I really like the thought process the devs are going with. Knowing that they've been up front about things like death penalty being tweaked thru Alpha and Beta, I think this is a good starting point. Once I get a chance to get into the game and feel the sting of death ot lack there of, then I'll be able to give a proper opinion. Until then, it sounds like their intetions are still on par with their original goal.
Ranarius said:Trasak said:What will be brutal for one group will be a speed bump for the other and what will be brutal for the second group will likely lead to the first unsubscribing.I am in your first group and I can say that the only reason I could ever expect anyone to unsubscribe due to death penalties is if the game is not fun at all levels. If your only goal in the game is to reach max level then yes, people might get mad enough when dying to unsubscribe. My goal will be to have fun at all levels, even when dying. I plan to play 2-3 hours a night 5 nights a week. If I die (which I will) and that "erases" my progress from a previous session that will only extend how long I end up enjoying the game.
I will likely play around the same amount or that amount of time over the weekend depending on work schedule. If even a fully recovered death (max rez) still loses you 2 hours of exp progression that is going to be rough to have happen more than twice a week. As people have said when I bring up log power growth by level progression is often what people enjoy the most. If you are constantly backsliding thats not super fun, though it may be an indicator that you are punching above your weight limit. The biggest frustration though will come from deaths caused by technical bugs and other peoples actions not in your group.
All this sort of highlights why I think a sliding scale based on content still might be the best option. For example if you die in a shadow/revenant dungeon you lose 4x the normal amount of exp but there are great things in that dungeon then thats a Risk Vs Reward I can get behind. If Im learning the ropes in my upper teens and I get trained for the 4th time this week by high level jerks running from deep in zone thats a terrible experience.
Trasak said:If even a fully recovered death (max rez) still loses you 2 hours of exp progression that is going to be rough to have happen more than twice a week.
Isn't the challenge and thrill of learning how to group, learning how to play, and learning how to not die more fun and engaging than being handed it on a silver plate?
It seems if you don't want to die, then learn how to not die. If the death penalty continues to be gutted though, then the challenge and thrill itself dies.
*sigh*
/em Trasak pulls back his troll food and moves on.
Trasak said:I see you have learned how to highlight text. If only you learned how to talk out ideas without trying to insult people.
Who is insulting who? I was talking about the risk to the death penalty. If that insults you, then I am sorry you took it that way. Anyway, I have been here since forums went live. People have been using highlight on important subjects for a long time (correct me if that's illegal).
One of the main reasons I pledged to this game was because the risk of death was going to be severe again (unlike other games I'd played in the last 15 years).
There are still two hopes that I have. First, that de-leveling is in the game, that would satisfy me just fine.
If de-leveling is not in the game my 2nd hope is that even if the death penalty is not as severe as I was expecting that the content will be *so* challening that death (with a minor penalty) happens quit often.
Low penalty happening often could be severe in it's own way.
With that said, I'd prefer death to be rare with a more severe penalty. I want a single individual death to matter rather than the mindset of "oh good, I only died 4 times tonight instead of 8."
Syrif said:Trasak said:If even a fully recovered death (max rez) still loses you 2 hours of exp progression that is going to be rough to have happen more than twice a week.
Isn't the challenge and thrill of learning how to group, learning how to play, and learning how to not die more fun and engaging than being handed it on a silver plate?
It seems if you don't want to die, then learn how to not die. If the death penalty continues to be gutted though, then the challenge and thrill itself dies.
The fact that you think this is "gutted" is absolutely laughable.
You know what the worst side effect of EQs death mechanics was? People training left and right to try and not die under any circumstance. One of the worst things in the game. And the fact that most of the people on these forums think training is "part of the game" is really sad. Hopefully with a slightly lessened death penalty people will stop training left and right and just die where they stand.
Porygon said:Syrif said:Isn't the challenge and thrill of learning how to group, learning how to play, and learning how to not die more fun and engaging than being handed it on a silver plate?
It seems if you don't want to die, then learn how to not die. If the death penalty continues to be gutted though, then the challenge and thrill itself dies.
The fact that you think this is "gutted" is absolutely laughable.
You know what the worst side effect of EQs death mechanics was? People training left and right to try and not die under any circumstance. One of the worst things in the game. And the fact that most of the people on these forums think training is "part of the game" is really sad. Hopefully with a slightly lessened death penalty people will stop training left and right and just die where they stand.
Well hello again Porygon. You seem to have completely missed the point. If you reread, I was referring to if the death penalty were to be reduced to a sliding scale as was mentioned. Also, I haven't even mentioned the EQ death mechanic, so I have no idea what you are talking about lol.
Janus said:I know a lot of people here won't take it into consideration and honestly, given it's only one poll this question was asked, that's not enough history to form a good concept as to what people generally want. That's even with a good sample size. With that said, this was what was found...
Questionaire #7
Sample Size: 467
Value Distribution (Death Penalty): 1 Extremely Mild; 10 Extremely Punishing
Multimodal = 5, 6, 7, 8Median (elimination method) = 39 remaining @ value of 7
Mean = 6.42
This means by that bar graph alone, you're looking at 6.42 which fits as a bit less punishing than what is currently considered by Joppa.
Good polling data is a far better reflection of what the community wants than opinions posted on the forums. It would be interesting to see what follow-up Polling reveals once people have actually experienced death in game. One of the things that Can be hard for us is to trust that something which doesn't sound like a design choice we like is actually the right choice. We (myself included) need to remember that the team making these decisions are actually playing the game so they know how it actually works and feels.
Janus said:I know a lot of people here won't take it into consideration and honestly, given it's only one poll this question was asked, that's not enough history to form a good concept as to what people generally want. That's even with a good sample size. With that said, this was what was found...
Questionaire #7
Sample Size: 467
Value Distribution (Death Penalty): 1 Extremely Mild; 10 Extremely Punishing
Multimodal = 5, 6, 7, 8Median (elimination method) = 39 remaining @ value of 7
Mean = 6.42
This means by that bar graph alone, you're looking at 6.42 which fits as a bit less punishing than what is currently considered by Joppa.
I don't know that one can claim it means much of anything, unless "Extremely Mild" and "Extremely Harsh" were defined with detail, otherwise, both ends of the poll are left to speculation of persepctive and opinion.
To someone who would wants 0 death penalty, then anything above 1 is too much, and vice versa.
A better sample would be to use Joppa's ideas as the median and ask if people would want more or less, or as-is.
Chogar said:That is exactly what I am saying. People have a fondness to believe that when you die in EQ that your corpse may never be recovered and all items are lost. That is not what happened in EQ, especially as the server got higher in level. The Warrior (the most affected by being naked) could walk to their corpse solo and retrieve all of their items (on a continual basis). What happened at that point? Dragging the corpse to the zone line and asking for a rez.
For the record, I want corpse runs.
What I do not see is a group of players making it more or less difficult by having their equipped items. Why? Because most groups pulled to a "safe" location (AKA: where mobs did not wander or spawn). If things went south the Cleric would camp so they could re-log in 3-4 minutes and start the resurrection cycle (and today wait in Discord for the all-clear). The majority of corpse runs were not fighting back to your corpse but having friends, groupmates, or other players get your corpse. In either case, having your equipped items (or not) would not change anything because most corpse recoveries in EQ did not involve fighting back to your corpse.
With or without items is a big difference...
Let's use the example of being 50th level...because everyone can help you get your corpse back right? right?
So you die and return to bind point WITHOUT your items...you now HAVE to go get your corpse to keep on playing because ya know...no items...you cannot ignore your corpse and retrieve it later because it holds all your IMPORTANT items...so you go back and try and find someone to help with your corpse run...you may or may not find help...but the NEED is there....
OR
So you die and return to bind point WITH your Items...who gives a **** that i died, i dont even need to rush back to corpse...its just crap in my inventory, i can grab the corpse at a later date so i can keep on playing...woohoo death means nadda....hell i may have multiple corpses woohoo...
One is a penalty for death the other is a joke.
BIG difference.
Also at low to medium levels items or no items is even MORE important as getting back to your corpse can be even harder...(ya know a penalty for dying)
Hell if they let you keep your items just let us keep the whole damn inventory because the important things are already with the character, keeping items on corpse after giving you your combat items is sorta silly...decide one or the other...
I am ok either way they do it...
..one will make me be more careful and make sure i am better prepared for encounters (risk/reward)
..the other will just mean i can try whatever i want and not worry about consequences (no risk/reward)
both above scenarios requires me to get my corpse back for a rez, but one makes it a priortity.
my 2cents
Kridak
kridak said:With or without items is a big difference...
Let's use the example of being 50th level...because everyone can help you get your corpse back right? right?
So you die and return to bind point WITHOUT your items...you now HAVE to go get your corpse to keep on playing because ya know...no items...you cannot ignore your corpse and retrieve it later because it holds all your IMPORTANT items...so you go back and try and find someone to help with your corpse run...you may or may not find help...but the NEED is there....
OR
So you die and return to bind point WITH your Items...who gives a **** that i died, i dont even need to rush back to corpse...its just crap in my inventory, i can grab the corpse at a later date so i can keep on playing...woohoo death means nadda....hell i may have multiple corpses woohoo...
One is a penalty for death the other is a joke.
BIG difference.
Also at low to medium levels items or no items is even MORE important as getting back to your corpse can be even harder...(ya know a penalty for dying)
Hell if they let you keep your items just let us keep the whole damn inventory because the important things are already with the character, keeping items on corpse after giving you your combat items is sorta silly...decide one or the other...
I am ok either way they do it...
..one will make me be more careful and make sure i am better prepared for encounters (risk/reward)
..the other will just mean i can try whatever i want and not worry about consequences (no risk/reward)
both above scenarios requires me to get my corpse back for a rez, but one makes it a priortity.
my 2cents
Kridak
I like your argument style. Makeup information, treat it as fact then show that as proof as to why you are correct.
We do not know how important the items left on your corpse will be. I hope to test the system and find out. If there are zero reasons to return to your corpse, I will be asking for a harsher punishment. At this time I doubt many know how vital or insignificant items in your bags will be. Let us see how the system works before making up information to show why it will not work.
I want a corpse run. With environmental hazards, there is a 0% chance of getting a corpse (From VR) without your equipped items. That is the complete opposite of how EQ was: you could be naked and still retrieve your corpse (depending on the class even solo).
Everybody appears to jump on the desirability of your corpse depending on if you have equipped items vs no items. That has never been my argument and it appears people look over what I am saying and pounce saying losing all your items is worse than only losing items in your bags... Correct, losing all items would be worse over only losing non-equipped items.
My argument was and is:
It was not difficult to get your corpse naked vs with gear when a corpse run was the main goal. Many classes (ok all except for the Warrior) could get to their corpse without help in a fully popped dungeon. If you could get to your corpse solo (path is clear, invis, FD, sneak, etc) having your gear did not make a difference. If you need help getting to your corpse (Rez, /corpse, invis from another player, etc) having your gear would not matter. The main two corpse recoveries happened by getting the Cleric to the dead bodies to start the rez process and the other was to have the Rogue or Monk pull the corpses to the dungeon entrance.
First off lets clarify something. Corpse runs were only an issue in some dungeons in EQ. Any of the open outside zones weren’t an issue due to being naked, merely the size or being bound on the other side of the world. That remains unchanged with this system.
As some have stated naked corpse runs disproportionally punish new or low level players. Anyone who dies in a populated dungeon will likely be able to obtain a rez easily or be able to merely walk back to their corpse due to mobs being cleared. Zones that are unpopulated will the be only zones where a corpse run will be risky, naked or clothed.
I think something many people are overlooking is this adds more “gameplay” to the game. Instead of sitting at the zone waiting for 20 minutes for one person to drag everyone’s corpse to the zone the group will be able to fight their way back to their corpses. This means you get to experience combat, and play the game, on your way to your corpse rather than sitting there while one or two people retrieve everything.
Pantheon NEEDS to be accessible to more people than just a few old school hardcore MMO fans. This isn’t WoW lite, this isn’t FF14 lite… this is closer to EQ than any of those other games. You leave items on your corpse (inventory) and you lose exp. You and transported OUT of the zone to your bind on death. People are over reacting by comparing this to current MMO death systems.
Also durability loss is a joke and not a money sink after the first month or two the game is out.
EppE said:Pantheon NEEDS to be accessible to more people than just a few old school hardcore MMO fans.
Few??? Lol. Where do you think most people interested in Pantheon are from? Reread Pantheon's tenets - notice the tenets are what 'oldschoolers' are more familiar with? Contrary to what you claim, I would think it's the other way around: more oldschool peeps are interested in Pantheon than WoW. And WoW's subs have declined greatly, but mainstreamers must still like it. Anyway, given what's happened to mmorpg's over the past 20 years, I don't think people's concerns about becoming another 'World of Pantheoncraft' are overreactive at all. There are doubts about Pantheon, but we shall see. As for full naked CR, I am indifferent. But, no matter how you justify it, durability and spawning with your full gear after death is literally like WoW's mechanic (and yet still, some people on forum whine and cry about 'this is not Everquest').
EppE said: Yes few.
Few? lol that's absurd. Brad's Classic Everquest Trilogy, DAOC, Ultima Online, VG etc are not "a few" people.
As Brad and many others have already said, Pantheon is not going for the mindless masses.
Cheers
Lol. You are just referring to Brad's Classic EQ (500k). There is also VG, DAOC, Ultima Online, FF, and more. As Brad said, there are more than enough people for Pantheon to be profitable, and more. Pantheon isn't going for the mindless masses; this isn't WoW. Lol I'm not upset, just stating facts pal.
EppE said: There is a middle ground between mindless masses and tiny community. Stop arguing extremes and being so upset someone said the old school MMO comunity is small. It was. EQ peaked at 500k two years after it's golden age. It's disengenuious to characterize it as otherwise. This death penalty has more in common with EQ than WoW.
Discussing size of ther playerbase is a large tangent that doesnt relate to the original question...but ill bite.
500k players simultaneously is quite large for most mmorpgs. Are you comparing it to only the most heavily played/popular mmos for some reason? If you really think the number of players who played EQ was small you have a very twisted perspective of the genre as a whole. VR has stated they can "be sustainable with numbers in the tens of thousands."..they would be very happy to come anywhere close to EQ numbers. It's hard for you to say that someone is "arguing extremes" when your perspective seems so off.
If PRotF ends up with a long term sustainable playerbase of 500k or more they will likely have caved on much of the original tenants and ideas in order to attract those kind of numbers. Some examples might be: if the game is not truly challenging, if soloability is increased, if speed of combat is increased, if downtime is decreased, if payment models are expanded etc. These things might attract more players in the short term. My opinion is that these type of features would lessen the quality of the game.
I haven’t read every post on this thread but it seems like people are forgetting a basic element of this game and that’s the elements themselves. I played eq for years and other than kedge keep there were no negative elements you could die from, lava not withstanding, and even in kedge you could cast water breathing.
In pantheon you have to be able to get back to your body through the elements ergo the need for gear upon respawn. A lot of people won’t have a second set of gear just waiting in the bank with the same resists on it so would have no way to get back to their corpse let alone loot it and I am assuming you can’t summon your corpse from a zone or more away.
So after having thought it through I realize the need for having your gear upon respawn.
