Proper Risk vs Reward.
Exp is not enough of a penalty. Level loss is not enough of a penalty. It may seem like such for a generation of games with exp potions and the focus to level extremely fast to cap being the point of play, but for the older games, exp was merely a process to deliniate progress goals, exp was a part of the game, it was a process of the journey, not some huge obstacle that had to be fast paced through to get to end game. If I die with such a system, there is no urgency, no need to correct my failure immediately. I can, on my own time and choice go back and exp to recover at a place of my choosing. I can choose to even find ways to speed up this process over time (power leveling, emergent game play that provides large exp reward...ie quad kiting, etc..) and when I am at cap, it becomes no penalty at all and more common to an arcade game with multiple lives before I even need to deal with obtaining more to repair my failure. Now add in a cleric (and classes who can summon a corpse to get back the exp) who can recover a portion of your exp if you get a rez and you have a system that has no real meaning in consequence.
Look at the arguments here that are against naked corpse runs. They aren't reasoned by a desire to find a balance of risk vs reward and choice and consequence, rather they are reasoned by claims of not being a kid anymore and having less time to play, so the idea of having a consequence that could get in the way of their play time is not wanted. That is, they want their play time to be focused mainly on "reward" with little "risk/consequence.
Exp as a penalty is a supplemental penalty. It isn't the main consequence, it is merely the "matter of fact" of play. You will lose your progress due to your failure. That alone as I said, isn't enough. There MUST be something that forces an immediate action to continue in play, something the player must be forced to rememdy. A naked corpse run does this. It forces the player to go back to where they died and recover their corpse to get their items in order to contine on in play. Certianly someone can choose to not go get their corpse and have a complete set of items to conintue on, but if Pantheon also has proper risk vs reward balance in obtaining items, this will not be a reasonable choice due to the time and effort it will take to obtain items.
The player will then be required to remedy their failure to continue on in game play. This specifically provides a risk that can not be shrugged off, the player WILL need to go back and get their corpse. This is the point and this produces consideration to how they will achieve that, who will help them, the level of skill/ability of their classes to do this (invis, FD, stealth) as well as how much time it will take to get to a spot where one died. This layers numerous consequences that are balanced to the level of risk a player takes. That is, if a player is careful, doesn't venture out far, always plays it safe (ie zone line exping, staying near easy to access areas) then the corpse recovery will match that level of risk, but if someone goes DEEP into a dungeon, in a very difficult to get to area that requires a full group, very skilled players, etc... getting that corpse is going to be very difficult and so the risk matches this. In both situations, reward is also porperly balanced as the best rewards will not be sitting at the zone lines and easy to get areas. This is proper risk vs reward.
Now some have suggested having very large exp penalties and level loss, and well... that is again missing the point. If the exp loss is so large people that it would be silly to not recover a corpse, and everyone will have to go back to their corpse anyway, why this system and not the original EQ one? People will be doing CRs anyway?
You know how I know naked corpse runs are the best balance for this? Look at people arguing against it. Look at their reasons, it isn't as I said a risk vs reward balance argument, it is the fear of having to do it and that fear then being significant where they will have to take it into consideration. They are fine with an exp penalty for the very reasons I pointed out, because failing and not getting their exp is something they are willing to deal with, and if they are willing to deal with it, they aren't afraid to die and this defeats the entire point. Anyone who argues to limit a penalty without a proper logical evaluation in the balance isn't arguing for game balance, they are arguing for personal favor.
Naked corpse runs, healthy exp loss, possible chance to lose a level depending on your current exp progress. You have to go back to your corpse if you want your gear and the only way around that is through some tools (ie corpse summoning spells by a certain class that summons the body within the zone to the player and has a sufficently negative restriction). This way you still have to go back to the zone you died (which that in and of itself could be very difficult if the zone is layered in an area where you have to get through another dangerous area) naked, or go and get your backup gear first.
This of course is without corpse rott (ie losing everything) as this was never a game mechanic, just a fact of playing EQ and the technical limitations. I don't think corpse rott is a reasonable balance for reasons I will not go into as it is a big discussion in itself. Suffice to say, it punishes the person, not the player and I don't think that is risk vs reward in play.
Tanix said:Look at the arguments here that are against naked corpse runs. They aren't reasoned by a desire to find a balance of risk vs reward and choice and consequence, rather they are reasoned by claims of not being a kid anymore and having less time to play, so the idea of having a consequence that could get in the way of their play time is not wanted. That is, they want their play time to be focused mainly on "reward" with little "risk/consequence.
I respectfully disagree with this assertion. There have been plenty of sound arguments against naked corpse runs that were centered around balance of risk vs reward. This is a really long thread but for those who care to look, have at it.
oneADseven said:Tanix said:Look at the arguments here that are against naked corpse runs. They aren't reasoned by a desire to find a balance of risk vs reward and choice and consequence, rather they are reasoned by claims of not being a kid anymore and having less time to play, so the idea of having a consequence that could get in the way of their play time is not wanted. That is, they want their play time to be focused mainly on "reward" with little "risk/consequence.
I respectfully disagree with this assertion. There have been plenty of sound arguments against naked corpse runs that were centered around balance of risk vs reward. This is a really long thread but for those who care to look, have at it.
I respectfully disagree with your assertion that such arguments have been made to any validity. /shrug
EDIT:
You arguments were against CRs because you think they go too far.
By that very point, you advocate for a less severe system, being more open to exping as a penalty.
Your penalty isn't one. I am fine with your penalties, they don't cause me any fear or force me to have any real requirement when I die.
You are afraid of my penalty because it has more of a conseuence.
I would say my system achieves the entire point.
I find it funny that people with less time now think that only people with a lot of time played that game...seriously. Plenty of grown ups with families played. Hell my dad and mom played with me. I could only play around 2-3 hours on weekdays and on the weekends I would be able to play all day if I wanted to, but man the amount of people who ran jobs and had a family were ridiculous. So for people who are torn because they have less time isn't a good argument at all since there were plenty of people back then who had obligations, like a job, wife/husband, and kids, and still managed to survive the onslaught of EQ. So that line of thought has no excuses other than being a selfish request at the expense of the game because of their time that they can't manage properly like other people did in the game who probably worked longer hours back then than they do now.
Watemper said:I find it funny that people with less time now think that only people with a lot of time played that game...seriously. Plenty of grown ups with families played. Hell my dad and mom played with me. I could only play around 2-3 hours on weekdays and on the weekends I would be able to play all day if I wanted to, but man the amount of people who ran jobs and had a family were ridiculous. So for people who are torn because they have less time isn't a good argument at all since there were plenty of people back then who had obligations, like a job, wife/husband, and kids, and still managed to survive the onslaught of EQ. So that line of thought has no excuses other than being a selfish request at the expense of the game because of their time that they can't manage properly like other people did in the game who probably worked longer hours back then than they do now.
Yep. Most of the people in my guild were 25+ at the time, with many of us around 30+. Most of us had full time jobs, professional ones (engineers, software developers, CIOs, etc...). Heck, our necro had 5 children and a full time job, and was on a softball team. Point is, we made time, we played as we could, that is... if we didn't have time, we did something else as those were the breaks.
I find that this position was more of a modern position. I mean, I used to be flabbergasted by someone saying "They had a life, work, and family, they don't have time to work on a schedule for a game", this being told to me when I suggested to a WoW guild I was helping raid that we schedule weekly specific meet times to work on the content. This having came from EQ where raiding was "at any moment" type of grouping and this person was telling me they had no time to setup a pre-defined schedule that everyone could agree on before it was picked?
Yeah, the whole "I work, I have a family, I don't have time... xyz" I find to be an lacking argument.
Tanix said:I respectfully disagree with your assertion that such arguments have been made to any validity. /shrug
You arguments were against CRs because you think they go too far.
By that very point, you advocate for a less severe system, being more open to exping as a penalty.
Your penalty isn't one. I am fine with your penalties, they don't cause me any fear or force me to have any real requirement when I die.
You are afraid of my penalty because it has more of a conseuence.
I would say my system achieves the entire point.
Your system achieves your "entire point" -- this has been debated quite extensively, and I have reminded you repeatedly that your "entire point" doesn't exactly align with what has been described as the planned penalty for this game. You're using strawman arguments to reduce the opinion of others, or even suggest that you are successfully invalidating them. I'm going to share this one more time as it will hopefully add some clarity to what is being discussed here. From the FAQ:
7.0 Will there be a ‘death penalty’?
We want the player to respect and even fear the environment, but also to be enticed by it. A big part of achieving this balance is making sure there is an incentive to avoid death. While the details of this system are not yet fleshed out (and will likely be tweaked and changed a bit during beta), you can expect death to be something you’d rather avoid. That said, if a death penalty is too severe, it can keep players away from some of the more challenging and rewarding content, and we are keeping this in mind as well. So death will sting, but it will also not involve losing an unreasonable amount of experience, or levels, or a permanent loss of items.
The Chief Creative Officer (Brad McQuaid) suggested that naked corpse runs are probably too extreme. He mentioned that the death penalty is going to be somewhere between EQ and VG multiple times over the span of several years. He also shared an example of what a healthy medium might look like, and that example is very close to what I have been advocating for. There is no balance or compromise in your suggestion. I totally understand that you may very well not want to compromise in any way, and that's fine, but your argument (featuring a bunch of strawmans) most certainly doesn't invalidate those of others who prefer something more along the lines of what has been described as the plan for this game, specifically.
Your argument is subjective. If we take your position to its core approach, I could say by having any penalty, keeps people away from content.
Considering the modern gamer generation has not had to deal with severe penalty systems, I would say that the bulk of people who are not EQ vets are going to think anything more than a WoW penalty (which isn't one) is something that will keep them away from more challenging and rewarding content.
"If we take your argument to it's core approach, I could say X." You didn't respond to my argument. You misrepresented my position (just like you did several other times on this same page) and ignored the majority of surrounding context. You created an exaggerated and easy to defeat narrative and then responded to that rather than anything specific from my post. Classic strawman fallacy. Toodles!
MauvaisOeil said:Fallacy or not fallacy, I think the FAQ quote is hard to twist over even if it allows some flexibility.
I would PREFER an EQ Stinging death penalty but I will live withouth it (probable easier, but the easier isn't the better).
We want the player to respect and even fear the environment, but also to be enticed by it. A big part of achieving this balance is making sure there is an incentive to avoid death. While the details of this system are not yet fleshed out (and will likely be tweaked and changed a bit during beta), you can expect death to be something you’d rather avoid. That said, if a death penalty is too severe, it can keep players away from some of the more challenging and rewarding content, and we are keeping this in mind as well. So death will sting, but it will also not involve losing an unreasonable amount of experience, or levels, or a permanent loss of items.
Not seeing how it removes the need to recover a corpse and all your gear.
187 is using subjective means to infer from the above that it means there wil be no need to naked CR, that this is "too severe". That was the point. Brad has walked all around the concept of this issue at times, obviously I think he wants to first implement and toy with things before they commit to a solid position. Point is, nothing above conflicts with the concept of a naked CR where you have to go back and recover your corpse and your items on the corpse.
This is why quoting it and then claiming it as has been established is meaningless. If Brad (or any VR Employee) would like to step in and clear this all up, that would be great, but I honestly don't think they are going to do that as they first want to experiment. This is why there is discussion, and I can argue my point and 187 can argue his. Him quoting the FAQ and proclaming that there will be no naked CR recovery in the manner he does is a fallacy, a means to claim authority through his subjective interpetation of the issue to shut me down.
Only VR can shut me down on this issue and their response can very clearly establish what VR will not have. It is a simple thing, if VR says "Well Tanix, we feel doing a naked CR to recover all your items is a bit too severe", well... I will respect that, but keep in mind, there are a lot of people here who expect exactly that and while for some it may not be a deal breaker, it does set the tone for the direction of development of the game. This is important for people like me because it lets me know how much interest I should put in the game.
Watemper said:I find it funny that people with less time now think that only people with a lot of time played that game...seriously. Plenty of grown ups with families played. Hell my dad and mom played with me. I could only play around 2-3 hours on weekdays and on the weekends I would be able to play all day if I wanted to, but man the amount of people who ran jobs and had a family were ridiculous. So for people who are torn because they have less time isn't a good argument at all since there were plenty of people back then who had obligations, like a job, wife/husband, and kids, and still managed to survive the onslaught of EQ. So that line of thought has no excuses other than being a selfish request at the expense of the game because of their time that they can't manage properly like other people did in the game who probably worked longer hours back then than they do now.
And Pantheon is going to be notably more challenging than EQ ever was, at all levels of content.
Death is to be a FAR more common occurance in Pantheon and as such the penalties will be applied much more often, meaning if there are forced naked corpse runs (and "meaningful" travel) then a considerably greater amount of average player time would be spent tediously grinding corpse runs. Pair this with the ideas floated around of making dungeons even more dangerous including things like common see invisible mobs and even those that can "true sight" through feign death and you have a recipe for players somewhat commonly losing hour(s) just trying to get a corpse, likely dying multiple times in the process or: massively imbalanced punishment for something as simple as dying.
It sure make corpse rotting not a chosen option, which means naked CR might occur but will not be a "do or loose everything". The words remain pretty vague, and what I'm quite deceived is simply the lack of true exp loss. Debt is meaningless especially at level cap, should that occur.
Iksar said:Watemper said:I find it funny that people with less time now think that only people with a lot of time played that game...seriously. Plenty of grown ups with families played. Hell my dad and mom played with me. I could only play around 2-3 hours on weekdays and on the weekends I would be able to play all day if I wanted to, but man the amount of people who ran jobs and had a family were ridiculous. So for people who are torn because they have less time isn't a good argument at all since there were plenty of people back then who had obligations, like a job, wife/husband, and kids, and still managed to survive the onslaught of EQ. So that line of thought has no excuses other than being a selfish request at the expense of the game because of their time that they can't manage properly like other people did in the game who probably worked longer hours back then than they do now.
And Pantheon is going to be notably more challenging than EQ ever was, at all levels of content.
Death is to be a FAR more common occurance in Pantheon and as such the penalties will be applied much more often, meaning if there are forced naked corpse runs (and "meaningful" travel) then a considerably greater amount of average player time would be spent tediously grinding corpse runs. Pair this with the ideas floated around of making dungeons even more dangerous including things like common see invisible mobs and even those that can "true sight" through feign death and you have a recipe for players somewhat commonly losing hour(s) just trying to get a corpse, likely dying multiple times in the process or: massively imbalanced punishment for something as simple as dying.
Hmm...
So your argument is that Pantheon will be so hard, so amazingly difficult that death will be so common, that it would be too tedious to require people to go back and recover their corpse?
Hmm... Not buying it.
MauvaisOeil said:It sure make corpse rotting not a chosen option, which means naked CR might occur but will not be a "do or loose everything". The words remain pretty vague, and what I'm quite deceived is simply the lack of true exp loss. Debt is meaningless especially at level cap, should that occur.
Well, considering that corpse rott was never a designed implementation (rather a technical limitation) and the fact that few people actually see corpse rott as a valid mechanic (maybe the perm-death people, hardcore iron man/rogue like players do), but most despise corpse rott as a very unreasonable mechanic for risk vs reward, especially if you have lost anything in EQ. As I said, my points on a death penalty never accepted corpse rott as valid and always treated it as a fringe system not balanced to proper risk vs reward.
I mean, lets be honest here. Anyone who says spending 1000's of hours on gathering equipment (camping in EQ was a very long drawn out process to get some rares, and insane when it came to epics) and then allowing EVERYTHYING to be deleted simply because you didn't get back to your corpse in a period of time isn't being reasonable, they aren't looking at risk vs reward balance, they are looking at fringe based game play (which is what iron man game play is). Their arguments should be taken with a grain of salt as their focus would be best served on a specialized server designed for such iron man challenges.
Anyway, this whole confusion of constantly attaching "Corpse Rott" to the naked corpse runs is tiresome. I expressly pointed this difference out in my posts, so I don't see why people keep lumping my comments in with the corpse rott positions.
Tanix said:187 is using subjective means to infer from the above that it means there wil be no need to naked CR, that this is "too severe". That was the point. Brad has walked all around the concept of this issue at times, obviously I think he wants to first implement and toy with things before they commit to a solid position. Point is, nothing above conflicts with the concept of a naked CR where you have to go back and recover your corpse and your items on the corpse.
This is why quoting it and then claiming it as has been established is meaningless. If Brad (or any VR Employee) would like to step in and clear this all up, that would be great, but I honestly don't think they are going to do that as they first want to experiment. This is why there is discussion, and I can argue my point and 187 can argue his. Him quoting the FAQ and proclaming that there will be no naked CR recovery in the manner he does is a fallacy, a means to claim authority through his subjective interpetation of the issue to shut me down.
You're twisting things again. I never proclaimed that there would be no naked corpse runs ... I simply challenged your position that they are needed for a true balance of risk vs reward with the death penalty. I brought up numerous quotes from Brad, and repeatedly used verbiage such as how he was "suggesting" or "mentioning" information that further reinforced the idea that it's possible that naked corpse runs might not be a thing in Pantheon. He said they were probably too extreme. For whatever reason, you feel that this invalidates your position. It is what it is but stop with the strawman fallacy and misrepresentation. Remember that my second response to you came after a comment where you said there was no validity to my first response. If you're going to say something like that, you should be prepared for a response that has some sort of citation or evidence to further support the position in question. I provided that ... no need to get so bent out of shape or act like I'm trying to shut you down. Here is another one of your strawmans that I am talking about:
"You arguments were against CRs because you think they go too far."
This is false. We have been through this repeatedly. I have stated probably a dozen or more times on various threads (responding to you specifically) that I support corpse runs. We disagree on what should be left on the corpse and that's fine, but that doesn't make it okay to misrepresent what I'm saying.
oneADseven said:Tanix said:187 is using subjective means to infer from the above that it means there wil be no need to naked CR, that this is "too severe". That was the point. Brad has walked all around the concept of this issue at times, obviously I think he wants to first implement and toy with things before they commit to a solid position. Point is, nothing above conflicts with the concept of a naked CR where you have to go back and recover your corpse and your items on the corpse.
This is why quoting it and then claiming it as has been established is meaningless. If Brad (or any VR Employee) would like to step in and clear this all up, that would be great, but I honestly don't think they are going to do that as they first want to experiment. This is why there is discussion, and I can argue my point and 187 can argue his. Him quoting the FAQ and proclaming that there will be no naked CR recovery in the manner he does is a fallacy, a means to claim authority through his subjective interpetation of the issue to shut me down.
You're twisting things again. I never proclaimed that there would be no naked corpse runs ... I simply challenged your position that they are needed for a true balance of risk vs reward with the death penalty. I brought up numerous quotes from Brad, and repeatedly used verbiage such as how he was "suggesting" or "mentioning" information that further reinforced the idea that it's possible that naked corpse runs might not be a thing in Pantheon. He said they were probably too extreme. For whatever reason, you feel that this invalidates your position. It is what it is but stop with the strawman fallacy and misrepresentation.
Not sure your point. I could also take your own arguments and state based on the fact that since you did not expressly state my reasoning that it also implied that my reasoning is possible.
Sure, they could choose NOT to have naked corpse runs. They could also choose NOT to have people answer three questions and also go on a quest to obtain a shrubbery each time they die. I mean, we don't really know because they haven't specifically stated such, so it may happen?
You are subjectively inferring to support your position and honestly, why we are having this completely pointless conversation is beyond me.
How about we just give Kilsin a break and call it a day, ok?
The idea of the elements and special gear just to adventure into certain areas throws a wrench into the gears of the traditional "EQ" naked corpse run model. You could say, "well just have 2 sets of gear for every climate and leave it in the bank",, that's not realistic.
What is missing is the information that helps make a rational decision on what system would be best. It hard to debate something you don't have information on. Though it's fun to read.
We don't know about class Utility skills that aid in corpse retrieval
We have no details on the weather system.
We got few details on Atmospheres.
By the time this thread get to 50 pages, VR Alpha will have already figured out what they are doing with death and corpse runs.
Caine said:The idea of the elements and special gear just to adventure into certain areas throws a wrench into the gears of the traditional "EQ" naked corpse run model. You could say, "well just have 2 sets of gear for every climate and leave it in the bank",, that's not realistic.
What is missing is the information that helps make a rational decision on what system would be best. It hard to debate something you don't have information on. Though it's fun to read.
We don't know about class Utility skills that aid in corpse retrieval
We have no details on the weather system.
We got few details on Atmospheres.
By the time this thread get to 50 pages, VR Alpha will have already figured out what they are doing with death and corpse runs.
Certainly, that is an issue, but I don't have an issue with them putting in a special mechanic for such situations. It has to be limited though. Did we have special treatment if you died in Kedge Keep? How about if you died in the Grey? Both required breathing items, but were there any special treatment to people who went there and needed to have thier body recovered? No.
So... I don't think the same should be for Pantheon.
The way EQ dealt with it was to allow spells, abilities, etc... of certain classes to aid people in such situations. It means a druid could use a spell of enduring breath to enter an area where it is similar to under water. It also means in Pantheon, certain classes can have spells that provide solutions to certain mechanics. Just like EQ, this provides options for players to seek a resolution and whats more, it promotes group reliance.
As for very specific aspects of play, simply designing the content in a way where recovery does not alienate a player form impossible recovery is a solution (ie make it similar to EQ where certain classes by default could help as I explained).
Saying we need to throw out naked CRs is really throwing the baby out with the bath water.
True.. leave all options on the table, and the babies and the bathwater.
Caine said:True.. leave all options on the table, and the babies and the bathwater.
I liked the my idea of corpses rotting into skeletons after a certain amount of time (24 hours), Then..anyone could loot it (you get no loot) and by doing so, make the skeleton arrive at the dungeon entrance where the player can retreive her stuff. Give the person who looted it some small amount of guild points for looting a skelly, just enough to allow it to add up over time, but not enough to be an exploit.
See, this is where I disagree. You see, I think time should never absolve a penalty. That is, I think if you die deep in a dungeon and you throw a tantrum and quit for 3 months. When you get back in, if you want your gear, you should have to go back deep in that dungeon and retrieve your gear. No special treatment, no handouts, no means for a player to circumvent play regardless of how long they choose to wait. The idea that "time" can absolve is a concept I am admantly against as it promotes not playing the game over playing it.
You want your corpse, wait an hour, a day, a month, a year... you are still going to have to go back and get it.
Tanix said:Caine said:True.. leave all options on the table, and the babies and the bathwater.
I liked the my idea of corpses rotting into skeletons after a certain amount of time (24 hours), Then..anyone could loot it (you get no loot) and by doing so, make the skeleton arrive at the dungeon entrance where the player can retreive her stuff. Give the person who looted it some small amount of guild points for looting a skelly, just enough to allow it to add up over time, but not enough to be an exploit.
See, this is where I disagree. You see, I think time should never absolve a penalty. That is, I think if you die deep in a dungeon and you throw a tantrum and quit for 3 months. When you get back in, if you want your gear, you should have to go back deep in that dungeon and retrieve your gear. No special treatment, no handouts, no means for a player to circumvent play regardless of how long they choose to wait. The idea that "time" can absolve is a concept I am admantly against as it promotes not playing the game over playing it.
You want your corpse, wait an hour, a day, a month, a year... you are still going to have to go back and get it.
Yeah I can't argue with your disagreement. Cause it all realitive, to what the reality will be in Pantheon. But the corpse (skelly) will still have to be looted. and the skelly idea is basically a drag corpse to zone line thing. I have petitioned for my corpse to be dragged more than once.
Caine said:Tanix said:Caine said:True.. leave all options on the table, and the babies and the bathwater.
I liked the my idea of corpses rotting into skeletons after a certain amount of time (24 hours), Then..anyone could loot it (you get no loot) and by doing so, make the skeleton arrive at the dungeon entrance where the player can retreive her stuff. Give the person who looted it some small amount of guild points for looting a skelly, just enough to allow it to add up over time, but not enough to be an exploit.
See, this is where I disagree. You see, I think time should never absolve a penalty. That is, I think if you die deep in a dungeon and you throw a tantrum and quit for 3 months. When you get back in, if you want your gear, you should have to go back deep in that dungeon and retrieve your gear. No special treatment, no handouts, no means for a player to circumvent play regardless of how long they choose to wait. The idea that "time" can absolve is a concept I am admantly against as it promotes not playing the game over playing it.
You want your corpse, wait an hour, a day, a month, a year... you are still going to have to go back and get it.
Yeah I can't argue with your disagreement. Cause it all realitive, to what the reality will be in Pantheon. But the corpse (skelly) will still have to be looted. and the skelly idea is basically a drag corpse to zone line thing. I have petitioned for my corpse to be dragged more than once.
Agreed, but automating your "drag to the zone" is what I want to avoid. If we take such a subtle action and apply it throughout the game, it is those subtle actions to which brought use to modern games.
Is it so much to require a player to have to log on after 3 months and in a "group game" ask for player assistance to obtain the corpse (or obtain it themselves)? At this point we are looking to give "special treatment" simply because a player decided to not log in for several months to retrive their corpse.
Point is to make CR mean something and if you allow an auto-retrieve system, it defeats the point.