Death penalties during PVP events

Hi Guys, do you know will there be any death penalties during castle sieges, caravan pvp, guild wars etc etc?

I understand, that during these events, you wont suffer corruption penalties for killing other players, but what about when dying? I personally think, there still should be some exp penalty.

What do you think?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Kneczhevo

Experience loss, means it's gone, and you can delevel. Leaving you naked, if you don't meet the requirements to wear your gear or use your abilities.

Experience debt, does not do this. You retain all your abilities and gear, they are just diminished (effectiveness), until you work off the debt.

I don't see Death Debt being a huge issue, especially for PvP. Dying and loss is a huge issue for the player base.

If a player is capped (in level and exp), and dies so much, they "delevel" (effectiveness), they really need to reconcider their play style. Besides, it works in favor for attrition.

Question is: what is the debt like? 10 deaths or 100, before losing your effectiveness?

Noaani

Kneczhevo wrote: »

Question is: what is the debt like? 10 deaths or 100, before losing your effectiveness?

To me, the question is - does being in greater debt even increase the effectiveness?

If you die, you gain experience debt of, say, 1,000 xp. You have a flat 10% penalty to stats, skills etc, along with the other penalties of death.

You then go off hunting mobs that give you 10xp per kill, and kill 26 of them before you die again. So, at the point you die, you have worked off 260 of your xp debt, leaving 740 left.

When you die, rather than that penalty now being 20% to stats and skills etc, the penalty is still 10%, but the debt you have to work off to get rid of it is now 1740 xp.

This is how I understand the system to work - so that the actual penalty is the same no matter the number of deaths. You lose the same level of effectiveness with one death as with 100, the difference is in how hard it is to work off.

Now, we don't know this is how it will actually work, but this is one of the major advantages of experience debt as opposed to expereince loss (the penalty being consistent regardless of number of deaths, but increasing deaths taking longer to clear off than fewer). It would be really odd for it to work any other way, imo.

Balrog21

There are no death penalties during pvp events. Steven has said this on many occasions and interviews.

insomnia

Noaani wrote: »

I would still like to see some death penalties in PvP events.

I personally think the fact that corruption is disabled and all players are treated as combatants (which halves the death penalties) is enough.

If there are to be any gains made from these PvP events, there also needs to be the ability to lose something, and the games death penalty is the only way there is to facilitate that. This simple fact of risk vs reward should always trump the need to get more people participating - and I am sure that anyone in this discussion that has argued risk vs reward in a PvE setting has no option other than to agree.

When it comes to sieges, there are things to gain and lose for participants. Your city drops or your city can increase. People with houses can lose stuff

Mojottv

insomnia wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

I would still like to see some death penalties in PvP events.

I personally think the fact that corruption is disabled and all players are treated as combatants (which halves the death penalties) is enough.

If there are to be any gains made from these PvP events, there also needs to be the ability to lose something, and the games death penalty is the only way there is to facilitate that. This simple fact of risk vs reward should always trump the need to get more people participating - and I am sure that anyone in this discussion that has argued risk vs reward in a PvE setting has no option other than to agree.

When it comes to sieges, there are things to gain and lose for participants. Your city drops or your city can increase. People with houses can lose stuff

well, to be honest, what youre talking about doesnt depend to much if the payer is participating or not, and only encourages to participate, as theres actually no risk in participating in sieges. but theres only reward, as if you defend, you wont be looted, if you are attacking you can get loot. Death penalty would be the only risk.

I think pvp events should have death penalties, maybe lower than normal, but there still should be something.

insomnia

Mojottv wrote: »

insomnia wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

I would still like to see some death penalties in PvP events.

I personally think the fact that corruption is disabled and all players are treated as combatants (which halves the death penalties) is enough.

If there are to be any gains made from these PvP events, there also needs to be the ability to lose something, and the games death penalty is the only way there is to facilitate that. This simple fact of risk vs reward should always trump the need to get more people participating - and I am sure that anyone in this discussion that has argued risk vs reward in a PvE setting has no option other than to agree.

When it comes to sieges, there are things to gain and lose for participants. Your city drops or your city can increase. People with houses can lose stuff

well, to be honest, what youre talking about doesnt depend to much if the payer is participating or not, and only encourages to participate, as theres actually no risk in participating in sieges. but theres only reward, as if you defend, you wont be looted, if you are attacking you can get loot. Death penalty would be the only risk.

I think pvp events should have death penalties, maybe lower than normal, but there still should be something.

Well, it seems like defenders have stuff to lose but nothing to gain. I don't really see it as a reward. But attackers can loot but not lose anything.

But if there are penalties for dying, people might end up not being able to do anything doing the siege. Or people won't bother participating

Mojottv

insomnia wrote: »

Mojottv wrote: »

insomnia wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

I would still like to see some death penalties in PvP events.

I personally think the fact that corruption is disabled and all players are treated as combatants (which halves the death penalties) is enough.

If there are to be any gains made from these PvP events, there also needs to be the ability to lose something, and the games death penalty is the only way there is to facilitate that. This simple fact of risk vs reward should always trump the need to get more people participating - and I am sure that anyone in this discussion that has argued risk vs reward in a PvE setting has no option other than to agree.

When it comes to sieges, there are things to gain and lose for participants. Your city drops or your city can increase. People with houses can lose stuff

well, to be honest, what youre talking about doesnt depend to much if the payer is participating or not, and only encourages to participate, as theres actually no risk in participating in sieges. but theres only reward, as if you defend, you wont be looted, if you are attacking you can get loot. Death penalty would be the only risk.

I think pvp events should have death penalties, maybe lower than normal, but there still should be something.

Well, it seems like defenders have stuff to lose but nothing to gain. I don't really see it as a reward. But attackers can loot but not lose anything.

But if there are penalties for dying, people might end up not being able to do anything doing the siege. Or people won't bother participating

well, if theres no pvp death penalties, then defenders have nothing to loose by actually participating in the siege. I mean, if they dont, and they loose, they loose loot, if they do participate and loose, they still lose same loot from warehouse, but if they win, they don't loose anything, so in its own way, they are gaining stuff by not loosing, if you know what i mean.

Xyls

Mojottv wrote: »

insomnia wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

I would still like to see some death penalties in PvP events.

I personally think the fact that corruption is disabled and all players are treated as combatants (which halves the death penalties) is enough.

If there are to be any gains made from these PvP events, there also needs to be the ability to lose something, and the games death penalty is the only way there is to facilitate that. This simple fact of risk vs reward should always trump the need to get more people participating - and I am sure that anyone in this discussion that has argued risk vs reward in a PvE setting has no option other than to agree.

When it comes to sieges, there are things to gain and lose for participants. Your city drops or your city can increase. People with houses can lose stuff

well, to be honest, what youre talking about doesnt depend to much if the payer is participating or not, and only encourages to participate, as theres actually no risk in participating in sieges. but theres only reward, as if you defend, you wont be looted, if you are attacking you can get loot. Death penalty would be the only risk.

I think pvp events should have death penalties, maybe lower than normal, but there still should be something.

So not saying you're wrong or anything but here is something to think about.

In a massive siege that lasts hours, If one side gets wiped two or three times in the first while of the siege and they get stat dampening and other death penalties, the siege is ultimately already over at that point because the side that was a little bit weaker to start (but still could have possibly come back to win) is now extremely weaker due to death penalties.

Tyrantor

There should be monetary/mat costs for dying in the siege in addition to some death penalties that are on a relatively short duration. What I mean by this, it should cost people for carelessly dying (Insert your guilds Leroy Jenkins) - then there should be a delay on when you can re-engage in the battle at full strength so if 30 people just got wiped they can just respawn and fight again immediately. There should be a debuff on each character on death for a short duration (+/- how long it would take for a group to heal/mana/stamina up after a fight) - to prevent fights from just going back and forth based on respawning with full stats and rushing back in.

Kneczhevo

I don't agree with a cost (mat/gold). This really discourages people from participating, as petty as it may seem. Initial declaration and siege equipment costs, fine. But, that doesn't effect the individual, and I believe that's what we are discussing.

If there are no penalties to the player, upon death. Then we will have zergs. It's evident in every PvP game (FPS arenas, die respawn, repeat). And wins will all become a matter of stamina (playtime).

So, the only way to prevent the endless Zerg, you have to implement a death penalty. That way, if a player is so far indebt, s/he quits the match. Slowing the endless Zerg.

But, death penalties (loss) are not popular and discourages most to join pvp. Carebears don't like dying, reason they avoid pvp. How do you encourage them to join?

Tyrantor

There has to be risk to die otherwise it's just going to come down to who can respawn and rush back the most. If someone dies 5 times, they may need to switch gear or risk it breaking or becoming unequitable or what ever the risk becomes. If there are going to be siege hammers or other siege equipment that players equip they should have durability too so people can't just bash walls with no fear of death.

Xyls

Tyrantor wrote: »

There should be monetary/mat costs for dying in the siege in addition to some death penalties that are on a relatively short duration. What I mean by this, it should cost people for carelessly dying (Insert your guilds Leroy Jenkins) - then there should be a delay on when you can re-engage in the battle at full strength so if 30 people just got wiped they can just respawn and fight again immediately. There should be a debuff on each character on death for a short duration (+/- how long it would take for a group to heal/mana/stamina up after a fight) - to prevent fights from just going back and forth based on respawning with full stats and rushing back in.

That could be accomplished with a respawn timer. You die, sent to spawn point, 30 second timer to respawn. Then you still have to wait for the rest of your group to respawn or you run back alone to rejoin them in the fight.

I just don't want to see a 2 hour battle end in 30 minutes because one side is completely gimped by stat dampening and other death penalties... and that goes for being on both the winning side and the losing side.

Tyrantor

Xyls wrote: »

That could be accomplished with a respawn timer. You die, sent to spawn point, 30 second timer to respawn. Then you still have to wait for the rest of your group to respawn or you run back alone to rejoin them in the fight.

I just don't want to see a 2 hour battle end in 30 minutes because one side is completely gimped by stat dampening and other death penalties... and that goes for being on both the winning side and the losing side.

I'm against the respawn timer - this shouldn't turn into CS where we die and have to wait to respawn, the debuff should stack so if people want to rush back in the fight with the debuffs active another death multiplies the effects. (risk/reward). I'm not suggesting that these debuffs last for huge durations, in Shadowbane the "Death Shroud" lasted approx 2 minutes if memory serves me. Which prevented people from dying and being summoned right back into the fight. Note: The death shroud basically made you do 50% damage, 50% health etc. So you can still attack if you want but not at full strength. - Another reason death needs to cause durability loss so people don't just burn through all the deaths and then wait for the longest debuff to burn off.

Since AoC is going to have advancing spawn points for the attacking side, there should be some metric to slow them from just immediately re-engaging in a siege after death. Otherwise sieges will just turn into CoD where you kill someone and they respawn behind you and kill you because you're reloading.

Mojottv

Xyls wrote: »

Mojottv wrote: »

insomnia wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

I would still like to see some death penalties in PvP events.

I personally think the fact that corruption is disabled and all players are treated as combatants (which halves the death penalties) is enough.

If there are to be any gains made from these PvP events, there also needs to be the ability to lose something, and the games death penalty is the only way there is to facilitate that. This simple fact of risk vs reward should always trump the need to get more people participating - and I am sure that anyone in this discussion that has argued risk vs reward in a PvE setting has no option other than to agree.

When it comes to sieges, there are things to gain and lose for participants. Your city drops or your city can increase. People with houses can lose stuff

well, to be honest, what youre talking about doesnt depend to much if the payer is participating or not, and only encourages to participate, as theres actually no risk in participating in sieges. but theres only reward, as if you defend, you wont be looted, if you are attacking you can get loot. Death penalty would be the only risk.

I think pvp events should have death penalties, maybe lower than normal, but there still should be something.

So not saying you're wrong or anything but here is something to think about.

In a massive siege that lasts hours, If one side gets wiped two or three times in the first while of the siege and they get stat dampening and other death penalties, the siege is ultimately already over at that point because the side that was a little bit weaker to start (but still could have possibly come back to win) is now extremely weaker due to death penalties.

i get what you're saying, i dont think that death penalty in pvp events should make you weaker, as you stated this makes any comeback virtually impossible, but i believe that simple exp debt should be enough, without the weakening debuff.

Or better yet, of weakening debuffs simply dont work in pvp area, and you would only get waleaker once the siege is over.

Vedia

I'd like to see permadeath/Last man standing server on fresh start servers as a seasonal tournament 2-4 times a year as an event, and if you die your character is transferred to a regular server

Child Item