Goblin Squad Member
|
I think that you waste the same time and money in a character that dies than with a character who doesn´t
What you earn is a better experience through the real threat of real virtual death.
What you lose is a world filled with lvl 20 (or whatever the cap is) character.
Yes, I do think it is good to reroll and retrain, it is that threat what will make everyone try and behave, why? because being flagged as a criminal when killing someone will make your character simply not last much longer.
What strategy there is in warfare where no one can actually die?
Endless war is, therefore coming.
OFC with this system implemented, as I said before, the whole leveling should be rethought, as it makes no sense anymore to cap in 2-3 years (it should not be easy anyway ofc).
There is nothing wrong with having a preference and an opinion, or in disagreeing with one. I still don't think that what you would like would work well in this sort of game. Not especially with the way that this game is designed (pretty much from the ground up) and a good deal above the ground level at this point.
The problem of the re spawn and return to battle is a concern. Partly it is mitigated by accumulating critical damage debuffs that take rest time to recoup. Hopefully there will be other factors that help battles be resolved in a sensible time frame.
Do you have any suggestions or counter arguments to the lag/disconnect problems? What about having to scrap all of the work so far?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm just saying there might be potential benefits remove from the list of possibles if permadeath is not completely removed from the risk side of being a jerk, Bringslite. Elynor made a couple of good points. Triggered a thoughtful response. And I have the experience I gained in a good text MUD with a robust skill system and open world PvP where character death was lent powerful meaning. Yes, certainly there were jerks in that game. But only the very best of them managed to remain alive long, and their skills could not really keep up when they really had to start over. And the community really banded together to help one another when the chips were down.
How much of those goods can really be attributed to the chance that your character might actually travel the starry road I cannot say. But it was a significant factor.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What strategy there is in warfare where no one can actually die?
You're still at the wrong level of analysis. Settlements can, and will die. That's the stake. That's "the real threat of virtual death" that makes the game "a better experience." In a different game, that located stakes at a lower level--at the character level--what you're saying would make sense. But in this game, where the stakes are up a level, at social structures, what you're saying makes no sense.
Think about it--you just wrote the words "What strategy there is in warfare where no one can actually die?" about a game where the central mechanics explicitly include settlement death.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm just saying there might be potential benefits remove from the list of possibles if permadeath is not completely removed from the risk side of being a jerk, Bringslite. Elynor made a couple of good points. Triggered a thoughtful response. And I have the experience I gained in a good text MUD with a robust skill system and open world PvP where character death was lent powerful meaning. Yes, certainly there were jerks in that game. But only the very best of them managed to remain alive long, and their skills could not really keep up when they really had to start over. And the community really banded together to help one another when the chips were down.
How much of those goods can really be attributed to the chance that your character might actually travel the starry road I cannot say. But it was a significant factor.
What level of activity is bad enough to allow a special perma death mechanic that is not already bad enough to warrant perma death by banned account?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Any perma-death mechanism which punishes "jerk" behavior by character death keeping them behind the skill curve will have the same effect on less-than-competent - but otherwise decidedly non-jerkish - players, as we will be easy victims for the behavior that made them jerks to begin with. As I'll fall into the "repeated victim" category, I'm really noy OK with that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Maybe Pharasma's gift to the Players comes with strings attached? Die and you have to do something.
A) Lose X% of XP, possibly making it impossible to use your most recent 'Badge' until you regain enough XP to qualify for it again.
In regards to this, I'd argue the % should be based upon the number of your badges, with a .1 % per Badge. At lower 'levels', this isn't so bad, but after a year and dozens of badges to your name, that's a fairly significant punch to your XP.
(Assuming that you can have dozens of badges, and that it functions like the EvE system in which the lower level skills can all be earned within a month-ish, but the high end stuff can take weeks or months to fill out.)
B) Upon returning to a Pharasma Shrine, you have to fight a Daemon, either killing it or keeping it from killing you until the time-limit is up and whatever Soul it was after can escape to Pharasma's domain.
C) Ye Olde offering of precious substances on her altar to gain/keep her 'blessing'.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In a game about accumulation: wealth, exp, friendships, contacts, influence, reputation, etc..., and most likely an average player's record of wins (in a given number of engagements) at or around 50% of which there will likely be MANY; I don't know if perma death fans realize really what they are asking for.
As for increasing the penalty for death, that does not seem fair to those that want to play PfO (and except that there will be PVP) but are not enthusiastic about it. In other words, on top of the inconveniences of just dying and losing everything that entails, you want to put more pain on the typical victim. The person that is not skilled at nor generally wants the PVP, but needs to go "outside" anyway.
Lets wait and see how often we lose and how painful it already is, on average, before we get excited about making it more.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My concern is about exactly who will usually be on the losing end of fights? Is there really any reason to penalize them more than a trip back to the start point of their journey, some critical debuffs, and loss of what they where out there gathering or transporting?
The most common people to incur these extra penalties will not be the ones that are practiced and trained at PVP, but the ones that are tentatively trying a game with open PVP.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@bringslite
Part of having items looted by NPCs and for item destruction is an economic one.
In a game where player crafted items are intended to be valuable and where goods are to be constantly created (besides consumables like potions), items MUST leave the game. if they do not then you reach a point where crafters no longer are important to the game (like crafting in wow).
For extra penalties to death, in general the idea is that by having a penalty you increase the risk for engaging in pvp, as a result pvp is not something you just do without thinking about risk vs reward and making that choice. So before someone attacks someone else they have to think about, what happens if i die and have to pay those penalties.
Now in general I think that death penalties should be item destruction and items being looted off your corpse.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My concern is about exactly who will usually be on the losing end of fights? Is there really any reason to penalize them more than a trip back to the start point of their journey, some critical debuffs, and loss of what they where out there gathering or transporting?
The most common people to incur these extra penalties will not be the ones that are practiced and trained at PVP, but the ones that are tentatively trying a game with open PVP.
Indeed. So in order to prevent that from happening we will have to work together will we not? We will have to rely upon one another. We will have to work hard to ensure that those we care to have around are not left out in the cold, are not excluded from our little coffee klatches. We will ill afford to serve only ourselves we will have to serve others as well, because their good will be our good.
We will have incentive to be inclusive of and helpful to those we will need.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Indeed. So in order to prevent that from happening we will have to work together will we not? We will have to rely upon one another. We will have to work hard to ensure that those we care to have around are not left out in the cold, are not excluded from our little coffee klatches. We will ill afford to serve only ourselves we will have to serve others as well, because their good will be our good.
We will have incentive to be inclusive of and helpful to those we will need.
The issue I always have with this argument is that, if one side of a PvP conflict can band together, than the other side can too; it's bad practice to simply assume you can have a numerical advantage without some specific reason why you will be able to bulk up your numbers and they won't. It seems to me it will still come down to which side has the better PvP experience, characters, gear, etc., and the "noob" side will be cycling characters frequently with permadeath, which will mean they are losing their fights even more, and the cycle of pushing inexperienced or unskilled players out of the game continues. Which of course gives them incentive to not play at all until their character is strong enough to stand up to the enemies, and once there not play for fear of losing the character. It just seems like something that only a few would enjoy.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If they band together then that is a desired outcome. If they start to unite then they become a state, not murderous individuals. They gain social structure and something to defend that they will soon not want to lose and that makes them US.
It will be up to the rest of us to tend the flocks of newbs and bring them in.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@bringslite
Part of having items looted by NPCs and for item destruction is an economic one.
In a game where player crafted items are intended to be valuable and where goods are to be constantly created (besides consumables like potions), items MUST leave the game. if they do not then you reach a point where crafters no longer are important to the game (like crafting in wow).
For extra penalties to death, in general the idea is that by having a penalty you increase the risk for engaging in pvp, as a result pvp is not something you just do without thinking about risk vs reward and making that choice. So before someone attacks someone else they have to think about, what happens if i die and have to pay those penalties.
Now in general I think that death penalties should be item destruction and items being looted off your corpse.
My only objection to NPC looting was primarily the work to code the NPC's to use the loot as well as graphics to show it. In general, I do not mind more gear sinks at all.
Edit: If we can't even expect character "sitting at table" animations, I am guessing that mobs looting and using PC gear is outrageous. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Being, who said anything about RPKers or griefers? My issue is that the game is not one you can hide from PvP in while really playing it (as opposed to sitting around doing not much of anything), and an inexperienced or less skilled player will be coming into constant conflict with other players just like everyone else. They will never be able to achieve anything, because unless they can win every conflict they're in they will lose their character, and as a newer or less skilled player they are almost by definition not going to win every conflict.
Saying "band up with others so you don't die in PvP" is invalid, as the more skilled and longer-lived characters can also band together so that they still beat you (you'll maybe win a fight or two with numbers higher than the norm, then you'll be killed by the other group's friends or maybe just a separate group that is bigger than you). It seems like a system that punishes everyone but the elite for playing the game, and doesn't contribute anything to the elite players. I really don't think it would pan out in a positive way.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Permadeath on a per-character basis would require technology that doesn't get screwed up occasionally and a way of getting unique player identification over a mostly-anonymous system. When someone invents The superinternet, I'm sure they'll let us know. Until that time, you permadeath proponents are free to delete your characters when you die, but kindly back the hell off of trying to make the same choice for everyone else.
We'll have permanent death of settlements at the community level and permanent loss of equipment at the individual level. Both of those potential losses can be mitigated by more effective play, but permanent loss of purchased training & time raises the stakes to the point that the inevitable losses will overwhelm the entertainment value. Those who have spent the most time and money on the game have the most to lose while those who specifically want to cause the most disruption for the least expenditure find their playstyle preferred by the disproportionate losses they can cause. The long-term builders eventually realize the game rules are inimical to their playstyle and leave, and without victims upon which to inflict extremely disproportionate losses, the @$$#@+$ leave too.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'd wonder if Pharasma's Mark sometimes needs a top-up? Perhaps a skill Clerics will be useful for in that skill-tree? Refilling the spirit energy that the Mark may burn after so many deaths? If not re-filled could lose some xp?
I'm thinking of integrating the Mark into the gameplay more as well as the idea of the Mark losing efficacy for other reasons, too.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
lose some xp?
No.
You're going to have to travel from your respawn point, so raise dead could save time at the very least. It could save you equipment too, if there are looters around, and maybe it could even prevent the 25% loss incurred when 'opening' the husk. If there are post-death debuffs, it might cure them.
In any case, XP = Money. Not coin, but real-world cash. Experience loss on death is just a slower form of what would happen with permadeath in a system where the community-builders have so much more to lose than gangs of @$$#@+$ who only need minimal investment to start causing disproportionate loss. Even if the XP loss was something like 1%, a dozen untrained newbies would risk nothing while attempting to cause significant loss to a character that's been around for a year.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
lose some xp?No.
You're going to have to travel from your respawn point, so raise dead could save time at the very least. It could save you equipment too, if there are looters around, and maybe it could even prevent the 25% loss incurred when 'opening' the husk. If there are post-death debuffs, it might cure them.
In any case, XP = Money. Not coin, but real-world cash. Experience loss on death is just a slower form of what would happen with permadeath in a system where the community-builders have so much more to lose than gangs of @$$#@+$ who only need minimal investment to start causing disproportionate loss. Even if the XP loss was something like 1%, a dozen untrained newbies would risk nothing while attempting to cause significant loss to a character that's been around for a year.
That seems true. But I was really thinking of way to get the Pharasma's Mark into it's own economy of spiritual healing to keep it topped up.
Then you add the idea that certain actions that are "abhorrent to the very gods and goddesses themselves" reduces that availability to recharge the Pharasma's Mark for a period of time thus making those players without recharge, know to count their own deaths before they're playing as you say a form of "slow-perma-death"?
Work it into extreme low rep as you say xp = money = time.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I expect my character to die several times each day I play PFO.
Many people will want to fight other players a lot in this game. Characters will therefore die by the droves. The killcount on the server in one hour I expect to greatly surpass that of all of the Rambo movies combined.
Having to keep refilling a counter of "extra lives" sounds tedious and boring to me, PvP in itself constitutes a resource drain due to destruction of and durability loss of gear.
I don't see how permadeath could be a good fit for this game at all.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Being, who said anything about RPKers or griefers? My issue is that the game is not one you can hide from PvP in while really playing it (as opposed to sitting around doing not much of anything), and an inexperienced or less skilled player will be coming into constant conflict with other players just like everyone else. They will never be able to achieve anything, because unless they can win every conflict they're in they will lose their character, and as a newer or less skilled player they are almost by definition not going to win every conflict.
Saying "band up with others so you don't die in PvP" is invalid, as the more skilled and longer-lived characters can also band together so that they still beat you (you'll maybe win a fight or two with numbers higher than the norm, then you'll be killed by the other group's friends or maybe just a separate group that is bigger than you). It seems like a system that punishes everyone but the elite for playing the game, and doesn't contribute anything to the elite players. I really don't think it would pan out in a positive way.
You're envisioning of 'a chance of permadeath' is more harsh than I intended to propose, Shane. Consider what Avena is thinking: that there might be conditions that weaken the mark of pharasma and increase the odds of the mark not working to resurrect you at the shrine. Let's say initially reducing the bond of your threading, for example, and if the mark isn't strengthened by (many ways to renew the mark), engaging in 'meaningful' play, the mark might weaken more until finally, after many opportunities to strengthen it, the mark might be lost and you have a 50-50 chance of not rezzing at all. Let's say that performing services for your settlement or for a deity at a shrine or by direct blessing by a cleric increases your mark, but behaving in antisocial activity increases entropy and weakens it.
I wasn't thinking all or nothing for everyone, but always there is a chance. A reason for players to cooperate, to help one another, to assist the needy and contribute to the good of the game (as opposed to aligning a specific way).
By being in a community and doing things cooperatively with others the mark becomes renewed constantly to keep the chance vanishingly small, but maybe certain proscribed activities would weaken the mark, gradually increasing the odds of losing Pharasma's blessing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think I've made this point before, but I think the desire for a stronger death penalty in general is due to a lack of meaningful activity in PvE Theme Parks. In PFO, everything we do will be much more meaningful; instead of just going out into the wilds to get XP and Loot, we'll be working to build or improve or defend our Settlement (or something else just as meaningful). The fact that we'll have suffered a setback in that regard when we die is meaningful enough without stacking on death penalties that really only make sense for PvE Theme Parks.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Dragonrealms certainly wasn't themepark. Their system worked very well indeed. I disagree my opinion is biased by the themepark culture, but an appreciation for the effects of hardship and danger on an interdependent community.
Ever met a great pro boxer? Its like politeness: you always see it between the most dangerous people.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Its like politeness: you always see it between the most dangerous people.
Couldn't agree more. Knowing that you're in real danger tends to focus the mind, as they say, and cause you to avoid unnecessarily provoking others.
And I wasn't meaning to imply that the folks who seek permadeath are biased by the Theme Park culture, but rather that that particular solution makes more sense in a Theme Park environment.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well, since I know for sure that permadeath is not going to be implemented, Id like to talk about something similar.
To have warfare make more sense, to not have people respawn inmediately and then throw themselves into battle, the minimum thing I would implement would be a heavy death penalty in the form of a huge respawn timer.
I imagine that in the current state of the game you can respawn almost inmediately and then throw yourself into the same battle.
Wouldn´t it be better (and a lot more bearable for everyone) to have a 24 hour (or similar) respawn time?
Yes, I am saying that if you die, you cannot play the same character (or the whole account) in the next 24 hours (or a similar time a lot bigger than instant respawn, ¿12? whatever). Pharasma takes his/her time.
This would make a lot more sense to me, although I would prefer a permadeath system, this might be something in between that might
And of course, you could still play sooner if you actually get a resurrection spell... oh, now a cleric´s role makes a lot more sense in the outcome of the battle of the day.
As you might see, I´m trying to be flexible here to the teddybear attitude. Yes, pun intended, but don´t get offended as it´s just a joke.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Even banding together will not save you from casualties. Such penalties probably even encourage using the "less experienced" as meat shields. Why not? they have less to lose.
The problem I see with that is that the 'less experienced' will be forced to die over and over and over again and lose all their badges, XP and gear to keep the 'more experienced' players alive.
Here, you die pitifully so I can keep my character, even through we're both two normal people and you owe me nothing.
That's not gonna work unless the 'more experienced' players either have something over the 'less experienced' to force them to do that, or the 'more experienced' have a skill or ability to rez the 'less' without costing the 'less' any XP, gear or badges.
Perma-Death doesn't work in an MMO setting like WoW, or Guild Wars, or Pathfinder Online. The only time I have ever heard of a player with massive amounts of XP and upgrades dying would be one of the EvE players who forgot to update his clone after several months and ran into a rash of bandits in a low-level area after the base he was using for his Clone got wiped out by a rival corporation, and he died after 3 years of playing.
According to the story told to me in EvE, he ranted and raged about how unfair it was and how he didn't deserve to lose his character, but EvE refused to revive his character and told him that was why they allowed clones in the first place.
In Pathfinder Online, we don't have clones. It's a fantasy setting and while perma-death is a potent story-telling tool, the average Hero/Villain that's central to the plot (namely ourselves) doesn't get to leave the stage by dying like a headless chicken.
Then add latency, buggy quests, PvP Hax, power outages that might leave your character standing in a very bad place while the system waits for you to perform a command, possibly leaving you in place for upwards of several minutes without any form of defensive action to take...
Although ... that does make for an interesting concept of the 'Twice Touched' of Pharasma, or a similar mechanic, in that when you bind yourself to a Shrine, you're effectively leaving an 'imprint' of your soul, meaning that if you die before getting back to town and re-imprinting, you lose all your experiences and XP-gains as your soul is ripped from your ruined body and savaged by the ethereal winds as it is hurled through the astral realm towards the Shrine.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My suggestion concerning Pharasma's Mark: You have a ratchet system:
You barely ever need to refill it if you're high rep and all the rest of the measures.
If you go low and for a period of time it then requires refill more frequently but less resources available to those at "low levels" of rep et al. So they have to journey far and wide to the few places they can and those are not always open...
So it's more time wasting or suffer higher risk.
Something like that. Plus works into the economy of refill spiritual centers, though that might already be worked in by the devs eg fire damage, physical damage, spiritual damage etc in combat. So call it Pharasma revival/reincarnation/resurrection/reanimation refill etc.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A respawn timer of 24 hours is ridiculous. It would be really f'ing awesome for the player who gets to play one or two days a week because of other responsibilities, but ends up losing their weekend to a lag spike or gank squad. It would not take long before they decide to move on to a game that actually lets them play on the subscription they're paying for.
At minimum, you already have equipment loss & damage and you'd need to travel back from your respawn point if you want to try to recover anything or continue doing whatever you were trying to do in the first place.
I could see there being a sort of 'resurrection sickness' debuff that takes a while to wear off and has a negative impact on combat effectiveness. Maybe it would just prevent you from starting any new fights while it's there (though you could still fight back if attacked). that would keep killed characters from jumping right back into an ongoing battle. Perhaps raise dead and similar spells could summon the player back to their husk, reduce or remove the debuff, or even reduce the equipment loss.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Respawn timer is just an equivalent to being in prison which we know is no good because when a player sits down to play a game, the game and the player and other players want that player active in game. It's like waiting your turn in some board-games, is when someone decides to go off to make a cup of tea and decides not to bother returning given all the tedious waiting they've had to do already!
If anything I think, think of ways to link (lol) death state to lots of other areas of gameplay (healing, economy, map locality, temples and so on).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Has there been any talk about the options for a killed character to get back to their corpse when they have buddies around?
Distance plays a role in this game so respawning somewhere far from the battlefield would be a meaningful setback in a war/siege/ambush.
Raise dead spells do change a lot off course.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Has there been any talk about the options for a killed character to get back to their corpse when they have buddies around?
Distance plays a role in this game so respawning somewhere far from the battlefield would be a meaningful setback in a war/siege/ambush.
Raise dead spells do change a lot off course.
Wasn't that part of what I just posted?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
This thread, and the "How to Make PvE More of a Grind" thread just perplex me. Why keep proposing variant after variant of how to make a game experience suckier and worse? What is driving some people here to follow a bizarre impulse to try and fix a problem that doesn't exist, with draconian "solutions" that are prime facie bad ideas?
-You don't need to fix "the problem" of PFO not having risk and stakes, because it already has it at the level of social structures.
-You don't need to fix "the problem" of PFO being too easy in PvE because 1) the design concept includes environmental scarcity (resources, escalations, land for settlements) so everything we do PvE will be within the context of competition, and 2) the goshdarn game isn't even out yet so it can't be too easy.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even banding together will not save you from casualties. Such penalties probably even encourage using the "less experienced" as meat shields. Why not? they have less to lose.Stuff missing evil sarcasm....
@ Half Orc
I am not sure that I was clear enough in all of the posts before the one that you answered.
I am not in favor of perma death as a mandatory part of PfO. I am not in favor of penalties or losses beyond what GW has already described.
I feel like what is planned already is plenty good. ;)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Asha, that's a very intriguing proposition. This would offer both a means to introduce the game to new players without up-front investment, and also a way for subscribers to dabble with hardcore mode without endangering their precious primary characters.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't think there's any need to change the immortality of the paid characters, but has anyone ever suggested maybe allowing mortals as free accounts?
Maybe limit their access to some of the most powerful magic and abilities, but allow them to exist as a sort of hard-core character setting wherein anyone who is interested in the challenge can see how long they can last.
It might be a good way to give people a chance to see if they like the game before making any serious commitments, and could act to drive meaningful activities as the immortals try to protect their vulnerable friends.
@Asha
I agree with Shaibes, its a very interesting concept. It's worth putting up on Ideascale to make it part of the permanent Crowdforging record for the devs.