Syrif said:naked corpse runs and strong exp loss ftw.
iksar & oneadseven: we don‘t want soft penalties here - that‘s a big part of why many ppl are returning.
I respectfully disagree with naked corpse runs being the big reason people are "returning". Returning to what? Everquest? Although it has been said many times that this is NOT a remake of EQ. This is meant to be a game different than any other game we have played. With that said, if this is just a remake of EQ (in regard to death penalties) then this game will likely suffer the same fate as EQ... like trying to make Libraries popular again because you think the internet is too easy and "youngsters" just don't know what they're missing from sitting in a good ole' fashioned Library. 500 people doesn't make a "Massive" Multiplayer Online game. Needless time sinks will drive away subscribers, which will reduce pay to VR employee, which will reduce support, which will make the game suffer and have to go free to play i.e. where MMOs go to die.
oneADseven said:Vandraad said:When you die you need to incurr some penalties that cannot be recouped. Lost XP can be re-earned. Money can be re-earned. Time cannot.
This doesn't really make sense. You are suggesting that lost XP and money can be re-earned, but that time cannot. I'm willing to bet that it takes "time" to re-earn lost XP and money, right? As long as both of these things require "time" to earn, then players would still incur a time penalty that cannot be recouped.
But your time regaining xp is time spent gaining something, playing the game. Time spent on a CR is like "dead time", punishment, consquence. it's like being sent to detention for doing somehting wrong.
If I had to choose a system of CR or XP loss, only one, cannot have both, I'd rather have CR, because THAT is punishment.
CR's created a dread, a fear. You knew if you died, that a CR was going to cost you some of your limited playtime. As Tanix said, casters had a huge advantage of being able to bind almost anywhere, making their CRs much shorter. As a melee, especially if you had been travelling and not rebound yet, you could spend the next hour trying to just get back to the zone your corpse was in. YOU RESPECTED death, avoided it at all costs.
@Darch EQ didn't die from CRs...It died because of Sony lol. EQ had close to a million at its peak with the first 3 expansions..and getting your corpse back in those 3 expansions were argueably the worst. A lot of people left because of POK and killing most of the world because of it.
Also, if you think CRs are just for EQ, with your EQ clone arguement than you are sorely mistaken in that logic. By that logic the first MMO to even have EXP loss should be the only MMO that has it, and that any MMO who uses EXP loss is a clone of that MMO...give me a break dude.
Darch said:Syrif said:naked corpse runs and strong exp loss ftw.
iksar & oneadseven: we don‘t want soft penalties here - that‘s a big part of why many ppl are returning.
I respectfully disagree with naked corpse runs being the big reason people are "returning". Returning to what? Everquest? Although it has been said many times that this is NOT a remake of EQ. This is meant to be a game different than any other game we have played. With that said, if this is just a remake of EQ (in regard to death penalties) then this game will likely suffer the same fate as EQ... like trying to make Libraries popular again because you think the internet is too easy and "youngsters" just don't know what they're missing from sitting in a good ole' fashioned Library. 500 people doesn't make a "Massive" Multiplayer Online game. Needless time sinks will drive away subscribers, which will reduce pay to VR employee, which will reduce support, which will make the game suffer and have to go free to play i.e. where MMOs go to die.
So you think that people are returning here for softer penalties then? Lol. Also, of course I don’t want your ‘clone.’ If I did, I’d go over to P99. No thanks; been there done that. What we DO want is new content and a new world with a similar element of *challenge and depth* that EQ and oldschool had. That should go without saying. Darch: why do you keep writing that Pantheon may not be financially stable? As as has already been addressed numerous times, Pantheon is NOT a game that‘s trying to go for the masses. Hundreds of thousands of people played Old EQ and VG. Not to mention the group that is fed up with mainstream will likely be interested in Pantheon. We will be just fine, try not to worry so much.
ps Libraries are still very popular at universities the last time I checked ;)
Darch said:Syrif said:naked corpse runs and strong exp loss ftw.
iksar & oneadseven: we don‘t want soft penalties here - that‘s a big part of why many ppl are returning.
I respectfully disagree with naked corpse runs being the big reason people are "returning". Returning to what? Everquest? Although it has been said many times that this is NOT a remake of EQ. This is meant to be a game different than any other game we have played. With that said, if this is just a remake of EQ (in regard to death penalties) then this game will likely suffer the same fate as EQ... like trying to make Libraries popular again because you think the internet is too easy and "youngsters" just don't know what they're missing from sitting in a good ole' fashioned Library. 500 people doesn't make a "Massive" Multiplayer Online game. Needless time sinks will drive away subscribers, which will reduce pay to VR employee, which will reduce support, which will make the game suffer and have to go free to play i.e. where MMOs go to die.
Returning to what is missing in games today.
As per some of the tenants:
An understanding that a truly challenging game is truly rewarding.
An expectation that with greater risk will come greater reward.
An understanding that player involvement is required for progression. All actions (or lack thereof) should have consequences. Positive actions should be rewarded. Apathy or lack of action should not be rewarded with bonuses.
A mindset that some degree of downtime should be part of a game, ensuring players have time to form important social bonds.
Release EQ provided an experience that does not exist in games today. It isn't nostalgia, youthful memory, or some idealistic utopian belief. It is a reality of a given style of play.
Many of us were full grown adult working professionals with families during EQ. We do not recollect EQ from the mind of a child who has a distant fantisful memory of experience. We know what and why we liked EQ,
That is why I followed this game from the day they did their kickstarter. I was tired of mainstream games, watched them year after year appeal to a design concepts I did not enjoy. I tried to follow some games that "promised" an old school return of play, but realized that the games they derived their inspiration from were games I didn't care for, so naturally I moved on.
Yet with this game, knowing its inspiration is from EQ Verant years (ie release through velious), knowing Brads discussions on things, seeing some of what he achieved in Vanguard before SoE took it over, I realized this was the only game I might be able to enjoy.
So yes, this is why many of us are returning. This isn't some random game we saw on the boards and rushed over and started praising. We are here for a specific purpose and under specific conditions all according to a specific expectation.
Fulton said:CR's created a dread, a fear. You knew if you died, that a CR was going to cost you some of your limited playtime. As Tanix said, casters had a huge advantage of being able to bind almost anywhere, making their CRs much shorter. As a melee, especially if you had been travelling and not rebound yet, you could spend the next hour trying to just get back to the zone your corpse was in. YOU RESPECTED death, avoided it at all costs.
Depending on the game, XP loss also created a dread, a fear. You knew if you died, that re-earning that XP was going to cost you some of your limited playtime. Depending on where you died, that was also a major consideration due to your bind point. As I said previously, this type of penalty was universal to all classes. It didn't matter whether you were a melee or a caster -- "time" is universal and any penalty that leverages it as a component of loss aversion should be consistent, regardless of what class you play. I already spelled out why I think XP loss was inconsequential in EQ. There were many factors there and nobody has challenged a single one of them. They just keep reverting back to their original position on why loot being attached to CR's is so important, as if operating from the assumption that none of those "factors" are going to be solved in Pantheon. XP either is or is not going to be valuable in Pantheon. The penalty is either going to focus on loss aversion or risk aversion. We have seen it suggested repeatedly that the death penalty will be somewhere between EQ and VG. We have already seen examples of a compromise being alluded to. If someone isn't willing to compromise on the EQ death penalty then it would appear to me that they are mismanaging their expectations. There is a big difference between loss aversion and risk aversion.
I always get my corpse. When I played Everquest I never let a corpse rot and rarely heard that other people had to let a corpse rot. If they did it was because they couldn't log on for a really long time. In Everquest, they gave you the tools to get your corpse, either by spells or community. That was the great thing about the community, everyone would come together to help someone because everyone knew how bad it would be to let a corpse rot.
If you don't have loot drop then I guess I would estimate the amount of time that it would require for me to collect my corpse versus if I could just go grind xp and make it up that way. I think loot drop would be the way to go to make death more meaningful. If people are concerned about a corpse in a place where the climate can hurt you, then there should be a way to drag corpses, or a spell to help us collect the corpse. Otherwise I don't think death will sting as bad as it should.
oneADseven said:Fulton said:CR's created a dread, a fear. You knew if you died, that a CR was going to cost you some of your limited playtime. As Tanix said, casters had a huge advantage of being able to bind almost anywhere, making their CRs much shorter. As a melee, especially if you had been travelling and not rebound yet, you could spend the next hour trying to just get back to the zone your corpse was in. YOU RESPECTED death, avoided it at all costs.
Depending on the game, XP loss also created a dread, a fear. You knew if you died, that re-earning that XP was going to cost you some of your limited playtime. Depending on where you died, that was also a major consideration due to your bind point. As I said previously, this type of penalty was universal to all classes. It didn't matter whether you were a melee or a caster -- "time" is universal and any penalty that leverages it as a component of loss aversion should be consistent, regardless of what class you play. I already spelled out why I think XP loss was inconsequential in EQ. There were many factors there and nobody has challenged a single one of them. They just keep reverting back to their original position on why loot being attached to CR's is so important, as if operating from the assumption that none of those "factors" are going to be solved in Pantheon. XP either is or is not going to be valuable in Pantheon. The penalty is either going to focus on loss aversion or risk aversion. We have seen it suggested repeatedly that the death penalty will be somewhere between EQ and VG. We have already seen examples of a compromise being alluded to. If someone isn't willing to compromise on the EQ death penalty then it would appear to me that they are mismanaging their expectations. There is a big difference between loss aversion and risk aversion.
It's not a matter of time spent that is a dread, that's just an annoyance. The dread is the possibility of losing your stuff. Not saying that it ever really happened, but the possibility was always there. Especially when new zones came out and a lot of it was unknown.
People also tend to forget the very beginning of EQ when there wasn't max lvls with all the nifty tricks of getting your corpse back that the CR had a lot of meaning. That leveling process is unforgetable. Rogues and monks failing to get your corpse back was pretty common, or invis dropping. Hell, most people when they died didn't even know your corpse rotted because they always got their corpse back somehow. People usually chose to give up on their corpse and that was only at low lvls. I gave up two corpses when I was low lvl, but when someone in the game asked how much plat I had, and I said 20pp as a paladin, they gave me a full set of fine steel armor and a fine steel sword, which was a few 100pp at the time. I never lost my corpse once after I got that equipment. I made sure of that.
It would depend on whether your items were left on your corpse as in EverQuest. If it is that type of system, then I would absolutely be doing a corpse run.
I remember many hours of corpses run's trying to break into Fear lol. Corpse runs were a time when my Necro became a very valuable class.
Shyin said:It would depend on whether your items were left on your corpse as in EverQuest. If it is that type of system, then I would absolutely be doing a corpse run.
I remember many hours of corpses run's trying to break into Fear lol. Corpse runs were a time when my Necro became a very valuable class.
Yea lol. I was in my mid 40s when I figured out necros had corpse summoning..My jaw dropped and went OMG...why didn't I know about this sooner.
Tanix said:Manouk said:Tanix said:Manouk said:Tanix said:Manouk said:I think 7 days is enough time to get a corpse, even with penalty of item loss. I am talking 7 RL days counting from when you log in and stopping when you log out.
(blah blah blah....)
The 7 days real time and a "are you sure?" check I think would be reasonable. However I realize my response has drifted away from the point, that if accepted by a player does away with these concerns which is: its dangerous out there, one must live and learn and the death must be enough reinforcement to drive player behavior to avoid it while at the same time allowing the player to accept the consequences of the death as per the rules of the game.
So your argument is that if a player can not get to their body in 7 days, they should have all of their equipment erased?
I am a big objector to those going on about RL getting in the way of things, but this as a penalty, it is.. not reasonable and it was one of the most hated results for anyone who experienced it in EQ. To have hundreds, if not thousands of hours spent on a character just deleted because a person did not recover their corpse in time (7 days, and how is 7 days considered reasonable?), well... not only do I disagree, but such a game that would PURPOSELY implement that feature (remember EQ doing this was merely a hardware/software limitation of the time and 7 days was a component of that), that is a severe imbalance of risk/reward.
Even with 7 RL days counting from when you log in? I think that is generous and doable. You die. You log out. You log back in tomorrow and you have 6 days 23hrs and 58min to get your corpse. You log after an hour. A month later, you log back in, you now have 6 days 22hrs 20min to get your corpse and your stuff.
The tangent on corpse bank control was my oen.
Lets take a different approach.
Tell me why a system as you describe will be better for game play, to promote risk/reward than that of a system where the player corpse does not rot in 7 days, but they still have to recover it?
My idea assumes gear loss happens when the corpse rots. With that assumption I think my idea is better for game play because with all the time available to get your corpse as the 7day RL timer does not count down until you log in and stops counting down when you log out. The amount of time you have takes some of the sting out of the mini-game of corpse retrieval. You still have the risk of running to get your corpse and your stuff, doubly painfull because you are naked- since you are walking into the same dungeon but without your weapons/armor and in a weaker position than when you entered. (Like an emergent game-life escort mission, but with PC's instead of NPC's as a means to get your corpse). This is doubled negative reinforcement on the risk side, with no gain on the reward side except a return to whole or zero (got my gear) with the additional exp loss. The exp is regainable and also through time. This also assumes the regaining of exp through time is negligible, but I think makes the need for time to get your corpse risky enough. You are forced to play the corpse retrieval game which is a negative reinforcement- if you want to.
- granted the mechanic for gear will be different in pantheon on Aradune's coments (thanks for quoting/linking them)
If the player corpse does not rot and there is no gear loss but the player still has to recover the corpse opens the ability to use corpses as banks, which I have seen done by RMT'ers. Here, time passing is a positive , or non-negative reinforcement to the player (not RMT'er), as you can leave your corpse for days, even years if I understand you correctly, and you can revover it maybe when you are higher skilled and get your now "old" stuff but still spend the same amount of time to get exp back.
With corpses emergently used as banks by RMT'ers, stacks of corpses appear around the world whenever the player logs on, all loaded with gear, to which the player goes to retrieve items stored on the corpse to sell or whatever. Or, if a special zone is created to hold such corpses (as was done soon after or near LoY- more "bank" space! Shadowrest I think it was called?) then the player has them all in one neat place under the guise of devs saying they are making the corpse retrieval, easier. So I went on the tangent of how to control that by relying on assumed community behavior(bonhommie).
That works fine if your game is perm-death, or designed like a rogue like. In such games, the aquistion of gear is normalized to a smaller time frame. In EQ though, it could take weeks of camping to finally gain a gear item. In some cases, it could take months (epic quest lines). So, telling a player they have to prioritize the game so much that if they do not act according to the time clock of the game, they will lose EVERYTHING they had earned over weeks and months of play is... an imbalance of risk vs reward.
The risk of losing everything in a game because you may not have the time to play is a bit much. It goes beyond risk vs reward with internal game play and then leverages external game play as a key aspect. I don't think it is healthy to throw away the effort of a player with such a mechanic unless the game is specifically designed around it. That is, as I said in rogue likes design their game play specifically to the concept that you will die more often, lose everything and be required to start over. The games progresion, encounters, and systems are all designed around that concept.
A game like EQ is not. Even when it occurred in original EQ, it was not a design, rather a limitation in technology. It was something that few thought of as "reasonable" as a play mechanic, it was merely something we had to deal with.
The other problem with this is that there are extenuating circumstances out of peoples control where they may not be able to recover their corpse immediately. A knew of someone who was playing, died and didn't have time to go get their corpse that night. They then had family pass away and was not able to get back on to play for a few weeks. They lost everything. While I don't think a persons RL should dictate game design, nor do I think a games play should dictate real life. If a player dies and then doesn't get the chance to recover their corpse immediately, then they should still be able to do it at another time. After all, they still have to go back to the zone and still have to go through the requirements of recovering it. A condition like you explain punishes someone for not acting fast enough in RL to meet a games expectations.
yes! exactly what I was talking about! I chose 7 days just because. But under my set up, your friend could still get his corpse and his stuff. When he logged in he would have 6 days, 1 hour and 0 minuts to get his corpse and stuff. If he spent two hours in game trying and no luck and logged out and went on vacation, got married, go to a funeral, beat cancer, and came back in 2020. He would log in and have 5 days, 23 hours and 0 minutes to get his corpse with all his stuff on it from when he died in 2018. I am saying the corpse rot timer is tied to 7 days Log in time, not real time passage. 7 real life days when logged in, not 7 real life days wether or not they log in during that time. 7 day counter starts when logged in and stops when logged out.- to restart when you log in, even 10 years later.
Fulton said:But your time regaining xp is time spent gaining something, playing the game. Time spent on a CR is like "dead time", punishment, consquence. it's like being sent to detention for doing somehting wrong.
If I had to choose a system of CR or XP loss, only one, cannot have both, I'd rather have CR, because THAT is punishment.
CR's created a dread, a fear. You knew if you died, that a CR was going to cost you some of your limited playtime. As Tanix said, casters had a huge advantage of being able to bind almost anywhere, making their CRs much shorter. As a melee, especially if you had been travelling and not rebound yet, you could spend the next hour trying to just get back to the zone your corpse was in. YOU RESPECTED death, avoided it at all costs.
You got it. Corpse Runs are dead time, the only real punishment that cannot be recouped later. So going back to your corpse becomes a requirement, you need to bother to do it specifically to offset the co-primary penalty of XP loss. Should there be an ability to summon a corpse? Yes, but that too should take a length of 'dead time' where the character must remain committed to the process.
The EQ1 Necro could use a tiny coffin to summon a corpse..a very quick thing to do. Pantheon could also use a tiny coffin but one where the player can use the coffin themselves but the cast time is extremely long and can only be done in a city or other restricted location. You trade off the time of the actual corpse run for the travel time to a city, finding a necro, getting the coffin then the very very long cast time. Either way you're paying a time debt.
Syrif said:Darch: why do you keep writing that Pantheon may not be financially stable? As as has already been addressed numerous times, Pantheon is NOT a game that‘s trying to go for the masses. Hundreds of thousands of people played Old EQ and VG. Not to mention the group that is fed up with mainstream will likely be interested in Pantheon. We will be just fine, try not to worry so much.
ps Libraries are still very popular at universities the last time I checked ;)
To clarify, if I said something that sounded like I was suggesting that PRotF may be financially unstable, I appologize for the miscommunication. What I was trying to address was that we need as many subscriptions as possible so that future game development and community doesn't suffer.
So many people played EQ and VG because there were very few competitors... and VG died because of that which contributed to a lack of subscribers. EQ was well established before the competitors came out, and now PRotF will have competition as well.
And of course libraries still exist... so does original EQ. :p
Fulton said:But your time regaining xp is time spent gaining something, playing the game. Time spent on a CR is like "dead time", punishment, consquence. it's like being sent to detention for doing somehting wrong.
If I had to choose a system of CR or XP loss, only one, cannot have both, I'd rather have CR, because THAT is punishment.
CR's created a dread, a fear. You knew if you died, that a CR was going to cost you some of your limited playtime. As Tanix said, casters had a huge advantage of being able to bind almost anywhere, making their CRs much shorter. As a melee, especially if you had been travelling and not rebound yet, you could spend the next hour trying to just get back to the zone your corpse was in. YOU RESPECTED death, avoided it at all costs.
What? Time spent regaining experience is time spent paying for your mistake, it's punishment/consequence without the unnecessary "dead time" of corpse running. A corpse run is just a time sink, so if it were 30 minutes of lost experience and an average of 30 minutes for corpse runs then how would it be any different if things were 60 minutes of lost experience and no corpse runs?
Corpse runs are horribly imbalanced punishment among the classes (in EQ, and would likely be in Pantheon given the abilities we have seen). They aren't challenging, just tedious time wasters.
Vandraad said:You got it. Corpse Runs are dead time, the only real punishment that cannot be recouped later. So going back to your corpse becomes a requirement, you need to bother to do it specifically to offset the co-primary penalty of XP loss. Should there be an ability to summon a corpse? Yes, but that too should take a length of 'dead time' where the character must remain committed to the process.
Again, that is completely false. Time lost is time lost; just because you can gain more experience later doesn't mean that the time you lost by losing it in the first place is somehow also regained.
After reading through lots of people's opinions and arguments, I am now fully convinced that there is only one correct way to handle the death penalty.
VR should design what they feel is the right penalty for death in Pantheon without worrying about whether any of us think it's too harsh or too easy, and just tell us what it's going to be.
Darch said:I respectfully disagree with naked corpse runs being the big reason people are "returning". Returning to what? Everquest? Although it has been said many times that this is NOT a remake of EQ. This is meant to be a game different than any other game we have played. With that said, if this is just a remake of EQ (in regard to death penalties) then this game will likely suffer the same fate as EQ... like trying to make Libraries popular again because you think the internet is too easy and "youngsters" just don't know what they're missing from sitting in a good ole' fashioned Library. 500 people doesn't make a "Massive" Multiplayer Online game. Needless time sinks will drive away subscribers, which will reduce pay to VR employee, which will reduce support, which will make the game suffer and have to go free to play i.e. where MMOs go to die.
I highly doubt we'll see naked corpse runs. This has been discussed quite a bit over the years but you're 100% right in saying that Pantheon is not an EQ redux. I have already shared a few quotes on previous pages but here is another one from Aradune that will hopefully add some context to what we should expect:
"As I've stated before, the 'severity' of Pantheon's death penalty will likely lie inbetween two 'extremes': Vanilla EQ and Vanilla VG. We need to find that sweet spot in-between the two. Totally naked corpse runs are probably too extreme. But, on the other end of the pendulum, trivializing death penalties leads to all sorts of problems. Players don't respect the environment, aren't encouraged to play seriously and with forethought, etc. At the same time, if we go too far the other way, many players will want to avoid death to such a great degree that exploration, trying new tactics, taking on that formidable boss-mob, etc. will suffer.
The goal, of course, is to come up with a death penalty that is desired by our target audience. That's easier said than done, though, because even though you all are more often on the same page than not when it comes to design and mechanics, there are a few categories where there is not an obvious or clear mandate from our community. The death penalty, of course, is one of these.
So when it comes to situations like this, here is our general approach:
Define the two extremes. Set up the system where it's relatively easy to 'tune' between these two extremes. Implement during alpha and beta the system and adjust the 'tuning'. Watch the players, listen to the community, etc. Adjust accordingly and, hopefully, narrow things down.
This is, of course, a great example of why a long beta is so important to MMORPG development. Opinions and plans are great, but often until players are actually experiencing these critical mechanics and systems we developers need to wait and watch (and not commit to specifics).
So that will be our approach -- try the spectrum out in alpha and beta, listen to the community, experience it ourselves, and slowly but surely iron out the details.
Lastly, in the event that the community becomes truly split on something as critical as the Death Penalty and its associated mechanics, we always have the option to implement variations on the theme depending on the server/shard. Athough it's far too early to speculate with any certainty, the penalty for dying in Pantheon may turn out to be something that becomes part of our Alternate Ruleset Servers, with the details and severity depending on which server/shard you've chosen to play on."
It's been stated multiple times that the death penalty will fall somewhere between the extremes of EQ and VG. There is a sweet spot in there somewhere. On one end, naked corpse runs have been identified as one of the extremes. Interpretation is obviously somewhat subjective but by that declaration alone, it seems unlikely to me that naked corpse runs are planned for launch. There has to be some sort of compromise otherwise you're just getting what has already been established as an undesired extreme. In any event ... I think VR has left enough subtle clues that allow people to put the pieces together and get an idea of what they are thinking.
We know that there will be a corpse. We know that naked corpse runs are probably too extreme. Brad suggested that a chunk of XP restoration could be a compelling reason to return to a corpse. We know that they want the death penalty to be more focused on loss aversion than risk aversion. We know that XP is the only confirmed resource that will be "lost." We know that VR wants the death penalty to cause players to respect the environment, to play seriously, and with forethought. We know that VR does not want the death penalty to discourage exploration, trying new tactics, or attempting formiddable boss mobs. Based on all of that, I think it's a reasonable compromise to attach XP to our corpses rather than loot. I think de-leveling and corpse decay are both on the more extreme side of EQ (since VG didn't have either) so maybe that's too much, or maybe when these things are combined with the reasonable compromise that has already been alluded to, we might actually have a decent sweet spot to consider.
I find it extremely unlikely that Pantheon will *require* corpse runs. With a high degree of probability they will be a way of reducing the experience point loss accrued by dying.
If so - I find it hard to argue with Iksar's logic. If you lose one hour of experience (you can get back the xp you lost in one hour of play) then other things being equal you should always want to get the corpse back if you can do it in less than an hour - by making the run yourself or with the help of guildmates or groupmates that may have special corpse retrieval abilities.
Of course other things aren't always equal. If you find the corpse run boring or unpleasant but enjoy normal questing or camping, you might prefer an hour getting the xp back to 30 minutes getting the corpse back,
If the corpse run involves a significant risk of another death with yet further xp loss, but your normal questing or camping is fairly safe, the corpse run may be illogical. Perhaps *very* illogical. More than one person has "rage quit" after it turns out that a corpse run is throwing good money after bad and they die once or twice more. Better had they taken the safer and more sure route instead of trying to save perhaps 20 minutes.
This logic ignores potential loss of gear. I don't know if death will put gear at risk. I don't know if, assuming it does, you will know what gear you have lost until you take the easy way out and get your corpse back with no corpse run. Let us assume you have one *really* valuable item that could be lost. If you know it is on the decaying corpse you may take whatever time is required to get it back at all costs. If you know it *may* be on the decaying corpse you will spend a lot more time and effort than the xp loss would justify. If you know it is *not* on the corpse the reverse may be true.
I also don't know what the consequences of skipping a corpse run are. Loss of experience, with certainty. Loss of gear - maybe or maybe not. Inability to play the character for a certain period of time (major crippling debuff imposed) quite possibly. Need to get to an inconvenient spot (home of a NPC corpse retriever or site of a graveyard) - perhaps.
By edit - I agree with oneADseven. I also agree that VR should do what it feels is best without worrying too much about what any of us say in these threads. But I am sure they will keep an eye on our feelings through alpha and beta and not launch with a system that even a high percentage of the people that want a punishing death penalty feel is too draconian.
Darch said:To clarify, if I said something that sounded like I was suggesting that PRotF may be financially unstable, I appologize for the miscommunication. What I was trying to address was that we need as many subscriptions as possible so that future game development and community doesn't suffer.
So many people played EQ and VG because there were very few competitors... and VG died because of that which contributed to a lack of subscribers. EQ was well established before the competitors came out, and now PRotF will have competition as well.
LOL. By 'competition' do you mean all those failing, mainstream games with declining subs like WoW? Too funny.
((LOL. By competition do you mean all those failing, mainstream games with declining subs like WoW? Too funny. ))
Not really. What Darch clearly meant is that although Pantheon is aimed at a niche market, if the niche proves to be too small the game will suffer or die. The sweet spot is where Pantheon is significantly better than current MMOs but not so fanatically dedicated to uncompromising old-school goodness that only a few of us will tough it out for more than a few months.
A game that is better than the competition in most respects, and attracts enough players to prosper, is infinitely better than a game that we consider better in *every* respect, and which dies.
A lot of those "failing" mainstream games have revenue numbers and profit margins that VR would kill for. Or else they wouldn't still be out there, they would be off the market or left with no development support in maintenance mode.
We do not want another mainstream game. Oh no indeed. But we want some of those revenue streams and profits even if it means a compromise here and there.
Even if what is launched is not *quite* as far from mainstream as you or I or Brad might have wanted in the ideal world - the which we do not happen to live in.
@Dorotea But yes really. That still doesn't change the fact that mainstream is on the decline, while games inspired from oldschool (like Pantheon and Camelot Unchained) are on the rise. This is the direction games should have gone in the first place imo. Hell, we said it years ago and we are saying it now. I don't know about you, but I am not concerned about Pantheon competing with the failing competition. Lol.
I am of the belief that getting your corpse back will equal getting most of your lost EXP back but not risking losing any gear. So your gear will remain on your corpse for a certain time, but if you should abandon your corpse run sooner because it may be too difficult to get to it, there will be an option to get your gear back and then you just lose your experience.
With this bein said, If I could not get back to my corpse within a “reasonable” amount of time, I would just take the exp loss and move on to doing something else. I hate wasting time, so the decision would be based on these factors.
dorotea said:A lot of those "failing" mainstream games have revenue numbers and profit margins that VR would kill for. Or else they wouldn't still be out there, they would be off the market or left with no development support in maintenance mode.
Or it could just be because that's all that's out there at the moment huh. Lol.