mean something

That’s rich coming from you.

Hey I know more than most

Noaani

I can understand there being a lesser death penalty in events like this, but there really does need to be a penalty of some sort.

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.

Atama

I figure with a siege it's not a big deal. A siege is done at a massive expense, and it's less about individual failures as people die, and more about failing to succeed at the siege itself and wasting all of those resources it cost.

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.

Jahlon

The point to having no death penalty during events is you want people to go to the events.

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.

George_Black

Use your brain. Why should there be death penalty for defending your node/castle caravan?
Also there is no need to scare off attackers with death penalties.

Noaani

George Black wrote: »

Use your brain. Why should there be death penalty for defending your node/castle caravan?
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

Elo

There should at least be health/stat/skill dampening for 3 minutes, or something like that, to prevent someone from continually dying and returning to the fight without consequence.

daveywavey

I never liked the death penalty thing. If you're struggling to beat something as it is, you're not going to find it any better with a death penalty stacked on top.

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.

George_Black

If there are penalties for attacking:

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.

Atama

Now that I think of it, there is consistency. When you die flagged in PvP you suffer half the penalty. So Intrepid is staying the course in trying to ease the discomfort of death in PvP. Removing the death penalty will make it even more likely that people will engage in these objectives.

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.

daveywavey

Atama wrote: »

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?

Noaani

George Black wrote: »

If there are penalties for attacking:

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 players wont bother to atk a node.

There wont be death penalties for PvP events. End of story.

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.

Sathrago

My issue with this is that they are basically making instanced pvp "but not really". At this point I wouldn't be surprised if there was a limit on the amount of people that could attack or defend caravans, enter a battleground area, or be in a node that is under siege. If there is no cap on players, then zerging WILL be abused to the fullest extent due to the lack of risk on death. It's a lose lose situation imo. I wanted an open world... And this doesn't seem like it will keep that spirit.

Child Item