Forums » General Pantheon Discussion

Death as a concept

    • 1071 posts
    September 11, 2019 3:31 PM PDT

    Because we don't know how XP may or may not be utilized as a currency in Panthon, " or having a debuff while debt is accrued " is why I went with that as a suggested 'sting'. 
    Even if you get a rez, guaranteed XP loss and having to get that back and being debuffed while you do it is a strong deterrent.
    Doing it with or without your gear is entirely secondary or optional. 
    Implementing it with or without a public debug flag is also optional.  It just makes it more or less social, or more or less personal, depending on your perspective.
    It would still sting either way, even if you respawned/got rez'd with all your gear, you still have to endure the 'stinger'. :)

    • 3086 posts
    September 11, 2019 3:47 PM PDT

    Kalok said:

    Experience in EQ was MUCH more difficult to gain than in other, more modern MMOs.  You have no idea what you're talking about.  You're showing your lack of experience with EQ.  

    I stopped reading here.  I wasn't comparing EQ to other, more modern MMO's.  I was comparing it to other classics.  Seeing people suggest that the concept of XP loss in Pantheon would be trivial, due to their experience with the implementation of XP loss in Everquest ... that's akin to me saying that the concept of corpse runs in Pantheon would be trivial, due to my experience with the implementation of corpse runs in Vanguard.  It's pure nonsense.  This forum is full of people who walked to school ... in the snow ... up-hill ... both ways!  Anybody who wasn't there for EQ could not possibly comprehend the intricacies of what a meaningful death penalty is.  If someone doesn't want things to be exactly as they were in EQ, they clearly don't appreciate the concept of challenge or risk vs reward.  Give me a break.  I really wish some of you could accept that there were other hardcore / challenging MMO's outside of EQ.  The same stuff you go on and on about with EQ / EQ2 / Vanguard happened with FFXI / FFXIV.

    • 2381 posts
    September 11, 2019 3:54 PM PDT

    Kalok said:

    Experience in EQ was MUCH more difficult to gain than in other, more modern MMOs.  You have no idea what you're talking about.  You're showing your lack of experience with EQ.  Just because it wasn't "scary enough" for you based on our comments that it should, absolutely, be a thing doesn't mean it wasn't meaningful or painful.  In fact, it was the opposite, which is WHY we want it.  It *WAS* meaningful.  It *WAS* painful.  Death meant something.  So did victory.  It wasn't handed out on a silver platter and spoon fed to us.  Class interdependence was also a thing in EQ.  The more "diverse" your classes, the more effecient you were.  Plain and simple.  Have too many of one type and you were going to have a hard time of it sometimes.

    I remember one night when we were having a bad time of it.  I, personally, lost three levels that night.  We didn't cry.  We didn't go to a GM.  We sucked it up and fought on until we earned those levels back.  That is part of the problem.  You don't want meaningful repercussions from your failures.  You want the victory without the defeat.

    He is aware, the point is that almost the entirety of lost experience (and corpse runs) could be negated by a high level resurrect. If you had a cleric of your own or close friend then it was pretty much a non-issue altogether. 

     

    The opposite is true, we are asking for meaninful repercussion for death but acknowledge that death is fairly common and not uncommonly the result of things outside of your own control. Players should be able to accept the loss and not be backed into a situation of "You must do this very specific task to continue playing."


    This post was edited by Iksar at September 11, 2019 3:56 PM PDT
    • 3086 posts
    September 11, 2019 4:15 PM PDT

    Iksar said:

    He is aware, the point is that almost the entirety of lost experience (and corpse runs) could be negated by a high level resurrect. If you had a cleric of your own or close friend then it was pretty much a non-issue altogether. 

     

    The opposite is true, we are asking for meaninful repercussion for death but acknowledge that death is fairly common and not uncommonly the result of things outside of your own control. Players should be able to accept the loss and not be backed into a situation of "You must do this very specific task to continue playing."

    This is exactly it.  Please correct me if I'm wrong but the 96% cleric rez was available during the "golden years" of EQ, right?  Also, is it accurate to say that the 96% restoral was 96% of what was actually lost?  Meaning that if a player lost 10% XP, a 96% rez would restore 9.6%  --  if this is true then a player would have to die 250 times to lose a single level worth of XP.  With those kind of numbers it makes complete sense that XP loss would be deemed trivial.  The value of the XP penalty dollar was essentially reduced to 4 cents.

    • 2381 posts
    September 11, 2019 4:22 PM PDT

    oneADseven said:

    This is exactly it.  Please correct me if I'm wrong but the 96% cleric rez was available during the "golden years" of EQ, right?  Also, is it accurate to say that the 96% restoral was 96% of what was actually lost?  Meaning that if a player lost 10% XP, a 96% rez would restore 9.6%  --  if this is true then a player would have to die 250 times to lose a single level worth of XP.  With those kind of numbers it makes complete sense that XP loss would be deemed trivial.  The value of the XP penalty dollar was essentially reduced to 4 cents.

    That is correct, in vanilla the top was 90% and with the first expansion it was as high as 96% return. With a top cleric resurrect you lost .4% experience upon dying, which even at max level took maybe around 5 minutes of killing to restore. 

    • 1085 posts
    September 11, 2019 4:49 PM PDT

    Iksar said:

    Kalok said:

    Experience in EQ was MUCH more difficult to gain than in other, more modern MMOs.  You have no idea what you're talking about.  You're showing your lack of experience with EQ.  Just because it wasn't "scary enough" for you based on our comments that it should, absolutely, be a thing doesn't mean it wasn't meaningful or painful.  In fact, it was the opposite, which is WHY we want it.  It *WAS* meaningful.  It *WAS* painful.  Death meant something.  So did victory.  It wasn't handed out on a silver platter and spoon fed to us.  Class interdependence was also a thing in EQ.  The more "diverse" your classes, the more effecient you were.  Plain and simple.  Have too many of one type and you were going to have a hard time of it sometimes.

    I remember one night when we were having a bad time of it.  I, personally, lost three levels that night.  We didn't cry.  We didn't go to a GM.  We sucked it up and fought on until we earned those levels back.  That is part of the problem.  You don't want meaningful repercussions from your failures.  You want the victory without the defeat.

    He is aware, the point is that almost the entirety of lost experience (and corpse runs) could be negated by a high level resurrect. If you had a cleric of your own or close friend then it was pretty much a non-issue altogether. 

     

    The opposite is true, we are asking for meaninful repercussion for death but acknowledge that death is fairly common and not uncommonly the result of things outside of your own control. Players should be able to accept the loss and not be backed into a situation of "You must do this very specific task to continue playing."

    Apparently he wasn't.  He was talking about the "terror" of dying and how it negatively impacted the game, and it did no such thing.  He has absolutely no idea.  if he did, he wouldn't be speaking out of his backsaide.  He can't say one thing and claim that he meant another.  That's not how this works.

     

    Defend him all you want, I know what I read and quoted.

    • 3086 posts
    September 11, 2019 5:22 PM PDT

    Kalok said:

    Terror and dread???  Really?  Talk about over-dramatic.  Did you go to the William Shatner school of over-dramatic acting?  Nobody experienced "terror and dread" from dying.  Do you REALLY think that people went crying to GMs every time that they died and their gear poofed because they couldn't retrieve their corpse??  Not only that, but the corpse didn't poof for a fricken week.  That was WAY more than enough time to get it.

    I remember one night when we were having a bad time of it.  I, personally, lost three levels that night.  We didn't cry.  We didn't go to a GM.  We sucked it up and fought on until we earned those levels back.  That is part of the problem.  You don't want meaningful repercussions from your failures.  You want the victory without the defeat.

    Speak for yourself.  Plenty of people have used the exact word "terror" to describe the potential experience of permanently losing the gear that they worked so hard to acquire.  I think it's cool that you're super fearless and gung-ho but you don't speak for everybody.  Wolfhead did an article on loss aversion a while back and many people, including me, consider it to be one of the best MMO articles ever written.  Here is a quote to consider:

    "The possibility and ramifications of death bring much-needed feelings of fear, loathing and terror that help to create the tension and excitement that keeps a player on their toes."

    Beyond that, you should consider that the sense of terror being discussed here (rather than the context of that article, specifically) did indeed have a negative impact on the game.  Again, I think it's cool that you're so fearless but it would be ridiculous to suggest that the average player didn't feel a sense of dread/terror when it came to permanently losing all of their hard-earned gear.  This sensation becomes more problematic depending on the amount of effort that went into acquiring said gear.  There are plenty of stories of players quitting the game after losing a corpse that was full of prized possessions.

    The fear/terror/dread of losing hundreds, or potentially thousands of hours of work, also lead to a significant number of tickets that had to be processed and responded to by the support staff.  The FAQ excerpt on the death penalty was carefully crafted to suggest that players will have an incentive to avoid death, but that the penalty wouldn't be "too severe"  --  permanent item loss was ruled out for that very reason.  When the penalty is "too severe" it can negatively impact players which negatively impacts the game.  If the potential for permanent item loss offered a positive impact on the game, don't you think they would be bringing it back rather than highlighting its absence?


    This post was edited by oneADseven at September 11, 2019 7:01 PM PDT
    • Moderator
    • 8522 posts
    September 12, 2019 2:53 AM PDT

    Let's keep it civil and free from personal attacks please guys.

    • 1570 posts
    September 12, 2019 8:11 AM PDT

    It isn't outside the realm of possibility that VR can implement mechanics to eliminate the remote possibility of a corpse either vanishing due to a bug or disappearing of not looted after some long period of time.  I agree that corpses which have gear/items on them should not vanish without actual confirmation from a player.  So for that very rare situation where someone dies and then goes on vacation for 6 months can sleep soundly knowing that when they return, they can open a ticket to CS to have their corpse returned to exact location where they died so they can then retrieve it.  VR's databases should be robust enough to know, upon death, what every players has on their corpse so that if a corpse vanishes it can be retrieved/recreated by a GM without to much of a delay.

    This way, the short term "ramifications of death bring much-needed feelings of fear, loathing and terror that help to create the tension and excitement that keeps a player on their toes" can stay while eliminating the long term fear of permanatent corpse loss.

    In this I look to EVE Online where, upon the destruction of your ship, you immediately got a death notice that had the full details of your death.  Who killed you, with which weapon, what ship you were in, what  ship they were in, what fittings you had, what implants you had, etc.  It even told you every person who contributed to your destruction.  Extremely detailed.  Their GMs could quickly return ships/fittings when it was determined your death was from a bug or exploit.


    This post was edited by Vandraad at September 12, 2019 8:13 AM PDT
    • 749 posts
    September 12, 2019 8:14 AM PDT

    Vandraad said:

    It isn't outside the realm of possibility that VR can implement mechanics to eliminate the remote possibility of a corpse either vanishing due to a bug or disappearing of not looted after some long period of time.  I agree that corpses which have gear/items on them should not vanish without actual confirmation from a player.  So for that very rare situation where someone dies and then goes on vacation for 6 months can sleep soundly knowing that when they return, they can open a ticket to CS to have their corpse returned to exact location where they died so they can then retrieve it.  VR's databases should be robust enough to know, upon death, what every players has on their corpse so that if a corpse vanishes it can be retrieved/recreated by a GM without to much of a delay.

    This way, the short term "ramifications of death bring much-needed feelings of fear, loathing and terror that help to create the tension and excitement that keeps a player on their toes" can stay while eliminating the long term fear of permanatent corpse loss.

     

    I love how people say corpse runs are the extreme...nawh..that is a middle ground imo compared to something like UO. The extreme in this case is when you die you have to start over. The extreme on the other side is if you die nothing happens to you really. If we take those two actual extreme then a corpse run with gear on the body and exp loss is a middle ground imo.

    • 622 posts
    September 12, 2019 8:16 AM PDT

    Pretty sure Brad has already said that gear loss was too extreme, and most likely would not be in play in Pantheon. So that should probably be scratched from the debate all together.

     

    I have no issue with xp loss, corpse retrieval, etc. I'm also not against some sort of quick recovery option at a heavy penalty, but that penalty has to be severe enough that even characters at max level don't find it more efficient than actually retreiving your corpse, possibly a sliding scale baed on level?

    But I do know I want there to be a penalty, much more than just simply resurrecting at a gravestone and going on with your day as if nothing happened.

    • 749 posts
    September 12, 2019 8:25 AM PDT

    ^ Hardly anyone is saying anything about permanent gear loss...you just need to retrieve said gear on your corpse. More than reasonable to do in todays programming era.

    • 3086 posts
    September 12, 2019 9:20 AM PDT

    Watemper said:

    I love how people say corpse runs are the extreme...nawh..that is a middle ground imo compared to something like UO. The extreme in this case is when you die you have to start over. The extreme on the other side is if you die nothing happens to you really. If we take those two actual extreme then a corpse run with gear on the body and exp loss is a middle ground imo.

    UO wasn't being used to define the "actual extremes."  EQ and VG were referenced, specifically.

    Watemper said:

    ^ Hardly anyone is saying anything about permanent gear loss...you just need to retrieve said gear on your corpse. More than reasonable to do in todays programming era.

    Just because corpse rot was a result of technical limitations back in 1999 doesn't mean that it couldn't be purposely crafted into Pantheon today.  Corpses decayed after a few hours in VG and I hope to see something similar here.


    This post was edited by oneADseven at September 12, 2019 9:22 AM PDT
    • 737 posts
    September 12, 2019 10:39 AM PDT

    why not just have a median of what everyone is suggesting?

    bottom line is everyone wants some type of penality for dying, a type of debt system and a recoup.

    (this is general approximation i'm no math wizard and this is not absolute additionally can be adjusted)

     

    max level, no equipment loss, durability loss per death

    20% xp loss upon death, 10% refund upon corpse run recovery, 15% refund upon resurrection

     

    assuming you have maxed exp at max level that's 10 attempts without a rez, 20 attempts with a rez.

    have a surplus and debt system (logging out in an inn you can build a 200% exp bonus) 40 attempts with a rez, let's be real this is very generous as most raids in modern day gaming will do about 5 attempts at most.

    vice versa for debt, 80 attempts before you delevel.  this debt can be recovered by logging out in an inn*

     

    looks pretty reasonable to me, although i'd probably reduce the numbers to something like 20 attempts with a rez, max rested xp, in debt and deleveling at 21 attempts.

    eh i really don't care too much about all this.  most of my deaths in mmo occurs through mass ritual raid suicide or usually pvp.  i'll show myself out now XD

    • 379 posts
    September 12, 2019 11:26 AM PDT

    I like stellarmind's surplus system if I'm understanding it correctly. Dying just after leveling is annoying if it causes you to lose levels as you'll have to re-do your hotbars, switch out of level-restricted gear (if that's a thing), etc. It makes sense to have a buffer built in. If you die too much, then you should de-level, but I think it should be when you're like halfway indebted in your previous level or something.

    • 1071 posts
    September 12, 2019 2:07 PM PDT

    It can't just be XP debt or loss, and de-leveling has issues that make certain content gating very problematic, unless you respawn with all your gear, all the time.
    Hence my suggested requirement to tie a debuff to the debt or deaths.  That makes it sting enough. 
    I don't personally like de-leveling, because it means you can't use level as a gate, unless you always respawn with all your gear, otherwise, you can't get your gear back if you lost it in the area that is level gated.
    However, if you get debt after you reach 0% of your level, in addition to the debuff?  Sure, I would support that.
    I think a portion of XP permanently lost per death, even if you get a full rez, is also required, and 10% would seem to be a good minimum to start testing with.

    There is another option, though.  You can set aside the XP portion of the equation entirely, and the gear portion, and durability loss, too.  (VR has said that both equipment damage/repair and permanent item loss won't be in Panthon, iirc).  You could just have the debuff be a consequence of death, if it's strong enough.  Ultimately, if you don't want to treat XP like currency, and people are max level, so they don't care, then make the debuff the death penalty, only, as a minimum.  Ignore the rest.  Every death, you lose 10% effectiveness in damage output, healing, skills, spells, scrolls, potions, food, all consumables, everything.  Each 10% effect has it's own timer that only counts down while you're online, and lasts several [ tunable-value-here ] minutes or hours.  Die 10 times, you produce exactly zero damage, healing, and everything else is at zero.
     
    I mean, if you really wanted to go all Silius-level punitive, you could also add a run speed debuff as well, that capped at 95% or something. :)  Heck you could even make it so that certain buffs cannot be cast on you, as well, after a certain point, or even after the first death, or that also scale in effectiveness, downward, based on the number of "Death Debuff" stacks you have on you, just like your own spells, skills, abilities, etc.

    • 737 posts
    September 12, 2019 2:27 PM PDT

    vjek said:

    It can't just be XP debt or loss, and de-leveling has issues that make certain content gating very problematic, unless you respawn with all your gear, all the time.
    Hence my suggested requirement to tie a debuff to the debt or deaths.  That makes it sting enough. 
    I don't personally like de-leveling, because it means you can't use level as a gate, unless you always respawn with all your gear, otherwise, you can't get your gear back if you lost it in the area that is level gated.
    However, if you get debt after you reach 0% of your level, in addition to the debuff?  Sure, I would support that.
    I think a portion of XP permanently lost per death, even if you get a full rez, is also required, and 10% would seem to be a good minimum to start testing with.

    There is another option, though.  You can set aside the XP portion of the equation entirely, and the gear portion, and durability loss, too.  (VR has said that both equipment damage/repair and permanent item loss won't be in Panthon, iirc).  You could just have the debuff be a consequence of death, if it's strong enough.  Ultimately, if you don't want to treat XP like currency, and people are max level, so they don't care, then make the debuff the death penalty, only, as a minimum.  Ignore the rest.  Every death, you lose 10% effectiveness in damage output, healing, skills, spells, scrolls, potions, food, all consumables, everything.  Each 10% effect has it's own timer that only counts down while you're online, and lasts several [ tunable-value-here ] minutes or hours.  Die 10 times, you produce exactly zero damage, healing, and everything else is at zero.
     
    I mean, if you really wanted to go all Silius-level punitive, you could also add a run speed debuff as well, that capped at 95% or something. :)  Heck you could even make it so that certain buffs cannot be cast on you, as well, after a certain point, or even after the first death, or that also scale in effectiveness, downward, based on the number of "Death Debuff" stacks you have on you, just like your own spells, skills, abilities, etc.

    its not a good idea to reduce a player's ability to perform in a raid via debuff.  eh w.e its gonna be a problem with hardcore pve raiders. (keep in mind i really don't care as long as it doesn't affect pvp)  then i'd have to have another group of players on standby for each person that died until the debuff goes away... yeeeeeeeeeet.  hence why the exp thing is probably the best median.  it doesn't affect my ability to attempt encounters at max power, just limits how many chances with some wiggle room.


    This post was edited by stellarmind at September 12, 2019 2:38 PM PDT
    • 2381 posts
    September 12, 2019 2:37 PM PDT

    vjek said:

    It can't just be XP debt or loss, and de-leveling has issues that make certain content gating very problematic, unless you respawn with all your gear, all the time.
    Hence my suggested requirement to tie a debuff to the debt or deaths.  That makes it sting enough. 
    I don't personally like de-leveling, because it means you can't use level as a gate, unless you always respawn with all your gear, otherwise, you can't get your gear back if you lost it in the area that is level gated.
    However, if you get debt after you reach 0% of your level, in addition to the debuff?  Sure, I would support that.
    I think a portion of XP permanently lost per death, even if you get a full rez, is also required, and 10% would seem to be a good minimum to start testing with.

    There is another option, though.  You can set aside the XP portion of the equation entirely, and the gear portion, and durability loss, too.  (VR has said that both equipment damage/repair and permanent item loss won't be in Panthon, iirc).  You could just have the debuff be a consequence of death, if it's strong enough.  Ultimately, if you don't want to treat XP like currency, and people are max level, so they don't care, then make the debuff the death penalty, only, as a minimum.  Ignore the rest.  Every death, you lose 10% effectiveness in damage output, healing, skills, spells, scrolls, potions, food, all consumables, everything.  Each 10% effect has it's own timer that only counts down while you're online, and lasts several [ tunable-value-here ] minutes or hours.  Die 10 times, you produce exactly zero damage, healing, and everything else is at zero.
     
    I mean, if you really wanted to go all Silius-level punitive, you could also add a run speed debuff as well, that capped at 95% or something. :)  Heck you could even make it so that certain buffs cannot be cast on you, as well, after a certain point, or even after the first death, or that also scale in effectiveness, downward, based on the number of "Death Debuff" stacks you have on you, just like your own spells, skills, abilities, etc.

    It doesn't make level gating a problem if it's a flag on the character, so if you have hit 48 at any point you have access to whatever area. 

    Forced naked corpse runs just don't seem like something that should exist, players should always have the option to cut their loss and it shouldn't include loss of all equipment. Not to mention the vast majority of cases players are going to "corpse run" anyway, they aren't likely to just stop what they were doing before hand or leave the group for no other reason and if some xp loss can be regained by going back it almost guarantees most players will. 

     

    10% of level xp loss on death, 5% which can be recovered by returning to corpse and/or getting a resurrect with the other 5% permanently lost. 20 straight deaths before deleveling if maxed in a level seems more than fair to me. Once per level (not banked) "debt" granted should a player die without enough xp progress into their level to cover the loss, from then on its just de-leveling. 

    • 1071 posts
    September 12, 2019 2:51 PM PDT

    Reasonable points.  What's been outlined in this thread is enough to create something testable, and would drive the right emergent behavior, imo.  It's just down to tuning, if you accept some of the basic ideas.

    • 1085 posts
    September 13, 2019 1:24 PM PDT

    vjek said:

    It can't just be XP debt or loss, and de-leveling has issues that make certain content gating very problematic, unless you respawn with all your gear, all the time.
    Hence my suggested requirement to tie a debuff to the debt or deaths.  That makes it sting enough. 
    I don't personally like de-leveling, because it means you can't use level as a gate, unless you always respawn with all your gear, otherwise, you can't get your gear back if you lost it in the area that is level gated.
    However, if you get debt after you reach 0% of your level, in addition to the debuff?  Sure, I would support that.
    I think a portion of XP permanently lost per death, even if you get a full rez, is also required, and 10% would seem to be a good minimum to start testing with.

    There is another option, though.  You can set aside the XP portion of the equation entirely, and the gear portion, and durability loss, too.  (VR has said that both equipment damage/repair and permanent item loss won't be in Panthon, iirc).  You could just have the debuff be a consequence of death, if it's strong enough.  Ultimately, if you don't want to treat XP like currency, and people are max level, so they don't care, then make the debuff the death penalty, only, as a minimum.  Ignore the rest.  Every death, you lose 10% effectiveness in damage output, healing, skills, spells, scrolls, potions, food, all consumables, everything.  Each 10% effect has it's own timer that only counts down while you're online, and lasts several [ tunable-value-here ] minutes or hours.  Die 10 times, you produce exactly zero damage, healing, and everything else is at zero.
     
    I mean, if you really wanted to go all Silius-level punitive, you could also add a run speed debuff as well, that capped at 95% or something. :)  Heck you could even make it so that certain buffs cannot be cast on you, as well, after a certain point, or even after the first death, or that also scale in effectiveness, downward, based on the number of "Death Debuff" stacks you have on you, just like your own spells, skills, abilities, etc.

    Level gated?  What are you talking about??  EQ never had any content in any levels prior to 2005 that was level gated.  I'm sure that Pantheon won't either.  There may have been mobs that would have been more difficult for one level over another, but losing ONE LEVEL isn't going to make a difference to that.

     

    Edited to re-phrase....


    This post was edited by Kalok at September 13, 2019 1:25 PM PDT
    • 2381 posts
    September 13, 2019 3:49 PM PDT

    Kalok said:

    Level gated?  What are you talking about??  EQ never had any content in any levels prior to 2005 that was level gated.  I'm sure that Pantheon won't either.  There may have been mobs that would have been more difficult for one level over another, but losing ONE LEVEL isn't going to make a difference to that.

     

    Edited to re-phrase....

    Except for every Plane raid zone...

    • 1085 posts
    September 13, 2019 5:19 PM PDT

    Iksar said:

    Kalok said:

    Level gated?  What are you talking about??  EQ never had any content in any levels prior to 2005 that was level gated.  I'm sure that Pantheon won't either.  There may have been mobs that would have been more difficult for one level over another, but losing ONE LEVEL isn't going to make a difference to that.

     

    Edited to re-phrase....

    Except for every Plane raid zone...

    Only if you expand "level gated" to mean "All of the MoBs will easily curb stomp you."  Prior to 2005, the planes weren't "level gated".

    • 929 posts
    September 13, 2019 6:33 PM PDT

    Kalok said:

    Only if you expand "level gated" to mean "All of the MoBs will easily curb stomp you."  Prior to 2005, the planes weren't "level gated".

    No, I'm pretty sure 48 to simply pass through the portal to Plane of Fear from the very beginning.

    We all made sure we were at least "48 and some kills" before we went in or we could lose our corpse. If the Rez didn't restore enough experience to ding you back to 48, you were /petition a GM to summon your corpse out.


    This post was edited by Zorkon at September 13, 2019 6:36 PM PDT
    • 69 posts
    September 14, 2019 6:47 AM PDT

    Vandraad said:

    dorotea said:

    My core feeling about dying is that it should *always* be painful enough to sting. Possibly with an exception at very early levels.

    I agree. Death must always be painful, something you want to go to great lengths to avoid.  Death is the result of a mistake, either yours or someone elses. Mistakes have consequences.  The severity of consequence must relfect the severity of the mistake.  Thus much of your personal penalty for dying can be reduced by careful planning, being mindful of your surroundings and having a strong understanding of strengths and weakness of your class and those in your group.

    Personally, I prefer harsh penalties:  XP loss.  De-leveling.  Naked corpse runs.  Why?  Because, for one thing, harsh penalties help to spread out the players.  Those more capable players will move away from the less capable, on down the line.   Also, without death being painful, victory then loses much of its attractiveness.  To never lose something means winning just isn't that interesting.

     

    It's sometimes difficult to take a 'helicopter view' of mechanics, the broader effect that they have beyond the immediate subject. Above being a case in point. So you spread out the players, 'more capable' players work with each other and 'less capable' ones are thus left to only work with each other. Capable players progress and less capable ones are left behind. Extrapolate that effect for a year, you end up with a highly elitist culture and an 'underclass' of guilds of the less capable. The less capable get frustrated, angry and maybe leave the game because the more capable don't want to coach and help them get better, they just want to progress at the fastest rate. Do you really want to be one of these toxic people that, according to most on here, constitute the bast majority of populations in other MMOs? Is this situation really in the best interests of the game as a whole, given that as Brad said, and very reasonably so, the VR team also need to eat and pay their mortgages? 

    And why are these people 'less capable' in the first place? Do they have smaller monitors and are thus less aware of their surroundings? Perhaps they are wonderful and helpful people but maybe have a learning disability? Myriad other reasons. What sort of culture does it help to promote when there are implicit incentives to avoid certain people (other than those who are unpleasant)? If you're banking on an assumption that the whole of this community, the whole of the old EQ community were selfless and helpful then I suspect you may be being a little optimistic about human nature; You might also be a little optimistic reagrding your own nature, given that you have fairly clearly indicated you'd be one of those people who would choose to not stick around and coach.

    One of my fondest memories of classic wow was taking one of these 'less capable' players under my wing, who had never played MMOs before, and coaching them. We died rather a lot on the way but eventually he ended up getting good and turned out to be one of the friendliest most helpful and respected people in the guild, a true role model. Put yourself in my position now but faced with the prospect of perhaps losing two or three levels as a result of coaching this guy. Would you do what I did? Be honest now. Would I repeat this experience? I'd hope I would but I'd certainly think about it more. Prehaps I might just think to myself "Well... maybe another time, not right now", confident in the knowledge that I am still a kind person underneath it all, while this person continues to struggle on and get increasingly frustrated. this of course doesn't help the poor 'less capable' guy at all and he looks at me as I walk on by and thinks to himself "I wish people in this game would be nicer". Then he makes a post about it in the forums only to be shot down in flames by an indignant community who are all adamant that they are really nice underneath it all and how dare he? Git Gud instead, that's the mechanics if you don't like it go play a care bear game.

    Mechanics influence behaviours and culture is defined by behaviours and not by a collection of thoughts around how people would like to perceive themselves.

    Harsh death penalties? Yes I'm an advocate however there's a delicate balance to be struck. I'd encourage everyone to think as holisitcally as they can about the mechanics they propose. There is an awful lot of contradiction in these forums in general. There's lots of talk generally about a sense of community and helpfulness and that seems to me to be quite a thin veil of deceipt given the number of posts that clearly indicate a preference for mechanics which resist nurturing this culture - perhaps when people talk about community and helpfulness they only mean community and helpfulness among the smallest group of the 'most capable' players? (Dare I say community and helpfulness for the ex EQ community and sod everyone else?).

    I'm confident that Brad and the team are thinking holistically. Aradune's posts about his thoughts on the mentoring system, for example, are a clear demonstration. Introducing mechanics like this which incentivise collabroation, however with limits to mitigate negative effects elsewhere, I think are excellent ideas and am contiunally encouraged by the game when I see these demonstrations of such broad thinking.

     

    In fact, if you happen to read this VR, may I humbly propose an additional policy to the mentoring system - if you're the mentor then you don't suffer a death penalty? If the system is indeed capped to level 10 then I can't right now think of a way in which this policy could be abused. I'd second Dorotea's suggestion of doing away with it for all below a certain level.


    This post was edited by Idrial at September 14, 2019 8:40 AM PDT
    • 69 posts
    September 14, 2019 7:07 AM PDT

    dupe


    This post was edited by Idrial at September 14, 2019 8:39 AM PDT