Larirawiel said:I find EXP loss too harsh. Because it will force you to grind the lost EXP back. And i do not think that to be forced to grind belongs to a modern MMORPG
When I died in EQ P99 I always like to think of it like "well, I get to explore more stuff that's appropriate to this level, then".
There would have to be a serious lack of content at any particular level to *force* you to do boring grinding to re-gain lost XP. Did you grind to get XP in that level in the first place? Are you not enjoying playing the game at that level?
Presumably, you were enjoying the game when you died. Why are you forced to do something that is not just as enjoyable while getting the XP back?
Personally, I rarely mind losing XP as long as there's fun things to do. In most games I have found myself levelling so fast I out-level all the content that appropriate before I can experience it.
XP loss isn't really as drastic as people make out unless you don't enjoy levels 1-49 or you're in some kind of race to the end-game, which is a bit sad, no?
disposalist said:Larirawiel said:I find EXP loss too harsh. Because it will force you to grind the lost EXP back. And i do not think that to be forced to grind belongs to a modern MMORPGWhen I died in EQ P99 I always like to think of it like "well, I get to explore more stuff that's appropriate to this level, then".
There would have to be a serious lack of content at any particular level to *force* you to do boring grinding to re-gain lost XP. Did you grind to get XP in that level in the first place? Are you not enjoying playing the game at that level?
few games have twice the number of stuff to do as it takes players to level in a specific area. so to find more content to regain a lost level one would have to travel a very long distance on foot for a very long time. then one would have to grind faction for that area, then after how many hours, yay! content!
Presumably, you were enjoying the game when you died. Why are you forced to do something that is not just as enjoyable while getting the XP back?
generally speaking i am having fun when i die, because i am doing challenging content in which i risk death. in those situations i tend not to be leveling much if at all, because when challenging myself, i will die. so to gain xp i need to run low challenge content to gain more xp than i lose, thus grinding. personally i dont find exploiting taking advantage of bad AI by running around kiting 100 mobs much fun, but it is good xp.
[Personally, I rarely mind losing XP as long as there's fun things to do. In most games I have found myself levelling so fast I out-level all the content that appropriate before I can experience it.
i have alot of respect for the dev team, but this is an independant game that is looking for a niche crowd. they don't have $5 million sitting in the bank, as far as i know. i think expectations need to be somewhat realistic. i am sure that they are being very efficient with money, but a huge world completely fleshed out seems less likely than a mostly fleshed out world that is stable. personally, if the game is as complete as vanguard was at release, with the exception of being stable, i will be more than happy.
XP loss isn't really as drastic as people make out unless you don't enjoy levels 1-49 or you're in some kind of race to the end-game, which is a bit sad, no?
it all depends on the amount of xp loss. 10 xp loss isn't drastic at all. 100% of xp loss, i.e. you are level 1 with 0 xp, is rather drastic. obviously we expect it to be somewhere in between but i simply mean that without knowing what the penalties are and what the content levels are, we really have no idea if it is drastic or not, and even when we get those numbers it is each persons opinion as to if it is drastic to them.
alephen said: few games have twice the number of stuff to do as it takes players to level in a specific area
I understand where you are coming from if that's what you believe.
Personally, I don't believe I've ever come across a game where there wasn't multiple times the content needed to level up, as I said, I usually am disppointed because I out-level a zone way before I've mastered it and found all it's secrets. I end up leaving content behind if I move onto an 'appropriately levelled' area. Even in EQ P99 there were multiple zones for every level range (and overlapping ranges) and you could out-level using just one or two of them without getting bored.
I don't doubt that Pantheon will be *much* bigger and offer *much* more content - it's simply a technology thing that developing content is relatively 'easier' than in EQ original days.
Maybe I have a greater tolerance for what I consider "still having fun learning": I wouldn't say I've gained everything I can from a zone/dungeon until I've mastered all the camps and gotten most of the different treasure from the place that I wanted. You have to kill the same thing multiple times to learn all there is to know. If you consider that 'grinding' then there's our difference of opinion.
If you get bored when you have to kill the same camp twice, then, yeah, no game is going to have enough content.
Stats follow, so bear with me: Our example is Aradune's group in the Twitch Stream #1
'Classic EQ' exp loss from death = 5%-10% (for a level 7, lets say 5%)
Cummulative Exp for level 7 = 343,000 xp,
Cummulative Exp for level 8 = 512,000 xp.
so NEEDED exp to get from level 7 to 8 = 169,000 xp
'Classic EQ' exp gain from a dark-blue (level 6) mob = 2700 exp
Group size was 5 and (pre-2003) Group exp bonus would be +20% (post-2003 this wouold have been +80%).
So each person gets 2700 x 1.2 / 5 (players) = 648 xp.
This means they have to pull a total of 169,000 xp / 648 xp = 261 mobs for ALL of them to ding! Level 8.
In a 2 hour play session, this is 120 minutes. Assume 20 mins getting setup and 10 mins to 'return to town'. This leaves 90 minutes of 'combat pulling' time maximum. IF thy can pull 261/90 mobs per minute, then they can all DING that very session!!! btw 261/90 = 2.9, lets call it 3. So in a 10 min block they need to kill 30 mobs (call it 10 pulls of 3). It is nearly doable. Well, for an experienced team it may be.
If you repeated these stats for a 6-man (preferably 3-5 women in it) level 5 party hunting level 4-5 mobs you get :
6 x (125 - 64) x 1000 / 1.2 x AV (16x75 + 25x75) ) = 198 mobs for whole group to ding level 5.
In the same 2 hour play session, removing 30 mins for faffing about, this equates to 2.1 mobs/min or 21 mobs per 10 mins, or 7 '3-mob pulls' per 10 mins. This is mostly doable. Even if you did HALF of this, you would see yourself progress significantly (half a level) in the short time having fun together.
- So what about death?
Worst case (you were *just* about to ding)
For level 7-8 5% = 25000 xp loss = 46 mobs in full group to recover. @3 mobs/min = 15 mins
For level 4-5 5% = 5250 xp loss = 17 mobs in full group to recover. @2 mobs/min = 9 mins
The exp loss would be significantly less for people lower into their level (as much as half).
HOWEVER in Aradune's twitch only 40 exp was lost! So we can assume the metrics are different from EQ ones (though the ratios may remain the same). Either way they managed to ding from 7-8 in the space of one 2-hour session, even taking a single death into account.
Hope the stats helped :)
@Evoras
Good post, nice break down.
Of course your scenarios are based on efficient groups and gameplay, but I do recall that early on, death was at most 1-hr to recover lost xp in a marginal group.
In my 40's I recall a death hurt more, but still took only a couple maybe 3 hours to recover the lost xp in a decent group.
I know I feared it, and a couple times banged my head on my desk when I did something stupid that caused death, but the only time I recall being really ticked off was those deaths right before log off. It was knowing that I would not sleep having my corpse out there, and that I was about to lose some sleep doing my CR. :) Those also tended to be the nights I stayed up an extra hour or 2 to complete something, so I was already looking at a 4-hour nights sleep, about to be cut to less for the CR. :ROFL:
Homercles, that sounds great... for what will probably be another game. For your ideas, you would need more low end content than high end, as some would require multiple tries to reach end game content. and even then, they wouldn't stay there forever. But, the intensity and fun of that system would be over the top. The only problem with it would be that if deaths resulted from another player griefing you, ooohh.... That would result in some nastiness.
Anyway, great idea, and with some tweaking could be even better.
disposalist said:Larirawiel said:I find EXP loss too harsh. Because it will force you to grind the lost EXP back. And i do not think that to be forced to grind belongs to a modern MMORPGWhen I died in EQ P99 I always like to think of it like "well, I get to explore more stuff that's appropriate to this level, then".
There would have to be a serious lack of content at any particular level to *force* you to do boring grinding to re-gain lost XP. Did you grind to get XP in that level in the first place? Are you not enjoying playing the game at that level?
Presumably, you were enjoying the game when you died. Why are you forced to do something that is not just as enjoyable while getting the XP back?
Personally, I rarely mind losing XP as long as there's fun things to do. In most games I have found myself levelling so fast I out-level all the content that appropriate before I can experience it.
XP loss isn't really as drastic as people make out unless you don't enjoy levels 1-49 or you're in some kind of race to the end-game, which is a bit sad, no?
XP loss isn't drastically or something I fear, but it is not something that is fun either. I beta tested Lineage in 2001, it had 2 death penalties: XP loss and a chance to lose a random item (i think 1 in 3 or so). If you lost an item and no player picked it up next passing monster would and would add it to it's loot table.
The XP loss thing meant people at time picked a grind spot and spent a few hours there, and that was a common tactic in all the old MMOs. The gear thing was something else, we both feared and loved it since you suddenly could get something very unexpected from a regular wandering mob (I got a lvl 35 sword from a lvl rabbit once).
Anyways: my point is that losing XP wont scare anyone of death, it is just mildly annoying. Corpse running feel a lot 1999. Shouldn't there be some new death penalty that both can be scary and add something that could be fun to it just like Lineage item loss did?
In an older style game where rare items often take countless hours to obtain and death is common for even the best players, item loss really isn't an option.
I say this as someone who played EQ on Rallos Zek (PvP with item loot) and a fan of games like Darkfall where you lose your entire inventory on death. Its all about what your equipment is really worth and the time investment involved in acquiring it. In the case of Darkfall, it was relatively low. Hence people generally did not fret about dying. That probably wouldn't be the case here.
Dullahan said:In an older style game where rare items often take countless hours to obtain and death is common for even the best players, item loss really isn't an option.
I say this as someone who played EQ on Rallos Zek (PvP with item loot) and a fan of games like Darkfall where you lose your entire inventory on death. Its all about what your equipment is really worth and the time investment involved in acquiring it. In the case of Darkfall, it was relatively low. Hence people generally did not fret about dying. That probably wouldn't be the case here.
No, losing all your gear upon dying wont work, and games who tried it (unless you count Eve) never done well. UO was an exception but when it released the competition was just M59 and the Realm, today you would be eaten alive for a PvE game with full item loss. I don't think either Darkfall or Mortal online ever reached more then just over 20K players but they are a different kind of game compared to Pantheon in any case.
A chance of losing a single item is not as bad though, but it still depends on how hard certain items are to get. You could in worst case except raid tiered bound gear from this rule or even all rare top gear depending on how hard it is to get the gear.
Another option is that you loose the gold you carry. That is also bad but no huge disaster.
loke666 said:Dullahan said:In an older style game where rare items often take countless hours to obtain and death is common for even the best players, item loss really isn't an option.
I say this as someone who played EQ on Rallos Zek (PvP with item loot) and a fan of games like Darkfall where you lose your entire inventory on death. Its all about what your equipment is really worth and the time investment involved in acquiring it. In the case of Darkfall, it was relatively low. Hence people generally did not fret about dying. That probably wouldn't be the case here.
No, losing all your gear upon dying wont work, and games who tried it (unless you count Eve) never done well. UO was an exception but when it released the competition was just M59 and the Realm, today you would be eaten alive for a PvE game with full item loss. I don't think either Darkfall or Mortal online ever reached more then just over 20K players but they are a different kind of game compared to Pantheon in any case.
A chance of losing a single item is not as bad though, but it still depends on how hard certain items are to get. You could in worst case except raid tiered bound gear from this rule or even all rare top gear depending on how hard it is to get the gear.
Another option is that you loose the gold you carry. That is also bad but no huge disaster.
I think having a mob that killed you loot the gold you were carrying to be a really good idea. Gives you even more incentive to recover your stuff and to get back and avenge yourself. Also creates a situation where players can make a decision and reveal their character. For instance, does your group move over to where other players died and vindicate them, returning their gold or do they kill the mobs and keep the gold?
Some might see it as griefy, but I think it was things like this in EQ that created fast friends or bitter rivals. There being heros and villains really adds to the dynamic and appeal of the game world imo. How many chances do you really have to affect anyone in modern games? The answer: not many.
JDNight said:Homercles, that sounds great... for what will probably be another game. For your ideas, you would need more low end content than high end, as some would require multiple tries to reach end game content. and even then, they wouldn't stay there forever. But, the intensity and fun of that system would be over the top. The only problem with it would be that if deaths resulted from another player griefing you, ooohh.... That would result in some nastiness.
But this is how EQ and I assume Pantheon will be structured.
EQ was pyramid style. Many, many low level zones. And few high end zones.
Every starting city had its own low level area. As you progressed in level, the level appropriate zones narrowed. Until finally you hit max level and only had 2-4 zones you could participate in. Hate, Fear, LGuk, SolB. ...with Vox thrown in from Permafrost. As the playerbase became top heavy, expansions were added and new zones were opened (the Hole, Kedge). But over all, EQ was bottom heavy in content.
I know this Life Limit concept would never be implemented, but imagine how it might impact the top end of the game. Would it open up more opportunties for competing guilds? What if some key member of Guild A started running low on lives. Would they take a break from raiding to grind out some AAs, thus giving Guild B an opportunty. Or would Guild A risk losing some members to Progeny by pushing forward with raiding. And if they did, would they weaken themselves thru progeny, thus allowing Guild B a crack at the raid mob?
It might also keep some of those low to mid-level dungeons occupied for a longer period of time. In EQ several lower level dungeons became ghost towns after a period. If people got knocked back to progeny, these dungeons may get a second wind.
You're right about griefing. Good god almighty I can imagine the flamefests on the forums! Griefing would be a major obstacle to overcome, and I have no idea of how it could be done.
Dullahan said:I think having a mob that killed you loot the gold you were carrying to be a really good idea. Gives you even more incentive to recover your stuff and to get back and avenge yourself. Also creates a situation where players can make a decision and reveal their character. For instance, does your group move over to where other players died and vindicate them, returning their gold or do they kill the mobs and keep the gold?
Some might see it as griefy, but I think it was things like this in EQ that created fast friends or bitter rivals. There being heros and villains really adds to the dynamic and appeal of the game world imo. How many chances do you really have to affect anyone in modern games? The answer: not many.
Well, you could give the player a timer to recover the gold or you could just add it the the mob killing the players loot table depending on how hardcore you want things, or for that matter which zone it happens in. Just leaving the body for anyone to loot from could make the community pretty toxic and having to look for the mob that stole your gold could actually get pretty fun, particularly if it was a named mob. A ranger could even use a tracking skill to hunt the mob that killed him to get revenge and the cash back (before someone else happens to kill it).
Losing your gold is hurtful but wont get people to ragequit. And it would also encourage people to visit a town now and then to go to the bank. Certain players might even stand out in dangerous areas and selling goods for extra profit (and with certain risks) to players fearing to die and loose all their cash.
I agree a small gold or plat loss is great for death maybe 10%. That way even low levels who only have 1 gold would only lose 10 copper . It allows towns or cities to be used more by all players of all levels , if for no other reason then to put your money in the bank . Keeps towns/ cities relevant . I still think a exp loss should be there as well .
Players wouldnt carry any coins if they were going to do anything risky. Would be better to keep crafting, travel ( waiting for boats not instant travel ) and banking in the main cities plus having random events there.
Death= CR to get your gear and Xp loss scaled to level, have a summon your corpse altar that could cost x amount and that character is logged out for 4 hours after using the altar. That would give players who have limited time a way to bypass the Corpse Run they would still have the xp loss tho.
This is so near and dear to my heart, I can't even tell you, LOL.
I'm a firm believer in the need for a death penalty and have stated so many times over the years. Without a death penalty that stings, there's little incentive to work together very well as a group, nor enact every Leroy Jenkins fantasy a player has ever had. ;)
- Dalmarus
Dalmarus said:This is so near and dear to my heart, I can't even tell you, LOL.
I'm a firm believer in the need for a death penalty and have stated so many times over the years. Without a death penalty that stings, there's little incentive to work together very well as a group, nor enact every Leroy Jenkins fantasy a player has ever had. ;)
- Dalmarus
Welcome to the forums : ) and I agree
I like your graverobber idea, Homercles- and the blackmarket might just conicidentally-be a viable platsink to guard against mudflation. Provided- the black market was available to EVERYONE (muahahahaha)
This would make the fiduciary responsibility of guilds, more precious, for it would be the guilds that are fiscally solvent enough to be able to "bail out" the gear from the blackmarket.
Distasteful recruiting opportunities, aside.
(hey girl/guy- what's wrong? lost your gear? oh poor thing- is this it? on the blackmarket? I almost bought it. Of course I can. Well then- I might be able to buy it for you....but what will you do for ME in return *looks conivingly* wanna join my guild? If you were a member of my guild I would have to buy it back for you. ok good, done and done, welcome to the guild, say "hi" to everyone... now SHUT UP. Get Back out there on the docks and sell some SoW Jobs and dont give me no backtalk until I call you, unnerstan? and we'll see... about how you can fit in on the next raid. What's a SoW job? 250, same as down-town)
Dalmarus said:This is so near and dear to my heart, I can't even tell you, LOL.
I'm a firm believer in the need for a death penalty and have stated so many times over the years. Without a death penalty that stings, there's little incentive to work together very well as a group, nor enact every Leroy Jenkins fantasy a player has ever had. ;)
- Dalmarus
Yeah, more or less all of us agree with that. We don't want it like it was in AoC 2008 where people jumped off cliffs because it was faster and easier to die and spawn somewhere else then actually ride there. What we have problem agreeing on is just how the death penalty is handled best.
It is a rather interesting discussion though and there should be loads of possible solutions that no game have used before besides the tried models we already seen.
*Let me preface that I'm all for harsh, punishing mechanics be it death or travel or whatever*
I had a random idea that I'm not sure if it's been used before for Death or a game in general. What if EXP just naturally decayed over time? If you're not fighting, your character can fairly slowly lose EXP naturally over time. There's no such thing as "finished leveling" or hitting level cap. Now this would kind of fit and morph into other areas.
A) It gives long term incentive in that you do have to maintain your level in some manner, so hunting/killing at level cap isn't only about loot / etc. You have quasi-perpetual progression.
B) A death penalty could be a debuff (timed? quest to remove? etc) that increases the EXP decay temporarily. Death is still impactful and can cause lost progress, but the sting isn't as immediate to scare off the carebears.
This may be something too hard to add into the game mechanics at this point, but I'm not really sure. It would definitely be something different, add longevity to playing, and still prove to be a weighty death penalty that isn't just sloshed off.
Good point, Loke666. And interesting idea, picks86.
For me, a death penalty needs to be immediate. On the selfish side, there are times I can't do any gaming for a week or two at a time, so I personally would not be a fan of an XP decay. Even if it was restricted to only decaying while in-game, I still spend a stupid amount of time in MMOs looking at characters, exploring areas just because they cool, even if there's no combat in the area. And I like hanging out in towns and chatting as well, so that would be pretty rough for me.
I do like the thought of trying something new though.
Myself, I was a big fan of the EQ system. Corpse runs are responsible for some of my favorite EQ stories. At the same time, I was not a fan of losing my stuff. I like the concept of a graveyard, but maybe it takes 24 or 48 hours to be able to use it? That gives you a day or two to go the traditional corpse run route so there's still the opportunity for those awesome stories. Saying that though, what about players that have limited amount of game time and hate corpse runs? I don't know. I'd be a fan of a system like that though.
Oh - I would also want to see a class that could summon and rez corpses at high levels though for a couple of reasons. One, I like high level players randomly going through lower level zones and helping out like we used to see in EQ for the early years. Second, one thing that helps build a solid sense of community in games in an interdependency of classes - needing each other for aspects of the game. It not only helps force players to interact, but also encourages good behaviour as names spread on a server and no one wants to play with a known jackwagon. ;)
- Dalmarus
I played a lot of EQ from early Kunark through GoD. I have to say that I rarely found the exp lost upon death to be a major hinderance. Yes, it was a noticeable amount, and I did loose a level a few times. However, that level loss only occured when I had just dinged anyways. It seems like several people who may not have played EQ think that you would loose a level no matter how much exp you had in it. The major exception, where the xp lost to death really stung, was during hell levels. I don't have numbers on hand, but it seemed like those particular levels (every five levels from either 35 or 40 on) saw the exp required to level increase by 4-5x, and I recall that the xp percentage lost in those levels remained the same as in the previous level. As long as there are no hell levels, I really don't have an issue with loosing a slight percentage of XP on death. It just served to encourage everyone to know their class well and play as a team.