Lowering the Barriers to Group PvP

Santar

That's literally exactly what I just said. You're fighting to avoid losing the sanctioned raid. Losing the sanctioned raid has penalties for failure.

Mathonwy

Bluef said:

Jacen said:

Santar said:

Talking about xp loss is a waste of time.


It barely ever matters. People don't get upset over xp when they die. People get upset because they don't like losing.

Santar said:

Losing experience is a valid part of the game, because without punishment for death, there is no challenge or meaning. It's a pretty basic concept that virtually all games employ. If there's no penalty for failure, you end up with a bland, pointless experience.

I am not sure these two statements mesh very well.

Allow me to mesh them for you and maybe this dead horse can finally be allowed to RIP:

Many people don't rage, cry, or whine when they lose XP either because they learn from it or because they recognize that what happened was the result of their own action or inaction. This doesn't invalidate XP loss in the game in any way. It does the opposite, actually: It reinforces the desire to meet that challenge, to overcome the obstacle standing in your way, etc. Without it, vengeance via Mark would have no meaning, city raids would become nothing more than time-wasting skirmishes centered around how many rooms a group can destroy before people start to complain that they're bored or not having fun defending anymore, etc. 

Some of you may be experiencing player burnout, the frustration of losing hard-earned XP that took you time to obtain, but that's not everyone's experience (or mindset). They've already sped up the death sequence considerably and it's not like you lose any gear or all your gold when you die (unless you're careless enough to have it out in your inventory midfight).

Death is not a punishment. It is not inherently negative. It adds to the realism of Achaea. It adds meaning to our interactions in-character and that is really the goal of game design: To create a gaming experience that will keep players active and challenged, providing constant motivation to continue playing and learning. We can help Tecton and Sarapis do that by suggesting new ideas here, but for the love of mounts everywhere, let's stop beating this poor topic to death and discuss some new ones.

Again, emotional arguments, not logical ones. Nothing here details at all why XP loss is an inherently great mechanic. Hiring Marks would be just as meaningful if other consequences were put into place and dying triggered them, as would whatever 'reinforcement' dying has to meeting some longer-term goals. Similarly, you talk about City raids like that isn't the case at present; afaik there is some penalty to the city in question, but it's often  the case that it's more of a RP blow than a mechanical one. 

Death is a fundamental part of the game, sure, and there needs to be some realism so as not to stretch our suspension of disbelief, but nobody could (or would) argue that Achaea is at all realistic. Even exempting the presence of monsters/magic/etc. without which the game wouldn't be, well, the game, Achaea is a place where you're able to hold thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of pounds of gear and not be in any way immobilized or penalized in the slightest, and where every time you die you're guaranteed to come back again. This isn't realistic in the slightest, but it's an acceptable break from reality because the alternative is endless frustration that doesn't contribute in the slightest to a better overall playing experience (unless you really loved being immobilized in Baldur's Gate or slowing down to a crawl in Skyrim or exclusively play roguelikes).

Mathonwy

Santar said:

The fact that someone else is losing experience when you kill them isn't -supposed- to give you any satisfaction in itself. It's not about having a desire to punish other players.  The only relevant point is: What you're fighting over with other players has to matter in some way. Losing a sanctioned raid has a penalty for failure. Your city has a room destroyed.  Without that penalty, would you feel the same satisfaction in raiding? If you raid them when there's no penalty for them losing, then what incentive do they have to even fight you? Where's the victory in beating them if they don't care?

The purpose of XP-loss comes in at a design level. The developers of the game have to craft an environment which engages the players in an interesting experience. Xp-loss fills a valid role there, in forcing all players of the game to take the well-being of their character into consideration when making choices. 

From an earlier post:

On the whole, as far as penalties for dying go, XP loss is a boring mechanic. It's cookie-cutter by design, feels bad to lose, is boring to bash back up, offers nothing special to the game itself, and drives up issue incidents. There's literally no benefit to having it in the game; in much the same way that stealing credits from someone isn't possible, neither should it be possible to steal time from them. There's also a sense in which, if you have a bad day in PvE or PvP or are having lag issues etc, you literally would have been better off not logging in at all. I don't think that's a pattern of behavior you ever want to reinforce for your game.

ETA: in case it isn't clear, the options for penalties aren't "XP loss or no consequences for death/failure whatsoever."

Nim

Santar said:

That's literally exactly what I just said. You're fighting to avoid losing the sanctioned raid. Losing the sanctioned raid has penalties for failure.

Most of the ideas in this thread have involved replacing xp loss with something else rather than just having no penalty at all. I agree that no penalty for dying might be bad. I just disagree that the penalty should be xp loss, since it, to me, is like forcing designers to deal with player assassins whenever their design is rejected for the crime of wasting administrative time.

Silas

These sensationalist arguments abnout 'stealing people's time' are dumb and boring.

Herenicus

Santar said:

That's literally exactly what I just said. You're fighting to avoid losing the sanctioned raid. Losing the sanctioned raid has penalties for failure.

Yes, but you could also be fighting to maintain control of the Great Rock, or battling within Tenwat prison to send Targossan do-Goods back to vespers, or fighting just to see what the new sentinel/druid abilities are about. You're still on a team, trying to win, and the reasons to fight and the penalty for failure can be roleplayed in any direction you want. Maybe the Great Rock Battle Royale only takes place every five years, and your team wants bragging rights for the next two RL months. Goals and objectives don't need to be hardcoded if everyone's purpose is enjoying themselves and making for an all-around good time. Quaint ideas, I know.

Mathonwy

Silas said:

These sensationalist arguments abnout 'stealing people's time' are dumb and boring.

This sort of reactionary post doesn't really help. Explain why/how they're dumb and boring. I'm not irrational; change my mind.

Silas

No, lol. I've no interest in these circular arguments: they're boring. Everybody has stated their position now; I'm sure Sarapis/Tecton have enough input to make their decision.

Bluef

Nim said:

What do all of you say to making death penalties more uniform, so that dragons are affected as much (or, if you really want to make dragon an achievement, even more) than level 80ish characters? I'm curious to know, since the only one who commented on that was @Penwize, who said it would make him less involved in PvP (which is ironically very relevant to our discussion!)

Dragons are already affected by XP loss. We lose Xp comparative to lesser ranked individuals and while we do get more crits, it's harder to gain experience at the dragon level because the things we have to kill to do it are much more difficult. Gut, incantation and blast in Dragoncraft were also drastically decreased already; that is why dragons began receiving full experience when killing denizens.

But how would making death penalties higher for dragons impact people getting into PvP?

Mathonwy said:

Allow me to mesh them for you and maybe this dead horse can finally be allowed to RIP:

Many people don't rage, cry, or whine when they lose XP either because they learn from it or because they recognize that what happened was the result of their own action or inaction. This doesn't invalidate XP loss in the game in any way. It does the opposite, actually: It reinforces the desire to meet that challenge, to overcome the obstacle standing in your way, etc. Without it, vengeance via Mark would have no meaning, city raids would become nothing more than time-wasting skirmishes centered around how many rooms a group can destroy before people start to complain that they're bored or not having fun defending anymore, etc. 

Some of you may be experiencing player burnout, the frustration of losing hard-earned XP that took you time to obtain, but that's not everyone's experience (or mindset). They've already sped up the death sequence considerably and it's not like you lose any gear or all your gold when you die (unless you're careless enough to have it out in your inventory midfight). 

Death is not a punishment. It is not inherently negative. It adds to the realism of Achaea. It adds meaning to our interactions in-character and that is really the goal of game design: To create a gaming experience that will keep players active and challenged, providing constant motivation to continue playing and learning. We can help Tecton and Sarapis do that by suggesting new ideas here, but for the love of mounts everywhere, let's stop beating this poor topic to death and discuss some new ones.

Again, emotional arguments, not logical ones. Nothing here details at all why XP loss is an inherently great mechanic. Hiring Marks would be just as meaningful if other consequences were put into place and dying triggered them, as would whatever 'reinforcement' dying has to meeting some longer-term goals. Similarly, you talk about City raids like that isn't the case at present; afaik there is some penalty to the city in question, but it's often  the case that it's more of a RP blow than a mechanical one. 

Death is a fundamental part of the game, sure, and there needs to be some realism so as not to stretch our suspension of disbelief, but nobody could (or would) argue that Achaea is at all realistic. Even exempting the presence of monsters/magic/etc. without which the game wouldn't be, well, the game, Achaea is a place where you're able to hold thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of pounds of gear and not be in any way immobilized or penalized in the slightest, and where every time you die you're guaranteed to come back again. This isn't realistic in the slightest, but it's an acceptable break from reality because the alternative is endless frustration that doesn't contribute in the slightest to a better overall playing experience (unless you really loved being immobilized in Baldur's Gate or slowing down to a crawl in Skyrim or exclusively play roguelikes).

There is not an emotional argument to be found in what I wrote. I'm not trying to persuade anyone by pulling on their heartstrings, asking them to feel pity, etc. 

No one was arguing that XP loss is a great mechanic, but it is a necessary one. If death is removed and we all can just float through Achaean life killing and hunting to our heart's content, what would the point be? How would any existence in Achaea be purposeful or in any way realistic? Without a considerable death penalty, it becomes possible to mindlessly crush denizens or jump every player you see without any real consequence. 

The notion that realism and imitation of life doesn't exist in a fantasy game is just bollocks. We have drugs in Achaea that you can become addicted to. Prolonged smoking causes breathing difficulties. The suggestion that removing death is an acceptable break comparable to our inventory overload is preposterous. 

Xp loss isn't as detrimental as in other games and really people's perception of it is 99% of the problem. But no one wants to acknowledge that. Everyone just wants to keep beating this freaking dead horse and explore other ways to nerf XP loss or gain (depending on who is dying now apparently) until the horse rises up as an undead minion and forces Thoth to return to squash its pretty zombie-equine head.

Austere

Mathonwy said:

Silas said:

These sensationalist arguments abnout 'stealing people's time' are dumb and boring.

This sort of reactionary post doesn't really help. Explain why/how they're dumb and boring. I'm not irrational; change my mind.

Zap pisses me off.  I bet every divine who zaps someone laughs when they realize they just stole twenty minutes of our lives.  Down with the oppression. All divine zaps should reduce one cookie point, which naturally increase the more cookies you eat... no wait.. that still takes time. Hrm.. Maybe zaps should just tickle and never actually kill someone.  We should have an event where Sarapis takes all the divine zaps away to help tend the flame.  Yeah, i like it.  Wait,  then i have to get health refills.  Such a waste of time.  Better remove all damage from zap too.

 No more punished people that are unwilling to put in the time to get good at pk in arena or the time bashing to dragon where it doesn't matter.  more happiness and rainbows, please. 

Nim

@Bluef: No, you lose approximately the same amount of EXP that I do, but can hunt way faster than me, and hunt things I cannot. Furthermore, past level 100 is often seen as a buffer, since the benefits are minimal, so you have a much larger gap before EXP loss can even affect you in any significant way.

Mathonwy

@Bluef, it's only a necessary one if you believe the alternatives to XP loss are 'no penalties whatsoever,' which nobody does, nor is anyone advocating removing death from the game itself.

@Austere, that's one of those 'genuinely funny' moments I mentioned earlier. Thanks for the laugh!

ETA: correcting myself. I didn't actually say 'absurd lengths'

Nim

@Austere: I keep arguing that death should require mandatory teatime with fairies and unicorns as the ultimate punitive measure, but noooo...

Santar

Nim said:

@Bluef: No, you lose approximately the same amount of EXP that I do, but can hunt way faster than me, and hunt things I cannot. Furthermore, past level 100 is often seen as a buffer, since the benefits are minimal, so you have a much larger gap before EXP loss can even affect you in any significant way.

This doesn't change the fact that every dragon went through the same phase of the game as you. 99+ has always been considered a 'reward' for getting that high, and some of the functionality represents that. 


Anyways, @Silas is right. Discussion has grown pretty useless. Time to /yawn my way outta here.

Nim

So penalties are alright as long as there's a way to ignore them outright? Yeah, pretty sure this argument is pointless. I propose we (who aren't against such a change) discuss better death penalties, and leave this argument as-is, as that will be more fruitful. Perhaps a new topic would be best.

Saeva

I feel like I'm reading the same post over and over... is this groundhogs day? Where is Bill Murray!?

Herenicus

Maybe a recap of ideas and arguments for and against would be helpful for some people; it's an important discussion. I'll leave the decision whether to euthanize this beast to our OP. Thanks for the thread, @Jacen, and for trying your best with a dirty job no one else is volunteering to do.

Kinilan

Saeva said:

I feel like I'm reading the same post over and over... is this groundhogs day? Where is Bill Murray!?

In a coma because of that huge car crash. How do you not know this? It's been all over the news.

Bluef

Nim said:

@Bluef: No, you lose approximately the same amount of EXP that I do, but can hunt way faster than me, and hunt things I cannot. Furthermore, past level 100 is often seen as a buffer, since the benefits are minimal, so you have a much larger gap before EXP loss can even affect you in any significant way.

Dragons are tanks, meaning they can hunt 'faster' by way of not taking as much damage and having to run, shield, etc. But Dragons are also terribly slow. Their damage is weaker, which also slows their hunting down in general, which is why there are players who are dragons who don't hunt in dragonform. In lesserform, you still get he benefit of your higher health pool (though not as high as in dragon) and speedier attacks often with more damage.

Past level 100 is not a buffer. Perhaps 10% above level 99 may be (as it would take something like 20 deaths to low level 100). Anyone beyond level 100 genuinely enjoys hunting or needs corpses for defiling, raising shrines, or is an avid PvPer and is gaining their Xp someway other than hunting denizens.

But all that aside, I'm troubled by the fact that you think dragons "have a much larger gap before EXP loss can even affect you in any significant way," when you were complaining previously about how a perception of massive experience losses were so significant to keep people out of PvP. Because a person is a dragon, they're not supposed to find XP loss to be a bother - but everyone lower than them should be able to. Mk.

This topic has been beaten, drug into the town square, beaten some more, buried, dug up again and beaten day and night for 9 long pages. Put it to rest. Please don't start another thread about XP loss either. Just talk about real barriers to PvP and how to overcome them or change things that lead to them.

Silas

Don't start another thread about that, please. Post to your respective cities about improving your PK horizons there.

Herenicus

Continuing an argument and then ending the post with "put it to rest" don't smell right, lady.

Nim

@Bluef: I was seeing if you actually believed in penalties or if it was just classical aversion to change. Smells like the latter to me, especially with the blatant request to cease discussion.

Bluef

Nim said:

@Bluef: I was seeing if you actually believed in penalties or if it was just classical aversion to change. Smells like the latter to me, especially with the blatant request to cease discussion.

I'm not averse to change. I've been playing long enough (12 years now and counting) to know change is inevitable. But change shouldn't be based on faulty logic or subjective perception of a flaw in game design or mechanics.

I'm also not the only one sick of this merry-go-round of circular argument.

@Herenicus;

Herenicus

Would anyone care to diagram the circle, in the event that this rhetorical claim is more than sour grapes? We wouldn't want to see it return in another thread. Maybe someone who really wants to see this argument put to rest will help us out. 

Nim

tl;dr: Level 80s hate bashing because it's awful and boring. They lose a fifth of a level per death, so dying sucks too. They avoid dying as a result. System is working, but they think if death was less penalizing, or didn't require bashing to counteract, they'd get more involved.

Dragons are comfy, and feel OK with how things work, so they want things to stay the same. They're OK with bashing, and think the level 80s should be too, and feeling otherwise is just them whining. They don't want more severe penalties to affect dragons though, because they've earned their perks.

Whole thing goes back and forth because there's a player divide and a conflict of interests involved. Also @Silas being Silas.

Herenicus

Which side of this divide has more buying power left? 

Nim

Doesn't matter. Ultimately, the admins will make some adjustment, regardless of the discussion here, as per @Tecton's responses. Dragons didn't want to talk about it, so they kept doing strawman arguments about how we want XP loss removed, and Logosians kept falling for them, wasting ten pages of discussion over something that the admins were unlikely to do anyway.

Bluef

Did I somehow miss Tecton chiming in on this thread? 

@Nim you've been an absolute delight to discuss this topic with, even if you want to now dump on everyone who participated in the conversation because you're frustrated you couldn't get buy-in for your propositions. 

Taraus

Mathonwy said:

I'd be okay with a 'rankings kills' elo-based system

He has achieved "A New World Record" of lethality.

????

Nim

It was his response in the Ask the Producer thing, can find it later if you'd like, and I'm grumpy over logical fallacies and casual insults. Strawmen arguments, ad hominem, false dilemma, now ad nauseam, and a bunch others I'd have to look up.