Death, respawning, and penalty

189 posts / 0 new
Last post
dreamcatcher
dreamcatcher's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 2 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/03/2013 - 17:12
In my previous post, while

In my previous post, while addressing the topic, I also managed to avoid any consideration of the need for a death penalty - meaning that I didn't really think about the question.

Some of the dialog in this thread has given me reason to think about it and my conclusion is: why have any penalty?

Why do people not consider death - or defeat, if you will - punishment enough for failure? Why attach further punishment?

I personally do not believe any punishment discussed here will lead to improved behaviour patterns, as has been argued. I have not encountered any evidence in MMOs that such punishments work.

The only thing I have observed to actually affect players' behaviour patterns is the censure, or encouragement and support, of other players.

of Phoenix Rising
Am I

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 46 min ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
For the people who think

For the people who think there should be no death penalty let me ask a few questions and let's see what the answers are:

Question #1: You are in the final boss fight of a long dungeon. You accidentally stand still too long to get off a powerful attack and don't manage to get out of the fire in time and you die. Should you be able to pop back up instantly at full health? If not, what sort of penalty would you provide if it was your game to design?

Question #2: The only way to get across section X of the city is to run past a bunch of really tough mobs. You could go around the long way, which is safer, but with your superspeed you can probably make it through section X and only have to die once or twice along the way. What penalty, if any, would you award to the people who choose this route? Or can they pop up after death instantly, and continue with full health and stamina as if they weren't just defeated?

Question #3: You are in a really tough fight. You have a potion of health you could pop that you know will give you enough health to win, or you could just die and try over without wasting the potion. Which do you choose and why?

I look forward to the answers.


I like to take your ideas and supersize them. This isn't criticism, it is flattery. I come with nothing but good will and a spirit of team-building. If you take what I write any other way, that is probably just because I wasn't very clear.
Greyhawk
Greyhawk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 months 6 days ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/03/2015 - 19:17
Huckleberry wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:

For the people who think there should be no death penalty let me ask a few questions and let's see what the answers are:

Question #1: You are in the final boss fight of a long dungeon. You accidentally stand still too long to get off a powerful attack and don't manage to get out of the fire in time and you die. Should you be able to pop back up instantly at full health? If not, what sort of penalty would you provide if it was your game to design?

My character should be returned to the mission entrance, or to a safe zone approximately 2 minutes away from the Boss Room. My character should either be at full health, or at a percentage that can achieve full health by the time I reach the Boss Room. The Boss should not rejuvenate more than the damage I could do in those same 2 minutes. Better if not at all. Next time I will stand a bit farther away when I begin my "powerful attack", keeping in my mind that even with the best programming in the world, space positioning in every online game is subject to vagaries of lag, monitor type, CPU speed, and math. Better yet, the boss should not have eyes in the back of their head. It should be possible (assuming I have already eliminated all the minions in the room) to approach the boss and set up outside of the boss' line of sight, perhaps by anticipating the movements of the boss around the room.

It's a computer-controlled NPC enemy battle. Not a PvP death match. Not a master level chess tournament. I don't play to prove myself. I have nothing left to prove. I play to escape the real world for a little while.

Naturally, I realize others have different motivations and expectations.

Huckleberry wrote:

Question #2: The only way to get across section X of the city is to run past a bunch of really tough mobs. You could go around the long way, which is safer, but with your superspeed you can probably make it through section X and only have to die once or twice along the way. What penalty, if any, would you award to the people who choose this route? Or can they pop up after death instantly, and continue with full health and stamina as if they weren't just defeated?

When they are defeated, they should be shuttled to a local rejuvenation point and restored to full health with no penalty. Keep in mind, actual positioning in any online game is inherently imprecise. I could move past the bad guys multiple times with my computer showing the same apparent space between myself and the enemies but on some passes the computer has me close enough to aggro the entire group, on other passes I only aggro an outlier, and in some passes I aggro nothing. It does no good to punish players with slower CPUs, slower connection speeds, smaller monitors, etc. Any death penalty of the kind you are implying would improve fair play and introduce risk is automatically punishing for players with a different computer than you are using.

Huckleberry wrote:

Question #3: You are in a really tough fight. You have a potion of health you could pop that you know will give you enough health to win, or you could just die and try over without wasting the potion. Which do you choose and why?

It depends. How much is the potion worth vs. how much is the potential reward for the fight? How much time do I have left to play? Did my wife suddenly call me into the next room to answer the phone, answer her question, reprimand one of the kids, have dinner, etc.? This is not a simple cut and dried proposition limited only to your proposed scenario. There is a real world out here that sometimes demands my attention at the most inopportune times. I might be in a hurry to end the fight, regardless of the outcome. The potion might be inexpensive enough that the reward would more than cover the cost, or it might be my last top of the line, best in the game, requires completing a special task force to achieve wonder rejuvenation potion that heals, restores, and grants an XP bonus for the next 90 seconds.

Too many unstated variables in all three of your questions. We're talking about a superhero MMORPG with (hopefully!) an active community and a diverse open world. Things are different in MMORPGs than in standard, single-player console-based RPGs. Dying might take me back to my base/lair where I have a hundred more potions waiting, allies I can call for assistance, etc. Dying might result in a corpse run (which I hate, but some players love!) or might cause my character to be rejuvenated on an entirely different server instance. There is no simple, "take the penalty/avoid the penalty" scenario when playing a MMORPG. None, never. In addition to all the ingame possibilities, there is real world interference and different player priorities that deserve just as much recognition by developers as your own or my own.

You are not the only player in the game. Neither am I. The designers make their choices. I give my money to the designers whose choices come closest to my own.
I'm sure you do the same.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My author page at Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/-/e/B000APIPZC?ref_=pe_584750_33951330

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 46 min ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
Greyhawk wrote:
Greyhawk wrote:

#1
My character should be returned to the mission entrance, or to a safe zone approximately 2 minutes away from the Boss Room. My character should either be at full health, or at a percentage that can achieve full health by the time I reach the Boss Room. The Boss should not rejuvenate more than the damage I could do in those same 2 minutes. Better if not at all. Next time I will stand a bit farther away when I begin my "powerful attack", keeping in my mind that even with the best programming in the world, space positioning in every online game is subject to vagaries of lag, monitor type, CPU speed, and math. Better yet, the boss should not have eyes in the back of their head. It should be possible (assuming I have already eliminated all the minions in the room) to approach the boss and set up outside of the boss' line of sight, perhaps by anticipating the movements of the boss around the room.
It's a computer-controlled NPC enemy battle. Not a PvP death match. Not a master level chess tournament. I don't play to prove myself. I have nothing left to prove. I play to escape the real world for a little while.
Naturally, I realize others have different motivations and expectations.
#2
When they are defeated, they should be shuttled to a local rejuvenation point and restored to full health with no penalty. Keep in mind, actual positioning in any online game is inherently imprecise. I could move past the bad guys multiple times with my computer showing the same apparent space between myself and the enemies but on some passes the computer has me close enough to aggro the entire group, on other passes I only aggro an outlier, and in some passes I aggro nothing. It does no good to punish players with slower CPUs, slower connection speeds, smaller monitors, etc. Any death penalty of the kind you are implying would improve fair play and introduce risk is automatically punishing for players with a different computer than you are using.
#3
It depends. How much is the potion worth vs. how much is the potential reward for the fight? How much time do I have left to play? Did my wife suddenly call me into the next room to answer the phone, answer her question, reprimand one of the kids, have dinner, etc.? This is not a simple cut and dried proposition limited only to your proposed scenario. There is a real world out here that sometimes demands my attention at the most inopportune times. I might be in a hurry to end the fight, regardless of the outcome. The potion might be inexpensive enough that the reward would more than cover the cost, or it might be my last top of the line, best in the game, requires completing a special task force to achieve wonder rejuvenation potion that heals, restores, and grants an XP bonus for the next 90 seconds.
Too many unstated variables in all three of your questions. We're talking about a superhero MMORPG with (hopefully!) an active community and a diverse open world. Things are different in MMORPGs than in standard, single-player console-based RPGs. Dying might take me back to my base/lair where I have a hundred more potions waiting, allies I can call for assistance, etc. Dying might result in a corpse run (which I hate, but some players love!) or might cause my character to be rejuvenated on an entirely different server instance. There is no simple, "take the penalty/avoid the penalty" scenario when playing a MMORPG. None, never. In addition to all the ingame possibilities, there is real world interference and different player priorities that deserve just as much recognition by developers as your own or my own.
You are not the only player in the game. Neither am I. The designers make their choices. I give my money to the designers whose choices come closest to my own.
I'm sure you do the same.

I appreciate the courage to tell us what you think. I do believe, however, that you spent far too much time addressing what you thought I thought etc., vice just sticking to your own answers, but good start nonetheless.

Also, "it depends" is a no-answer answer. If you want to say "it depends" give us an example or two to get your idea across so we know about how you weigh things. So if it was a cheap readily available potion, what then? What about that top rail potion? Give us a couple points on your "it depends" scale. But showing us all the reasons why "it depends" doesn't answer the question at all.

Who's next?


I like to take your ideas and supersize them. This isn't criticism, it is flattery. I come with nothing but good will and a spirit of team-building. If you take what I write any other way, that is probably just because I wasn't very clear.
Greyhawk
Greyhawk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 months 6 days ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/03/2015 - 19:17
Huckleberry wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:

Also, "it depends" is a no-answer answer. If you want to say "it depends" give us an example or two to get your idea across so we know about how you weigh things. So if it was a cheap readily available potion, what then? What about that top rail potion? Give us a couple points on your "it depends" scale. But showing us all the reasons why "it depends" doesn't answer the question at all.

Actually, it answers the question perfectly. Simple, plain English presentation of the multiple variables that impact the decision. The exact answer is: your question is invalid and meaningless because it presupposes a single, simple tactical scenario. In short, a classic straw man argument pretending to be a survey question.

If the potion is cheap and I know the reward will more than cover the cost, then naturally I drink the potion and win the battle. This is the answer your question assumes everyone will agree with. Your question then presupposes that naturally, anyone who chooses to die deserves to be punished for giving the wrong answer. These assumptions are built into the way you worded and presented the question regardless of whether or not you consciously put them there.

If it is my one and only rare potion, acquired through completion of an arduous task force, and this particular boss is simply a stepping stone to a deeper understanding of the storyline, then dying is a strategically superior choice. However, your question contains the assumption I outlined above. The question itself presupposes that dying is tactically incorrect and deserving of a death penalty. This is part of the risk/reward structure your question assumes every "normal" player would agree with. The question itself accuses my widely divergent variable scenario of being false and irrelevant to the discussion. Your question assumes that if a death penalty is strong enough, then most players will use the potion anyway in order to avoid the death penalty. There is nothing in your question which opens the possibility for a particular potion to have a higher value than any death penalty. Whether this omission is deliberate or accidental does not change the invalid nature of the question itself.

My "it depends" questions are the presentation of multiple assumptions divergent from your own that your question contains absolutely no reference to. Your question does not allow for differences between games that offer a base/lair where additional potions are stored and those which don't. Your question assumes every game is a simple walkthrough from beginning to end with a story tagged on top of a much more critical "gameplay" ruleset, a ruleset your question has already provided the answer for. If this boss is a simple stepping stone in a story-driven game where learning the reasons for the boss to be in this dungeon at this time are far more important than simply defeating the boss, and if I have a base/lair with additional potions stored or where I can summon help to assist in overcoming this boss and death is the fastest way to reach my base/lair, then dying is strategically the best option, but your question assumes that dying contains a penalty which would punish anyone who takes this option. If the penalty is severe enough, it changes the strategic values of the boss encounter irrespective of the position in the storyline. Do I lose my base/lair as a result of defeat? Do I lose progress made in the storyline through defeat? Your death penalty assumption is undefined, making this strategic question unanswerable, rendering the question itself invalid.

You want a death penalty to punish players who are not afraid to use death as a strategic advantage because you cannot conceive of such an advantage. The question is limited to a single tactical scenario with absolutely no reference to the underlying strategic situation, rendering the deeper considerations of story advancement, cooperative gameplay, resource allocation, and encounter value irrelevant. The question is too simplistic, assuming as it does that death must be punished because defeat is bad.

Sometimes defeat is good. Sometimes defeat can be used to set up a stronger tactical advantage. Death penalties in MMORPGs assume no one should ever use defeat to gain a strategic advantage, therefore, voluntary defeat is nothing more than lazy gameplay. This assumption is what I am arguing against, not the tactical relevance of a single potion in a single boss encounter.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My author page at Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/-/e/B000APIPZC?ref_=pe_584750_33951330

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 46 min ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
Again, you spend far too much

Again, you spend far too much energy on presupposing what I wanted you to say. This makes me angry because it distracts us from the actual discussion.

What I want you to answer is what you think. Not what you think is the best response to counter what you think I think.

But in the end, I got what I wanted, even if I have to read past all your pointed comments about what you think I think. Thank you.

Now, who's next to answer my questions? I want an honest discussion.


I like to take your ideas and supersize them. This isn't criticism, it is flattery. I come with nothing but good will and a spirit of team-building. If you take what I write any other way, that is probably just because I wasn't very clear.
Hero_Zero
Hero_Zero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 2 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 03/20/2015 - 11:54
Gettin' jiggle with it

Gettin' jiggle with it

Perhaps they could be punished by losing their jiggle physics...or getting jiggle physics depending on what they like and don't like. And that "depending" clause indicates a real issue.

If someone speeds into the monsters to teleport home, then maybe death merits a penalty. If someone speeds into the monsters to see if they can make it, why penalize them? So much of this is dependent on the player intent when all the system knows is some version of the player action. When a player is trying to win and dies, a death penalty just makes a bad day worse. When a player is "gaming" the system, a death penalty may be an advantage.

I suspect that there should be some sort of death penalty, but it should be balanced with a focus on improving fun. I think COX did a pretty good job after a few tweaks a few years in. "Need a purple. Nope? [sigh] brb hospital run."

"THE TITANS ARE COMING! THE TITANS ARE COMING!"

dreamcatcher
dreamcatcher's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 2 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/03/2013 - 17:12
Huckleberry wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:

For the people who think there should be no death penalty let me ask a few questions and let's see what the answers are:
Question #1: You are in the final boss fight of a long dungeon. You accidentally stand still too long to get off a powerful attack and don't manage to get out of the fire in time and you die. Should you be able to pop back up instantly at full health? If not, what sort of penalty would you provide if it was your game to design?
Question #2: The only way to get across section X of the city is to run past a bunch of really tough mobs. You could go around the long way, which is safer, but with your superspeed you can probably make it through section X and only have to die once or twice along the way. What penalty, if any, would you award to the people who choose this route? Or can they pop up after death instantly, and continue with full health and stamina as if they weren't just defeated?
Question #3: You are in a really tough fight. You have a potion of health you could pop that you know will give you enough health to win, or you could just die and try over without wasting the potion. Which do you choose and why?
I look forward to the answers.

I think Greyhawk addressed these questions in their entirety, but I will answer anyway, and I will take them at face value, ignoring all the issues he pointed out.

#1: I wouldn't stand in the fire too long, unless there was lag, or my keyboard batteries suddenly died, or I disconnected, but assuming I did, then no, I should not be at full health but that's not a penalty of the nature being discussed in this thread. As for being able to get back up immediately? Why not? If I can somehow do so without immediately dying again, then is that not some level of skill? Am I not overcoming a challenge? Are you saying a teammate should not be able to resurrect me? What about a self-res? I spent a power slot on that; it should be usable -without penalty- in this scenario.

#2: An interesting question: be a coward or do the heroic thing and rush straight to the mission even though your way is barred by foes. Again, no, I should not be able to stand right back up with full everything unless I have powers or 'things' that do that for me. Again, though, how is that a penalty? That's just recovery. I'm a little beaten up, but I press on. The orphans! Must save the orphans! I think the player who plays it safe should be punished, though. There's definitely no valid playstyle where avoiding delays caused by death could be more tactical and therefore such play should be punished. A pox on the lot of them, I say.

#3: To die. If I can't defeat the boss without a potion, I need to become a better player. Potions are for teaming situations, or when I have real-life time pressures, or when the mission is timed and it's down to the wire. Otherwise, using a potion is the easy way out. I don't care if the boss is at full health when I come back after dying, either; all the better in fact. However, I understand that some players aren't as masochistic as me, and that they would not like that.

of Phoenix Rising
Am I

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 46 min ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
dreamcatcher wrote:
dreamcatcher wrote:

Huckleberry wrote:
For the people who think there should be no death penalty let me ask a few questions and let's see what the answers are:
Question #1: You are in the final boss fight of a long dungeon. You accidentally stand still too long to get off a powerful attack and don't manage to get out of the fire in time and you die. Should you be able to pop back up instantly at full health? If not, what sort of penalty would you provide if it was your game to design?
Question #2: The only way to get across section X of the city is to run past a bunch of really tough mobs. You could go around the long way, which is safer, but with your superspeed you can probably make it through section X and only have to die once or twice along the way. What penalty, if any, would you award to the people who choose this route? Or can they pop up after death instantly, and continue with full health and stamina as if they weren't just defeated?
Question #3: You are in a really tough fight. You have a potion of health you could pop that you know will give you enough health to win, or you could just die and try over without wasting the potion. Which do you choose and why?
I look forward to the answers.
I think Greyhawk addressed these questions in their entirety, but I will answer anyway, and I will take them at face value, ignoring all the issues he pointed out.
#1: I wouldn't stand in the fire too long, unless there was lag, or my keyboard batteries suddenly died, or I disconnected, but assuming I did, then no, I should not be at full health but that's not a penalty of the nature being discussed in this thread. As for being able to get back up immediately? Why not? If I can somehow do so without immediately dying again, then is that not some level of skill? Am I not overcoming a challenge? Are you saying a teammate should not be able to resurrect me? What about a self-res? I spent a power slot on that; it should be usable -without penalty- in this scenario.
#2: An interesting question: be a coward or do the heroic thing and rush straight to the mission even though your way is barred by foes. Again, no, I should not be able to stand right back up with full everything unless I have powers or 'things' that do that for me. Again, though, how is that a penalty? That's just recovery. I'm a little beaten up, but I press on. The orphans! Must save the orphans! I think the player who plays it safe should be punished, though. There's definitely no valid playstyle where avoiding delays caused by death could be more tactical and therefore such play should be punished. A pox on the lot of them, I say.
#3: To die. If I can't defeat the boss without a potion, I need to become a better player. Potions are for teaming situations, or when I have real-life time pressures, or when the mission is timed and it's down to the wire. Otherwise, using a potion is the easy way out. I don't care if the boss is at full health when I come back after dying, either; all the better in fact. However, I understand that some players aren't as masochistic as me, and that they would not like that.

Awesome Answers!

I really like the take you had on #2. I hadn't thought of the roleplaying reasons why you would want to run across Section X, so that made your answer even better! I also like your personal reason in your answer #3. That's one more example of one-size does not fit all, I suppose. I myself am a hoarder and will usually end up dying with plenty of unused potions, enhancements and uneaten food that I could have used. Silly me.


I like to take your ideas and supersize them. This isn't criticism, it is flattery. I come with nothing but good will and a spirit of team-building. If you take what I write any other way, that is probably just because I wasn't very clear.
Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 20 hours 18 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
Even if the main drawback of

Even if the main drawback of getting defeated is the time it takes to get back to the mission from the hospital or whatever, you COULD allow people to spend IGC or real money to buy that off, and I wouldn't have a problem with it. you could call it a "Priority Med-Evac Pass" and have NPCs sell them for IGC that get's basically destroyed in the process, and/or make them available for real money (or Stars) in the cash shop.

And then of course other people, or even the player that got defeated, might have rez powers too. And you might be able to revive someone just by clicking on them and hitting a button, like it could be a thing that player can always revive other players, it just takes time and is interruptible, so hard to do in combat. Guild Wars 2 has that.

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 1 week ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
I have an even simpler

I have an even simpler question/scenario than Huckleberry's, which can illustrate the issue even more starkly.

In Star Trek Online, there's a place called Starfleet Academy. As you can see, it's got lots of pretty landscaping going on, complete with paved and gravel paths going to different places, park benches here and there, and even bridges over water with fountains and so on ...

But here's the thing ... most of that pretty landscaping you see has no collision detection. Spindly little tree trunks will have collision detection, because they're geo objects, but all the leafy green stuff doesn't have any collision detection whatsoever ... meaning you can just walk (or run) right through hedgerows as if they weren't there (because they "aren't" as far as the collision detection is concerned).

So what does this mean in actual practice? It means that nearly all of the foliage ISN'T A BARRIER when going from Here To There. And if it isn't a barrier, people (like me) are just going to run right through it, because The Game Isn't Stopping You™ from doing that. According to the game's "rules" it is perfectly fine to move through what ostensibly ought to be "solid" objects, but which aren't as far as collision detection is concerned.

Net effect being ... Go Straight. Nevermind The Road, Just Go Straight.

Everything just becomes straight lines/bee lines between points of interest, with Players feeling "learned contempt" for the actual setting because it doesn't behave the way it ostensibly "ought to" (by preventing you from "phasing" through hedges and shrubbery along your way). Indeed, the only "penalty" for doing this is what amounts to Breaking Immersion. The only "reason" to adhere to the provided pathing of the setting is pure Roleplay. But come on ... we KNOW what the adopted behavior of Players is going to be! Waste the least amount of time going from Point A to Point B. It's simple optimization! And so what happens when the "optimization" turns into Go Straight. Nevermind The Road, Just Go Straight. just because there's nothing preventing you from doing that?

It basically boils down to this ... Stupid But Works Is Still Stupid ... And Still Works.

When there's nothing telling you "You Made A Mistake" because there's no PENALTY for making the mistake in the first place ... then was it really a mistake?

My contention is that it is the "duty" of the game's developers to define not only what should be rewarded, but also what should be penalized, so as to "guide" (without forcing) the necessary behaviors and conventional wisdom of the Players via both Positive AND Negative Reinforcement. Being able to move through "solid objects as if they weren't there" (because as far as collision detection is concerned, they AREN'T THERE) is an easy example of a missing negative reinforcement that would appropriately guide Player assumptions of pathing/navigation through an environment.

Same deal with Death Penalties. If you aren't Penalized for being Defeated, then being Defeated ISN'T A BAD THING™ to either do or have happen to you. Why? No Negative Reinforcement.

And what happens when you've got no negative reinforcement going on to help "guide" Learned Behaviors? You get children sticking their hands in fires and burning their hands off ... because it doesn't hurt ... metaphorically speaking.

What you get, without Negative Reinforcement is LEARNED STUPIDITY ... because Stupid But Works Still Works (but is still Stupid!). I would argue that Learned Stupidity, and the contempt for the game it breeds, is more of a hazard than anything else, because it leads directly into This Kind Of Dumb™ ...


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
dreamcatcher
dreamcatcher's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 2 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/03/2013 - 17:12
Those aren't the same thing

Those aren't the same thing at all. You've just jammed a round peg in a square hole, and said "See! Perfect fit!". The fact that you buried it in so many words with lots of emphatic emotional statements doesn't make it true, though.

Your opinion on the matter is very clear, and eloquent, but your reasoning is self-justified, and therefore it remains an opinion, and not fact.

Leaving that all aside, I'll address the underlying assumptions on which you base your argument:

The primary assertion you make in your comparison is that going straight from point A to B, unless you're made not to, is wrong. I disagree with that assertion completely; in fact I say it's efficient and therefore correct behaviour.

You make a secondary assertion, less obviously, that disobeying or ignoring the 'rules' of accepted behaviour in a given scenario is also wrong. I disagree; if that were true, many very bad things would still be totally ok, and our society would be less enlightened.

Finally, you assert that dying in a game is also wrong. This has been addressed to death in this thread, so I'm not going to resurrect it.

What I will say is that - so far - you have been unable to show me why I should accept that statement. If you continue to rely on a "square peg-round hole" type of argument to rationalise your point of view, that's not going to change.

of Phoenix Rising
Am I

Fireheart
Fireheart's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 hours 32 min ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/05/2013 - 13:45
dreamcatcher wrote:
dreamcatcher wrote:

Those aren't the same thing at all. You've just jammed a round peg in a square hole, and said "See! Perfect fit!"

Yes, yes, you completely destroyed Redlynn's argument, there. Except you missed the point.

He's trying to say that, if a behavior has no penalty, then people will do it. Corollary of that is, unless the Devs want 'Death', or 'Defeat', to be meaningless and to encourage players to use 'Death' in a tactical or strategic manner, which the Devs did not intend when designing the game, then there must be a penalty for the circumstance. Also, of course, the penalty ought to be strong enough that the players Do Notice it.

The trick, of course, is to find a balanced metric to penalize.

Be Well!
Fireheart

Stalker
Stalker's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 4 months ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 05/21/2014 - 20:28
So there seems to be a lot of

So there seems to be a lot of vocalization against death penalties, but what if we flipped the system? If a stick treatment for poor play is undesirable, why not a carrot for effective play? Every bubble of experience earned gives a player 1% more rewards, up to a maximum of 10%, making a full level without death allow a player to build up to the maximum. Defeat is flagged to manner of resuscitation rather than faceplant, allowing players to pull an attack chain of Rain of fire > Nuke > Self Destruct > Rise of the phoenix, And not suffer from their bonus being taken away. Thoughts? Variants?

Stalkers don't die: They simply... Disappear.

blacke4dawn
blacke4dawn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 21 hours 40 min ago
Joined: 03/28/2015 - 03:02
Stalker wrote:
Stalker wrote:

So there seems to be a lot of vocalization against death penalties, but what if we flipped the system? If a stick treatment for poor play is undesirable, why not a carrot for effective play? Every bubble of experience earned gives a player 1% more rewards, up to a maximum of 10%, making a full level without death allow a player to build up to the maximum. Defeat is flagged to manner of resuscitation rather than faceplant, allowing players to pull an attack chain of Rain of fire > Nuke > Self Destruct > Rise of the phoenix, And not suffer from their bonus being taken away. Thoughts? Variants?

Said it above for something similar, this will rather encourage hit-and-run tactics making players play it safe to keep the buff rather than loose it. Besides I'm pretty sure that having the buff will be so "normal" that loosing it will be seen as a penalty rather than gaining it being seen as a boon.

Stalker
Stalker's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 4 months ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 05/21/2014 - 20:28
Barring the actual mechanical

Barring the actual mechanical suggestion: Would it be preferable to reinforce positive behaviors, versus punishing unwanted behaviors? I failed to ask that question directly. Apologies. More directed at player opposing death penalties. Would catering a system to reward behavior be preferable, or should there only exist a baseline, and wasted time in death exist as the punishment?

Stalkers don't die: They simply... Disappear.

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 46 min ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
Stalker wrote:
Stalker wrote:

Barring the actual mechanical suggestion: Would it be preferable to reinforce positive behaviors, versus punishing unwanted behaviors? I failed to ask that question directly. Apologies. More directed at player opposing death penalties. Would catering a system to reward behavior be preferable, or should there only exist a baseline, and wasted time in death exist as the punishment?

This.

The idea of not getting something you would otherwise get is a very attractive death penalty to me.

Redlynne came up with a counter idea similar to yours that resets upon death. I also like the idea of a minigame to self-revive in place, but I appear to be in the minority on that.

I asked some questions a few posts back directed at people who don't want death penalties. I thought of three examples for which I thought made a good case for a death penalty and I wanted to see what people who think differently than I do had to say about those cases. (Always have to keep an open mind, ya know, because someone else is always thinking of things differently than I am) While it only got two people to respond, if those two people represent the population who are opposed to death penalties, then even the people who don't want death penalties still want death penalties, they just don't want penalties that persist after the resurrection has been done. That's why hospital runs are frowned upon, but grudgingly accepted. Even using a 'wakie' inspiration (I know that's CoH talk) is a death penalty too, because the time and effort spent to collect it is the collateral for the decision to use it. In their eyes, the only non-penalty for death would be when a teammate uses a power to resurrect. I find it hard to disagree with them.

However, I still personally like to see a death penalty that causes players to adjust their playstyle to avoid death. I have heard the opinions of others and I have been swayed to agree that sometimes its more fun to keep getting up and slugging on. But without the fear of death, the thrill is gone too. I can't deny it. Sure we can have fun without a hurtful death penalty, and I have; I'm not arguing that we can't. But we actually have more fun when the fear of death exists. And I want that 'more fun' alternative. (some people have said they want to play the sacrificial character who dies on purpose. If such a poweset exists that includes abilities that don't reach fruition until a character dies then I would recommend death is not penalized for that powerset since it is a viable win strategy for it. If such a powerset exists.)

@Stalker in your earlier post and this one you hit on something else. Death will frustrate players, especially when there is a penalty. The key is to talk more about the rewards and the reason to keep trying rather than how much it hurt to die. Because if the reason to succeed is high enough, then the player just might think it is worth dying for. And THAT is the essence of heroism!


I like to take your ideas and supersize them. This isn't criticism, it is flattery. I come with nothing but good will and a spirit of team-building. If you take what I write any other way, that is probably just because I wasn't very clear.
Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 20 hours 18 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
One way or the other, you're

One way or the other, you're still worse off when you get defeated than you would have been, had you avoided defeat, right? Calling it "not getting the usual expected bonus" versus "being penalized" is a tamato/tomAHto distinction, to me, but if it fools people, sure, go for it.

If the expected bonus is XP only, then level-capped people still have no reason not to just "die" their way through content though, so you have to add in some kind of time, IGC or other factor in there.

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 1 week ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
dreamcatcher wrote:
dreamcatcher wrote:

Those aren't the same thing at all. You've just jammed a round peg in a square hole, and said "See! Perfect fit!".

Fireheart wrote:

Yes, yes, you completely destroyed Redlynne's argument, there. Except you missed the point.

He's trying to say that, if a behavior has no penalty, then people will do it. Corollary of that is, unless the Devs want 'Death', or 'Defeat', to be meaningless and to encourage players to use 'Death' in a tactical or strategic manner, which the Devs did not intend when designing the game, then there must be a penalty for the circumstance. Also, of course, the penalty ought to be strong enough that the players Do Notice it.

The trick, of course, is to find a balanced metric to penalize.

/em points at dreamcatcher and just LAUGHS ...


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
Stalker
Stalker's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 4 months ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 05/21/2014 - 20:28
Radiac wrote:
Radiac wrote:

One way or the other, you're still worse off when you get defeated than you would have been, had you avoided defeat, right? Calling it "not getting the usual expected bonus" versus "being penalized" is a tamato/tomAHto distinction, to me, but if it fools people, sure, go for it.
If the expected bonus is XP only, then level-capped people still have no reason not to just "die" their way through content though, so you have to add in some kind of time, IGC or other factor in there.

That was a sample of encouragement for survival instead of punishment for defeat. Don't take it as a well-thought-out idea. I put maybe 5 minutes into it. I'm just trying to spur on some lateral thinking to solve the same problem from a different angle by offering the idea as a springboard. That said, I'll be putting more effort into the next mechanical suggestion I offer, even if just an example.

Stalkers don't die: They simply... Disappear.

Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 20 hours 18 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
In Guild Wars 2, they have

In Guild Wars 2, they have stats for combat and some stats for how fast you might accumulate wealth. You can get items and so forth that increase your chances of finding better items upon monster kills, and there are ways to up your effective IGC income rate for when that drops on you from monster kills as well. One of the stats that can be modified with items etc in GW2 is "Luck" which affects such things.

You COULD give people some sort of effective Luck bonus that increases over time spent logged into a toon and then resets to a base value when that toon is defeated. So while you're "on a roll" and not getting defeated, your Luck increases monotonically, then when defeated, it goes back to "zero" or whatever your locked-in Luck value might be, based on gear you have or other bonuses you might be getting for whatever. You could even make the increases to Luck only kick in when you successfully complete something like a mission or TF, just to discourage people from only farming easy content.

For the record, having posed this idea, I don't like it myself. I think it will lead to more farming anyway, and also it still doesn't really discourage anyone from getting killed repeatedly in rapid succession to finish a mission faster. I mean, the first death breaks the streak, and from that point on, unless you lose Luck on every successive defeat, you're going to cut your losses and just die your way through the rest of the TF or whatever and just write it off and move on. What the heck, you can always grind some easier stuff to get your Luck back up later anyway, right?

I still think just forcing people to have to do the walk/fly/superleap of shame to return to the action from the Hospital/SG base is probably enough to discourage getting defeated. That way you don't really "lose" anything when you get defeated, except time. It makes it take LONGER to get through a mission by allowing yourself to get killed repeatedly, and thus makes that option worse than trying to avoid defeat. I'm not against XP debt or IGC debt either. Theoretically, the Hospital SHOULD charge you IGC for the treatment you are receiving as a flavor-immersion thing (and where the rubber meets the road, it sinks IGC, so thats good), and your SG base Medi-Evac rig probably doesn't run on thank-yous either. Instead of charging people IGC for getting Hospitaled each time they get defeated, I would just do it like debt. The SG base/personal lair medical bay should cost IGC to maintain and should go off-line when you don't pay to keep it going for the month or whatever.

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 46 min ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
Radiac wrote:
Radiac wrote:

I still think just forcing people to have to do the walk/fly/superleap of shame to return to the action from the Hospital/SG base is probably enough to discourage getting defeated. That way you don't really "lose" anything when you get defeated, except time. It makes it take LONGER to get through a mission by allowing yourself to get killed repeatedly, and thus makes that option worse than trying to avoid defeat. I'm not against XP debt or IGC debt either. Theoretically, the Hospital SHOULD charge you IGC for the treatment you are receiving as a flavor-immersion thing (and where the rubber meets the road, it sinks IGC, so thats good), and your SG base Medi-Evac rig probably doesn't run on thank-yous either. Instead of charging people IGC for getting Hospitaled each time they get defeated, I would just do it like debt. The SG base/personal lair medical bay should cost IGC to maintain and should go off-line when you don't pay to keep it going for the month or whatever.

I'm with the others who don't like the hospital runs. I don't like them for one reason, and one reason only: If you are going to penalize a player's time, that time should at least be spent doing something interesting.

This is why XP debt worked relatively well for CoX, I think. XP debt made people fear death, but it didn't delay them from playing the game. The problem with XP debt was that some classes were more squishy than others, and XP debt slowed down character progression, especially for those classes. We don't want there to be a disincentive to playing classes because of their slower inherent character growth associated with more likely XP debt..

Having the player do something interesting is also why I prefer a minigame to revive. There are a number of ways one could do it, and other players could help you; with healers being able to help most of all. You could even have a medicalert(tm) bracelet. When you go down, you have the option of pressing the button and telling them "I've fallen and I can't get up!" and the service costs a certain amount of IGC per use or unlimited uses for a subscription. Activating it calls paramedics (or an automated hi-tech medical toolkit that gets rocketed to your location since paramedics wouldn't want to go into an active superpowered warzone) who can stabilize you and help you revive faster. I could even see this service being offered for real world money as well, to be a source of revenue for MWM because it's not provideing anything a player couldn't get on his or her own without merely playing more. The medicalert device wouldn't be necessary to revive oneself, but it would sure make it easier and quicker to do it.

If we do a minigame of some sort, then only if you can't (or won't) revive yourself should you have to go back to a hospital or chop shop. Of course, if you need to go back to a hospital to restock on potions or augments then not reviving is always an option, too.

A revival minigame could also be another means of providing difficulty for some enemies. If your character gets an effect that makes it more difficult to revive, then more, or more capable, revival skills would be needed to help with the revival. That could be more people helping, people with better revival skills helping, or having access to better medical kit capabilities, or all of the above. A healer learning how to triage her downed party members could become a useful skill.


I like to take your ideas and supersize them. This isn't criticism, it is flattery. I come with nothing but good will and a spirit of team-building. If you take what I write any other way, that is probably just because I wasn't very clear.
Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 20 hours 18 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
In order to discourage people

In order to discourage people from using self-defeat as a Preferred Play Style (TM) or valid strategy to get through content, you need to introduce some sort of negative aspect to what happens when you get defeated, that is, there needs to be a drawback to the whole "getting defeated" process for it to be something you're going to try to avoid, for the most part. I think the game has to be predicated on the idea that players will try to avoid defeat wherever possible, with the OCCASIONAL self-sacrifice in big heroic situations, rarely.

When American football players commit penalties and get called for it, they cause their team to lose yards, etc. In pro ice hockey, players committing penalties get carded and end up in the penalty box for 2 minutes and their team has to try to survive with one less player on the ice for those 2 minutes, etc. They don't give the player that committed the penalty something fun to do to occupy their time while they're in the penalty box, and that's for a reason. So the whole "walk of shame" that you have to do when defeated to get back into the mission or whatever from the Hospital is time consuming and not terribly entertaining by design. That aspect of it is a big part of why players would try to avoid getting defeated.

That said, I may have mentioned on other threads that GW2 has a "down but not out yet" mechanic that I really like. When you get reduced to zero HP, you are on the ground, the game goes black and white to you and you have a bar of temp hit points that slowly runs out unless you do something or someone tries to revive you. All players can revive each other, it's not like you have to have a power that does that. That said, there are powers that revive people faster and with more hit points when they get back up, etc. While "down" you can either let your temp hit points run out as you continue to attack, using the one and only "while down" attack you have, or you can try to lick your wounds and make your temp hit points go to the maximum, which if successful means you get back up. That is interruptible though and not a good idea when there are still baddies around. If you keep attacking and you actually defeat a badguy, you get a surge of healing and get back up.

I'm fine with all of this, and with other players on your team helping you, but the problem persists of "Okay, but what happens when you're right and truly defeated and unconscious?" which brings us back to the hospital evac, debt, etc questions. In GW2, every time you get defeated "for real", you take damage to your armor, and if you accumulate enough armor damage, you end up with non-functioning pieces of armor, so you lose their combat stat bonuses until you can get it repaired, for IGC. This is more of an inconvenience than a real IGC sink, as the cost to repair armor is really low. The hardest part is finding a repair NPC and making the side-trip to go do it. I'm pretty sure the devs don't like the "gear damage upon death" mechanic, so that's probably not going to happen.

If you're not going to give people the long return to the fight as a deterrent against getting defeated, you need some other deterrent, and as a deterrent, it shouldn't be a fun and entertaining thing to get to do. People shouldn't be volunteering to die all the time to be able to do that fun thing you get to do while dead. If it's not a long return trip to the fight, then maybe a damage debuff upon death would be good. Like "get defeated, and wham, you're now fighting as if you were one level lower than you really are, in terms of combat potential. Your attacks do the base damage of a toon one level lower than you actually are for like 20 seconds" Of course, once you nerf people's combat stats, it leads to an avalanche breakdown where you tend to get defeated MORE in your weakened state and you end up with cascading debuffs until you have to just take like a minute to rest and shake the debuffs off and carry on. If you didn't like the walk of shame, you're probably going to HATE that.

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 46 min ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
Radiac wrote:
Radiac wrote:

If you're not going to give people the long return to the fight as a deterrent against getting defeated, you need some other deterrent, and as a deterrent, it shouldn't be a fun and entertaining thing to get to do. People shouldn't be volunteering to die all the time to be able to do that fun thing you get to do while dead. If it's not a long return trip to the fight, then maybe a damage debuff upon death would be good. Like "get defeated, and wham, you're now fighting as if you were one level lower than you really are, in terms of combat potential. Your attacks do the base damage of a toon one level lower than you actually are for like 20 seconds" Of course, once you nerf people's combat stats, it leads to an avalanche breakdown where you tend to get defeated MORE in your weakened state and you end up with cascading debuffs until you have to just take like a minute to rest and shake the debuffs off and carry on. If you didn't like the walk of shame, you're probably going to HATE that.

I'm going to have to disagree with you.
First, don't ever penalize someone's combat ability for dying. That creates a vicious downward spiral of defeat and is thus undesireable for any number of obvious reasons..
Second, don't forget COT is a game meant for entertainment. While I agree we shouldn't be encouraging death in order to play a minigame; if we actually had a minigame that was so fun to play that people were dying to play it, then I can think of worse curses to deal with. No, the penalty associated with a minigame is the time and effort spent NOT accomplishing what you were there to accomplish in the first place. Time that the enemy spends healing up or moving on. Time the player is not getting loot drops or experience. And if you distract your team's healer or force your teammates to help you revive, they wil not appreciate it either when they could be beating down on the bad guys.


I like to take your ideas and supersize them. This isn't criticism, it is flattery. I come with nothing but good will and a spirit of team-building. If you take what I write any other way, that is probably just because I wasn't very clear.
Grimfox
Grimfox's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 days 14 hours ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 08/05/2014 - 10:17
I feel like both of you are

I feel like both of you are being a bit hyperbolic on this issue. No hospital runs weren't "fun," but they weren't absolutely tragic either. I don't think most people felt that running to the hospital was that awful. I think most conversations went, "does anyone have a res or wakie? how about a yellow I can combine? couple of Blues? okay, I'll brb." The exception being zones that didn't have a hospital, or exceedingly large zones, like the Shard. In which case the conversation ended in "I'll be back in a minute or two." And these zones were designated challenge zones so the stakes were a little higher. It made sense in COH. Considering we should have a travel power from the start even a location like perez park and the hollows wouldn't be such a terrible place to die if it did happen.

We also have to consider that the devs are looking at ways to make reserves useful for this. Unless you are using reserves all the time you'll probably have something you can use to avoid the hospital run. And then you may be able to transfer some of those reserves to res another player. Based on that, I'd say it would be very unlikely for a person on a team to ever have to do the hosp run. Perhaps if you are really tanking on a task. In which case a dev might want to force the player to take that time running to think of a better strategy. Or the team can use that downtime while their fellow returns to recruit someone else to help out. No it isn't "fun" but that's all the more motivation to not do it.

(at)Roxanna - Little Sister - Plutonium Bloom - MilkShakes
Triumph
Guardian
Virtue

Dev Tracker: http://cityoftitans.com/forum/fixing-dev-digest
Dev Comments: https://cityoftitans.com/forum/dev-comments

Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 20 hours 18 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
I think one thing to mention

I think one thing to mention here is the specific case of the soloer who gets defeated through normal game play, with no ulterior motive for getting defeated, and then has to somehow deal with that. Let's say they got defeated with zero reserves saved up and are not using any self-rez powers that might exist. Their body is in the middle of a group of baddies and, being unconscious, they cannot move themself away from there. Even if they DID have a wakie or some such device, they're totally outgunned and liable to just get defeated AGAIN if they use it, because the baddies are still right on top of them.

This, to me, basically requires Hospital med-evac for immersion and flavor reasons alone. Whether or not you like the idea of having to run, jump, teleport, or fly back from the Hospital (or your SG base medical bay), I don't see much else that could be done with any sense of realism. You could have the badguys capture you and have to break out of a containment cell somewhere, but not all maps would have such facilities. The badguys SHOULD theoretically just mash your body to pulp to make sure you don't get back up, in the immersion of the story. Thus, having heroes play IGC for some sort of Instant Medical Teleportation deus ex machina is probably the best solution to that anyway. Is it a little boring to have to deal with, sure, but that's why you try to avoid defeat in the first place.

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

Darth Fez
Darth Fez's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 33 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/20/2013 - 07:53
I agree with Grimfox. My

I agree with Grimfox. My impression is that most people that have problems with something akin to the hospital run are, in fact, against corpse runs. Similar, and yet a very different approach.

Also, who is to say that some people might not consider the hospital run a type of minigame? How quickly can you get back to resume your mission or help your team? Perhaps you'll even encounter something interesting along the way (i.e. an event) in which you can participate before you get back to the mission. I might even enjoy the hospital run more than whatever other type of minigame I might have to get through.

The "revival drone" type of thing is an idea I've toyed with as well, although it presents some challenges. The most obvious is that it could have a significant impact on any self-revival powers. But that's a question of mechanics and balance.

- - - - -
Hail Beard!

Support trap clowns for CoT!

Fireheart
Fireheart's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 hours 32 min ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/05/2013 - 13:45
I've long thought that the

I've long thought that the 'Amazon Delivery Drone' would be an interesting feature. One could use their PDA to place orders and have the drone drop some medicines/supplements/batteries on you, mid-mission. One could even have a 'Defibrila-Pod' pre-ordered for delivery any time one's health-monitor drops below 'conscious' for a set time. Of course, these Drone Services are Costly!

Be Well!
Fireheart

dreamcatcher
dreamcatcher's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 2 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/03/2013 - 17:12
Fireheart wrote:
Fireheart wrote:

Yes, yes, you completely destroyed Redlynn's argument, there. Except you missed the point.
He's trying to say that, if a behavior has no penalty, then people will do it. Corollary of that is, unless the Devs want 'Death', or 'Defeat', to be meaningless and to encourage players to use 'Death' in a tactical or strategic manner, which the Devs did not intend when designing the game, then there must be a penalty for the circumstance. Also, of course, the penalty ought to be strong enough that the players Do Notice it.
The trick, of course, is to find a balanced metric to penalize.
Be Well!
Fireheart

No, I didn't. It is an easy concept to grasp. *My* point, however, was clearly lost in translation. To whit, I disagree with him. There is nothing enshrined in the heavens that says there *must* be a death penalty. I entertain the idea that something must be in place; the jury is out on what that should be.

of Phoenix Rising
Am I

dreamcatcher
dreamcatcher's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 2 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/03/2013 - 17:12
Redlynne wrote:
Redlynne wrote:

/em points at dreamcatcher and just LAUGHS ...

No more than I miss the point of any form of rhetoric.

I'm going to help you out, Red, by noting that trying to deride someone who disagrees with you does not improve your case.

of Phoenix Rising
Am I

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 46 min ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
Some people have touched on

Some people have touched on this, but I thought it bears repeating the opinion that there should be no death penalty if you are revived in battle by a teammate or with your own reserves. In those cases the only penalty is the time and effort spent on the revival itself.

Reviving yourself after a battle with your own reserves or by a teammate COULD include some penalty, but only if the enemy you were fighting survives to tell the tale. It would depend on the penalty. In this case a counter-reset or loss of bonus would be an appropriate penalty.

Having to use an outside revival resource would need to provide the most severe death penalty. It could be expressed as IGC for an in-place revival, time for a hospital or corpse run, xp debt or other timed or persistent penalty for quickly successive deaths.


I like to take your ideas and supersize them. This isn't criticism, it is flattery. I come with nothing but good will and a spirit of team-building. If you take what I write any other way, that is probably just because I wasn't very clear.
Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 20 hours 18 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
Bebuffing anyone's combat

Bebuffing anyone's combat effectiveness temporarily for getting defeated has some problems, I think:

1. You need to stack more debuffs for each defeat when defeats happen in rapid succession. At some point you really can't debuff them any more than you already have, and the system in place has to know what to do when that happens. Do you just keep getting defeated and re-apply the same debuffs, which at this point don't actually debuff you any more than the last defeat already did, do you pronounce the character "like REALLY dead" and no longer give them the option of rezzing themself, thus forcing them to respawn somewhere else? Isn't that basically a hospital run? If not that, then what?

2. Stacking debuffs like that can lead to cascading defeats, even for people who are trying diligently not to get defeated. Getting defeated once causes you to have to either wait out the debuff timer, or forge ahead despite the debuff, which might get you defeated again.

3. The "get back up, but with a debuff on you" revival style still leaves you in the middle of a mob of hostiles, so you're probably getting defeated again very quickly.

4. You could debuff people and have the debuffs stack in time but not severity. That is, you get defeated once, you get a damage debuff for like 2 minutes. If you die again, you get another 2 minutes added onto your "death penalty time". That alone wont necessarily stop people from just getting killed over and over if that's what they need to do to get past some trap-riddled hallway with nothing to actually fight, and that's assuming the debuff is severe enough to deter anyone from getting defeated on purpose in the first place.

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

Foradain
Foradain's picture
Offline
Last seen: 41 min 55 sec ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/25/2013 - 21:06
Huckleberry wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:

Some people have touched on this, but I thought it bears repeating the opinion that there should be no death penalty if you are revived in battle by a teammate or with your own reserves. In those cases the only penalty is the time and effort spent on the revival itself.

An exception to this might be the difference between using a primary res power and its secondary and tertiary counterparts. The primary res brings you back to full health, and momentum and reserves either where they were when you dropped or where they would be when you started a new fight after resting a bit. (Is such an equilibrium point going to be a thing in this game?) The secondary would bring you back with some health missing and lower momentum and reserves. The tertiary would bring you back, barely, and if the fight's not over, be careful!

Foradain, Mage of Phoenix Rising.
Foradain's Character Conclave
Avatar courtesy of Satellite Nine.
If you can't see an image I've posted, please let me know!

Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 20 hours 18 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
What the various rvivial

What the various revival powers do for you should, in my opinion, vary on a power-by-power basis. I could see a use for one that rezzes you and relocates you to a safe location nearby where you died, but gives you a debuff of some kind. At the very least, the amount of health you get rezzed with is not necessarily always going to be 100%, and I wouldn't necessarily call it a debuff if it's not 100%. After all, "up" and "down" are two states you might be in, "up" only implies that you have at least 1 hit point above zero, to me. So getting rezzed with say, 50% of your total Health refilled is a gift, not a debuff. But then I'm a "glass is half full" guy I guess :)

I could see having rez powers that give you a buff to one thing and debuff to another, in fact. Or maybe you get rezzed and debuffed, and the enemies around you also get debuffed, damaged, etc or maybe your allies get a buff, like how Vengeance worked in the old CoX Leadership pool.

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

Fireheart
Fireheart's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 hours 32 min ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/05/2013 - 13:45
Radiac wrote:
Radiac wrote:

I could see having rez powers that give you a buff to one thing and debuff to another, in fact. Or maybe you get rezzed and debuffed, and the enemies around you also get debuffed, damaged, etc or maybe your allies get a buff, like how Vengeance worked in the old CoX Leadership pool.

That reminds me of Howling Twilight, which rezzed every ally in the caster's AoE, plus dropped a major debuff on the opponents in the target AoE. It was a colossal Aggro Generator.
(https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Dark_Miasma#Howling_Twilight)

Be Well!
Fireheart

Grimfox
Grimfox's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 days 14 hours ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 08/05/2014 - 10:17
Based on what I've read

Based on what I've read momentum will be lost on defeat. Logically that makes sense, you were stopped, you no longer have "momentum." Reserves should not be affected. Some revive powers may give you a shot of momentum on resurrection but that would be dependent on the devs and their design choices. I think it would be unlikely though as that opens an avenue for intentional death to take advantage of the momentum boost on revival. Certain powersets have been stated to benefit and use momentum as a more core part of their play style. Theoretically, as part of these momentum heavy sets there may be a passive that has an effect of automatically transferring momentum to reserves on defeat. Which would give you good odds of always having enough reserves to self resuscitate.

(at)Roxanna - Little Sister - Plutonium Bloom - MilkShakes
Triumph
Guardian
Virtue

Dev Tracker: http://cityoftitans.com/forum/fixing-dev-digest
Dev Comments: https://cityoftitans.com/forum/dev-comments

Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 20 hours 18 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
The fact that Howling

The fact that Howling Twilight did rez to an AoE along with other stuff and didn't require a dead body to actually fire it off was a good design, I think. Radiac, the toon, had Mutate (or was it called Mutation...) which only rezzed one toon, required a dead body to target to even cast it, and even then had a built-in drawback that you got stunned when you came down from the buffs it gave when they wore off. That debuff come-down was totally unnecessary, if you ask me. If your game discourages getting defeated enough to begin with (XP and INF debt), then you don't need that rez power to have a drawback like that. It could be argued that since people would volunteer to die on purpose for Vengeance (and in some cases, just to keep their Enhancements from becoming useless upon level up) that the death penalties weren't severe enough, but the fix for that is not to make a single-target rez power have more drawbacks.

This brings up the point that getting defeated ought to cost something even when you get rezzed by someone, or else people use intentional self defeat as a tactic in groups too much. I still like XP and IGC debt for that, if you throw enough of it at people for getting defeated. People HATED getting defeated in early CoX. If you fix the problem of needing to die to prevent yourself from outleveling your gear, then I think it would be better.

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 46 min ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
Grimfox wrote:
Grimfox wrote:

Based on what I've read momentum will be lost on defeat. Logically that makes sense, you were stopped, you no longer have "momentum." Reserves should not be affected. Some revive powers may give you a shot of momentum on resurrection but that would be dependent on the devs and their design choices. I think it would be unlikely though as that opens an avenue for intentional death to take advantage of the momentum boost on revival. Certain powersets have been stated to benefit and use momentum as a more core part of their play style. Theoretically, as part of these momentum heavy sets there may be a passive that has an effect of automatically transferring momentum to reserves on defeat. Which would give you good odds of always having enough reserves to self resuscitate.

This post shows some nice insight and brings another fresh perspective on the discussion. Good thoughts,Grimfox.


I like to take your ideas and supersize them. This isn't criticism, it is flattery. I come with nothing but good will and a spirit of team-building. If you take what I write any other way, that is probably just because I wasn't very clear.
Nyxz
Nyxz's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 1 day ago
Joined: 10/09/2015 - 03:37
It seems like most of the

It seems like most of the discussion has focused primarily on the mechanics of defeat. I do not recall if anyone has mentioned the potential consequences of defeat on the outcome of the mission. Referencing back to the Kickstarter and the manner in which the Devs are planning on designing multi-branching story arcs, perhaps it would be appropriate to fail whatever mission you are currently working if you are defeated in mission and have to resort to a form of rez that requires you to exit the mission. The adversary succeeds at whatever goal they were attempting to accomplish and bugs out. Auto failure for the mission; now you must follow branch of story associated with that failure.

This would be more punitive to solo players than large teams since team wipes are more rare (especially since most times someone will have the capacity to rez).

The one thing I hated more than being defeated in CoX, was actually failing a mission.

Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 20 hours 18 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
I could see doing that as a

I could see doing that as a thing you could maybe adjust in terms of a difficulty setting. Like on "easy" you just respawn at the hospital and have to fly back to the mission map, which will still be clear where you already cleared it and so forth, then on "medium" you respawn at the hospital and when you get back, the badguys are waiting for you and have respawned to a new, full map again, then on "hard" you end up walking back into a map where the badguys are on alert waiting for you so they get a buff of some kind (accuracy, perception range, etc) now. Then on "hardest" you only get one chance to succeed on the mission, and if you get defeated before succeeding, you fail.

Even then, I'd put in a thing where you can somehow go back and retry the same mission again to try to do the "you succeeded" branch if you want another short at it. Like a time travel thing or whatever.

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 46 min ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
Nyxz wrote:
Nyxz wrote:

Referencing back to the Kickstarter and the manner in which the Devs are planning on designing multi-branching story arcs, perhaps it would be appropriate to fail whatever mission you are currently working if you are defeated in mission and have to resort to a form of rez that requires you to exit the mission. The adversary succeeds at whatever goal they were attempting to accomplish and bugs out. Auto failure for the mission; now you must follow branch of story associated with that failure.

That is deliciously paradigm-shifting for an MMO. I love it.

Perhaps not auto-failure, but certainly not best-case success. It could be that your raid stopped the boss's plans and he had to bug out, so that would be a partial mission success. But I love the idea that your subsequent story arcs are dependent upon how successful your mission was, not just what moral decisions you make.


I like to take your ideas and supersize them. This isn't criticism, it is flattery. I come with nothing but good will and a spirit of team-building. If you take what I write any other way, that is probably just because I wasn't very clear.
Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 33 min ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
Nyxz, we've discussed the

Nyxz, we've discussed the possibility in the past (well not auto-failure on defeat), but using defeat as a trigger for an event to change the course of the mission. This however affecte more than our gamplay team as it impacts mission designers (art, 3d asset design, tech) and comp teams,

We will see what the future holds for us as we work on our mission systems.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
dreamcatcher
dreamcatcher's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 2 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/03/2013 - 17:12
Huckleberry wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:

The key is to talk more about the rewards and the reason to keep trying rather than how much it hurt to die. Because if the reason to succeed is high enough, then the player just might think it is worth dying for. And THAT is the essence of heroism!

This reflects my current position on the topic. I haven't yet seen a suggestion for it in this thread that I think would work particularly well, but anything that provides an incentive for me to 'get stuck in', whether I've died or not, goes into the win column.

I'm not a huge fan of Guild Wars these days but one thing they did reasonably well was a stacking buff when you killed elites. It wasn't all good in terms of sponsored behaviour, but it had some things going for it, and iirc, WildStar did something similar, although the specifics elude me.

Looking into what these games did and others like them, and considering them as part of a design process, would -I think- help MWM choose a design that works for them, whether that ends up being a penalty or something else.

I would at least like to be able to say that they considered alternatives, rather than simply going with the safe and well-tread ground of a death penalty because that's all they know.

of Phoenix Rising
Am I

dreamcatcher
dreamcatcher's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 2 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/03/2013 - 17:12
Tannim222 wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:

Nyxz, we've discussed the possibility in the past (well not auto-failure on defeat), but using defeat as a trigger for an event to change the course of the mission. This however affecte more than our gamplay team as it impacts mission designers (art, 3d asset design, tech) and comp teams,
We will see what the future holds for us as we work on our mission systems.

Tsk. I hate back to back posts but so much happens in this chat while I'm away.

What if this didn't tangibly affect any story elements but had some impact on reputation (or similar) with a faction, Tannim? Would that present the same challenges or a smaller, more manageable, subset?

of Phoenix Rising
Am I

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 1 week ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
Foradain wrote:
Foradain wrote:

Huckleberry wrote:
Some people have touched on this, but I thought it bears repeating the opinion that there should be no death penalty if you are revived in battle by a teammate or with your own reserves. In those cases the only penalty is the time and effort spent on the revival itself.
An exception to this might be the difference between using a primary res power and its secondary and tertiary counterparts. The primary res brings you back to full health, and momentum and reserves either where they were when you dropped or where they would be when you started a new fight after resting a bit. (Is such an equilibrium point going to be a thing in this game?) The secondary would bring you back with some health missing and lower momentum and reserves. The tertiary would bring you back, barely, and if the fight's not over, be careful!

The distinction you're dancing around is one I tried to highlight before ... namely that WHEN the penalty ought to be applied has some important implications.

If the penalty gets applied when you go down then that's going to be rather limiting (game mechanically speaking) since that's going to ultimately wind up being something of a One Size Fits All sort of deal and then if you want to apply any conditionals and/or rebates for circumstantial actions (or Self Rez Powers) things start getting mucky for the game mechanics pretty quickly. This is the sort of thing I would expect Cryptic Studios to do, and then spend years developing a crapton of Special Snowflake ways to avoid/mitigate it retroactively. Not recommended.

If the penalty gets applied when you get up then that opens up a wide range of possibilities for all kinds of penalty avoidance/mitigation based on all kinds of circumstantials that you can't necessarily anticipate in the initial game design. It makes possible different degrees of penalty based on the Rez Method chosen/selected from the available options, which then gets towards the "minigame" of deciding HOW or in what WAY your character will "get up" after having been "put down" by the opposition. I means you can do a Many Sizes Fit Lots style of implementation, rather than a One Size Fits All.


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
Grimfox
Grimfox's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 days 14 hours ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 08/05/2014 - 10:17
I think that the penalty

I think that the penalty should be applied on down, so nobody mistakes a rez for applying the penalty. That could cause a lot of angst. Sure among the people here it all makes sense, but in the game world when the debt bar fills or IGC drains away (whatever the penalty) because someone rezes you on the street, you might be angry with them for doing that. Not calling anyone out here just using the general/hypothetical "you." It doesn't matter that it's a game mechanic. The perception is that the penalty was applied when the power was used and thus came from the power and thus is the caster's fault. Now if the debt bar shrinks (or whatever penalty is reduced) the rez is seen as a gift no matter the circumstances. This perception of events leaves us only one choice really which means that a one size fits all penalty but the circumstances of rez could negate some of that penalty.

(at)Roxanna - Little Sister - Plutonium Bloom - MilkShakes
Triumph
Guardian
Virtue

Dev Tracker: http://cityoftitans.com/forum/fixing-dev-digest
Dev Comments: https://cityoftitans.com/forum/dev-comments

Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 20 hours 18 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
In a nutshell, my basic ideas

In a nutshell, my basic ideas on this reflect my basic ideas on the game in general, make it limiting and a little harsh in the base rules for what happen when you get defeated, then add in exceptions, options, and shortcuts that can overcome a lot of that by spending IGC or having the right powers or items, etc.

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

Stalker
Stalker's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 4 months ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 05/21/2014 - 20:28
I Definitely like the idea of

I Definitely like the idea of tagging things to the resurrection event rather than the death event of a player. Keeping that in mind, with no penalties, and mechanics ((how I've seen them explained or interpreted)) added on to what has already been explained, this is what I see happening on death:

-Player HP reaches zero and "dies".
-Player can no longer control their avatar and feels the humiliation of eating dirt. ((bonus points if the NPC with the finishing blow spits out a humiliating line.))
-Momentum drains to zero and does not fill reserves because the player is now "dead". ((Reserves would only build from passive momentum drain while alive thematically speaking, so we'll assume that's true for now.))
-Any powers that receive a bonus from momentum ((passives from super reflexes, or resistances or damage/accuracy)) are now back at their base value and have to be built up again.
-Some mastery powers that rely on momentum must also be built up again in order to gain their benefit. ((fury, domination, defiance, or other similar abilities))
-The player must have either picked a self resurrection power to stand back up where they are, and have that power enter a long cooldown, or have an ally revive them or use a saved reserve for a weak revive and be forced to wait to heal up, or be forced to move to the nearest revival point. ((a revival point may be mission entrance, a checkpoint in map, a jail cell in map, or the nearest "hospital" outside the mission map depending on how harsh the "travel" penalty is made))
-If teamed, the player may receive negative feedback from their team, berating them, or offering advice on how to not die: another blow to the ego.

Depending on how critical momentum proves to be for the average character, these existing events will function as a minor death penalty on their own. If building a character with no reliance on momentum is possible though, something else may be necessary to emphasize death being unfavorable. The purpose of this post was just to highlight these not-so-obtrusive penalties and better consolidate a starting point. Personally, I am FOR a death penalty, but find myself doing devil's advocate things too often, and haven't come up with a system that I would consider better than EXP debt yet...

Stalkers don't die: They simply... Disappear.

Greyhawk
Greyhawk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 months 6 days ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/03/2015 - 19:17
Radiac wrote:
Radiac wrote:

In order to discourage people from using self-defeat as a Preferred Play Style (TM) or valid strategy to get through content, ...

All of these beautiful, logical, rational discussions are awe-inspiring to behold, but I still have not bought into this fundamental premise. I still see no reason to discourage people from using self-defeat as either a preferred playstyle or valid strategy.

Of course people will do it. So? It makes no difference to me whatsoever and does not detract from my enjoyment of the game. I understand not everyone agrees, but this is still my position and I have yet to see any realistic reason to change.

But hey! Nice discussion, mostly.

I will say I agree with dreamcatcher: Redlynne used a meaningless, unrelated analogy to demonstrate a point, lessening the importance of the point itself and rendering that particular portion of the discussion mute. Running through shrubbery vs. self-inflicted defeat as one element of a larger strategy? Nope. Not seeing any the connection to Redlynne's main point of "enforcing preferred behavior through penalties".

If the MWM team wants death to be painful then it will be painful. I get that. But that does not mean I have to like it or agree with it. The degree to which this imposition interferes with my ability to enjoy the game will determine how much time I spend in-world and how much money I spent at the ingame store. Simple premise. I have no intention of forcing anyone to agree with my premise. I just enjoy hearing myself talk (or in this case, reading my own words).

Just my own never humble opinion.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My author page at Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/-/e/B000APIPZC?ref_=pe_584750_33951330

Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 20 hours 18 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
I think, if I may try to read

I think, if I may try to read Red's mind, the idea was that if you allow unintended shortcuts to exist, then they become THE preferred way through the content, and as such the content must have been poorly designed. If you build in a pathway, it's probably there so that people will walk on it. That's the intended purpose, one assumes. If people mostly end up not using your pathway, then your pathway is unnecessary and/or your area is designed badly because the pathway isn't useful to people as a pathway. The same metaphorical logic applies to game content. If there's some death trap or hard boss or area where you get ambushed that's supposed to be an interesting strategic/tactical puzzle to solve, but then there's an easy work around for it that which amounts to "You just let the killers kill you, then get up and walk away like nothing happened." then you didn't have to fight the fight or avoid the trap, or whatever, so it's therefore a badly designed encounter, or the game itself has some flaw that needs correcting to make it work. In a game where death is no problem, then like EVERY encounter which threatens to kill you is pretty much moot, isn't it? What difference does it make if I defeat the boss or he defeats me at that point?

The idea that not everyone is going to abuse a lighter-than-necessary death penalty is, to me, irrelevant. It needs to be there and be about harsh enough to get the vast majority of people to avoid death, almost all of the time, if in fact you, as a designer, are designing your RPG such that you expect people will try to avoid death, in general. You can't just assume everyone will always try to avoid death if there's no compelling reason to avoid death. And avoiding death is a behavior I think we need in the game, so I'd build that death penalty in for that reason, whatever it is. I think the Hospital run and the IGC/XP debt are good, if done in the right amounts. Losing Momentum is probably going to happen, so yeah, I like that. Using Reserves to rez yourself seems good, as one of the uses for that. So if you get defeated, your momentum crashes, you have to spend reserves on something that doesn't give you combat buffs, you have to pay some future earned XP and IGC to the game for the costs of getting defeated, and you have to high-tail it back from, the hospital. I would avoid death, for the most part, if that were the deal. I might still allow myself to become a martyr for some other player's Vengeance or my own Rise of the Phoenix once in awhile too, if those powers were any good in the content I was doing. Also, there is now the possibility of having powers, items, etc that can offset those penalties and be sold for IGC or real money, thus supporting the game or sinking IGC out of the economy. That's a good thing too.

Here's an idea, what if the "self rez" you get from using Reserves always burns all of your remaining Reserves, and the quality of the rez you get is dependent on how much reserves you had when you get defeated? I think people might try to save up reserves for the "good" self rez in that case, and in any case, you get back up with no reserves left and no momentum. This would seem to me that it encourages and rewards judicious use of reserves and self-preservation, both of which I like.

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 1 week ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
Radiac wrote:
Radiac wrote:

Here's an idea, what if the "self rez" you get from using Reserves always burns all of your remaining Reserves, and the quality of the rez you get is dependent on how much reserves you had when you get defeated? I think people might try to save up reserves for the "good" self rez in that case, and in any case, you get back up with no reserves left and no momentum. This would seem to me that it encourages and rewards judicious use of reserves and self-preservation, both of which I like.

This is a very simple idea that bears a lot of merit.

If Reserves works on a "0 to 10 points" kind of scale, when using Reserves to perform a "Wakie" action, you could be confronted with a choice of "how much of your Reserves do you want to spend?" in order to get back up. And as Radiac says, the more you spend, the greater the mitigation ... just like the differences between using Small, Medium or Large "Wakie" in City of Heroes, since the larger Inspirations offered greater mitigation of side effects.

When structuring things with that in mind, it would probably be best then to apply the Death/Debt Penalty upon Defeat ... but then allow the various Resurrection methods to mitigate that penalty. Self-Rez by Power? 90% Debt Reduction upon Self-Rez (for example). Rez Other by Power? 80% Debt Reduction upon Rez (for example). You can then have a whole spectrum of options, including "Hospital" which offers a 0% Debt Reduction upon Rez (meaning you're "paying" full price).


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
Fireheart
Fireheart's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 hours 32 min ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/05/2013 - 13:45
Alright, Redlynne, I

Alright, Redlynne, I basically agree, but how is that superior to applying the penalty upon Revive? That seems to simplify the equation, to me, by applying the penalty directly, rather than figuring penalty-forgiveness. It seems to me that the User Experience would be the same, either way.

Be Well!
Fireheart

blacke4dawn
blacke4dawn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 21 hours 40 min ago
Joined: 03/28/2015 - 03:02
Fireheart wrote:
Fireheart wrote:

Alright, Redlynne, I basically agree, but how is that superior to applying the penalty upon Revive? That seems to simplify the equation, to me, by applying the penalty directly, rather than figuring penalty-forgiveness. It seems to me that the User Experience would be the same, either way.
Be Well!
Fireheart

It's a matter of perception. As essentially said above, there will most likely be some people who will think that it's not the act of dieing that gives the penalty but rather the act of reviving and thus complain about it from that PoV. Example used was, I assume, drive-by revives.

Though depending on if we still get XP when dead, like in CoH, then then we have another thing to consider.

Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 20 hours 18 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
The relative amount of

The relative amount of usefulness that the Reserves have to give you upon your self-rez use of them will depend greatly on what the base rule is for rezzing in general. Does it stun you? Does it give you back some amount of your total HP? Are there any other temporary debuffs? If so, then maybe using 100% reserves to self rez gives you 100% of your max HP back and no stun upon rez and no other debuffs. Then using 50% gives half HP and stun for half the base stun time, etc. That said, you might still be on the floor in the middle of a mob and need to Hospital out anyway if you're soloing.

But on teams, at least, this gives people a good reason not to just drain all of their reserves before going into a fight against a mob, like every time. Depending on how much momentum bleed off you can rack up while fighting, you might die with very little Reserves left in the tank if you don't keep some amount in *ahem* reserve for the possible self rez you might need.

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 1 week ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
Fireheart wrote:
Fireheart wrote:

Alright, Redlynne, I basically agree, but how is that superior to applying the penalty upon Revive? That seems to simplify the equation, to me, by applying the penalty directly, rather than figuring penalty-forgiveness. It seems to me that the User Experience would be the same, either way.

Taken in isolation, without regard to other circumstantial factors ... there is no difference ... to a soloist.

But as soon as you get into a Team 2-8 situation, the calculus changes.

Let's say, just for the sake of example, that the Debt Penalty applies upon Revive, rather than upon Defeat. What happens in a multi-player context?

Duh ... FREELOADING.
In other words, if you get Defeated and stay faceplanted while the rest of your Team keeps defeating mobs ... well ... you'll still keep drawing "full" XP and IGC rewards the entire time until you Revive.

Which means Powerleveling WHILE DEFEATED becomes a perfectly valid strategy which isn't "discouraged" by the game mechanics in any way (quite the contrary, actually). AND ... as if that wasn't enough, if taken to some pretty logical extremes, the method and timing of Revival itself could become a point of contention, since it would interfere with the "free leeching" that would be possible if Debt was levied upon Revival, rather than upon Defeat. Why? Because then, as pointed out above, the "pain point" isn't the DEFEAT itself, it's the Revival, making it possible to mismatch the incentive structure away from the desired behavioral assumption (of Don't Take Defeat Lightly).


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
Stalker
Stalker's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 4 months ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 05/21/2014 - 20:28
Thematically, I never

Thematically, I never understood experience gain while defeated. What does being unconscious teach you about being a hero? Nothing! Would it really be too harsh to remove enemy EXP while downed ((allowing mission exp to still be earned on missions complete)) or reducing enemy defeat EXP by a significant margin? While not directly a penalty for death, it would do something to discourage players from actively choosing to stay down.

Stalkers don't die: They simply... Disappear.

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 46 min ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
Radiac wrote:
Radiac wrote:

Here's an idea, what if the "self rez" you get from using Reserves always burns all of your remaining Reserves, and the quality of the rez you get is dependent on how much reserves you had when you get defeated? I think people might try to save up reserves for the "good" self rez in that case, and in any case, you get back up with no reserves left and no momentum. This would seem to me that it encourages and rewards judicious use of reserves and self-preservation, both of which I like.

Hmmm... this might lead to behavior where someone prefers to die for the better revival sure thing, then try to survive uncertainly by using resources while still alive. If a character is down to her last resources, choosing death knowing she has the minimum needed to revive becomes a more attractive option than using her last resources to survive by the skin of her teeth. The hair's breadth victories are the type of things we brag about to our friends or just to our cats, and this could do away with such elated bragging.

Stalker wrote:

Thematically, I never understood experience gain while defeated. What does being unconscious teach you about being a hero? Nothing! Would it really be too harsh to remove enemy EXP while downed ((allowing mission exp to still be earned on missions complete)) or reducing enemy defeat EXP by a significant margin? While not directly a penalty for death, it would do something to discourage players from actively choosing to stay down.

I agree completely with this. Give players a reason to get back into the fight.

However, I do think players should get experience pro-rated by how much they contributed. For instance, if your Gladiator peeled off the main crowd to protect your Hunter who had accidentally aggro'd some adds. But since your Sentinel was so busy keeping your bulwark alive against the big boss, she couldn't help out your gladiator, so he died. By the time your Sentinel revives your Gladiator, the big boss has been defeated. Should your Gladiator get no XP for it? That wouldn't be fair. So does everyone get equal xp? if not, how would you divvy up the XP knowing that all of the roles in the group did different things? Add on the additional complexity of who was unconsious for how long and when. Sure computers can do all this math faster than we can think about it, but someone still has to figure out what the calculations are.


I like to take your ideas and supersize them. This isn't criticism, it is flattery. I come with nothing but good will and a spirit of team-building. If you take what I write any other way, that is probably just because I wasn't very clear.
Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 1 week ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
Huckleberry wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:

However, I do think players should get experience pro-rated by how much they contributed.

You want to be VERY CAREFUL if you're going to start thinking in those terms. I understand that the whole "you don't work, you don't eat" mentality has a lot of appeal to quite a number of people, particularly when you start getting into the whole "freeloader" side of things and "leeching" and so on. I get that. But if you pick your metric as being Damage Dealt, you've just reduced the entire game to a DPS Reward System, where anything (and everything) else is subordinated to the capability to deal Damage, to the point where nothing else matters.

In broad brushstrokes, this makes perfect sense. Reduce it down to game mechanical programming code acceptable to a computer, which can't make "creative" value judgements on the fly, but rather has to follow the pre-programmed instructions ... and you've got a can of worms on your hands. To be even more specific, define "contributed" using machine logic programming code.

This isn't as easy as it looks.

Huckleberry wrote:

For instance, if your Gladiator peeled off the main crowd to protect your Hunter who had accidentally aggro'd some adds. But since your Sentinel was so busy keeping your bulwark alive against the big boss, she couldn't help out your gladiator, so he died. By the time your Sentinel revives your Gladiator, the big boss has been defeated. Should your Gladiator get no XP for it? That wouldn't be fair. So does everyone get equal xp? if not, how would you divvy up the XP knowing that all of the roles in the group did different things? Add on the additional complexity of who was unconsious for how long and when. Sure computers can do all this math faster than we can think about it, but someone still has to figure out what the calculations are.

This is basically the Loot Drops problem of other games writ large. You want loot? You have to go pick it up yourself. Oh, and you have to go get it before anyone else can grab it. Oh and watch out for Kill Stealers who will make YOU do all the work while THEY secure the reward(s) for themselves at your expense.

Look, one of the major points of appeal in City of Heroes for Teaming was that you weren't in competition with your Teammates for loot drops. EVERYBODY got their own loot. You didn't even have to wander over and pick it up. It just automagically went to your inventory. No fuss, no muss.

The same should be true of XP and IGC if you're in a Team. If you're "downed" or otherwise faceplanted, your "share" of the incoming XP and IGC isn't eliminated just because you aren't (actively) participating. The Debt Penalty could be devouring half of those incoming streams (to pay off the Debt for having been Defeated in the first place), but you're still accruing your "share" of rewards because you're on the Team.

That's why it's possible to "ding" for a Level while you're Defeated, gain the effect of ALL of the Large Inspirations simultaneously (as a Level "ding" freebie) ... and stand back up, in place, without having someone (even yourself) "actively" Revive you. Instead, you stood up because you Leveled while faceplanted.

Granted, this is something of an edge case, but it did happen on (fortunate) occasion, so it would be a shame if City of Titans was designed in such a way as to preclude the possibility.


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 20 hours 18 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
In GW2 people don't compete

In GW2 people don't compete against each other for looting corpses or for mining resource nodes. You do have to have gotten some damage in on the corpse to have any chance of getting anything from it though, as far as I know, otherwise that corpse disappears almost as soon as the monster dies, as far as your perception of it is concerned, I believe. Corpses that might have loot for you have a graphic way of showing that (they have this sort of steamy bubbly sparkly stuff rising up off them until you loot and then all that sparkle rushes towards you like you're vacuuming it up).

I could see making players have to actively press a button to loot corpses in CoT. It's not ideal and its not what I would want for a hero game per se, but if it solves problems revolving around loot gain and death, it could be done and I wouldn't really complain.

I'm also for the idea of every mob I did some damage to gettig me XP and possible loot drops whether or not I was up and conscious when it got defeated. This includes end-of-mission bonuses too, but not kills of stuff that I never touched. I could see being on a team and getting XP and loot while still alive and whatever, but not while down or dead.

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 20 hours 18 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
Also, to Huck's point, if the

Also, to Huck's point, if the base rule is "when you die, you come back with baseline zero Momentum and Reserves, regardless of how you died and how you rezzed" then your concern about people taking the death over the will to fight on is no longer a problem, right? Can we do that?

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 46 min ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
Radiac wrote:
Radiac wrote:

Also, to Huck's point, if the base rule is "when you die, you come back with baseline zero Momentum and Reserves, regardless of how you died and how you rezzed" then your concern about people taking the death over the will to fight on is no longer a problem, right? Can we do that?

I was under the impression that reserves were preserved so that we could use them as a 'wakie'.

Let me use numbers to represent what I meant. Let's say you have 15 reserves remaining. It costs you 10 reserves to buff yourself and 10 reserves to revive once down, so you can't do both. Do you choose to buff yourself and risk not being able to revive, or do you just take the hit and allow yourself to be defeated so that you can revive on the spot?

If we lose reserves with death as you suggest, it would certainly make that scenario moot such that the most attractive option would be to buff yourself and try to win. And I think it would be a significant deterrent to voluntary defeat.

Good one, Radiac.


I like to take your ideas and supersize them. This isn't criticism, it is flattery. I come with nothing but good will and a spirit of team-building. If you take what I write any other way, that is probably just because I wasn't very clear.
Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 20 hours 18 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
You coul dmake it work such

You could make it work such that the Momentum gets lost upon defeat, possibly draining away into Reserves one last time, possibly just "Momentum gone, you're dead", then if and when you get rezzed, the USUAL thing would be that you get back up with zero Momentum and zero Reserves as part of your respawn. Then, depending on the type of rez you got, it might effect the amount of Reserves you get back up with, after the fact. I would still cause all self-rez via Reserves spent to drain 100% of your remaining reserves, with the quality of the rez being a function of how much Reserves you had while down or dead.

If you are going to have the "down, but not out yet" mechanic, which I like, this might be the part where you still have whatever Reserves you haven't spent, then when you pass out and become "really dead", your Reserves get zeroed at that point and your ability to self-rez using Reserves is now gone. This would amount to people being unable to self-rez using reserves while "down" in cases where they find themselves "down" with zero Reserves because they spent it all while fighting. You could even have a minimum Reserves threshold needed for self-rez that is greater than zero. Maybe you need to have at least 5% of your max Reserves still in the tank to be able to self-rez using your Reserves.

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 20 hours 18 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
Depending on class, Masteries

Depending on class, Masteries, Tertiaries, gear, etc, you might have different options while "down, but not out". Like, one of them would always be "Spend Remaining Reserves to Self-Rez" which would be greyed out if you don't have enough Reserves to do it.

You could also have things like "Self Destruct" where you do some big AoE (damage dependent on Reserves spent, and it always uses up whatever you've got left, or maybe it's only usable when you have at least 80% Reserves saved, etc) and go straight to "really dead now, and un-rezzable for a cool down timer" in the process. Or "Martyrdom" where you similarly go from "down" to "dead" and give an AoE ally buff in the process. You could have "Disappear" where you go invisible while deciding your next move, having spent Reserves to do so, and considering the option of self-rezzing using more Reserves or going to the Hopsital, or getting an ally to rez you, or using a self rez power you might have, or using a piece of gear, like a temp power or Wakie, etc to do it, if those exist. You could also have the "Exact Revenge" option for some classes where you keep attacking and spend Reserves to do so until you either pass out or defeat the target, thus giving you a surge of HP and getting you back up. You'd either pass out when Reserves are exhausted or when your "downed hitpoints" bar dwindles to zero (if there is one), or which ever comes first, etc. You could have an "Evacuation" thing where you can spend Reserves to teleport yourself to a safer location (either by targeting an area or going back to the last "save point" in the mission, etc).

You might give players a huge bunch of options to choose from while "Down" based on everything in their build, but only allow them to have a small number of them active and able to be used when defeated at any given time. Like if you have Invisibility as a Tertiary and Teleportation as a travel power, you might have unlocked both "Disappear" and "Evacuation", but not have both on the option list at the same time, or maybe you can and they both cost different amounts of Reserves when used. Maybe the base rules usually afford you like 3 different "while down" powers to use, in addition to the one everyone gets (spend Reserves to self rez), but your current build unlocks the option of using like 6 different ones you've unlocked, so you have to decide in the build phase which 3 you're going to put in the "While Down" tray, which is locked until you respec again.

Just ideas.

Notice how the more limiting the base rules are the more fun you can have with powers etc to offset those limits.

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

Fireheart
Fireheart's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 hours 32 min ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/05/2013 - 13:45
Radiac wrote:
Radiac wrote:

In GW2 people don't compete against each other for looting corpses or for mining resource nodes.

That's because, in GW2, loot rewards are both random and individual. When looting downed mobs, the reward is individual to the character and not drawn from a pool, shared by all characters eligible to loot that mob. It's also random, in that not all mobs drop loot for all characters. And it's ephemeral, if you don't pick up the loot, it fades away, meaning one has to loot immediately and can't wait until the fight is over.

Resource nodes and other static loot nodes, like the chests scattered about the world, either give the exact same rewards to everyone, or they give the same randomized rewards.

So, the result is, there's no 'competition' over loot, because it's, statistically, all evenly distributed. That said, I still prefer the ease and simplicity of absolutely not worrying about loot, like in CoH. It all, auto-magically, goes in the hopper and I only have to deal with it when I feel like it.

Be Well!
Fireheart

Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 20 hours 18 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
I like the non-competitive

I like the non-competitive looting, for the record. I think that actively having to loot a corpse is a little out of character, at least for heroes, but I wouldn't object to it, if it had desirable mechanics that the devs felt were necessary. Like if the solution to gaining loot while dead is "you can't loot a corpse while dead, so don't die" In GW2, auto-looting is possible, but has to be unlocked, so you could maybe do that. In fact that game has a fairly complicated system. You defeat a monster, and assuming it's not like a big dragon or world-level boss, you would then have to go to the corpse and hit "F" to loot it, at which point it brings up a small window showing you what items the corpse has, you then have to click each one individually to take the ones you want. In the Options menu, you can set it to "always take everything after hitting F" and it will do that unless your inventory is full, at which point it will go back to giving you a window with items to get, but you have to make room for them before you can get them. Then if you want to automatically press F every time you're near a monster that has loot for you, there's an in-game way to unlock that, or you can pay money for it I think.

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 20 hours 18 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
One thing about GW2 though,

One thing about GW2 though, while the looting is not competitive, the mission XP gain and official participation credit you get is dependent on how much of the mission you did. If the event is "protect the caravan on its way to the next town over" and there are like 50 people following the caravan, you might have a hard time getting any damage in on any of the attackers, and as such you might miss out on the event XP and so forth for that reason. So having like WAY too many people doing an event can force people out of getting any credit for it. This is sometimes an issue on dailies. Sometimes one of the daily things you get a bonus for is "Complete Events in Queensdale" which is a low level zone that everyone can access and as such there can be like 30 people trying to do the same event for the daily, which makes it hard for anyone to get credit for it, especially if the level 80 people there are using their higher level AoE powers etc.

I'm not sure there's a fix for this I like. It might just be better to leave it that way. It requires people to get some damage in, but I think all classes ought to be able to do some of that, if not as much as others. That also encourages the devs to give all classes some ability to get some damage dealt, which makes them all a little more soloable. I also like the idea of powers that deal mediocre damage but also buff you and your friends in various ways, just as a design option. In a game like that, your Defenders need to do damage too, so you could package it together with debuffs and buffs in various ways such that the Defender, while teamed with allies, is still attacking mobs a lot, just doing it more for the secondary effects than the damage, but the damage is still there and every little bit helps.

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

Foradain
Foradain's picture
Offline
Last seen: 41 min 55 sec ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/25/2013 - 21:06
There is a potential fix for

There is a potential fix for the "fifty people protecting the caravan" problem: spawn new shards and invite existing teams to shift to the new shards. Now the escort is thinned out a bit from the perspective of the original shard. Not sure if it would work in GW2, but with the server architecture MWM was planning on using it should be fairly simple, as long as it is possible to count the number of PCs near the caravan.

Foradain, Mage of Phoenix Rising.
Foradain's Character Conclave
Avatar courtesy of Satellite Nine.
If you can't see an image I've posted, please let me know!

Stalker
Stalker's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 4 months ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 05/21/2014 - 20:28
I'm of the opinion that

I'm of the opinion that having both a downed and a defeated state may complicate the game unnecessarily. In each game I've played that has such a state, I didn't find myself more connected with the world: in fact, I found myself questioning why the wolf doesn't just eat me instead of letting me crawl away. I definitely see the downed before death system complicating the PVP scene ((as comparably small as it may be)) as you have to chose which player you want to favor. The victor, or the defeated. I also don't see it being necessary when placed beside the self revives and ally revives available in a superhero genre. I could actually see a downed state being worked into actual powers, in that while a certain buff is active, you avoid death and enter a phase shifted stealth with an AoE placate, as that creates more options for the player.

Concerning Loot, that's an entirely separate discussion from Death and respawning, but a piece of it is relevant. While defeated, should all loot come in at full value? There are multiple pieces to this mind you. Enemy defeat exp, mission complete exp, named boss exp, Arc completion exp, enemy currency reward, mission currency reward, named boss exp, arc completion exp, enemy drop rate, mission completion item drop, named boss drops, arc completion rewards. ((Named boss being AV, Eliteboss, and monster class enemies)) I've already mentioned I would like to reduce earned exp and currency while downed, but I would limit this to EXP and currency from common enemies. This is also under the assumption that debt is not multiplicative with this reduction, but rather functions exclusively. IE: earn 1000 exp from allies defeating an enemy. 500 is spent on debt, 500 is given to level. you only have 300 debt, but all 500 is still "lost" to debt. Exp continues to be divided in half to pay off the zero debt until the player finally revives and begins earning full rewards again. This is only how I would work a system to discourage faceplant AFK leeching, but a similar effect could be tagged to an AFK timer. No input in 10 minutes? Cut certain earnings in half.

Stalkers don't die: They simply... Disappear.

Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 20 hours 18 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
Even if you do have a "down

Even if you do have a "down but not out" mechanic, it doesn't necessarily have to be used in PVP. You could just run that without it and just use it in PVE, in theory. I think PVP builds for toons are going to be different from PVE builds no matter what, as I think they generally are in most games, so it doesn't really create any more work for players to have to fold into their builds the idea that they won't have the "down" attacks or whatever.

I don't know how hard it is to code or how much computing power it takes for the game to keep track of the amounts of damage and/or debuff I've dealt to monsters that are currently still alive, but if that could be done for every toon in the game, you would have the option of awarding or not awarding XP and other stuff upon the defeat of those monsters as a choice the game makes based on how much damage you did. You could even have different levels of rewards for different amounts of "work" done by the player, and for different levels of success. Did you attack the giant robot and do significant damage, based on expectations? Did the giant robot get brought down before the timer ran out and it self-repaired? If so, you get "Best" rewards because of your apparent "full" level of participation and the resulting "full success" that the event ended in. If the robot got to do it's self-repair and had to be attacked and defeated after that, then maybe everyone that helped bring it down got less rewards for only a "second best" result, but still got "full" participation. You could have a cache of IGC and other rewards that you get for full marks in both categories and then modulate how much of that stuff you get based on your participation and the results of the event or mission, etc. Or you could have different reward packages possible based on success rate and then either award full, partial, or zero of that package to players based on participation. All of this could be treasure or whatever that you get while "dead" because it was the end reward for a long fight that you fought in and happened to die at the very end.

On the other hand, if you're in a team and the team is clearing a mission map and you're standing outside doing inventory or in the mission by the front door goofing off, you ought to get a "zero" rating for lack of participation and thus get zero, or lowest possible rewards when and if the team finishes despite your goldbricking. In theory it's easier to just give everyone the XP and IGC drops, if there are going to be drops. This might be where actively having to loot corpses becomes the standard and easiest way to handle it. Nobody goldbricks their way through a fight in GW2 because you have to actively loot the corpses in that game. Even if you have all the auto-loot functionality unlocked, you still have to actually get close enough to the defeated monsters to get their loot when they drop, so you have to at least follow the team through the map, and you'll get no loot from anything you didn't do damage to. If you coded it like a combination of CoX and GW2, you could still have the active looting and the "everyone get's credit for a team win" rule for individual mob defeats, such that you can still loot even if you deal no damage, but you have to be physically located near the mob when it drops in order to get that loot. If you apply that to XP as well, or make the XP gain a part of the loot that has to be actively looted, then you can probably all but eliminate goldbricking. If you add in sidekick/exemplaring then you can all but eliminate powerleveling too, in the sense that you as a low level toon aren't necessarily going to get better rewards for fighting level 50 badguys with a level 50 group then you otherwise would for fighting level 5 badguys with a level 5 group, which is, I think , as it should be.

The game could also monitor the buff effects you throw onto other toons and award participation based on that, damage, debuffs applied to mobs maybe.

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

Grimfox
Grimfox's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 days 14 hours ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 08/05/2014 - 10:17
I wonder if this mechanic

I wonder if this mechanic might be an appropriate solution to giving people loot while dead without making a leech out of them. It's not a "just" sword though as it cuts as deeply for someone who dies right before the loot drops as it does for a player that has been dead from the outset.

The basic premise is that each item is still delivered but carries a lien or tax or something like that so that it is unusable and not tradeable. The only thing you can do with it is sell it to a vendor as scrap. So your best option is to pay off the lien on that item so that you can sell it at a fair price or trade it on the market or use it in your build.

My gut response was to make this lien a value of 1% character wealth calculated at the time of the items drop (to prevent someone from moving all their cash to an alt to reduce the lien cost) but for a character with billions of IGC paying 2m to unlock a rare drop seems like a bit of a unfair price. Anyway a player that sits around doing nothing would accumulate a great deal of these and spend a substantial amount of wealth unlocking them while someone who has a drop happen like this every once in awhile would not be as bothered. Another problem with this mechanic is that it can create a strong push to get rezzed. However, if no rezzes are available and the player has to stay down especially in the middle of a fight where no one can tear themselves away to rez the dead, less the rest of the team crumbles. That could result in some very angry dead people. Another way to do it would be to scale the lien based on item rarity or scale it up the longer a player is downed.

All that said leeching really shouldn't be a problem on any team that you are running. If a player is intentionally dying to leech, then kick them. I rarely saw this in COH, or most other games for that matter, but I understand that it does happen from time to time. I wonder if it's really worth the investment to actively punish? How do you determine if a player is just ignorant, inexperienced or malicious?

On the topic of "downed but not out" it wasn't a "thing" in COH and so I don't think it really has a place in the spiritual successor of COH, COT. It's not a bad mechanic I just don't think it's going to be something that really fits in with every character concepts aesthetic. At the end of the day it's a self res which fills the same shoes as the reserves revive.

(at)Roxanna - Little Sister - Plutonium Bloom - MilkShakes
Triumph
Guardian
Virtue

Dev Tracker: http://cityoftitans.com/forum/fixing-dev-digest
Dev Comments: https://cityoftitans.com/forum/dev-comments

Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 20 hours 18 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
I have to say I disagree with

I have to say I disagree with the idea that the "down but not out" mechanic is somehow not a flavorful, immersive, appropriate thing for a superhero game. That mechanic, to me, SCREAMS "Must..... reach.....utility....belt...AAAAARRRRGH!" which is a huge superhero meme, to me. Just because CoX didn't have it doesn't mean CoT can't or shouldn't. If the devs don't feel like they have the time and resources to devote to doing it now, or in the future, fine. If doing it infringes on other games copyrights or something, fine avoid it for that reason, but I can't look at that mechanic objectively and say, with a straight face, "Yeah, I get it, but not in a superhero game. Doesn't fit the genre." l think it 100% fits the genre. Even for villains, it's a sort of Khan from Star Trek "From Hell's heart, I stab at thee!" kind of thing. You're down, but you're fighting to the last because you have to prove to the do-gooders that you're superior to the last, so you keep using your "Exact Revenge" mechanic until you either defeat the opponent from the prone position or pass out trying. Or the hero downs you and then you vanish, making them go "Where did he...?" etc.

Even if you want to give an example of a character who 100% would not use the downed mechanic, then fine, just ignore it and go to the hospital or rez yourself using powers or something if you want to. That doesn't rule it out or prove it's bad just because SOME specific toon(s) might not really want to use it. If you were going to do that, you could rule almost everything else about the game out on that same basis as well. You could rule out character levels on the basis of "My toon is an eternal who has always lived and will live forever." nice concept, but the game is still going to make that toon start at level 1 like everyone else, as far as I know.

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

Stalker
Stalker's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 4 months ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 05/21/2014 - 20:28
There wasn't an argument made

There wasn't an argument made that the downed state does not fit the super genre, but rather that it's a system that does the same thing as reserve resurrect, and that at times, and depending on implementation, it can be immersion breaking. Call of duty had last stand, which worked for me because it still killed you from hyper-lethal damage. Explosives, shotgun to the face, sniper rifles all bypassed it, so it felt like it fit. Blade and Soul however lets you crawl away from murderous ghosts, and wolves in order to focus chi and revive, making it feel like a cheap, shoehorned mechanic. Guildwars2 has enemies continue attacking you, so it's more immersive in that sense, so after reading up on the mechanic you were referring to vs what I was thinking of, that's one of my concerns gone. I still have trouble seeing the mechanic as necessary when reserves exist, but without direct dev input on the matter, it's hard to say if reserves are even going to be as strong as a small awaken.

Again, I would LOVE to see a "tears of denial/Second chance" (Dark souls 2/Demon's souls) buff or a "downed but not out" type power available in power sets as a choice players can make in some kind of "resilience" tertiary pool as choices, as both of those would be fun to play around with on various builds. Especially if power synergy allowed one to effectively "survive" self destruction powers. I LIKE the mechanic. I just don't think it's necessary to be built in to every character with the existence of Reserves.

Stalkers don't die: They simply... Disappear.

dreamcatcher
dreamcatcher's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 2 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/03/2013 - 17:12
On the downed but not out

On the downed but not out concept, I find myself thinking "what else could the devs be doing?" While I agree that it would be thematic, and in my opinion inarguably so, I don't see enough gameplay value in the mechanic to justify putting it in. Ultimately that's an MWM decision, of course, but if I try to put myself in their shoes, I see a list of things much more important scrolling before my eyes. Maybe they can put a mini-demo of it in the alpha/beta and see how people respond *shrug*

As for the death penalty versus living reward system, we've given them plenty of food for thought, and I still stand by my earlier assertion.

The only new input I have at this point in time, is to touch on the contribution = reward sub-topic that's surfaced, which probably deserves it's own thread.

If MWM go the route of choosing to reward players by how much they did while alive only, then I implore them to design it carefully and to test it thoroughly. When determining contribution, do not base it solely on damage dealt or even aggro (depending on how you work your aggro system).

I normally play damage dealers so this issue has seldom affected me personally, with the notable exception of CO, but my MMO history is littered with complaints by healers and buffers about not getting loot or experience from bosses, especially world or event bosses, because they didn't do any or enough damage to the mob in question. This also affects DPS classes in events with no AoE, or AoE that takes so long to cast the enemy dies before it goes off. Games where I know this was an issue: CO (in everything during the early days when they introduced their first healing-themed powerset); Star Wars ToR (world and raids); FFXIV (fates); GW2 (dynamic events).

In short, base any contribution=reward mechanic on all types of contribution, including healing, buffing, and locking down adds (etc.) while someone else wails on the boss. I suspect part of the reason CoT gave rewards even when dead was because this is a lot more complex than it seems.

of Phoenix Rising
Am I

Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 20 hours 18 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
I agree with dreamcatcher and

I agree with dreamcatcher and would add that I think just being in the area of the event or whatever for a long enough time ought to count for something, of that could be tracked. I mean, if I'm just standing there in the crossfire of the event that's going on, not really trying to do the event, but subject to getting attacked by the mobs, taking AoE damage from the "avoid the green stuff" it might have, etc then I'm helping the cause of getting the event to succeed simply by giving the baddies something else to attack, and I'm at risk of getting defeated whether or not I bother to aggro anything or attack a mob that's part of the event. I could be walking around the area looking for an Exploration Badge marker and then an event spawns on top of me. Even if all I do is walk around trying to find that darn marker for 5 minutes, I'm still liable to get hit a lot and thus distract the event mobs, and I'm still liable to take damage and possibly get defeated, whether I'm actually trying to participate in the event or not. That amount of exposure to the event could, I feel, count as enough that I should get some level of reward from the event. If event rewards are strictly all or zero, I'd still give "all" to people who only stayed in the area and ignored the event, or tried to, assuming they were there for the required time.

You can't be in two places at once in a game like this, and events will spawn in different places all the time, so trying to milk them for profits is still difficult, becuae you have to know where they're firing off and when, which we might not tell players ahead of time to the point where they could plan it ahead all that well, or if they can, you could make events fire off at the same time in different places a lot to curtail "barely participating in the event" farming, if it can even be called that.

This of course requires the events to have a defined area (or better, volume, in 3D) that the game tracks players inside of and that the game in some way tracks each player's time in that area.

So when the Giant Monster spawns, if you were within a certain distance of it, which might be an aura it has, you get credited with participation in some way. Since it could walk around, you might have to follow it to get participation enough to get rewards, such that if you're just wandering by, then you might not get the participation. If it does its Foot Stomp AoE attack or Radioactive Breath, and it hits you, you get participation for that too. Clearly the monster is factoring the fact that it hit you into it's targeting decisions, so you may as well be in the event even if you never wanted to be.

This is also a better way to track who should get event rewards without forcing people to join PUG teams in order to not get shorted.

I think GW2 works like this. I've had events happen near me that I never really lifted a finger to help and didn't even really know where they were or what was going in, but then it gets solved by the people doign it and presto, I got some Karma and coin, just for being in the same area during that time. That game seems to dole out the rewards based on success and participation level, as far as I can tell. When an event is over, you get either Bronze, Silver or Gold rewards (with a graphic of a Medal) and some drops of various kinds. For some larger events, like theTequatl dragon event, you get separate reward drops for separate parts of the larger event. If you successfully defend the lazer batteries the first time, you get a reward drop, if you successfully defend them the second time, you get another, at the end, you get the BIG reward drop for defeating the dragon itself, etc.

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 46 min ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
One of the things that

One of the things that frustrated me the most with The Elder Scrolls Online was just what you mention, Radiac. In fact, it frustrated me so much it was what caused me to quit playing the game.

To wit, being close enough for an event to get credit for it without participating in it. I can't tell you how many times I would do the five prerequisite quests in the story chain and then go into the instance to fight the boss and I get into the instance right when a group of players defeat it. I got credit and I never even saw the damned boss. For those of you who haven't played TESO, the instances are not private, they are public for everyone meeting the criteria for it.

That made me so angry and frustrated and unsatisfied.

So, if we are going to give credit to players for being 'near' an event, I would like to see it be done smarter than was done for TESO. Some of the suggestions you gave, Radiac, make sense. If you actually get affected by the monsters, or get aggro somehow by some of the participants in it, then I can see getting credit. And I am of the mind that unless the devs can flawlessly calculate the amount of participation it is better for all concerned to give full credit to all participants.


I like to take your ideas and supersize them. This isn't criticism, it is flattery. I come with nothing but good will and a spirit of team-building. If you take what I write any other way, that is probably just because I wasn't very clear.
Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 20 hours 18 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
One thing I have noticed

One thing I have noticed about GW2, now that you mention it, is that when you do certain story content (Living World Season 3), it sends you to an outdoor zone that is only accessible from the story. That is, you have to click on "Do this story" to be able to go to the zone and do the thing (and its money gated, you have to pay for it). But when you get there, you're sharing that instance with everyone else. It's basically just another outdoor zone that only those who paid can access. In CoX, you did outdoor instances all by yourself if you weren't on a team, and got to defeat the boss at your own pace, as you were on the hook to do it alone, or with whatever help you could recruit. In GW2's Living World content, you're in there doing the mission, but so is everyone else, and they're all in different places in the story. You might have a task like "give all the widgets to the widget collector NPC until he has enough to make the superwidget" and when you go to do that, you find out that the guy in front of you just gave the NPC the last widget he needed, and that NPC has cycled "off" now and you'll have to wait for the content to reset to do the next round. I don't see why this type of content has to be public like that when it's pretty clearly better treated as a private mission in the first place. Maybe they cant support that many different instances, I don't know. CoX never had a problem with it.

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

Wolfgang8565
Wolfgang8565's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 19 hours ago
Joined: 10/31/2014 - 14:51
Is there gonna be a CoT

Is there gonna be a CoT version of Rest?

Fireheart
Fireheart's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 hours 32 min ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/05/2013 - 13:45
That's an excellent question!

That's an excellent question! Perhaps you should put in the Q&A thread?

Be Well!
Fireheart

Lin Chiao Feng
Lin Chiao Feng's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 1 week ago
Developerkickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/02/2013 - 09:27
Rest? The Rest I'm thinking

Rest? The Rest I'm thinking of is probably not what you meant, though I for one would love to see it in the game just for all the support-tool opportunities it opens up.

Has anyone seen my mind? It was right here...

Fireheart
Fireheart's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 hours 32 min ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/05/2013 - 13:45
It would be good, if Customer

It would be good, if Customer Support had potent tools at their fingertips, but I suspect Wolfgang meant https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Inherent_Powers#Rest

On the other hand, a lot of games simply substitute a very fast recovery state when out of combat. I do know there have been times, playing those games, when what I really wanted was to step back from the circus and take a knee for a few moments.

Be Well!
Fireheart

Wolfgang8565
Wolfgang8565's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 19 hours ago
Joined: 10/31/2014 - 14:51
Fireheart wrote:
Fireheart wrote:

That's an excellent question! Perhaps you should put in the Q&A thread?
Be Well!
Fireheart

Done!

:p

Lin Chiao Feng
Lin Chiao Feng's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 1 week ago
Developerkickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/02/2013 - 09:27
Fireheart wrote:
Fireheart wrote:

It would be good, if Customer Support had potent tools at their fingertips,

I wasn't talking about Customer Support, though their stuff might use this internally. I was talking about as an offline interface for third party tools to your character data and such. Hero planners, progress trackers, gear bragging, whatever.

But yeah, the power makes more sense. Thing is, in CoH, many builds pretty much had to have the Stamina power, and you didn't need Rest much past the lower levels.

Has anyone seen my mind? It was right here...

JayBezz
JayBezz's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 3 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/08/2013 - 14:54
I'd like my character to just

I'd like my character to just fall out of combat on a timer (that can be lowered with player action or teammate action) thus giving characters differing rez patterns in combat. If there's a complete wipe your character can rez in place (where they fell) with some temporary agro-stealth, resetting the enemies.

Crowd Control Enthusiast

Wolfgang8565
Wolfgang8565's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 19 hours ago
Joined: 10/31/2014 - 14:51
JayBezz wrote:
JayBezz wrote:

I'd like my character to just fall out of combat on a timer (that can be lowered with player action or teammate action) thus giving characters differing rez patterns in combat. If there's a complete wipe your character can rez in place (where they fell) with some temporary agro-stealth, resetting the enemies.

This made me think of Borderlands. When your health is gone, you seem to pass out, allowing another player to revive you and if the timer runs out then you have to respawn somewhere else. Wouldn't it be great if when someone's health went down you could, in a very short window of time, reawaken them?

Not sure if im making sense I don't recall the terminology for that.

zyric
zyric's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 2 days ago
Joined: 08/18/2014 - 06:21
I'm jumping into this

I'm jumping into this discussion a little late, but I wanted to share my thoughts on the rolling counter and defeat. While fighting someone who has killed 100 or 1000 of your compatriots can be terrifying it is just as terrifying to think you have defeated him and then have him explode into a firewall torching everyone around him. For this reason I think if you do use a self heal power, such as Rise of the Phoenix, you shouldn't reset the counter or if you use the method Lin suggested:

Lin Chiao Feng wrote:

Regarding the defeat-count mechanism mentioned by Redlynne and Huckleberry, rather than making it an overly simplistic counter with two events:

defeat a mob: count = count + 1
defeated by mob: count = 0
count ≥ threshold: get reward or access
instead use a sliding reputation scale, where the "counter" can be bumped in either direction by various things:

defeat a minion: count = count + 1
defeat a lieutenant: count = count + 4
defeat a boss: count = count + 10
defeat an elite boss: count = count + 40
defeated by a minion: count = count - 1000
defeated by a lieutenant: count = count - 500
defeated by a boss: count = count - 150
defeated by an elite boss: count = count - 40
part of a team: scale credit or penalty by team size
count ≥ 1000: mobs fear you, what they say changes, more eager to attack (He killed Kenny!)
count ≥ 20000: content unlocked, mobs less eager to attack without overwhelming advantage
count = 50000 (cap): title unlocked
count ≤ -1000: mobs mock you, extra eager to attack (I'm bored; let's mess him up. He's easy!)
count ≤ -20000: mobs pity you, less eager to attack you if they outnumber you (Yeah, we tag Goodwill stores and club baby seals, but we're not that evil)
count = -50000 (cap): mobs bump into you and knock you down for jollies but otherwise ignore you unless you attack
This totally puts the hurt on pride, like Huckleberry pointed out.

You should loose less rep than if you rezzed a different way.

Part of the problem with having a binary yes/no defeat counter is that it discourages certain types of play styles. In COH I saw people who would run into a room over flowing with minions, self-destruct, and then Rise of the Phoenix. This effectively cleared the room of most if not all of the minions which allowed the group to kill the boss or progress on with the mission. This was particularly effective in the mission where the demon gate kept summoning demons until you closed it. If your group wiped, by the time you got back to the room, it was completely full of minions which made it exceeding difficult to close the gate without resetting the mission. By doing the self-destruct and Rise of the Phoenix, it allowed you to clear the room enough you could actually close the gate and continue on with the mission.

Cinnder
Cinnder's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 42 min ago
Gunterkickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 08/26/2013 - 16:24
zyric wrote:
zyric wrote:

In COH I saw people who would run into a room over flowing with minions, self-destruct, and then Rise of the Phoenix. This effectively cleared the room of most if not all of the minions which allowed the group to kill the boss or progress on with the mission. This was particularly effective in the mission where the demon gate kept summoning demons until you closed it. If your group wiped, by the time you got back to the room, it was completely full of minions which made it exceeding difficult to close the gate without resetting the mission. By doing the self-destruct and Rise of the Phoenix, it allowed you to clear the room enough you could actually close the gate and continue on with the mission.

That's an excellent example of defeat as a perfectly viable part of a valid play style, and why many of us believe that defeat should not come with a draconian penalty.

Spurn all ye kindle.

Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 20 hours 18 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
The only reason anyone used

The only reason anyone used getting defeated, on purpose, as a play style was because there were powers that required you to die to use them, or required dead bodies of allies to work (like Vengeance). If you made Fire AoE powers and team buff powers like those, but without the need for someone to get defeated, then there's no longer any need to commit suicide as part of your win strategy. Since there's no really pressing reason to tie defeat to the ability to activate a power, there's no really pressing need for using defeat as a strategy, is there? If the devs simply don't make powers that require you or a friend to be defeated to be able to activate them, then you won't have any reason to get defeated on purpose as a part of your strategy, right?

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

Nyxz
Nyxz's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 1 day ago
Joined: 10/09/2015 - 03:37
But then I would have lost

But then I would have lost all reasons to create Susie Sital - The Suicide Queen.

Wolfgang8565
Wolfgang8565's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 19 hours ago
Joined: 10/31/2014 - 14:51
Nyxz wrote:
Nyxz wrote:

But then I would have lost all reasons to create Susie Sital - The Suicide Queen.

Haha brilliant name.

I like the idea of having powers that require death. Vengeance was awesome. And in an RP sense, a lot of dark gloomy players would love to have abilities that require or depend on the concept of being dead.

Cobalt Azurean
Cobalt Azurean's picture
Offline
Last seen: 58 min 26 sec ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/03/2013 - 16:39
Wolfgang8565 wrote:
Wolfgang8565 wrote:

Vengeance was awesome

I really enjoyed the benefits of Vengeance, but I wasn't a fan of the name. Vengeance seems so... one-dimensional and reflective of a vindictive response. I'd call it 'Dig Deep' or 'Final Push' or 'Rally Cry' or 'Once More' or 'Unto The Breach'.

Pages