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

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.

These penalties seem far more reasonable to me.

The only thing I would change are the timed stat reductions - purely because I am just not a fan of them as a penalty. I prefer the stat penalty to be tied to having to be active in some manner.

I definately agree that caravan attackers need full penalties as if they were combatants.

Tyrantor

The stat reductions are important for the objective pvp by giving the winning side of an engagement some reprieve imo - the times may need to adjust higher based on travel time to re-engage. The stat dampening helps counter zerg play as well since it seems reasonable a smaller group would take longer to kill a larger group.

Noaani

Tyrantor wrote: »

The stat reductions are important for the objective pvp by giving the winning side of an engagement some reprieve imo - the times may need to adjust higher based on travel time to re-engage. The stat dampening helps counter zerg play as well since it seems reasonable a smaller group would take longer to kill a larger group.

Oh, I agree that there should be a stat penalty, I'd just rather it be alleviated from experience gain than from time.

If I have a stat penalty, I'd rather that I had to do something as opposed to just having to wait around, which is what happens in most games where a stat penalty is timed.

This also means that developers can add or remove content that players can gain experience on in order to increase or decrease the effectivness of this penalty in a very subtle way.

BlackBrony

Noaani wrote: »

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.

These penalties seem far more reasonable to me.

The only thing I would change are the timed stat reductions - purely because I am just not a fan of them as a penalty. I prefer the stat penalty to be tied to having to be active in some manner.

I definately agree that caravan attackers need full penalties as if they were combatants.

I do like this. I mean, I don't know how the repair gear works, but I'm starting to imagine that low level players or low geared players might even be used as cannon fodder.
The only thing that worries me is that dying causes you to ruin your gear so much that you become ineffective and I don't think you can repair things on the spot.
I mean, dying 10 times in 2 hours might be standard, but I can imagine melee units dying much more often than ranged for example.

As long as we don't have stat dump during these events, I can take the penalty on all other things.

George_Black

Dying during a siege or war is a major problem without the penalties. You lose group buffs causing supports to spend time abd MP reinforcing you, you need to be targeted and rezed, distracting your healer, you may even fall begind while your group advances or retreats. It really hurts to die.

There is no reason for death penalties. They add nothing to the situation. They just discourage involvement unless the benefits are direct and high. Nobody will form friendships, nobody will come to the aid of a friendly guild.

Noaani

George Black wrote: »

Dying during a siege or war is a major problem without the penalties. You lose group buffs causing supports to spend time abd MP reinforcing you, you need to be targeted and rezed, distracting your healer, you may even fall begind while your group advances or retreats. It really hurts to die.

There is no reason for death penalties. They add nothing to the situation. They just discourage involvement unless the benefits are direct and high. Nobody will form friendships, nobody will come to the aid of a friendly guild.

But this can be said of dying any time, in any situation, in any content.

Your argument here is for no death penalties at all, not for no death penalties in specific content.

George_Black

I dont want death penalties for castle/node/freehold sieges, guild wars and instanced PvE raid.

Noaani

George Black wrote: »

I dont want death penalties for castle/node/freehold sieges, guild wars and instanced PvE raid.

In other words, you want a game with about as much meaning to it as WoW.

Because meaning in a game comes from what you stand to lose, and a death penalty is the mechanism by which you lose it.

Sathrago

George Black wrote: »

Dying during a siege or war is a major problem without the penalties. You lose group buffs causing supports to spend time abd MP reinforcing you, you need to be targeted and rezed, distracting your healer, you may even fall begind while your group advances or retreats. It really hurts to die.

There is no reason for death penalties. They add nothing to the situation. They just discourage involvement unless the benefits are direct and high. Nobody will form friendships, nobody will come to the aid of a friendly guild.

I would ask you to go and see how Albion online does their objective based pvp. It is a full loot pvp system with massive battles over forts, castles, and hideouts. The high end guilds farm insane amounts of materials and level players up because they are not stupid and understand that you need to spend money to gain money and prestige.

If death penalties deter people from doing objective based content its because the objectives are not valuable enough and that is Intrepids issue to fix. Making there be no death penalties sucks the life out of the entire experience.

Wololo

I think caravans should fall under full penalties just like open world PvP.. there is a clear risk/reward here. A caravan fight can be a nice starter for big open world fight. If the caravan gets raided by a group and turn them into red-names this sets up chances for bounty hunters or to call friends and guild to help. If attackers dont have a chance to get red name then i think big groups will just camp trade routes with alts scouting not having to worry about anything.
But for any other PvP event my experience in other games is that; if the upkeep costs are to high PvE players will bail out, esp in multiple hour fights. And you want alot of ppl to attend for the common goal.

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.

Child Item