Objective Based Death Penalty

I'm a little confused as to why there will be no death penalty during the objective based PvP (Guild wars, Sieges, Caravan). Shouldn't there be some sort of repair costs and/or reduced exp debt associated with these at a minimum (If not Combatant level death penalties)? On the surface it seems like Caravan attacks would have no risk associated with them outside of political fallout. If the guild wars don't have substantial guild wide reward/risk it seems to me that just killing the enemy guild in the hunting grounds would be more punishing on them. The sieges with no death penalty just rewards higher risk strategy and play for example just sending your melee to bash the wall/door within range of the enemy because well death doesn't cost you anything and it's free damage on the wall/structure.

No death penalty rewards mindless play not participation.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Noaani

George Black wrote: »

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.

George_Black

Except that you Have to run caravans.

Noaani

George Black wrote: »

Except that you Have to run caravans.

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.

George_Black

Where are you going with "play another game"? Wtf.
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

Noaani

George Black wrote: »

Where are you going with "play another game"? Wtf.
You said, if there are no death penalties during caravans, nobody will dare to set out. False.

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?

Xyls

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.

Noaani

Xyls wrote: »

Why does everyone think this is an all or nothing situation?

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.

Noaani wrote: »

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.

Xyls

Noaani wrote: »

Xyls wrote: »

Why does everyone think this is an all or nothing situation?

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.

Noaani wrote: »

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.

Noaani

Xyls wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Xyls wrote: »

Why does everyone think this is an all or nothing situation?

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.

Noaani wrote: »

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.

Caeryl

Xyls wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Xyls wrote: »

Why does everyone think this is an all or nothing situation?

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.

Noaani wrote: »

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.

Xyls

Noaani wrote: »

Xyls wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Xyls wrote: »

Why does everyone think this is an all or nothing situation?

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.

Noaani wrote: »

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.

Noaani

Xyls wrote: »

Lol why are you arguing just to argue?

You're the one doing that.

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.

Xyls

Noaani wrote: »

Xyls wrote: »

Lol why are you arguing just to argue?

You're the one doing that.

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.

Noaani wrote: »

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.

Noaani

Xyls wrote: »

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.

Xyls

Noaani wrote: »

Xyls wrote: »

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.

Noaani

Xyls wrote: »

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.

Liniker

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)

BlackBrony

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?

Caeryl

BlackBrony wrote: »

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?

Percimes

Noaani wrote: »

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.

Child Item