Objective Based Death Penalty

Percimes

Hmm. Have we looked at both sides of sieges? Correct me if I perceived it wrong, but I've considered mostly the impacts on the attackers and not much on the defenders. The defenders have much more to lose after all, but at the same time they have the terrain advantage.

Should there be a difference in penalties between defenders and attackers?

Tyrantor

Percimes wrote: »

Hmm. Have we looked at both sides of sieges? Correct me if I perceived it wrong, but I've considered mostly the impacts on the attackers and not much on the defenders. The defenders have much more to lose after all, but at the same time they have the terrain advantage.

Should there be a difference in penalties between defenders and attackers?

I think the penalties should be the same for both sides. A few deaths should not prevent anyone from wanting to defend their node. In addition to this node defenses will be limited by time frames for re-sieging from 22-55 days so any lost exp/money/time etc would be easily made up over that period before they could be forced to defend themselves again. You also wouldn't want to create a scenario where the defenders could just send waves of players out to attack because their penalty was less punishing. Which is another reason having no penalty doesn't make any sense.

Xyls

Tyrantor wrote: »

Well I'm glad to see the vast majority of the responses seem to be in my boat on this. Since I just had a chance to catch up on this I think that the general assumption there should be some penalty on death is the predominant response here. With that I'd like to offer the following suggestions for furthering the discussion.

Caravan Death Penalties: Full repair, full xp debt and combatant level loot parameter - 2 minute stat/combat debuffs.
Guild Wars Penalties: 1/3 equipment repair, 1/3 xp debt and combatant level loot parameter - 3 minute stat/combat debuffs.
Siege Penalties: 1/4 equipment repair, 1/4 xp debt and no loot - 1 minute stat/combat debuffs.

I find it unreasonable to think people would not participate if there are death penalties (keep in mind until this months video I find it likely everyone here assumed there were death penalties), it will need to be balanced to some degree but allowing people to not care or fear death ruins the experience of PvP to begin with. From where I sit I would likely only then spend my time pvping around the flagging system because it would hold real reward and consequences for killing people.

The way I broke this down above would keep the Caravan deaths on par with normal combatant flagging but would adjust the debuffs to a timer versus xp work off. The guild wars would then adjust so you could die 3 times to equal one combatant death and for sieges it would account for 4 deaths to equal one combatant death. If sieges are 2-3 hours long this would mean someone could die 10-15 times and it would only punish them to the cost of 4-5 deaths in combatant mode.

I still think that level of penalties is high... at least for guild wars and sieges. I'd probably go with half of what you have already... so 1/6 for guild wars and 1/8 for sieges. I also kind of disagree with having penalties apply during the event... i'd rather see them accumulate and then be applied at the end of the event... again maybe with the exception of caravans. You still will have to make the decision to continue to make attempts knowing that your penalties are adding up... but don't have to worry about becoming weaker against a foe you already lost too. Also, you need to think about how many times the average person will die during a multi hour siege or multi-hour/day guild war. If people are dying 20-30 times in a 3 hour siege, then death penalties need to be adjusted accordingly. Pretty much will just need to require some testing before exact amounts could be determined.

As far as the timed stat debuffs hampering zergs... i think it would probably be more beneficial for zergs by forcing them to regroup every time. The main advantage organized groups have against zergs is that they make better decisions.... if a chunk of the zerg dies, they will rez and have to travel back to the fight... by the time they make it back, another chunk could be dead. This would lead to the smaller group fighting a more manageable size zerg, all be it at a more constant pace versus fighting a big zerg but with breaks inbetween each fight. I guess it just depends on your preference if you are the smaller group.

Id say my opinion on all this could definitely change once I get my hands on it and do some tests but I'm definitely in favor of some death penalties.

Noaani

Xyls wrote: »

[I also kind of disagree with having penalties apply during the event... i'd rather see them accumulate and then be applied at the end of the event... again maybe with the exception of caravans. You still will have to make the decision to continue to make attempts knowing that your penalties are adding up... but don't have to worry about becoming weaker against a foe you already lost too.

This is why I think one of the better ideas would be to leave the stat reduction penalty tied to experience debt as it is normally, but make it so stat reduction penalties do not apply in sieges.

That has the same effect, but using existing systems.

Maytreya

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.

I want to second this.

Tyrantor

Xyls wrote: »

I still think that level of penalties is high... at least for guild wars and sieges. I'd probably go with half of what you have already... so 1/6 for guild wars and 1/8 for sieges.

I'm curious how you're considering my ratio's high, even for guild wars? With my suggested 1/3 penalty you could have a guild war over 4 hours and you could die 24 times (once every 10 minutes) and that would = 2 corrupted deaths in the hunting grounds.

I'm sort of under the impression most of us won't hesitate to go corrupt in the hunting grounds for much less reason than a guild war, I seem to think anyone that would find themselves dying 20+ times in a 4 hour span should have a fitting penalty for that.

With the math you suggested someone could die 48 times over 4 hours to = 2 corrupted deaths.....

Xyls

Tyrantor wrote: »

Xyls wrote: »

I still think that level of penalties is high... at least for guild wars and sieges. I'd probably go with half of what you have already... so 1/6 for guild wars and 1/8 for sieges.

I'm curious how you're considering my ratio's high, even for guild wars? With my suggested 1/3 penalty you could have a guild war over 4 hours and you could die 24 times (once every 10 minutes) and that would = 2 corrupted deaths in the hunting grounds.

I'm sort of under the impression most of us won't hesitate to go corrupt in the hunting grounds for much less reason than a guild war, I seem to think anyone that would find themselves dying 20+ times in a 4 hour span should have a fitting penalty for that.

With the math you suggested someone could die 48 times over 4 hours to = 2 corrupted deaths.....

Just personal experiences from other games and honestly thinking about the people who aren't great at pvp. Hell I've had bad days before where I've died 8-10 times in a 30 minute battleground. I'm just thinking about the ultimate balance to keep people from not wanting to participate in pvp because of the death penalties and still having deaths mean something. We have no idea how fast paced the sieges and guild wars could be... design of the systems could cause for lots of dying. It would have to be tested I guess, and at the end of the day I'm sure I'd be fine with any ratio.

I don't think you should compare deaths in sanctioned pvp to dying as corrupted since being corrupted is negative. The hope is very few people have to go corrupted and instead everyone fights back meaning everyone plays under the combatant flag. It probably doesn't change your reasoning on your ratio's, just something I'm nitpicking on. So 24 deaths in 4 hours would be equal to dying 16 times as a combatant under your ratio.

Dygz

I think we have to play to know how many deaths players are likely to average in battlegrounds - especially during sieges.
Jahlon is correct that fear of too much xp debt could cause a significant number of players to choose not to defend their nodes.
And, that's not really what the devs want.

Sathrago

Its simple, you just make it worth defending your node. Which I believe they already have enough incentives for you to want to protect the node you are based in, even if death penalties were combatant level.

Tyrantor

Xyls wrote: »

It probably doesn't change your reasoning on your ratio's, just something I'm nitpicking on. So 24 deaths in 4 hours would be equal to dying 16 times as a combatant under your ratio.

Using my ratio it should be 8 deaths not 16 (over 4 hours in the guild war scenario) and 6 deaths using the same time frame and total deaths in the siege scenario.

My ratios may not be the answer but I do think it's a reasonable starting point with the limited information we currently have. What is funny to me is that it seems like everyone here was accepted these events would cause combatant level death penalties and now that the devs have said "No death penalty" we've got this argument for none, reduced penalties or reduced reduced penalties lol.

What is alarming to me is that the developers are trying to promote participation by rewarding people with "No death penalty". The design of the systems should be the reward, people should want to do them because they're fun, because their guild needs them, because their node needs them. If the ultimate determining factor for people participating in these events boils down to the death penalties are too much and no one wants to do them then I've got some pretty big concerns for the game.

Right now the game has no manual flagging for the open world pvp so the vast majority of us wanting that type of content can enjoy it with others seeking the same, and now we're going to get objective based pvp with no death penalties both of these designs are likely to alienate the same player demographic imo. To elaborate on this, what i'm seeing is that the devs want to shoe horn pvpers into the objective based pvp though by removing the death penalty it also removes a lot of the general incentive the "pvp community" is looking for when it comes to a "risk/reward" design. The no death penalty caters specifically to a WoW type player base.

Ultimately each month I'm just getting more and more confused by the development direction of the game.

Noaani

Tyrantor wrote: »

What is alarming to me is that the developers are trying to promote participation by rewarding people with "No death penalty". The design of the systems should be the reward, people should want to do them because they're fun, because their guild needs them, because their node needs them.

This is what worries me as well.

To me, Intrepid saying they need to not have death penalties on sieges and such says that they are not making them as important as they have previously said, and additionally that they are not currently enjoyable enough for players to want to participate out of pure enjoyment.

If either of these things were true, they would have no reason at all to remove death penalties from this type of content.

Honestly, if sieges are not both enjoyable and worthwhile in and of themself, I actually don't see the point of this game.

Xyls

PvPers will do these events because they are fun no matter what the death penalties are... that's not the issue. But if you want to run 250 v 250 (even 500 v 500) castle sieges and unlimited node sieges, you are going to need people who may not enjoy pvp all that much to participate. I'm sure that's why they decided on no death penalties. It also kind of seems lazy that they wouldn't try and find a lesser, balanced level of death penalties for those game modes because it does kind of go against the risk v reward core they talk so much about. I also think including no death penalties in caravan runs (and to an extent guild wars) is somewhat lazy as well.

Noaani

Xyls wrote: »

PvPers will do these events because they are fun no matter what the death penalties are... that's not the issue. But if you want to run 250 v 250 (even 500 v 500) castle sieges and unlimited node sieges, you are going to need people who may not enjoy pvp all that much to participate. I'm sure that's why they decided on no death penalties. It also kind of seems lazy that they wouldn't try and find a lesser, balanced level of death penalties for those game modes because it does kind of go against the risk v reward core they talk so much about. I also think including no death penalties in caravan runs (and to an extent guild wars) is somewhat lazy as well.

So, from your perspective, they are gutting the game in order to hit a marketing bullet point.

Not necessarily saying I disagree with you here, but it is not a better situation than my assumption.

Xyls

Tyrantor wrote: »

Right now the game has no manual flagging for the open world pvp so the vast majority of us wanting that type of content can enjoy it with others seeking the same, and now we're going to get objective based pvp with no death penalties both of these designs are likely to alienate the same player demographic imo. To elaborate on this, what i'm seeing is that the devs want to shoe horn pvpers into the objective based pvp though by removing the death penalty it also removes a lot of the general incentive the "pvp community" is looking for when it comes to a "risk/reward" design. The no death penalty caters specifically to a WoW type player base.

Ultimately each month I'm just getting more and more confused by the development direction of the game.

Yeah its unfortunate. I feel the same way about their design philosophy with guild wars as well. It takes a system that could have provided a solid unpredictable world pvp experience and turns it into another controlled battleground style conflict with little actual risk (based on how guild wars are explained on the wiki and how Steven answered the last QandA).

Noaani

In the past, when talking to more PvP oriented players, I always said that open PvP is not the area of the game they should be looking at. Sieges, caravans and node/guild wars is where they will find the content they are after.

With what I see now, those players should be looking at Albion. Along with the players wanting high end PvP that should be looking at FFXIV, I am really not sure what is happening with this game any longer.

Percimes

A few points.

1) When is a death penalty added? Yes yes, at death... But is it when hp reach 0 and the character falls or when he "release"? Meaning, do resurrection spells reduce, eliminate or don't affect the application of the death penalty?

2) We don't know how 1 death penalty really impact a character. How it piles up with multiple deaths (linear or exponential). We don't even know how hard/long it is the purge the xp dept for one single death.

3) Just as a reminder, combatant death penalty is already half the normal one.

I'm sorry, but as the devil advocate I must point some observations about some of the propositions I've read.

a) Wanting lower death penalties for sieges, other pvp events or even pve raids because many death are expected also means that a single random death in the wood has more impact on a character. That throws away any pretence of death penalties bringing meaning to sieges and other big event. Heck, dying from a pve monster has now 12 to 16 time more impact as far as penalties are concerned! Dying while corrupted 48 to 64 time more impact than during a siege!

b) Applying the penalties only after the event is over and proposing that penalties prevent the mindless zerg approaches is, if not laughable, a very weak argument. The xp dept will be seen as credit dept, and we all know how people are loose with credit in their finances. Spend now, pay later. Fight now with no penalties, pay the xp dept and repairs later.

We don't know how much one death cost. I believe some of you are overestimate how big the basic death penalty is. Maybe it's really only 1/6 or 1/8 of what you imaged it to be. In that case, only the random deaths in the open world are diminished in "meaning", but it's still there and can get ugly if you're careless and let it grow.

Also, if the penalties could apply in full only when someone "release" and respawn but only partially when resurrected by a player. Or the resurrection spell pay in part or in full the xp dept and stat dampening (EQ rez did that), prevent dropping anything but you still get the damaged equipment. We don't know, it all depends on what dying really means.

*edited because bad at math

Tyrantor

Noaani wrote: »

In the past, when talking to more PvP oriented players, I always said that open PvP is not the area of the game they should be looking at. Sieges, caravans and node/guild wars is where they will find the content they are after.

With what I see now, those players should be looking at Albion. Along with the players wanting high end PvP that should be looking at FFXIV, I am really not sure what is happening with this game any longer.

I can understand your suggestions here, though for me I'll at least be giving the game a go and see where it ends up. You know originally I saw no real circumstance where I'd be a corrupt player on any sort of normal/consistent time frame but it looks like I'm going to likely be going corrupt daily with the current design.

I think it's absolutely hilarious that PvE "hot spots" or "high end item content" warrants death penalties over sieges, caravans and guild wars... so guess I'll be killing PvE players to get the risk/reward I'm looking for.

Sathrago

Tyrantor wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

In the past, when talking to more PvP oriented players, I always said that open PvP is not the area of the game they should be looking at. Sieges, caravans and node/guild wars is where they will find the content they are after.

With what I see now, those players should be looking at Albion. Along with the players wanting high end PvP that should be looking at FFXIV, I am really not sure what is happening with this game any longer.

I can understand your suggestions here, though for me I'll at least be giving the game a go and see where it ends up. You know originally I saw no real circumstance where I'd be a corrupt player on any sort of normal/consistent time frame but it looks like I'm going to likely be going corrupt daily with the current design.

I think it's absolutely hilarious that PvE "hot spots" or "high end item content" warrants death penalties over sieges, caravans and guild wars... so guess I'll be killing PvE players to get the risk/reward I'm looking for.

completely in the same boat here, I was talking to Bricktop about this and we were thinking of ways to do corrupt pvp in the most efficient ways. For example, creating a sizeable group with multiple high corrupt players and even more non-corrupted players to roam with the goal of hunting gatherers/bosses and luring in bounty hunters stupid enough to attack the corrupted. All we have to do is make sure the corrupted players get the killing blow, and even if they kill a corrupt player by chance said corrupted player can make it back pretty quickly due to the spawn. If gear is lost we just equip our corrupted players with mass produced gear. This is all considering that a player that is 10 levels below another player can win if they outplay the higher level. Meaning skill should have a large factor in determining the outcome of fights rather than raw stats being the be all end all.

bloodprophet

Since most of this content will be run at max level. With no level loss XP debt is moot . They also said no to anything after max level that XP will give you. Showing up to a node or castle siege with full bags is a fools move so most won't even drop certificates.
That leaves stat dampening and gear damage. Unless they have more systems not listed/talked about XP loss only applies to non max level players. Then we also don't know yet what "standard" death penalty really means. 10% 15% 50% of your current level or is it a flat number? How much will it dampen your stats? 1-2% per death? Is there a max amount of reduction? What is it?
To many unanswered questions as of yet to be this excited over something that has so minimal effect.

https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Player_death

Tyrantor

bloodprophet wrote: »

Since most of this content will be run at max level. With no level loss XP debt is moot .

Well that's a pretty big assumption that no one would play this content with alts or that future expansions won't expand levels making it a necessity to resolve the debt to advance. There are a lot of unanswered questions but "no death penalty" feels like a knee jerk in the wrong direction compared to some variation or combatant level death penalties across the board. I'm with @Sathrago here in the fact I would take combatant level penalty over none 100% even if I would be required to die 50 times during these objectives.

bloodprophet

Alt's at max level are still max level. That is not to say people won't be doing this kind of content at lower levels. If you and your 7 friends all level 30ish are running through the world and see 8 level 50's doing a caravan odds are you won't attack anyway. How ever if your group of friends come across 2 defending groups of 50's and 2 attacking groups of 50's you might decide to join one side or the other for the lol's.
Regaining lost XP from theses events will be done through normal playing of the game and will work it's self out.