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: »

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.

Child Item