Lowering the Barriers to Group PvP

Herenicus

I apologize, @Lorielan. And yes, @Jovolo, I try to keep my biases in mind when commenting and it's only right where you help.

Nakari

I am beginning to suspect that the structure of forum discussions actively inhibits any ability to come to a conclusion on anything. Which I guess should have been obvious.

For a brief, lovely moment, before devolving back into questions of mindsets and hilariously inapplicable classroom learning models we got this:

Jovolo said:

Silas said:

What are the other proposed changes?

I'm repeating myself, but personally I liked the suggested change about tracking the highest level of experience a person has achieved and then making it easier to reach that level. This could be achieved with either a flat increase of experience underneath this "Highest-Level-Achieved" threshold, such as a 50% increase, or a scaling method that increases experience increase depending on how far away from this threshold you are. A very simple outline would be a %*2 increase for every % you are underneath the treshold, reaching a 200% increase cap if you're an entire level away from the threshold. Very, very tentative numbers as they're just an example.

And then silas didn't hate it and it seemed like we were somewhere that could serve as a starting point for productive discussion.

It might be better to put this in a new thread at this point, just because I have my doubts that anything more can come of this discussion other then a death spiral into tangental topics. But in the spirit of at least giving it a try:

What would be the downsides to this idea, or ways to make the implementation better? Do the people that have qualms with experience loss as is think it would go far enough to helping fix the issue? Would it at least be an improvement? Is there a reason it would bring fiery ruin down on the game?

Jacen

I just can't understand why people don't think XP loss is a barrier. Its even been commented on by admin that bashing is horribly boring and will never be a selling point of Achaea, but we require that you spend more time bashing than you do PvPing to pay for PvPing. I mean, not if you're a top tier combatant, granted, but for most people its necessary.

I used to play CoD a lot. My KDR there would generally be absolutely dismal, 1:1 was a very good day. 1:4 was more typical. However, even though I very rarely made the top 1 or 2 of my TDM team, I enjoyed the shit out of that game. I mean, I  yelled my fair share of expletives at the kill cams and such, and sure, I'd be disappointed when our team lost, but I would play that game for hours a day, months on end.

Now, if CoD started stripping guns from me or made me lose levels when I lost, I would have lost a lot of my enjoyment. However, even here, there's a huge difference between CoD and Achaea: In CoD, you can still be very competitive at the zero level. The guns/equipment you gain don't make a hell of a huge difference. In Achaea, the zero level is (something like) 500 health, which is just a wayward sneeze from dying in group PK. 

If you're already losing, why do we need to take more of your PK ability from you as you lose?

Jacen

I'm not a fan of the increased XP gain below your highest achieved mark, because it still makes you pay for PvP with the dreadfully boring PvE. Edit: Had a statement here but pretty sure I was wrong about the math, sorry.

The idea is a compromise between the two major parties, and it might see more participation. I am not sure.

I would like to see PvE XP gain/loss remain unchanged. Suspend but track PvP XP loss, and suspend PvP XP gain until you've made up for your PvP losses. This way, if you want dragon and suck at combat, you go to PvE but don't get punished by PvP. 

Mishgul

Arguing that XP loss is a barrier to PvP for the sake of PvP is the wrong angle. It would take large amounts of XP loss to affect your combat ability. I would like to think I am a good example of that, consider i have lost tens of levels in the past and come screaming back like a really angry sentient being.

I lost 20% or so of level 99 with 340 deaths when Santar/sothantos/silas tried to steal  a totem. That was back when you could ink 12 starbursts at a time. I don't think it's possible to prolong a fight for more than 40 deaths, even if you are fighting someone who loves long periods of PK like Jhui or Nemutaur or Rangor or Tesha. Most of them would probably get bored after killing you twenty times tops if you are masochistic enough to stay involved (twenty truedeaths is like 90 mins of praying), and go do something else.

I am all for removing XP loss, but my reasons are tending towards those that people cannot log in casually and be involved without suffering larger negative repercussions per time played.

Bluef

Herenicus said:

Here's a game for our lurking readers: HONOURS the character of the posting player and test for yourselves whether the individuals who joined an already-dominant team aren't lining up behind the proposition that the status quo rewards "determination" and "hard work." 

Well, I'm definitely the outlier there.  

Herenicus said:

Here's an interesting article on Dweck's work, but I don't think it's very salient to the discussion here. People aren't frustrated with bashing because it's challenging, but because it's tedious. By contrast, people do get frustrated trying to make Hashan a viable military-political entity; it's probably the hardest job in Achaea. That's why many just opt to join an easy team that was good before they got there. And yet some easy-team beneficiaries will still lecture others for trying to correct for the balancing problem that they are causing, themselves.

It actually is very salient. Dweck's experiments shows that it is possible for one single line of praise to help change a mindset. In other words, the way Achaea rewards players matters - the way it addresses losses (XP, city raids, etc.) does too as even when faced with difficult tests the students who were praised and told they'd learn a lot from just attempting the difficult puzzles chose the harder set of puzzles. Let me clarify further:

In the past, Vayne has been exemplary at rallying Hashan's troops. I'm not sure if he did this because he's familiar with Dweck's work on social developmet and motivation, of course, that may be reaching! But I recall posts where he's claimed victory after what some argued was defeat, rallies before/after raids, and speeches that were not unlike what Dweck was attempting here: Offering praise and suggestion that difficulty was a learning experience. Hashan seemed to be having its mindset altered, but then I read somewhere (on forums) that he was feeling burned out and discouraged and like in Dweck's work it may have induced a round where the return of a more negative mindset flourished.

Maybe. But sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, etc. and so on. Still if we're discussing ways to remove barriers to PK, then let's make a list of what all those barriers are and the different ways to truly overcome them. One way should be altering something in-game that can help change people's mindsets, because it works: People will take risks and not avoid the embarassment of mistakes if they believe those mistakes are helping them learn and become better players. 

Nakari said:

I am beginning to suspect that the structure of forum discussions actively inhibits any ability to come to a conclusion on anything. Which I guess should have been obvious.

For a brief, lovely moment, before devolving back into questions of mindsets and hilariously inapplicable classroom learning models we got this:

...

What would be the downsides to this idea...

This is really misplaced. How about we do as Lorielan suggested and just try less sniping and more suggestions. Moreover, we've already discussed the downsides for about 9 pages. This isn't called the "Let's remove XP Loss" thread, it's the lowering barriers one, and unless people are open to discussing all potential barriers, not just those you personally favour (round and round and round again) we'll get no where fast in our conversations.

Jacen said:

If you're already losing, why do we need to take more of your PK ability from you as you lose?

Dying does not not strip PK ability. It strips experience, which you're equating with PK ability. They are not really synonymous. Mishqul has it right: "Arguing that XP loss is a barrier to PvP for the sake of PvP is the wrong angle. It would take large amounts of XP loss to affect your combat ability."

Jacen said:

I would like to see PvE XP gain/loss remain unchanged. Suspend but track PvP XP loss, and suspend PvP XP gain until you've made up for your PvP losses. This way, if you want dragon and suck at combat, you go to PvE but don't get punished by PvP. 

Not a bad idea, but also not without its own consequences. True, it would make it so that people can log in casually and be involved in raiding, etc. without suffering larger negative repercussions per time played. But let's take it a step further: People who have no desire to PK are drawn into PK because the mindset shifts to "PK doesn't do anything to you character so suck it up if you're attacked." There's no reason for Mark anymore because no one truly loses anything from dying to another adventurer. Death at the hands of another player becomes essentially meaningless. Is that really a positive thing for the game overall? 

Jacen

You're simplying things into XP loss being the only thing that gives any PK meaning. In an RP encouraged world, I'd like to think losing means a lot more than just lost XP, and even has other mechanical consequences, like lost shrines, destroyed rooms, killed guards, etc.

Mark would still have its place, since you still incur PK XP "losses" that have to be made up before you can get any PK XP gains. I have my own issues with the Mark system, but that's for another discussion.

Jovolo

I think a dead horse meme is appropriate at this point.

@ total XP loss removal.

Jules

I've always thought it was pretty weird that you can take someone else's PvE experience (grinding) though PvP.  Instead of getting rid of XP loss, you could completely separate these two pools of experience so that no one can take someone else's grinding through PvP and have PK experience give some small buff (and be a rough sort of prestige thing).  That way everyone has to do all of their own grinding, and that grinding can't be taken by others - because when we're talking about XP loss through PvP that's what we're really talking about.  Qualitatively, it's not a loss of XP, it's a transfer of XP (although because of the intricacies of how Achaea XP works it's possible there is some net loss).  Good PvP-ers would mainly get bragging rights through the PK XP pool, but the buff shouldn't be totally worthless.   

This is a slightly different version of Imperian's current system I'm suggesting as an alternative to getting rid of experience loss. 

Bluef's comment about people getting an attitude that "your death doesn't cost you anything" can be quite true, and the ways around it are changing our horrible infamy system and the use of bounties and frequent opt-in PK events where players can fight over small buffs in a given area.   

Nizana

Meh, the only reason I don't PK is because of the hours upon hours I've spent trying to bash, the burnout of bashing, and the fact that if I die twice or more in one day, I say "@&#! Achaea, This stupid !@#(*ing game, I'm !@$#ing done."  (This is what I call nerd rage) and I quit for the day, if not longer.

Granted, that is usually an extreme thing where other stresses get to me, but that is usually how I feel about XP loss.

I think that there should be XP loss for PK, and maybe this was mentioned earlier, I don't know, (I read this post when it started, came back later in the day and saw "130 new posts" and said Yeah.. Not doing it.) but instead of removing the PK loss entirely, I'd just reduce the amount you lose at lower levels, and have it scale upwards as you get closer to Dragon, but have everything else remain unchanged. The end result would be basically the same loss as it is normally, but that'd be when you hit 99.

Sena

Nizana said:

I think that there should be XP loss for PK, and maybe this was mentioned earlier, I don't know, (I read this post when it started, came back later in the day and saw "130 new posts" and said Yeah.. Not doing it.) but instead of removing the PK loss entirely, I'd just reduce the amount you lose at lower levels, and have it scale upwards as you get closer to Dragon, but have everything else remain unchanged. The end result would be basically the same loss as it is normally, but that'd be when you hit 99.

Lower levels already lose practically nothing, less than 2 minutes of bashing at really low levels, and it does scale up as you get higher. It caps at 80 though, so the loss peaks there and 99 also loses practically nothing.

It's mainly only 70-90-ish where XP loss is a problem, at 99 or <60 even 100 deaths isn't usually a big deal.

Santar

Mishgul said:

Arguing that XP loss is a barrier to PvP for the sake of PvP is the wrong angle. It would take large amounts of XP loss to affect your combat ability. I would like to think I am a good example of that, consider i have lost tens of levels in the past and come screaming back like a really angry sentient being.

I lost 20% or so of level 99 with 340 deaths when Santar/sothantos/silas tried to steal  a totem. That was back when you could ink 12 starbursts at a time. I don't think it's possible to prolong a fight for more than 40 deaths, even if you are fighting someone who loves long periods of PK like Jhui or Nemutaur or Rangor or Tesha. Most of them would probably get bored after killing you twenty times tops if you are masochistic enough to stay involved (twenty truedeaths is like 90 mins of praying), and go do something else.

I am all for removing XP loss, but my reasons are tending towards those that people cannot log in casually and be involved without suffering larger negative repercussions per time played.

Can confirm. I had killing Carmain basically on dorepeat for like 5 hours straight while trying to uproot a totem.

Nizana

@Sena I agree. Levels 80 - 90 suck.

Tharvis

they really do. Crits start ramping up around 92 though, so that's nice

Nizana

Tharvis said:

they really do. Crits start ramping up around 92 though, so that's nice

That implies that the person ever gets that high! But this is a bit off the topic so I'll stop grumbling about XP and conclude that I have no other thoughts on how PvP can be made more accessible. Systems are relatively cheap, considering SVO's price, and people are generally nice and willing to help unless you go rogue, or get yourself into my situation.

Beyond that, the rest is really dependent on how badly you want to melt someone's face off.. and how good you are at scripting/convincing people to make scripts for you, on top of having the proper skills to do anything.

Mathonwy

Silas said:

Mathonwy said:

It sounds a lot like your enjoyment of your own accomplishments is contingent, in some way, on its inaccessibility to others. I'm not sure that's a healthy way to look at anything, let alone a game people play for fun.

This is nonsense. The most valued achievements amongst completionist gamers are the ones that are the most difficult to achieve, which generally have the most unforgiving conditions.

Nobody gives a crap about getting 5 gamerscore for turning a game on, but people would be pissed if it was changed so that the guys on the plane in the Mile High Club achievement had their guns switched out to nerf guns and couldn't actually kill you anymore, because that ruins the perceived value of the achievement to cater to the people who won't put in the effort to do it as it is now.

Dragon is that type of achievement in Achaea - increasingly so with the continued nerfs to reduce its actual value - and dragon (and level 80 for no sleep) is the real only allure in the grind for XP. The extra 50 health per level is not substantial enough to be its own reward.

This is also why I shake my head when people talk about end-game content for Achaea, as if Achaea is World of Warcraft and everybody should need to hit level 99 to participate in some part of the game. Dragon is not end-game for Achaea. There is no reason to make dragon end-game, or to continue to devalue it as an achievement for those people who care about it.

Leaving things as-is will not harm anybody. The mindset of some people, and the value they place on XP in Achaea when they have no intention of actually achieving dragon (which to me is just mind-boggling), is the problem.

That, and the general entitled whininess of some people who think everything needs to be made easier because they're too lazy to do things properly. 

Unfortunately, these aren't really logical arguments, neither this or the one that spawned the comment of mine you quoted.

It's genuinely funny that people keep talking about people 'whining,' but there aren't any real arguments that have been made that aren't emotional in nature as to why losing experience is a valuable and/or fundamental part of the game other than 'it always has been' or 'I put up with it and so should you.' Similarly, people made the 'well people will just farm each other for XP' argument when they removed XP loss for praying (and even then, people were saying on the forums then that people had made the same argument when the XP cap was put into place iirc). It didn't happen then, it wouldn't happen now, and at the end of the day, Achaea hasn't so large a playerbase that admin can't check into one person mysteriously dying repeatedly to another person to make sure everything's on the up-and-up anyway.

Again, you're treating dragon as a positional good when it isn't. There's no inherent penalty to you because someone else gets dragon: no measured reduction in the perceived value of dragon (because most of its value derives from its high utility, and because even if there were zero XP loss it would still require lots of time), no actual reduction in dragon performance, no loss of status to you personally because nobody looks at you getting dragon as much of anything other than having either had a lot of time on your hands or choosing to spend what time you had away from other players (well, unless you got it more or less solely through PK). If it diminishes your own perceived value of the amount of time that goes into it, it's unfortunate, but if 'perceived diminishment of value in time invested' were a meaningful argument as to why things shouldn't change, we'd still have landmarking, level caps, no XP caps, and Shallam, and I don't think anyone could argue any of those changes weren't made for the better, ultimately.

All of this focus on dragon is kind of misleading anyway. The floodgates won't open to dragon, not because XP loss does all that much to keep 'level inflation' in check presently (it's always gonna trend upward because they removed the XP caps, just like free-floating currency will tend toward inflation), but because most people don't want to sit there and press F1 on a loop for hours and hours on end*. That's fine, btw, just as there being a substantial time requirement to attain dragon is fine. PK might make it easier to get to dragon, but only if you're skilled enough at it, given that it only rewards experience when someone dies. For what it's worth, if no XP loss went into effect, I'd be okay with a 'rankings kills' elo-based system that determined how much experience you gained for killing someone so the system couldn't be abused, where you're really only getting substantial experience if you're killing people 1v1 and near your kills-elo level.

(*interestingly enough, if @Daeir's story is at all representative, XP loss apparently does keep people in factional orgs from getting dragon easier, which seems backward because there should never be a choice between investing yourself in factional RP and mechanical advantage.)

Santar

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.

Mathonwy

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.

That isn't an argument as to why XP loss ought to be the punishment for death, though, just an argument that death oughtn't be meaningless (incidentally, the latter is an argument with which I agree).

Jacen

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.

Herenicus

I thought the challenge of playing a game was to win and the meaning was ultimately a fun time. Nobody loses experience playing chess, but many of us find it challenging and meaningful all the same.

Santar

Sure they do.

The first quote is stating that XP loss is trivial in Achaea, which it is.

The second quote is stating that there needs to be a penalty for failure(ie, experience loss) in Achaea. That penalty is currently very small in Achaea. It definitely shouldn't be eliminated entirely.

Santar

Herenicus said:

I thought the challenge of playing a game was to win and the meaning was ultimately a fun time. Nobody loses experience playing chess, but many of us find it challenging and meaningful all the same.

Terrible analogy. There is a clear and present penalty for failure in chess.

You make a bad move; you lose a piece. You make enough bad moves, and you lose the game. You play well, and you might win.

Winning and losing. That's the point of the game. The game is fun because you are challenging yourself against an opponent. If your opponent does not provide a challenge, then there's no point to the game. 

Imagine playing a game of chess where the opponent doesn't take your pieces and you just move your pieces until you win no matter what.

Nim

It's more like if you had to make your own chess pieces, and then you lose one at random after a match so if you run out, you'll be playing future matches with an incomplete start.

Also, if the point is to be a loss or a penalty, why does it affect levels 70-90 the worst, and barely bother dragons? It's not even a good penalty if a fraction of the playerbase shrug it off like it's nothing. Remember when thieves stuck to level 50ish to shrug off when they died?

Mathonwy

Santar said:

Herenicus said:

I thought the challenge of playing a game was to win and the meaning was ultimately a fun time. Nobody loses experience playing chess, but many of us find it challenging and meaningful all the same.

Terrible analogy. There is a clear and present penalty for failure in chess.

You make a bad move; you lose a piece. You make enough bad moves, and you lose the game. You play well, and you might win.

Winning and losing. That's the point of the game. The game is fun because you are challenging yourself against an opponent. If your opponent does not provide a challenge, then there's no point to the game. 

Imagine playing a game of chess where the opponent doesn't take your pieces and you just move your pieces until you win no matter what.

That's an equally bad analogy, though. If we're talking combat, people can still kill you and 'win the game.' What they don't get to do is prevent you from fielding all of your pieces the next go-around.

Bluef

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.

Santar

Not all games are created equal. 

You get a fresh start with every chess game, sure. There's no lasting penalty beyond the single game, because the game itself is not a long-lasting game. It's intended to be a short-term experience.

Achaea is a long-term experience, and thus has long-term consequences. 


If you want a game that only has short-term consequences, then try a MOBA or FPS. Those games have short-term consequences. All your errors and mistakes are erased and you're given a fresh start at every match. That's not what Achaea is though. Achaea is a long-term experience where you play the same character for years.

Herenicus

Santar said:

Herenicus said:

I thought the challenge of playing a game was to win and the meaning was ultimately a fun time. Nobody loses experience playing chess, but many of us find it challenging and meaningful all the same.

Terrible analogy. There is a clear and present penalty for failure in chess.

You make a bad move; you lose a piece. You make enough bad moves, and you lose the game. You play well, and you might win.

Winning and losing. That's the point of the game. The game is fun because you are challenging yourself against an opponent. If your opponent does not provide a challenge, then there's no point to the game. 

Imagine playing a game of chess where the opponent doesn't take your pieces and you just move your pieces until you win no matter what.

Not a perfect analogy, but I don't know that it's entirely off point. Chess is a game where winning and losing takes place outside the mechanics of XP gain or loss, without casting aside challenge and meaning for its players.

If my opponent wins, I will let them set aside a chess piece during our next game so that eventually our games are challenging for everyone. When they start winning, I get my pieces back, the challenge is maintained, and a new chess player is born. It means a lot to me to see someone else come to share and enjoy my hobbies. You probably feel the same way.

Simply in terms of Achaea PvP, if I win a challenge in the arena, it's still satisfying even if XP wasn't on the line. If Mhaldor fends of the defenders during a sanctioned raid, it isn't less satisfying to me because those players aren't being set back 15-45 minutes.

Santar

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. 

Nim

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!)

Herenicus

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. 

I don't find defending a sanctioned raid less challenging or meaningful just because XP loss is removed, either. I still try to avoid dying, because I want my team to win. I assume everyone is challenging themselves for that purpose and it's meaningful to see players develop and team strategies come together or not.