Idea for death penalty when low lvl players are ganked

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?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Vhaeyne

FuryBladeborne wrote: »

Ok, if you honestly believe that there will be 0 ganking of low level players, then I think you are delusional and I will leave it alone.

I said there would be: "handful of jackasses will want to see the world burn occasionally".

FuryBladeborne wrote: »

However, if you recognize that ganking will happen to some extent (regardless of whatever reasons we want to argue about for it); then, I think that low levels being ganked by such players should not have to suffer the full death penalty.

*Also, leveling a character for days is nothing.

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.

Vhaeyne

ThexBlackxKnight wrote: »

Vhaeyne wrote: »

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.

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.

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.

FuryBladeborne

Vhaeyne wrote: »

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.

To me, scaling XP debt seemed to be the obvious correct choice. However, I don't know of it being stated anywhere so I thought it would be a good idea to make sure it was mentioned rather than assuming it would be in the game.

The penalties of both death and corruption are scaling based on accumulated XP debt and corruption, respectively.

ThexBlackxKnight

Vhaeyne wrote: »

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.

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.

Vhaeyne

FuryBladeborne wrote: »

Vhaeyne wrote: »

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.

To me, scaling XP debt seemed to be the obvious correct choice. However, I don't know of it being stated anywhere so I thought it would be a good idea to make sure it was mentioned rather than assuming it would be in the game.

The penalties of both death and corruption are scaling based on accumulated XP debt and corruption, respectively.

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.

FuryBladeborne

Ok, it seems like we are pretty much in agreement

Dygz

FuryBladeborne wrote: »

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?

It should be the normal death penalty. Same as if you die any other way.

Vhaeyne

ThexBlackxKnight wrote: »

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.

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.

FuryBladeborne

Dygz wrote: »

FuryBladeborne wrote: »

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?

It should be the normal death penalty. Same as if you die any other way.

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.

ThexBlackxKnight

Vhaeyne wrote: »

. 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.

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.

Biccus

Vhaeyne wrote: »

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.

I agree with everything that you’ve said so far so I have to ask about my concern about the tagging.

I have the scenario in my head where a higher level is just throwing weak hits or CC at a lower level and in the attempt to get away they try to CC the attacker and mount up away.
From what I understand throwing the CC to try and escape would flag them as a combatant. Allowing the attacker to freely kill and avoid corruption.

For reference the attacker is combatant and defender is non combatant.
Also the example doesn’t just relate to high levels, it could just be much better geared characters employing the same tactic.

Maybe this is just everyday life in an open world PvP MMO, I’m just woefully unfamiliar with the experiences of one.

Dygz

You can flag and get half the penalty if you want, but...also...
We need to actually play and see how well Corruption works as a deterrent before trying to overhaul the current design.

Vhaeyne

ThexBlackxKnight wrote: »

Vhaeyne wrote: »

. 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.

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.

What sane guild would risk their reputation going to war with a leveling guild? It is like telling the whole server "We are gankers, please come kill us". They would find themselves in more wars than they could handle.

ThexBlackxKnight

Vhaeyne wrote: »

What sane guild would risk their reputation going to war with a leveling guild? It is like telling the whole server "We are gankers, please come kill us". They would find themselves in more wars than they could handle.

Reputation carries less weight with a server cap of ten thousand players , and guild wars are legal wars, why would their reputation be hurt by that , everyone in a guild war is fair game.

Vhaeyne

Biccus wrote: »

Vhaeyne wrote: »

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.

I agree with everything that you’ve said so far so I have to ask about my concern about the tagging.

I have the scenario in my head where a higher level is just throwing weak hits or CC at a lower level and in the attempt to get away they try to CC the attacker and mount up away.
From what I understand throwing the CC to try and escape would flag them as a combatant. Allowing the attacker to freely kill and avoid corruption.

For reference the attacker is combatant and defender is non combatant.
Also the example doesn’t just relate to high levels, it could just be much better geared characters employing the same tactic.

Maybe this is just everyday life in an open world PvP MMO, I’m just woefully unfamiliar with the experiences of one.

There will eventually be diminishing returns on CC. CC also tends to have a higher CD in most MMORPGs, so it would be stupid for someone to walk around flagged as combatant with part of their tool kit on CD just to mess with a low-level player.

I can't imagine players will have enough CC to just freely use it without a good reason. I mean if I see you CC someone and turn purple. I at least know you don't have your CC now, which makes the person doing the CCing a more gankable target.

Vhaeyne

ThexBlackxKnight wrote: »

Vhaeyne wrote: »

What sane guild would risk their reputation going to war with a leveling guild? It is like telling the whole server "We are gankers, please come kill us". They would find themselves in more wars than they could handle.

Reputation carries less weight with a server cap of ten thousand players , and guild wars are legal wars, why would their reputation be hurt by that , everyone in a guild war is fair game.

10k divided by 118 nodes. Granted it will not be an even distribution of 85 people per node. It would likely be a few hundred to a thousand per large node and hundreds for smaller nodes in that zone of influence.

You will still know the names of all the big guilds on your server and any guilds in your nodes zone of influence. Reputation will carry weight for sure.

Biccus

Wasn’t the 10k concurrent players, with the servers only having 10-15k player cap at launch? Going up to 50k. (Iirc)

Edit: About my other concern. Maybe it’s just me but I don’t expect, in a game where you lose a (potentially) large chunk of gatherables on death to default to “sit there and let it happen”

Songcaller

Biccus wrote: »

Wasn’t the 10k concurrent players, with the servers only having 10-15k player cap at launch? Going up to 50k. (Iirc)

Yes. 50 k registered accounts per server. 10 k concurrent players. The queues will be bad.

Vhaeyne

Biccus wrote: »

Wasn’t the 10k concurrent players, with the servers only having 10-15k player cap at launch? Going up to 50k. (Iirc)

If a player logs on once every two weeks are they worth knowing?

The idea is that you will know a lot of the people who spend time in the game when you do.

Edit: I may have misread your meaning. I thought you were saying you would expect the world to have 50k worth of people that you need to know, but only 10-15k could be online at a time. Still not sure.

ThexBlackxKnight

Vhaeyne wrote: »

10k divided by 118 nodes. Granted it will not be an even distribution of 85 people per node. It would likely be a few hundred to a thousand per large node and hundreds for smaller nodes in that zone of influence.

You will still know the names of all the big guilds on your server and any guilds in your nodes zone of influence. Reputation will carry weight for sure.

Maybe but guilds will kill any member of enemy guild no matter the level , its happens in every open world pvp mmo I have played. Most guilds will not be concerned about having a sense of honor , they will care a lot more about winning .

Also the world is not static , the game is ever changing and its being designed that long lasting alliances cant happen. Pve raid spots will be changing , new areas will be contested, any aggreements you may have had with guilds before will go the out the window when a node is destroyed and those players maybe be your enemy later on which makes it really hard to enforce this don't attack low level honor pledge between guilds.

Child Item