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
Idea for death penalty when low lvl players are ganked
FuryBladeborne
Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
There have been a number of threads discussing the problem with death penalty when a low level player has been ganked. The problem is, the deterrent for high levels ganking low levels is increased corruption; however, the ganker only receives increased corruption if the the low level does not fight back; and, not fighting back causes the low level to take double the death penalty compared to if the low level did fight back.
A related question is, why does a low level ganked player that did not choose to fight and has no chance of winning due to level difference have to suffer the full death penalty?
I have a solution to improve the experience of being a low level ganked player for both problems. I think that death penalty from PVP should be done on a sliding scale starting from when a low level player has little or no chance winning, which would reduce death penalty by a percentage up to little or no death penalty applied.
For example,
If a low level player is killed by an attacker that is 10-15 levels higher, the death penalty for the low level will be reduced by a few percentage points. If a level 1 is killed by a level 50, then the death penalty will be reduced by 90-100%. All the levels in between will decrease death penalty proportionately.
The numbers are just an example for clarity and can be adjusted as needed. The important point is, I think death penalty (including dropped resources) should reduce for a ganked player when that player has no possibility of winning due to level difference; and, the death penalty reduction should be greater as the ganked player level decreases.
The only exploit that I can think of for this is to use low level players as mules to protect resources if the gatherer(s) end up getting attacked.
What does everyone think about this?
A related question is, why does a low level ganked player that did not choose to fight and has no chance of winning due to level difference have to suffer the full death penalty?
I have a solution to improve the experience of being a low level ganked player for both problems. I think that death penalty from PVP should be done on a sliding scale starting from when a low level player has little or no chance winning, which would reduce death penalty by a percentage up to little or no death penalty applied.
For example,
If a low level player is killed by an attacker that is 10-15 levels higher, the death penalty for the low level will be reduced by a few percentage points. If a level 1 is killed by a level 50, then the death penalty will be reduced by 90-100%. All the levels in between will decrease death penalty proportionately.
The numbers are just an example for clarity and can be adjusted as needed. The important point is, I think death penalty (including dropped resources) should reduce for a ganked player when that player has no possibility of winning due to level difference; and, the death penalty reduction should be greater as the ganked player level decreases.
The only exploit that I can think of for this is to use low level players as mules to protect resources if the gatherer(s) end up getting attacked.
What does everyone think about this?
0
Comments
This is not WOW where there is no reason not to kill any other faction player you see. You are making a very costly risk when attacking another player. Ideally, you would want it to be worth it to you in some way. "Pwning N00bs" is not worth going red for. Especially if getting a character to the point that you can do so is an investment.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
I’d rather see forced corruption on the ganker whether the ganked player fights back or not. (Obviously strictly based on overwhelming level disparity)
At least that way if the player tries to get away through CC or slows then the offender still get corruption.
I’d also be happy to see corruption added on kill assists, maybe at a reduced rate but again, I would prefer to see a deterrent for killing players indirectly. (examples being hitting them low enough they die to the mob or hitting them with CC until the mob kills them)
Edit: Having read Vhaeyne’s reply I will concede he does have a point and I’d like to trust his experience over my lack thereof with the systems. My worries are hypothetical.
In the first MMO I played with PVP everywhere and a system of PK points and going red like in Ashes (which was Conquor Online), I joined an old server on my first character. The experience was terrible. I don't remember the exact numbers, but I had a count on the number of times that max level characters killed me before I leveled about 10 levels to get out of the starter zone. The number was ridiculous. I hated PVP and PKing for years due to that game.
Early on, there will be little or no problem with high level ganking. As a server ages into years, it will become a problem that will grow. Many people will make alts just for ganking or convert abandoned characters into gankers and equip them with gear that they are willing to lose. There will be other reasons.
I am in favor of PVP everywhere with the corruption system as it is. However, I don't think that very low level players with no chance to win a fight due to level difference; which they did not provoke, should have to suffer the full death penalties.
Also, adding this system has no impact on the rest of PVP. The is no change in fights between characters where either side has a chance of winning. This idea only reduces the penalty for being the ganked low level player which IS has indicated wanting to protect by increasing the corruption penalty for the ganker.
I feel like a low level character doesn't have much to lose.
I'm pretty sure there isn't a restriction. Such a war might drive new recruits or other low levels out of the group that is at war.
The math behind subtracting the difference between character levels and applying a percentage multiplier is extremely simple. I'm quite confident that the devs are fully capable of this. The exact numbers could be tested when the corruption system is tested in Alpha 2. The important part is the concept of whether low levels with no chance to win a fight that they did not start should suffer the full death penalty.
FYI, there is an exploitable problem with forcing corruption on a high level ganking player. Currently, corruption is awarded if the defender is not in combat and the attacker killed them. If the attacker will gain corruption regardless of whether the low level is in combat, then low levels can attack high levels to provoke a kill and allow high level friends to kill the high level without corruption penalties.
Sounds like the costs for going red did not out weigh whatever "Reward" people feel when they PK low-level players in "Conquor Online".
In Ashes they are trying like hell to balance that so that you have the freedom to do it, but it is not generally worthwhile to do it.
The Corruption system, no name change, no server change, high repair costs, XP debt, ect. These features all help to make people think twice before doing anything. Which is also the ticket to how we get a world where reputation matters.
If you gank people regularly. Good luck, getting invited to anything that is worth doing.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
That would depend on how many times the character dies and how much the player hates dying and its consequences. Its fairly individual.
you only turn corrupted when you KILL the low level when they don't attack.
This only works if the low level triggers you in chat to kill them.
Sure its easy to leave a guild , not as easy with a node your a citizen of and bailing out of any progress you made with it since a lot progression is not tied to character level. You going to have a entire population of lower level citizens of node at the mercy of high level enemy players who will not take any corruption for ganking them.
I'm not sure where your going with this, but I think my quote was in response to the idea by Biccus to give corruption if a high level kills a low level regardless of whether the low level fights back.
Okay, this is why I had to edit and say I don’t have experience with the system, this example is way more toxic. So There’s likely no perfect answer. There seems to be potential issues with every idea that gets suggested
I just want to make sure that you saw this earlier, "Many people will make alts just for ganking or convert abandoned characters into gankers and equip them with gear that they are willing to lose. There will be other reasons.".
The point is that some people will find a way to deal with corruption in way that is acceptable to them even if it is only using an abandoned character (such as class they no longer like, perhaps it is not meta) or leveling up an alt for PKing. The problem will grow over years; and, I personally don't think that low levels being ganked by such players should not have to suffer the full death penalty.
Ohh, I have seen it. If leveling an alt just to gank takes enough time and energy, people will not do it.
What are they going to get for all of this investment in leveling up a character to gank? Some low tier mats and a maybe a little euphoria? Let's be real here, easy leveling and catch up mechanics are what you should be worried about.
This is also part of the reason why the penalties for being red stack to be so harsh. You quickly won't be able to gank anyone. Even if someone only leveled to like lvl 20 to gank players lower than lvl 10. It should take them days to get to lvl 20. The shit lvl 10 and below characters have is just not worth taking. You could instead just make a tanky alt that is good at gathering and getting away. That would be a much wiser investment in anyone's time.
Again, a handful of jackasses will want to see the world burn occasionally, but they will be losing a character in the process. If they balance things correctly no one will waste their time on low lvl players enough for it to warrent discussion.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
Since it apparent that you recognize that ganking will happen to some extent (regardless of whatever reasons we want to argue about for it); then, my opinion is that I think low levels being ganked by such players should not have to suffer the full death penalty.
Is there any particular reason why a low level player that did not provoke a high level player should have to suffer the full death penalty? As in, is the player being punished by death for a mistake that the player should have corrected to avoid being ganked?
(Also, leveling an alt character for days is nothing. I think that I have 20+ max level characters in GW2, most of them made for specific purposes such as gathering an extra time per day. I don't know how many months I put into making them, but out of the 5+ years that I played it, I put many months into them. If a player wants a ganking alt, the player can make it.)
What if a node is at war with another , would not be a worth while strategy to keep low level players from gathering resources to hurt the other nodes economy? You can freely gank them with no penalty.
I said there would be: "handful of jackasses will want to see the world burn occasionally".
I am pretty sure XP debt is already variable based on the level of the thing that killed you. It does not say this on the wiki yet, but I have heard people say it a number of times during testing. It also has felt that way.
There is no reason why they could not make it so that the Xp debt scaled down based on level difference between attacker and defender (Especially if the defender just stayed green). I would not want any of the other penalties such as drops to change.
Spending days leveling a character to gank, just to have it be useless in a few hours long killing spree with only a few low-level mats to show for it is a colossal waste of time. It is not nothing when you could be using that time to do something productive.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
As a low-level citizen, would you really think it is a good idea to go into a known war-zone to gather some low-level materials?
You should have thought twice about becoming a citizen so early on your level progression. I mean WTF are you doing buying land when you have no levels or gear to protect it with?
This is speculation here, but I doubt any low-level character that is worried about being flag for node warfare as a node citizen could even afford the land to become a citizen. That shit is going to be highly competitive.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
The penalties of both death and corruption are scaling based on accumulated XP debt and corruption, respectively.
Well there is no warzone , the war can happen anywhere since both nodes citizens are flag for pvp against each other you could run into enemy players anywhere. The whole point of node system was to get players new to game to join one and be involved in what is happening. A lot progression is not tied to leveling up your character but will be tied to the nodes. Players are going want to be a citizen for many reasons.
This game is not going to be as gank free as some people think , node wars can happen , and guild wars will happen a lot more because of looting rights and farming spots. These are the players you really have to worry about because there is no corruption keeping them from ganking low level players.
I can't 100% confirm it, but I have a lot of hearsay and conjecture... which are kinds of evidence. At least of PvE. I agree that it would also make sense for PvP.
There should not be any "Rational" reason to kill low-level players. Just like with many public policies, the only way to get people to do the right thing is to fine the hell out of people for doing things that are harmful to the public. I would argue that openly allowing low-level players to be ganked is harmful to all of Verra as it permanently removes potential residents from the world.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
Citizenship is not all benefits. You have to deal with potentially being flagged for war, taxes, the loss in opportunity cost to be a citizen of a different node, the loss of the node... It is not all sunshine and rainbows. The game is focused on Risk Vs Reward.
If you get yourself involved in a guild war, node war, or just chose to play Tulnar (XD), you might find yourself in a gankable situation. These things can be mitigated by joining a guild that is focused on leveling while leveling, not investing in citizenship when you can't afford to take the risks, and not playing a cave dweller that everyone hates.
Risk vs Reward.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
Ok, so no reason. It is just how you feel.
I think that the death penalty exists to to drive a player to avoid death in ways such as getting better at the game or applying intelligence to fights.
I don't think that players should be punished (or, at least not as severely) for dying to a high level player as the low level probably had very few options short of not playing to avoid dying once the high level chose to attack.
As far I know you cant prevent guilds from declaring war on yours even you if avoid being citizens of node. Guild wars will have objectives for victory and it would be good strategy to pull away high level defenders from those objectives by going after low level members.