Kilsin said:If your character died in an extremely difficult area, would you bother to try and get your corpse back or just leave it to rot and take the exp hit/loot loss? #MMORPG #communitymatters
Sure would. There will be a reality check though, specifically what it took to get to this near impossible spot in the first place. I don't know that I will hang out for 8 hours waiting for the next to log on to help extract me. I will not prefer to spend hours and days on it as this is a side effect of the game not the main purpose of the game. What don't we know yet about death mechanics in Pantheon? The answer is that we know nothing substantive. Just for regaining some xp, I would try very hard to get to my corpse within a reasonable set of limits.
I am a little confused by this question posted to players that are planning on playing a MMORPG which has tenets which pretty much guarantee that gear matters and is not easily replaceable. I don't think you will find anyone volunteer to let hard earned, meaningful gear rot because they are too lazy to get it. That being said, if we are talking just about xp loss, there might be a risk vs. reward calculation we will do and if we might die several more times to get it, then it doesn't make sense. However, what we have seen in the Dev streams is that we need to loot our corpses to get our gear back. If gear is meaningful and if the tenets are followed, and if our items are stuck on our corpse - I doubt anyone wouldn't be willing to "bother to try and get their corpse back."
A way to sate the masochists while instilling fear of death could be to have a character lcokout for not retrieving your corpse depending on number of times you've died previously. i.e. You die once, you can use a system similar to what people have recommended like undertaker or graveyard or whatever to retrieve your corpse. Second time you die, if you use that service, you can't play that character for X hours, which increases the number of times you die. So by end game, if you have died a lot, you can use one of those services but will be unable to play that character for like 24hrs (while their corpse is retrieved by the undertaker or whatever); or you can alternatively go on a CR or get a rez and continue to play. That would allow those of us that may only be able to play 2-3 hours on a Monday, Wednesday, and Thursday to maybe take a 24hr lockout period if we know we wont be able to spend 4 hours on a CR at 1.a.m on a Monday, and we wont be able to play again until Wednesday any way. This would also promote playing multiple characters, and combined with the exp loss should be enough of a penalty for the masochists.
We have people that don't have the same responsibilities as others and are praying for a system that punishes those that have more responsibilities for no other reason than to make it more difficult for people because they like things difficult (there's a difference between challenge and needless time sinks). As much as some may "want" to appeal to the few, we "need" to cater to more than the outliers if we want PRotF to have a strong player base. The mentality of a smaller community being better in an MMO ("Massive" isn't 500) is not the mentality we should have.
Darch said:A way to sate the masochists while instilling fear of death could be to have a character lcokout for not retrieving your corpse depending on number of times you've died previously. i.e. You die once, you can use a system similar to what people have recommended like undertaker or graveyard or whatever to retrieve your corpse. Second time you die, if you use that service, you can't play that character for X hours, which increases the number of times you die. So by end game, if you have died a lot, you can use one of those services but will be unable to play that character for like 24hrs (while their corpse is retrieved by the undertaker or whatever); or you can alternatively go on a CR or get a rez and continue to play. That would allow those of us that may only be able to play 2-3 hours on a Monday, Wednesday, and Thursday to maybe take a 24hr lockout period if we know we wont be able to spend 4 hours on a CR at 1.a.m on a Monday, and we wont be able to play again until Wednesday any way. This would also promote playing multiple characters, and combined with the exp loss should be enough of a penalty for the masochists.
We have people that don't have the same responsibilities as others and are praying for a system that punishes those that have more responsibilities for no other reason than to make it more difficult for people because they like things difficult (there's a difference between challenge and needless time sinks). As much as some may "want" to appeal to the few, we "need" to cater to more than the outliers if we want PRotF to have a strong player base. The mentality of a smaller community being better in an MMO ("Massive" isn't 500) is not the mentality we should have.
Social engineering game design is exactly what got us to where mainstream games are today.
The "Daily" mechanic was created in an attempt to socially engineer balance among players. Those who didn't have a lot of time could not play at the same level of success that a player who did have a lot of a time and so the game mechanic specifically limited play time to create this balance.
In my opinoin if they were to implement these types of mechanics, they would kill the game before it was even released and it would deserve to be.
vjek said:Aradune said: Good questions: No permanent corpse or item loss, regardless of what system we end up with -- i can say that for certain right now. (Unless it was on a special 'iron man' shard or something).
A little further in the same thread.. in response to " that it be mandatory we retrieve our corpse "Aradune said: ... I would add that significant exp loss at death, most of which can be recovered when you return to your corpse, can be pretty compelling as well.
And finally, from the FAQ today, under "Death".
" death will sting, but it will also not involve losing an unreasonable amount of experience, or levels, or a permanent loss of items. "
Kilsin clarified his Feb 27th community question on reddit yesterday, apparently the whole "loot loss" was not intended to indicate this would be a thing in Pantheon.
I agree with Aradune in saying that XP restoration would be a very compelling reason to retrieve our corpse. This is with the assumption that XP acquisition has a potent layer of risk vs reward in and of itself. If players don't respect XP loss then gaining it and maintaining it is obviously too easy. I really hope that won't be the case in Pantheon.
oneADseven said:vjek said:Aradune said: Good questions: No permanent corpse or item loss, regardless of what system we end up with -- i can say that for certain right now. (Unless it was on a special 'iron man' shard or something).
A little further in the same thread.. in response to " that it be mandatory we retrieve our corpse "Aradune said: ... I would add that significant exp loss at death, most of which can be recovered when you return to your corpse, can be pretty compelling as well.
And finally, from the FAQ today, under "Death".
" death will sting, but it will also not involve losing an unreasonable amount of experience, or levels, or a permanent loss of items. "
Kilsin clarified his Feb 27th community question on reddit yesterday, apparently the whole "loot loss" was not intended to indicate this would be a thing in Pantheon.I agree with Aradune in saying that XP restoration would be a very compelling reason to retrieve our corpse. This is with the assumption that XP acquisition has a potent layer of risk vs reward in and of itself. If players don't respect XP loss then gaining it and maintaining it is obviously too easy. I really hope that won't be the case in Pantheon.
I disagree with Brad on this specific point alone. EXP loss alone has already been shown to not be a very compelling balance of risk vs reward due to other factors that have an effect on its accumulation (ie power leveling, mass exp generation gimmicks such as AoE groups that developed in EQ SoL). The fact is, exp loss is simply a loss of time and this can be dismissed without need to correct. A corpse run however "requires" the player to remedy the failure. There is no "eating" the generic loss of easily obtained exp (exp can be gained anywhere, items require specific focus and have varying difficulty requirements).
So, a requirement to obtain your gear is at the very heart of a a balanced risk vs reward. You risked yourself in a dungeon, lost in the dungeon and now must go back to the dungeon you failed in to recover your body. Exp loss, you could basically dimiss the death and then have a high level power you through on easy content to remedy the defeat. That is not proper risk vs reward. For it to be balanced, the player must be forced to earn their failure, to recover from it by going back to the failure and cleaning up their mess. Anything less is a easy out.
Tanix said:I disagree with Brad on this specific point alone. EXP loss alone has already been shown to not be a very compelling balance of risk vs reward due to other factors that have an effect on its accumulation (ie power leveling, mass exp generation gimmicks such as AoE groups that developed in EQ SoL). The fact is, exp loss is simply a loss of time and this can be dismissed without need to correct. A corpse run however "requires" the player to remedy the failure. There is no "eating" the generic loss of easily obtained exp (exp can be gained anywhere, items require specific focus and have varying difficulty requirements).
So, a requirement to obtain your gear is at the very heart of a a balanced risk vs reward. You risked yourself in a dungeon, lost in the dungeon and now must go back to the dungeon you failed in to recover your body. Exp loss, you could basically dimiss the death and then have a high level power you through on easy content to remedy the defeat. That is not proper risk vs reward. For it to be balanced, the player must be forced to earn their failure, to recover from it by going back to the failure and cleaning up their mess. Anything less is a easy out.
Just because XP gain was trivialized through gimmicks in EQ doesn't mean it will be that way in Pantheon. My response was based on the idea that XP gain would actually be challenging in this game. Hopefully VR is paying attention to all of the comments from former EQ players who seem quite confident that XP loss wouldn't really matter. I guess that's what happens when it's easy to power level ... when rezzes wipe out 90%+ of the XP penalty ... when you can turn in repeatable quests for XP ... when solo/duo can be more efficient than grouping, or when killing easy content is more rewarding (for XP progression) than killing challenging content. All of those things sound awful and hopefully won't rear their ugly head here. Just based on the context of what has been described ... with those very real issues, I can understand why some people think that gear loss is so important. In the end, it sounds like a lot of that gimmicky stuff needs to be cleaned up so that XP can actually matter here.
oneADseven said:Tanix said:I disagree with Brad on this specific point alone. EXP loss alone has already been shown to not be a very compelling balance of risk vs reward due to other factors that have an effect on its accumulation (ie power leveling, mass exp generation gimmicks such as AoE groups that developed in EQ SoL). The fact is, exp loss is simply a loss of time and this can be dismissed without need to correct. A corpse run however "requires" the player to remedy the failure. There is no "eating" the generic loss of easily obtained exp (exp can be gained anywhere, items require specific focus and have varying difficulty requirements).
So, a requirement to obtain your gear is at the very heart of a a balanced risk vs reward. You risked yourself in a dungeon, lost in the dungeon and now must go back to the dungeon you failed in to recover your body. Exp loss, you could basically dimiss the death and then have a high level power you through on easy content to remedy the defeat. That is not proper risk vs reward. For it to be balanced, the player must be forced to earn their failure, to recover from it by going back to the failure and cleaning up their mess. Anything less is a easy out.
Just because XP gain was trivialized through gimmicks in EQ doesn't mean it will be that way in Pantheon. My response was based on the idea that XP gain would actually be challenging in this game. Hopefully VR is paying attention to all of the comments from former EQ players who seem quite confident that XP loss wouldn't really matter. I guess that's what happens when it's easy to power level ... when rezzes wipe out 90%+ of the XP penalty ... when you can turn in repeatable quests for XP ... when solo/duo can be more efficient than grouping, or when killing easy content is more rewarding (for XP progression) than killing challenging content. All of those things sound awful and hopefully won't rear their ugly head here. Just based on the context of what has been described ... with those very real issues, I can understand why some people think that gear loss is so important. In the end, it sounds like a lot of that gimmicky stuff needs to be cleaned up so that XP can actually matter here.
It will be regardless based on the nature of such. It is like money accural, you have a base concept of your system, but over time through play, gimmicks, exploration, etc... players are able to circumvent it.
Are you saying that VR will be able to stop Power levelers? EQ couldn't. WoW couldn't. No game can. It wil happen.
So, naturally, forcing a player to have to go back to their body and recover it to obtain all their items each time is a better solution. Can people circumvent it? Sure.... but it still requires a player to go to that location and recover it.
The entire argument we are having is how you can control the rate of EXP accusition, but let us be honest. EXP can be gained ANYWHERE!
That is, it doesn't matter where you die, if EXP is the only penalty, you can go ANYWHERE and repair it. With a Corpse Retrevial system, you are FORCED to clean up your mess. You died in that dungeon, you have to go back to it and recover your corpse. No running off to an easy exp area to pay for your failure, you MUST attend to the failure specifically according to the risk you took. That is, you risked that specific dungeon, then well... that is the consequence you have to deal with.
Why is this important? Because dying in some easy area is not the same as dying in a difficult area. For instance, if you die in East Commons, it is not the same as dying deep in Sirens Grotto or Kedge Keep. They are ENTIRELY different zones, and the difficulties (ie risk vs reward) is different. So, NO, you should not be able treat them both the same, which is EXACTLY what an exp penalty alone does.
In a CR example, the player has to go to that very dangerous dungeon and get their corpse, risking the same danger they did to enter it.
With an EXP penalty, it is no different than if they died in an easy to get to place as opposed to that of a deep difficult dungeon.
So no, Brad is wrong, there are differences and they are key to game play.
Tanix said:That is, it doesn't matter where you die, if EXP is the only penalty, you can go ANYWHERE and repair it. With a Corpse Retrevial system, you are FORCED to clean up your mess. You died in that dungeon, you have to go back to it and recover your corpse. No running off to an easy exp area to pay for your failure, you MUST attend to the failure specifically according to the risk you took. That is, you risked that specific dungeon, then well... that is the consequence you have to deal with.
Why is this important? Because dying in some easy area is not the same as dying in a difficult area. For instance, if you die in East Commons, it is not the same as dying deep in Sirens Grotto or Kedge Keep. They are ENTIRELY different zones, and the difficulties (ie risk vs reward) is different. So, NO, you should not be able treat them both the same, which is EXACTLY what an exp penalty alone does.
In a CR example, the player has to go to that very dangerous dungeon and get their corpse, risking the same danger they did to enter it.
With an EXP penalty, it is no different than if they died in an easy to get to place as opposed to that of a deep difficult dungeon.
So no, Brad is wrong, there are differences and they are key to game play.
I think you're wrong. You suggest that dying in one area should not be treated the same as a death in another area. I disagree, at least partially. A death is a death, it doesn't matter where it happens or how it happens. (I'm will to compromise on the where aspect by attaching XP to corpses.) Risk vs Reward should extend way beyond "location" -- that feels incredibly limiting and generic. Risk vs Reward should be based on how challenging the content is. If you spend time in an area where NPC's are more likely to kill you, that is an obvious indication that there is greater "risk" but risk in general should have a sense of consistency. This is why I think it's very important to have a minimum loss value that feels impactful. That loss value should be evaluated based on how easy it is to gain that which is being lost. There should be an established baseline that guarantees that there is a cost for dying. If a player died in ECT in EQ, and then got a 96% cleric rez, how much of a penalty is that, really? .1 or .2% XP in a game where gaining it is trivial? There is no baseline here because the penalty focuses more on "location" than "loss." I don't expect VR to "stop" power-leveling but I definitely do expect them to alleviate the more egregious ways to pull it off.
The more you go on about the EQ death penalty, the more obvious it becomes to me that the game wasn't truly challenging, at least not in the ways that I personally hope Pantheon will be. Your entire premise is centered around the idea of things working like they did in EQ. Loot loss must be a thing because XP loss could never matter! As if Siren's Grotto and Kedge Keep mean anything to me? You have this mindset because you are so convinced that you expect Pantheon to be like EQ that you don't even entertain the idea that XP could actually be an important resource in Pantheon. I'm willing to entertain the idea that it wouldn't be, and it sounds horrible. I have already spelled out why I think your logic is pretty much busted in the context of Pantheon. You are suggesting that the more exotic the location ... the more severe the death penalty should be.
I think that would be absolutely garbage in a world that is built on exploration and player interdependence. If I go on a journey somewhere that requires rafts, ropes, breaking down barriers, flying over chasms, weathering through storms -- that's great, and sounds fun. But then once I get to these exotic locations I should feel this weird taboo feeling that somehow this area is more "dangerous" or "risky" -- why? Because I was reliant on specific tools from other classes to get there? Sounds like hogwash. Again ... a death is a death is a death. You keep suggesting that XP loss alone wouldn't matter and then repeatedly cite the need to retrieve your corpse. I have already compromised in that regard -- I am fine with corpse runs. I think they sound awesome, even. But I don't think that I "MUST" be "FORCED" to do "EXACTLY" what the game tells me to do just to reacquire gear that I have already earned.
Beyond that ... did corpse runs actually work that way in EQ? I don't think so. It was generally possible for players to /consent others and then allow them to /drag your corpse to you. Some combination of invis or FD flopping could generally get the job done. If it was in a more dangerous area then you could have a necro summon your corpse to you. You see ... your premise has already failed. Players aren't forced to clean up their mess. In most cases, they rely on others to clean it up for them, and by using some sort of content circumvention mechanic. As I mentioned previously, there are "loopholes" that are purposely implemented because of how dependent players are on their gear. Those loopholes are bad for the game, IMO. It makes the world feel less dangerous. The real risk vs reward should be found in XP -- it should be hard to gain and easy to lose. Play smart/strategically while cooperating with other players and you're more likely to stay ahead of the curve. Play like an idiot and you will never progress.
Corpse runs were necessary in EQ because of how the risk vs reward was implemented in that game. We have already agreed that the XP component of risk vs reward was pretty gimp in EQ. It wasn't hard to earn and therefore losing it didn't mean much of anything. That's really sad. It would be tragic if Pantheon were to try and emulate that sensation. I'd prefer to see the whole game be difficult and challenging rather than feeling the need to have "naked corpse runs" implemented to pick up the slack. I'd rather see a real sense of urgency with corpse decay. That's a layer of risk vs reward that would be highly enjoyable to me. I don't want to see loopholes or undertakers. I don't want to have to rely on others to bail me out of my troubles. If my group dies somewhere we should be able to "clean up our mess" -- that should be impossible if we are naked and trying to navigate through a dangerous world.
Here is a quote from Brad on this topic from a couple years ago: https://www.pantheonmmo.com/content/forums/topic/4581/early-death-mechanics/view/post_id/75137
"So I've said in the past that the death penalty will be somewhere in-between vanillia EQ and vanilla VG. So there will be a corpse. What is undecided is whether you just need to get to your corpse to lose less experience or whether it will have your items on it (and then is it all items or a subset?). And some other details.
The reason we've not made these decisions yet is that something like the severity of a death penalty needs to be determined during beta so we can tune it such that people respect the environment but aren't discouraged to explore and take risks. Something like this and the details of several other systems really require a decent population of people playing the game, listening to them, watching them, etc."
It was said in the past and then reinforced later on that the penalty would be somewhere in between EQ and VG. In other words, nobody should expect the penalty from EQ to translate over exactly. Beyond that, I think it's incredibly important to take a look at the second line of his post. I agree that the severity of the death penalty shouldn't be finalized until beta. He specifically mentions that he wants players to explore and take risks. If you look at some of my previous posts on this thread, I explained the difference between loss aversion and risk aversion. You seem to want a penalty more focused on risk aversion than loss aversion. That's fine because we all get to want what we want, but that doesn't really align with the plan that has been revealed. If the penalty is going to emphasize loss aversion then it should revolve around something that is truly lost -- as of this time, the only thing that is confirmed to be lost is XP. In order to maximize the impact of this loss, great care and consideration should go into the process of how that same resource is gained.
oneADseven said:Tanix said:That is, it doesn't matter where you die, if EXP is the only penalty, you can go ANYWHERE and repair it. With a Corpse Retrevial system, you are FORCED to clean up your mess. You died in that dungeon, you have to go back to it and recover your corpse. No running off to an easy exp area to pay for your failure, you MUST attend to the failure specifically according to the risk you took. That is, you risked that specific dungeon, then well... that is the consequence you have to deal with.
Why is this important? Because dying in some easy area is not the same as dying in a difficult area. For instance, if you die in East Commons, it is not the same as dying deep in Sirens Grotto or Kedge Keep. They are ENTIRELY different zones, and the difficulties (ie risk vs reward) is different. So, NO, you should not be able treat them both the same, which is EXACTLY what an exp penalty alone does.
In a CR example, the player has to go to that very dangerous dungeon and get their corpse, risking the same danger they did to enter it.
With an EXP penalty, it is no different than if they died in an easy to get to place as opposed to that of a deep difficult dungeon.
So no, Brad is wrong, there are differences and they are key to game play.
I think you're wrong. You suggest that dying in one area should not be treated the same as a death in another area. I disagree, at least partially. A death is a death, it doesn't matter where it happens or how it happens. (I'm will to compromise on the where aspect by attaching XP to corpses.) Risk vs Reward should extend way beyond "location" -- that feels incredibly limiting and generic. Risk vs Reward should be based on how challenging the content is. If you spend time in an area where NPC's are more likely to kill you, that is an obvious indication that there is greater "risk" but risk in general should have a sense of consistency. This is why I think it's very important to have a minimum loss value that feels impactful. That loss value should be evaluated based on how easy it is to gain that which is being lost. There should be an established baseline that guarantees that there is a cost for dying. If a player died in ECT in EQ, and then got a 96% cleric rez, how much of a penalty is that, really? .1 or .2% XP in a game where gaining it is trivial? There is no baseline here because the penalty focuses more on "location" than "loss." I don't expect VR to "stop" power-leveling but I definitely do expect them to alleviate the more egregious ways to pull it off.
The more you go on about the EQ death penalty, the more obvious it becomes to me that the game wasn't truly challenging, at least not in the ways that I personally hope Pantheon will be. Your entire premise is centered around the idea of things working like they did in EQ. Loot loss must be a thing because XP loss could never matter! As if Siren's Grotto and Kedge Keep mean anything to me? You have this mindset because you are so convinced that you expect Pantheon to be like EQ that you don't even entertain the idea that XP could actually be an important resource in Pantheon. I'm willing to entertain the idea that it wouldn't be, and it sounds horrible. I have already spelled out why I think your logic is pretty much busted in the context of Pantheon. You are suggesting that the more exotic the location ... the more severe the death penalty should be.
I think that would be absolutely garbage in a world that is built on exploration and player interdependence. If I go on a journey somewhere that requires rafts, ropes, breaking down barriers, flying over chasms, weathering through storms -- that's great, and sounds fun. But then once I get to these exotic locations I should feel this weird taboo feeling that somehow this area is more "dangerous" or "risky" -- why? Because I was reliant on specific tools from other classes to get there? Sounds like hogwash. Again ... a death is a death is a death. You keep suggesting that XP loss alone wouldn't matter and then repeatedly cite the need to retrieve your corpse. I have already compromised in that regard -- I am fine with corpse runs. I think they sound awesome, even. But I don't think that I "MUST" be "FORCED" to do "EXACTLY" what the game tells me to do just to reacquire gear that I have already earned.
Beyond that ... did corpse runs actually work that way in EQ? I don't think so. It was generally possible for players to /consent others and then allow them to /drag your corpse to you. Some combination of invis or FD flopping could generally get the job done. If it was in a more dangerous area then you could have a necro summon your corpse to you. You see ... your premise has already failed. Players aren't forced to clean up their mess. In most cases, they rely on others to clean it up for them, and by using some sort of content circumvention mechanic. As I mentioned previously, there are "loopholes" that are purposely implemented because of how dependent players are on their gear. Those loopholes are bad for the game, IMO. It makes the world feel less dangerous. The real risk vs reward should be found in XP -- it should be hard to gain and easy to lose. Play smart/strategically while cooperating with other players and you're more likely to stay ahead of the curve. Play like an idiot and you will never progress.
Corpse runs were necessary in EQ because of how the risk vs reward was implemented in that game. We have already agreed that the XP component of risk vs reward was pretty gimp in EQ. It wasn't hard to earn and therefore losing it didn't mean much of anything. That's really sad. It would be tragic if Pantheon were to try and emulate that sensation. I'd prefer to see the whole game be difficult and challenging rather than feeling the need to have "naked corpse runs" implemented to pick up the slack. I'd rather see a real sense of urgency with corpse decay. That's a layer of risk vs reward that would be highly enjoyable to me. I don't want to see loopholes or undertakers. I don't want to have to rely on others to bail me out of my troubles. If my group dies somewhere we should be able to "clean up our mess" -- that should be impossible if we are naked and trying to navigate through a dangerous world.
Here is a quote from Brad on this topic from a couple years ago: https://www.pantheonmmo.com/content/forums/topic/4581/early-death-mechanics/view/post_id/75137
"So I've said in the past that the death penalty will be somewhere in-between vanillia EQ and vanilla VG. So there will be a corpse. What is undecided is whether you just need to get to your corpse to lose less experience or whether it will have your items on it (and then is it all items or a subset?). And some other details.
The reason we've not made these decisions yet is that something like the severity of a death penalty needs to be determined during beta so we can tune it such that people respect the environment but aren't discouraged to explore and take risks. Something like this and the details of several other systems really require a decent population of people playing the game, listening to them, watching them, etc."
It was said in the past and then reinforced later on that the penalty would be somewhere in between EQ and VG. In other words, nobody should expect the penalty from EQ to translate over exactly. Beyond that, I think it's incredibly important to take a look at the second line of his post. I agree that the severity of the death penalty shouldn't be finalized until beta. He specifically mentions that he wants players to explore and take risks. If you look at some of my previous posts on this thread, I explained the difference between loss aversion and risk aversion. You seem to want a penalty more focused on risk aversion than loss aversion. That's fine because we all get to want what we want, but that doesn't really align with the plan that has been revealed. If the penalty is going to emphasize loss aversion then it should revolve around something that is truly lost -- as of this time, the only thing that is confirmed to be lost is XP. In order to maximize the impact of this loss then great care and consideration should go into the process of how that same resource is gained.
My argument stands, the logic is undeniable. /shrug You aren't countering it, merely arguing in defiance of it.
By simple logic, an general exp penalty is not equivilent to that of forcing a player to go back to the location they died and gather their corpse.
You are wrong, not by a subjective declartion, but by the simple aspect of logical evaluation.
Tanix said:My argument stands, the logic is undeniable. /shrug You aren't countering it, merely arguing in defiance of it.
By simple logic, an general exp penalty is not equivilent to that of forcing a player to go back to the location they died and gather their corpse.
You are wrong, not by a subjective declartion, but by the simple aspect of logical evaluation.
You argument does not stand. You already denied your own logic. Let's reflect on your previous post:
Tanix said:So, naturally, forcing a player to have to go back to their body and recover it to obtain all their items each time is a better solution. Can people circumvent it? Sure.... but it still requires a player to go to that location and recover it.
As you clearly stated ... players are not required to go back to the location they died and gather their corpse. That process was easily and consistently circumvented. If someone died in an easy/accessible area (Like ECT, as you suggested), their death meant next to nothing. That's what happens when XP isn't valuable. If they died in a more dangerous area then they could have their corpse dragged to them or summoned. Sounds really weak.
oneADseven said:Tanix said:My argument stands, the logic is undeniable. /shrug You aren't countering it, merely arguing in defiance of it.
By simple logic, an general exp penalty is not equivilent to that of forcing a player to go back to the location they died and gather their corpse.
You are wrong, not by a subjective declartion, but by the simple aspect of logical evaluation.
You argument does not stand. You already denied your own logic. Let's reflect on your previous post:
Tanix said:So, naturally, forcing a player to have to go back to their body and recover it to obtain all their items each time is a better solution. Can people circumvent it? Sure.... but it still requires a player to go to that location and recover it.
As you clearly stated ... players are not required to go back to the location they died and gather their corpse. That process was easily and consistently circumvented. If someone died in an easy/accessible area (Like ECT, as you suggested), their death meant next to nothing. That's what happens when XP isn't valuable. If they died in a more dangerous area then they could have their corpse dragged to them or summoned. Sounds really weak.
Cicumvent it by having some other player get their corpse for them, yet as I stated, they had to gather their corpse none the less. You aren't making an argument, you are playing word games.
You are wrong.
Bye bye!
I always felt far more punished by and had greater fear of the XP loss and trying to find a cleric than I ever had for a corpse run in EQ. Corpse runs were more a tedious time sink than any sort of hurdle or "think about what you've done" situation, and the punishment was mostly for melee/hybrid classes since a corpse "run" was all of 5 minutes or less for a caster class that could bind just outside whichever zone or sometimes at certain safe areas within.
Loss of exp is a time sink where at least some of the loss/punishment cannot be circumvented. Corpse runs are an additional (and far less balanced between classes) time sink/punishment that can be circumvented entirely.
Tanix said:Cicumvent it by having some other player get their corpse for them, yet as I stated, they had to gather their corpse none the less. You aren't making an argument, you are playing word games.
You are wrong.
Bye bye!
I'm the one playing word games? Let's reflect some more.
Tanix said:By simple logic, an general exp penalty is not equivilent to that of forcing a player to go back to the location they died and gather their corpse."
Like I said ... you defeated your own logic. You admitted that players aren't truly forced to go back to the location they died which was the centerpiece of your argument. You defeated the premise that your argument was based on. You remember this right?
Tanix said:That is not proper risk vs reward. For it to be balanced, the player must be forced to earn their failure, to recover from it by going back to the failure and cleaning up their mess. Anything less is a easy out.
How about this?
Tanix said:Exp loss, you could basically dimiss the death and then have a high level power you through on easy content to remedy the defeat.
What you are suggesting would also allow (require for some classes?) another player to "power you through" the penalty. Whether it's dragging your corpse to you, summoning it, or escorting you to it.
Or this?
Tanix said:I think Equipment left on the corpse is the best fit. It can not be circumvented, the player must actively go back and retrieve their items to be at the level of functionality they were (unless the gear is junk gear they don't care about) and it requires the going back to the area that killed the player which may be dangerous, difficult, etc... All in all, this penalty was a pretty healthy one (though I would combine it with exp loss/deleveling at around 20% or so per death without a rez and a varying loss depending on rez type, level, etc...)
Except it can be circumvented, just like you said. Bye bye!
Iksar said:I always felt far more punished by and had greater fear of the XP loss and trying to find a cleric than I ever had for a corpse run in EQ. Corpse runs were more a tedious time sink than any sort of hurdle or "think about what you've done" situation, and the punishment was mostly for melee/hybrid classes since a corpse "run" was all of 5 minutes or less for a caster class that could bind just outside whichever zone or sometimes at certain safe areas within.
Loss of exp is a time sink where at least some of the loss/punishment cannot be circumvented. Corpse runs are an additional (and far less balanced between classes) time sink/punishment that can be circumvented entirely.
I agree 100% Iksar. Although before there were players at end game, corpse runs were near impossible if you didnt retrieve your corpse in the same game session you died in unless you died outside of a dungeon. To add onto the timesink statement, it is disproportionately unfair to the classes that can't circumvent the content and exacerbated when a player doesn't have additional time to perform a CR with a group because they could only play for an allotted time - because a group wipe at the end of a 3 hour dungeon crawl at 1am will likely mean a terrible time for a lot of players. ESPECIALLY at the early stages of the game's life when players will be less available to go out of their way to help a stranger on a CR, or even have the abilities to do so.
Ok OneADseven... your original premise was to support brad in that you thought an exp penalty could be just as punishing, but then you spent all of this time trying to prove that it is easily circumvented.
So, apparently Exp penalties are not enough, but then you just argued they are enough?
Here, let me compromise with you. How about Exp penalty AND a corpse run?
See, we solved it!
Agree? Or are you going to now argue the reverse that a corpse run is too harsh?
Which is it? Pick a position and hold to it.
Darch said:Iksar said:I always felt far more punished by and had greater fear of the XP loss and trying to find a cleric than I ever had for a corpse run in EQ. Corpse runs were more a tedious time sink than any sort of hurdle or "think about what you've done" situation, and the punishment was mostly for melee/hybrid classes since a corpse "run" was all of 5 minutes or less for a caster class that could bind just outside whichever zone or sometimes at certain safe areas within.
Loss of exp is a time sink where at least some of the loss/punishment cannot be circumvented. Corpse runs are an additional (and far less balanced between classes) time sink/punishment that can be circumvented entirely.
I agree 100% Iksar. And to add onto this, the timesink is disproportionately unfair to the classes that can't circumvent the content and exacerbated when a player doesn't have additional time to perform a CR with a group because they could only play for an allotted time - because a group wipe at the end of a 3 hour dungeon crawl at 1am will likely mean a terrible time for a lot of players. ESPECIALLY at the early stages of the game's life when players will be less available to go out of their way to help a stranger on a CR, or even have the abilities to do so.
If we take this position and carry it to all levels of play, then we now need to make sure all classe are equally blanaced because we have just admitted classes are unequal in thier ablity, so did we not just make the argument for class hemogenization?
Will not some classes also be able to gain exp at a higher rate than others due to their design?
I get this odd feeling, oh.. that is right.. I have been here before it has been every argument made on the progression to what resulted in mainstream games we have today.
Either we accept that some classes will be imbalanced in some areas, others in other areas, and this is the trade off that is made, or we demand all classe be equal, all be perfectly balance in outcome and we might as well just go play WoW, because what we end up making is not a game in the spirit of EQ which was imblanced in classes and in play, but another mainstream game trying to fix reality by engineering equality in a game.
That will work out well!
Tanix said:If we take this position and carry it to all levels of play, then we now need to make sure all classe are equally blanaced because we have just admitted classes are unequal in thier ablity, so did we not just make the argument for class hemogenization?
Will not some classes also be able to gain exp at a higher rate than others due to their design?
I get this odd feeling, oh.. that is right.. I have been here before it has been every argument made on the progression to what resulted in mainstream games we have today.
Either we accept that some classes will be imbalanced in some areas, others in other areas, and this is the trade off that is made, or we demand all classe be equal, all be perfectly balance in outcome and we might as well just go play WoW, because what we end up making is not a game in the spirit of EQ which was imblanced in classes and in play, but another mainstream game trying to fix reality by engineering equality in a game.
That will work out well!
Nobody said anything about class balancing - this is about having to rely on other classes to perform corpse runs...
Tanix said:Ok OneADseven... your original premise was to support brad in that you thought an exp penalty could be just as punishing, but then you spent all of this time trying to prove that it is easily circumvented.
So, apparently Exp penalties are not enough, but then you just argued they are enough?
Here, let me compromise with you. How about Exp penalty AND a corpse run?
See, we solved it!
Agree? Or are you going to now argue the reverse that a corpse run is too harsh?
Which is it? Pick a position and hold to it.
Where did I ever suggest that XP gain could be easily circumvented? (I suggested how it may have been in EQ several times and how I absolutely hope that wouldn't be the case in Pantheon.) I specifically said that it shouldn't be possible to circumvent it multiple times. I referenced you and other players who repeatedly suggested that XP loss wouldn't be impactful enough and then went into deep detail on why that was the case. I brought up 96% cleric rezzes, swarm kiting, solo/duo efficiency, blue>yellow efficiency, repeatable quests that grant XP, etc.
I also suggested that I was indeed willing to make a compromise, specifically one that Brad suggested ... which is that corpse runs are fine, but I would prefer to see XP attached to them rather than loot. In order for the XP aspect to feel most meaningful, though, I went out of my way to explain how important it is that gaining XP should be difficult, and how it shouldn't be possible to circumvent corpse retrieval. I mentioned that I would prefer to see /drag removed as a function, and that I would want to see corpse summoning removed. I suggested a decay mechanic to be added that truly requires the player to get back to their corpse before it rots in order to restore a portion of their lost XP.
I really don't know what to say here. I have been consistent in my thought process this entire time. You're the one playing word games and now you're deflecting because your contradictive stance has been exposed. Please read through my previous posts and feel free to point out the inconsistencies that you are claiming. Don't worry, I'll wait.
Darch said:Tanix said:If we take this position and carry it to all levels of play, then we now need to make sure all classe are equally blanaced because we have just admitted classes are unequal in thier ablity, so did we not just make the argument for class hemogenization?
Will not some classes also be able to gain exp at a higher rate than others due to their design?
I get this odd feeling, oh.. that is right.. I have been here before it has been every argument made on the progression to what resulted in mainstream games we have today.
Either we accept that some classes will be imbalanced in some areas, others in other areas, and this is the trade off that is made, or we demand all classe be equal, all be perfectly balance in outcome and we might as well just go play WoW, because what we end up making is not a game in the spirit of EQ which was imblanced in classes and in play, but another mainstream game trying to fix reality by engineering equality in a game.
That will work out well!
Nobody said anything about class balancing - this is about having to rely on other classes to perform corpse runs...
The very basis of his complaint was class balance. That is, he basically said some classes have an easier time of CRs than others. This is a class balance argument.
Darch said:Circumventing content/xp will be inevitable if counting players discovering more efficient/convenient ways to complete objectives... but this wont be for a while; just like any other MMO
If you have xp as a penalty AND require a CR, then both basis are covered. So, even if they find a easier means to exp, they still have to go recover their corpse and making corpse recovery difficult is an easy concept of designing various content catches to impede players. That is, if players begin to invis through to easily, you put in random see invis mobs. Heck, you could even put in mobs that have a death sense ability to tell if someone is FD or really dead. You can have stealth sense, etc... traps, trigger encounters, etc...
The point is, CR's can be varied in making them more difficult as need while exp is just exp. Once someone finds an easy way to get it, the only solution is to increase the penalty of losing it, which will have diminishing returns and would imbalance the rest of the game. That is, it is like basing your NPC monetary system on the player trade market, eventually a player would not be able to earn the money through game play due to the massive inflation.
oneADseven said:Tanix said:Ok OneADseven... your original premise was to support brad in that you thought an exp penalty could be just as punishing, but then you spent all of this time trying to prove that it is easily circumvented.
So, apparently Exp penalties are not enough, but then you just argued they are enough?
Here, let me compromise with you. How about Exp penalty AND a corpse run?
See, we solved it!
Agree? Or are you going to now argue the reverse that a corpse run is too harsh?
Which is it? Pick a position and hold to it.
Where did I ever suggest that XP gain could be easily circumvented? (I suggested how it may have been in EQ several times and how I absolutely hope that wouldn't be the case in Pantheon.) I specifically said that it shouldn't be possible to circumvent it multiple times. I referenced you and other players who repeatedly suggested that XP loss wouldn't be impactful enough and then went into deep detail on why that was the case. I brought up 96% cleric rezzes, swarm kiting, solo/duo efficiency, blue>yellow efficiency, repeatable quests that grant XP, etc.
I also suggested that I was indeed willing to make a compromise, specifically one that Brad suggested ... which is that corpse runs are fine, but I would prefer to see XP attached to them rather than loot. In order for the XP aspect to feel most meaningful, though, I went out of my way to explain how important it is that gaining XP should be difficult, and how it shouldn't be possible to circumvent corpse retrieval. I mentioned that I would prefer to see /drag removed as a function, and that I would want to see corpse summoning removed. I suggested a decay mechanic to be added that truly requires the player to get back to their corpse before it rots in order to restore a portion of their lost XP.
I really don't know what to say here. I have been consistent in my thought process this entire time. You're the one playing word games and now you're deflecting because your contradictive stance has been exposed. Please read through my previous posts and feel free to point out the inconsistencies that you are claiming. Don't worry, I'll wait.
Point is, exp loss is not penalty enough on its own. There were numerous times where I was playing EQ and said "Ah screw it, I will take the exp hit rather than deal with finding someone to rez me". Exp while taking a while was available anywhere, everywhere without condition. A CR though, having to go back to where I died to gain my items? Yeah.. that is a penalty, that is a consequence. I have to get my corpse if I want my items. I have to get my corpse from where I died. I must go back to the place to gain it. Sure, I can get help to get it, but I will have to go back and get it.
People arguing against CRs, are doing so because they don't want the consequence and that is EXACTLY the reason to have them. A penalty someone is ok with, well... it isn't much of a penalty. You aren't supposed to like a penalty, it should be dreaded, hated, feared. You guys aren't arguing for fear based penalties, you are arguing for convenience, penalties you are willing accept. This defies the entire point of why EQ was so dangerous, why it was nerve wracking to explore, especially alone, or be caught deep in a dungeon.
An exp penalty alone avoids this fear, this anticipation, the very thing that is missing in games today. Remove CR, and the game will suffer for it.
Tanix said:The very basis of his complaint was class balance. That is, he basically said some classes have an easier time of CRs than others. This is a class balance argument.
My point was that experience loss was a far more balanced and meaningful punishment/time sink for death and that corpse runs were not.
Death and the punishment for dying should be mostly if not entirely equal for all players regardless of race/class; the risk should be as close to the same as possible for any player/class.
Seen a lot of discussion over loot staying on corpse or not. Will be really interesting to see where they land with that, personally I'd prefer if it was just XP loss since it'd be easier to convince my guildies to play that way but either way its not a big deal. Gonna be interesting to see what happens!