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.
So, your argument is that dying has no penalty other than potentially making it harder for your side to win.
In other words, no penalty.
My argument is that "no death penalty" doesn't mean "no consequences."
I thought there was going to be a death penalty in the castle sieges, caravans and the other open world pvp events. I was in a wait and see kind of situation. Personally, the part in death penalty I hate the most is the dying, the penalty doesn't add much for me. Well, until is does, and by then it's too late. It's not part of a risk evaluation: it's a binary response. Either I don't care or I avoid the possibility at all cost. Just a personal thing though.
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.
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.
However, a high possibility of death is not a good reason to lower the death penalty.
Once again, raiding has a high chance of death, you die more often attempting a new high end raid encounter than you do on the most one sided PvP encounters.
Taking the death penalty out of the equation for sieges and such is the same as saying only the defenders are risking anything. This is not a balanced state of risk vs reward.
Open world flagging and penalties applied when you are green purple red are not as often as in participating in an event such as siege or caravan attack or guild wars, where the possibility of constant death are high, as opppsed to random encounters.
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.
There isnt xp debt in instanced raids.
If there is, I have no problem with removing it.
Open world flagging and penalties applied when you are green purple red are not as often as in participating in an event such as siege or caravan attack or guild wars, where the possibility of constant death are high, as opppsed to random encounters.
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.
There isnt xp debt in instanced raids.
If there is, I have no problem with removing it.
There is, and I have the same basic issue with removing it as I do with removing the death penalty from PvP.
Open world flagging and penalties applied when you are green purple red are not as often as in participating in an event such as siege or caravan attack or guild wars, where the possibility of constant death are high, as opppsed to random encounters.
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.
There isnt xp debt in instanced raids.
If there is, I have no problem with removing it.
There is, and I have the same basic issue with removing it as I do with removing the death penalty from PvP.
Failure should have a penalty.
Falso bravado mate. No reasoning.
Nobody will play a game if they are constantly having XP Debt.
Unless you have a game in mind with 0 challenge, that take effort to actually fail abd die.
Open world flagging and penalties applied when you are green purple red are not as often as in participating in an event such as siege or caravan attack or guild wars, where the possibility of constant death are high, as opppsed to random encounters.
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.
There isnt xp debt in instanced raids.
If there is, I have no problem with removing it.
There is, and I have the same basic issue with removing it as I do with removing the death penalty from PvP.
Failure should have a penalty.
Falso bravado mate. No reasoning.
Nobody will play a game if they are constantly having XP Debt.
Unless you have a game in mind with 0 challenge, that take effort to actually fail abd die.
Recent interactions just show me that you do not have any interest in good faith discussion. In a game that has advertised itself as being based on weighing risk vs reward, how does risk-free PvP come from that logic?
Arenas have practically no rewards, so it makes sense there’s no risk to participating.
Sieges have high up-front costs, so while it’s still very iffy for attackers to suffer no penalties at all while in a siege (unless they’re ejected from the siege upon death), it’s not unreasonable.
But caravans now only have two outcomes for attackers: net-neutral, or gain. You never risk anything when attacking a caravan if death penalties are disabled. Defenders can’t take your dropped materials when they successfully defend, or cause exp debt to your group to dissuade you from coming back to attack again after a failed attempt. Does it not seem strange that defenders have only net-neutral or loss as outcome if they get attacked, if this no-risk system remains?
Open world flagging and penalties applied when you are green purple red are not as often as in participating in an event such as siege or caravan attack or guild wars, where the possibility of constant death are high, as opppsed to random encounters.
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.
There isnt xp debt in instanced raids.
If there is, I have no problem with removing it.
There is, and I have the same basic issue with removing it as I do with removing the death penalty from PvP.
Failure should have a penalty.
Falso bravado mate. No reasoning.
Nobody will play a game if they are constantly having XP Debt.
Unless you have a game in mind with 0 challenge, that take effort to actually fail abd die.
Recent interactions just show me that you do not have any interest in good faith discussion. In a game that has advertised itself as being based on weighing risk vs reward, how does risk-free PvP come from that logic?
Arenas have practically no rewards, so it makes sense there’s no risk to participating.
Sieges have high up-front costs, so while it’s still very iffy for attackers to suffer no penalties at all while in a siege (unless they’re ejected from the siege upon death), it’s not unreasonable.
But caravans now only have two outcomes for attackers: net-neutral, or gain. You never risk anything when attacking a caravan if death penalties are disabled. Defenders can’t take your dropped materials when they successfully defend, or cause exp debt to your group to dissuade you from coming back to attack again after a failed attempt. Does it not seem strange that defenders have only net-neutral or loss as outcome if they get attacked, if this no-risk system remains?
The risk of engaging in siege and warfare is that you consume materials to enable the siege decleration or siege weapon. The reward is victory.
You use the words "risk reward" as a reaction to an opposing view. I dont buy it.
You dont understand how much XP debt you will occur during sieges and caravans. Nobody will partake if it sets them back two days to regain the progress they made on their character.
You basically give away all domination to the first big guilds, since the rest of the population will shy away from such setbacks in the likellyhood of defeat.
I'd give you a comparison to another game that has the same features of AoC regarding death penalties related to PvP events and open world flagging, due to the reasoning of frequency of deaths impacting progress, but you'd give me the same jerk-knee like response "AoC isnt that game" like you just said "risk reward".
Look at you caeryl and look at noanni
One says remove death penalties from instanced raids but calls risk v reward from me, another says keep death penalties both in pvp events and instanced raids.
Both dissaprove of my view.
None understands the significance of xp debt in situations where death is a high possibility like PvP events and instanced pve raid.
Leave the emotion out and think. Look into other successful examples. Stop being reactive.
Look at you caeryl and look at noanni
One says remove death penalties from instanced raids but calls risk v reward from me, another says keep death penalties both in pvp events and instanced raids.
Both dissaprove of my view.
None understands the significance of xp debt in situations where death is a high possibility like PvP events and instanced pve raid.
Leave the emotion out and think. Look into other successful examples. Stop being reactive.
Literally both of us said death should have penalties in all situations.
What needs to be understood is that this entire time we were essentially lead along believing that the open world pvp would carry over for objective based pvp where combatant would be the state all participants would be in. I am perfectly ok with this, but now we are told there is no death penalty?
Like I pointed out earlier, without a death penalty what stops zergs?
You dont understand how much XP debt you will occur during sieges and caravans. Nobody will partake if it sets them back two days to regain the progress they made on their character.
Nobody will run caravans if anyone can attack them with literally no penalty at all.
What you can now do, if you see a caravan, is just attack it. If you die, you just get on your horse and rejoin the fight. Since that is literally what everyone can do, there is a better than average chance that the caracan will eventually be taken down, and all players involved in attacking it profit without having had to risk anything other than the time they spent on said caravan.
The only way I can see no death penalty being acceptable in this way is if players are removed from the siege/caravan attack if they are killed, and are unable to join another of the same for a period of time (an hour for a caravan, a day for a siege).
This brings back some value to having to stay alive, which is what removing the death penalty has taken away.
Even with this though, any arguements for open world PvE content over instanced are completely invalidated. The reason for it being open world is to add a factor of risk via PvP, but we have just discovered that any time players will shy away from content due to risks associated with PvP, Intrepid will simply remove those risks associated with PvP.
That is what it will boil down to. If running caravans is too much of a risk, people won't run them. If the game is unplayable or unenjoyable (even if that is because players are not running caravans), then people will play a different game.
Edit, and the penalty for losing a caravan is MUCH higher than the penalty for dying many times in a siege. Maybe we should expect Intrepid to just remove that penalty for losing a caravan too - would be on brand.
Why does everyone think this is an all or nothing situation? Make death penalties 1/10th that of normal death penalties for each death that aren't applied until the pvp event ends or you leave the event area. You could even apply that to open world raids... like x yards around each boss are 1/10th the normal death penalties. Do some testing and figure out the sweet spot that is fair based on how much the average person dies during the events.
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.
Ok you don't. You and a couple others... but the majority of the arguments are about No death penalties what so ever, or death penalties that are so high no one will participate.
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.
Ok you don't. You and a couple others... but the majority of the arguments are about No death penalties what so ever, or death penalties that are so high no one will participate.
Most of the discussion is about the need for *some* death penalty. No one is really talking about how much of a penalty there should be, the discussion is in regards to whether there should be one at all or not.
Not only do we know it doesn't need to be the full death penalty from open world content - we have in fact always known that it wouldn't be the full penalty since corruption is a non-factor in these PvP events.
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.
Ok you don't. You and a couple others... but the majority of the arguments are about No death penalties what so ever, or death penalties that are so high no one will participate.
So far the only one who’s been insisting death penalties would make people not participate in PvP has been George up there.
Obviously there’s a sweet spot where death has some sting, but isn’t a deal breaker for the majority. That sweet spot isn’t “no penalties for the major PvP systems” though, which is unfortunately how Stephen has currently set it up.
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.
Ok you don't. You and a couple others... but the majority of the arguments are about No death penalties what so ever, or death penalties that are so high no one will participate.
Most of the discussion is about the need for *some* death penalty. No one is really talking about how much of a penalty there should be, the discussion is in regards to whether there should be one at all or not.
Not only do we know it doesn't need to be the full death penalty from open world content - we have in fact always known that it wouldn't be the full penalty since corruption is a non-factor in these PvP events.
Lol why are you arguing just to argue? Re read this topic... there are people arguing for no death penalties at all and there are people saying death penalties will stop people from participating (meaning they are full or close to full death penalties). Very few people have actually mentioned balancing death penalties around the content which would satisfy both sides of the argument.
The rest of us are having a discussion. Right now, that discussion is as to whether there should be death penalties or not, not how severe they should be. When the inevitable happens and all agree that there does in fact need to be some form of death penalty, that is when we can begin to discuss how severe it should be.
Literally everyone knows it doesn't need to be the full penalty. There has never been a time in the last 3 years where people thought PvP events like this would have the same penalties as open world PvP.
The rest of us are having a discussion. Right now, that discussion is as to whether there should be death penalties or not, not how severe they should be. When the inevitable happens and all agree that there does in fact need to be some form of death penalty, that is when we can begin to discuss how severe it should be.
Literally everyone knows it doesn't need to be the full penalty.
Maybe that's why you have some of the worst ideas on these forums... you think you speak for everyone. It was you who replied to me, not the other way around. I corrected myself that it wasn't everyone, but you kept it going for no reason at all.
You aren't going to get everyone to agree on something when the two arguments are night and day. It's pointless unless you talk about a common ground solution that both sides can agree with.
When the inevitable happens and all agree that there does in fact need to be some form of death penalty, that is when we can begin to discuss how severe it should be.
You mean when everyone "inevitably" agrees with you... Lol get over yourself.
You mean when everyone "inevitably" agrees with you... Lol get over yourself.
No, I mean when the one person that currently disagrees realizes that their current opinion is not logically compatible with the remainder of what they want Ashes to be.
You mean when everyone "inevitably" agrees with you... Lol get over yourself.
No, I mean when the one person that currently disagrees realizes that their current opinion is not logically compatible with the remainder of what they want Ashes to be.
There is more then one person in this thread who is defending no death penalties. Not to mention there is probably many more who are just reading through it who may also want no death penalties.
What "they" want Ashes to be? Or what YOU want Ashes to be? You need to get over yourself.
What "they" want Ashes to be? Or what YOU want Ashes to be? You need to get over yourself.
What they want Ashes to be.
I've been debating and discussing this game with George for over a year. We have debated many topics together, and also agreed on many topics.
I know what he wants from this game, and I am sure he would agree with that - at least to an extent.
That is why my last post to him was to give him something serious to think about (4 points that I know he individually doesn't disagree with, that he then needs to combine and contemplate).
Sure, there are other people that are for a lack of death penalties, but let's go over them.
First, there is Jahlon. He is more about echoing what Intrepid are saying and what decisions they make so that people are well informed on the game. He doesn't share his own personal opinions on things so much as repeat what Intrepid have said, and occasionally offer up conjection as to what they may be thinking. He has my respect for this position - just to be clear.
The next is Davey. He is against death penalties altogether. However, knowing him, when we get to the part of the discussion about lesser death penalties rather than full/no penalties, when he sees something he likes, he'll jump in.
Then there is Elo and Percimes. They mistakenly think consequences of death are the same thing as death penalties, and as such are not really worth getting in to a discussion with on this particular topic.
Now, I don't believe I have missed anyone, feel free to point out if I have. If you haven't got anyone else, then I am going right back to having that one person that needs convincing that their desires for Ashes do indeed need some form of penalty in siege and caravan attacks.
I really hope they reconsider this, dying, should Always, feel like dying. It sucks, you lose sht, you learn ur mistakes and try to better next time, should be like that in every scenario in the open world, with the exception of instanced arenas (maybe by not even having the player killed, fight stops with 1hp left)
Hm... how long does a siege last?
Does penalty xp have a limit? I know you can de-level, but do you also get stat dump when dying in combat?
What I mean is the following: if I'm defending my node and dying causes me xp penalty, is it worth dying over and over? I mean, if I have a house, it might, but if I only have a shop and some standard free hold, it might not be worth.
There must be some sort of penalty, but if dying a couple of times puts me really behind in farm/xp, people will just avoid it.
Also, what about materials? Are we saying that during a PvP event you can't have mats on you otherwise you lose them all?
Hm... how long does a siege last?
Does penalty xp have a limit? I know you can de-level, but do you also get stat dump when dying in combat?
What I mean is the following: if I'm defending my node and dying causes me xp penalty, is it worth dying over and over? I mean, if I have a house, it might, but if I only have a shop and some standard free hold, it might not be worth.
There must be some sort of penalty, but if dying a couple of times puts me really behind in farm/xp, people will just avoid it.
Also, what about materials? Are we saying that during a PvP event you can't have mats on you otherwise you lose them all?
A few things:
1) You do not de-level in Ashes of Creation. Exp debt just delays progress toward your next level.
2) In excess, exp debt can cause a reduction in stats (not related to corruption-based stat damps).
3) You only lose a portion of your materials whenever you die (half the standard amount when you die while a Conbatant)
You aren’t automatically listed as a defender except in the node you have citizenship in. You don’t have to participate in a siege defense either way, you can simply not be in the node when the siege happens.
But the specifics are neither here nor there. Obviously no one wants to completely shit on players trying to defend their node, but there needs to be consequences for dying at all times. PvP, raids, open world, all of it. Death should sting and it should make you think about how to avoid it next time.
Without death penalties, what risks does anyone take attacking a node? Sure one group took on a cost, but anyone can sign on attack as long as the cap hasn’t been reached.
What is the risk to attacking a caravan, if you will never risk your own gear or materials and get the chance to take a lot of someone else’s?
Then there is Elo and Percimes. They mistakenly think consequences of death are the same thing as death penalties, and as such are not really worth getting in to a discussion with on this particular topic.
Hehe, I don't think they're the same, quite the opposite. My whole point was you could get negative consequences even if there was no death penalties. That they were separated things. I was expecting the combatant death penalty for all the open world pvp objectives. I can see the adverse effects of multiple deaths but I struggle to see the positives they bring.
I don't think that if there are no personal penalties in these scenarios people will become stupid and just rush the doors with a dagger, or try to drink the moat dry. It will lower the entry barrier for many though, for many more casual players the fear of failure is enough to dissuade. No personal penalties for failures means more people will try out the sieges and caravans and so these events will happen more often.
If the penalties are too high, only the more prepared players/guilds will attempt these endeavours. They will come organized. As in most open pvp occurrences, the attackers will only act if the odds are on their side.
Comments
My argument is that "no death penalty" doesn't mean "no consequences."
I thought there was going to be a death penalty in the castle sieges, caravans and the other open world pvp events. I was in a wait and see kind of situation. Personally, the part in death penalty I hate the most is the dying, the penalty doesn't add much for me. Well, until is does, and by then it's too late. It's not part of a risk evaluation: it's a binary response. Either I don't care or I avoid the possibility at all cost. Just a personal thing though.
Once again, raiding has a high chance of death, you die more often attempting a new high end raid encounter than you do on the most one sided PvP encounters.
Taking the death penalty out of the equation for sieges and such is the same as saying only the defenders are risking anything. This is not a balanced state of risk vs reward.
There isnt xp debt in instanced raids.
If there is, I have no problem with removing it.
There is, and I have the same basic issue with removing it as I do with removing the death penalty from PvP.
Failure should have a penalty.
Falso bravado mate. No reasoning.
Nobody will play a game if they are constantly having XP Debt.
Unless you have a game in mind with 0 challenge, that take effort to actually fail abd die.
Recent interactions just show me that you do not have any interest in good faith discussion. In a game that has advertised itself as being based on weighing risk vs reward, how does risk-free PvP come from that logic?
Arenas have practically no rewards, so it makes sense there’s no risk to participating.
Sieges have high up-front costs, so while it’s still very iffy for attackers to suffer no penalties at all while in a siege (unless they’re ejected from the siege upon death), it’s not unreasonable.
But caravans now only have two outcomes for attackers: net-neutral, or gain. You never risk anything when attacking a caravan if death penalties are disabled. Defenders can’t take your dropped materials when they successfully defend, or cause exp debt to your group to dissuade you from coming back to attack again after a failed attempt. Does it not seem strange that defenders have only net-neutral or loss as outcome if they get attacked, if this no-risk system remains?
The risk of engaging in siege and warfare is that you consume materials to enable the siege decleration or siege weapon. The reward is victory.
You use the words "risk reward" as a reaction to an opposing view. I dont buy it.
You dont understand how much XP debt you will occur during sieges and caravans. Nobody will partake if it sets them back two days to regain the progress they made on their character.
You basically give away all domination to the first big guilds, since the rest of the population will shy away from such setbacks in the likellyhood of defeat.
I'd give you a comparison to another game that has the same features of AoC regarding death penalties related to PvP events and open world flagging, due to the reasoning of frequency of deaths impacting progress, but you'd give me the same jerk-knee like response "AoC isnt that game" like you just said "risk reward".
One says remove death penalties from instanced raids but calls risk v reward from me, another says keep death penalties both in pvp events and instanced raids.
Both dissaprove of my view.
None understands the significance of xp debt in situations where death is a high possibility like PvP events and instanced pve raid.
Leave the emotion out and think. Look into other successful examples. Stop being reactive.
Literally both of us said death should have penalties in all situations.
Like I pointed out earlier, without a death penalty what stops zergs?
What you can now do, if you see a caravan, is just attack it. If you die, you just get on your horse and rejoin the fight. Since that is literally what everyone can do, there is a better than average chance that the caracan will eventually be taken down, and all players involved in attacking it profit without having had to risk anything other than the time they spent on said caravan.
The only way I can see no death penalty being acceptable in this way is if players are removed from the siege/caravan attack if they are killed, and are unable to join another of the same for a period of time (an hour for a caravan, a day for a siege).
This brings back some value to having to stay alive, which is what removing the death penalty has taken away.
Even with this though, any arguements for open world PvE content over instanced are completely invalidated. The reason for it being open world is to add a factor of risk via PvP, but we have just discovered that any time players will shy away from content due to risks associated with PvP, Intrepid will simply remove those risks associated with PvP.
No you don't, you can always play another game.
That is what it will boil down to. If running caravans is too much of a risk, people won't run them. If the game is unplayable or unenjoyable (even if that is because players are not running caravans), then people will play a different game.
Edit, and the penalty for losing a caravan is MUCH higher than the penalty for dying many times in a siege. Maybe we should expect Intrepid to just remove that penalty for losing a caravan too - would be on brand.
You said, if there are no death penalties during caravans, nobody will dare to set out. False.
Anyway I dont have any new points to make about this topic. Im out of here. Merry xmas
No, that is not what I said. There are four specific components to what I said, and I'd like to see if you disagree with any of them.
If the risk for running caravans from the perspective of the caravan owner was too high, people would not run them.
If people are able to attack a caravan without penalty (and rejoin the fight if killed), that increases the risk of running caravans.
Successful caravan delivery is successful to the proper functioning of the game, and thus player enjoyment of the game.
If players do not enjoy playing the game, they will play a different game.
They are the four points I am making, do you disagree with any of them?
We are recruiting PvPers!
We don't.
Literally the first thing I wrote in this thread, and this is now the second time I have quoted it, was this.
Ok you don't. You and a couple others... but the majority of the arguments are about No death penalties what so ever, or death penalties that are so high no one will participate.
We are recruiting PvPers!
Most of the discussion is about the need for *some* death penalty. No one is really talking about how much of a penalty there should be, the discussion is in regards to whether there should be one at all or not.
Not only do we know it doesn't need to be the full death penalty from open world content - we have in fact always known that it wouldn't be the full penalty since corruption is a non-factor in these PvP events.
So far the only one who’s been insisting death penalties would make people not participate in PvP has been George up there.
Obviously there’s a sweet spot where death has some sting, but isn’t a deal breaker for the majority. That sweet spot isn’t “no penalties for the major PvP systems” though, which is unfortunately how Stephen has currently set it up.
Lol why are you arguing just to argue? Re read this topic... there are people arguing for no death penalties at all and there are people saying death penalties will stop people from participating (meaning they are full or close to full death penalties). Very few people have actually mentioned balancing death penalties around the content which would satisfy both sides of the argument.
We are recruiting PvPers!
The rest of us are having a discussion. Right now, that discussion is as to whether there should be death penalties or not, not how severe they should be. When the inevitable happens and all agree that there does in fact need to be some form of death penalty, that is when we can begin to discuss how severe it should be.
Literally everyone knows it doesn't need to be the full penalty. There has never been a time in the last 3 years where people thought PvP events like this would have the same penalties as open world PvP.
Maybe that's why you have some of the worst ideas on these forums... you think you speak for everyone. It was you who replied to me, not the other way around. I corrected myself that it wasn't everyone, but you kept it going for no reason at all.
You aren't going to get everyone to agree on something when the two arguments are night and day. It's pointless unless you talk about a common ground solution that both sides can agree with.
You mean when everyone "inevitably" agrees with you... Lol get over yourself.
We are recruiting PvPers!
There is more then one person in this thread who is defending no death penalties. Not to mention there is probably many more who are just reading through it who may also want no death penalties.
What "they" want Ashes to be? Or what YOU want Ashes to be? You need to get over yourself.
We are recruiting PvPers!
What they want Ashes to be.
I've been debating and discussing this game with George for over a year. We have debated many topics together, and also agreed on many topics.
I know what he wants from this game, and I am sure he would agree with that - at least to an extent.
That is why my last post to him was to give him something serious to think about (4 points that I know he individually doesn't disagree with, that he then needs to combine and contemplate).
Sure, there are other people that are for a lack of death penalties, but let's go over them.
First, there is Jahlon. He is more about echoing what Intrepid are saying and what decisions they make so that people are well informed on the game. He doesn't share his own personal opinions on things so much as repeat what Intrepid have said, and occasionally offer up conjection as to what they may be thinking. He has my respect for this position - just to be clear.
The next is Davey. He is against death penalties altogether. However, knowing him, when we get to the part of the discussion about lesser death penalties rather than full/no penalties, when he sees something he likes, he'll jump in.
Then there is Elo and Percimes. They mistakenly think consequences of death are the same thing as death penalties, and as such are not really worth getting in to a discussion with on this particular topic.
Now, I don't believe I have missed anyone, feel free to point out if I have. If you haven't got anyone else, then I am going right back to having that one person that needs convincing that their desires for Ashes do indeed need some form of penalty in siege and caravan attacks.
Does penalty xp have a limit? I know you can de-level, but do you also get stat dump when dying in combat?
What I mean is the following: if I'm defending my node and dying causes me xp penalty, is it worth dying over and over? I mean, if I have a house, it might, but if I only have a shop and some standard free hold, it might not be worth.
There must be some sort of penalty, but if dying a couple of times puts me really behind in farm/xp, people will just avoid it.
Also, what about materials? Are we saying that during a PvP event you can't have mats on you otherwise you lose them all?
A few things:
1) You do not de-level in Ashes of Creation. Exp debt just delays progress toward your next level.
2) In excess, exp debt can cause a reduction in stats (not related to corruption-based stat damps).
3) You only lose a portion of your materials whenever you die (half the standard amount when you die while a Conbatant)
You aren’t automatically listed as a defender except in the node you have citizenship in. You don’t have to participate in a siege defense either way, you can simply not be in the node when the siege happens.
But the specifics are neither here nor there. Obviously no one wants to completely shit on players trying to defend their node, but there needs to be consequences for dying at all times. PvP, raids, open world, all of it. Death should sting and it should make you think about how to avoid it next time.
Without death penalties, what risks does anyone take attacking a node? Sure one group took on a cost, but anyone can sign on attack as long as the cap hasn’t been reached.
What is the risk to attacking a caravan, if you will never risk your own gear or materials and get the chance to take a lot of someone else’s?
Hehe, I don't think they're the same, quite the opposite. My whole point was you could get negative consequences even if there was no death penalties. That they were separated things. I was expecting the combatant death penalty for all the open world pvp objectives. I can see the adverse effects of multiple deaths but I struggle to see the positives they bring.
I don't think that if there are no personal penalties in these scenarios people will become stupid and just rush the doors with a dagger, or try to drink the moat dry. It will lower the entry barrier for many though, for many more casual players the fear of failure is enough to dissuade. No personal penalties for failures means more people will try out the sieges and caravans and so these events will happen more often.
If the penalties are too high, only the more prepared players/guilds will attempt these endeavours. They will come organized. As in most open pvp occurrences, the attackers will only act if the odds are on their side.