Permanent Item Damage and Death Penalty changes

[CSFurious]

i am not talking about ww or stk @ levels 3-5

i am talking about gianthold or desert quests @ levels 9, 10, & 11 on norm or hard, i doubt i would ever go into those quests with unknowns again if this change is implemented (if i did go in there with unknowns, they would be on a very short leash)

it is a shame too because from what i have read in the risia-thread, mod 6 looks incredible

Under the Turbine system, new players take very little damage, like 3% max at 3rd level. Damage is hardly noticeable at lvl 3, pretty much non existent for levels before that.

Under the community's system is based off how many times you die. Double the amount of deaths. 2 deaths = 4% damage.

The communities system is much more equitable for all levels IMO.

[Hendrik]

i am not talking about ww or stk @ levels 3-5

i am talking about gianthold or desert quests @ levels 9, 10, & 11 on norm or hard, i doubt i would ever go into those quests with unknowns again if this change is implemented (if i did go in there with unknowns, they would be on a very short leash)

it is a shame too because from what i have read in the risia-thread, mod 6 looks incredible

My misunderstanding, sorry.

And CS, yes, Keeper did some AMAZING work on the Vale.

I find myself standing there and just looking around. It's a sight to see!!!!

[totmacher]

It would be nice if the poll of the week was all of the popular options/interpretations for the death penalty, there have been many good suggestions in this thread and it's a shame to let them all go to waste. Like the 2%, 4%, 6%, 8% and 10% system based on how many times you have died.

That would probably get the best slice of feedback when it comes to what is perceived as a "nerf" or necessary "re-balancing of a broken game concept"... I would certainly be willing to compromise on a death penalty but 10% at cap is fairly extreme, especially with binding removing items from the economy/swapping between toons.

What do you think devs? New poll, please?

[Hendrik]

It would be nice if the poll of the week was all of the popular options/interpretations for the death penalty, there have been many good suggestions in this thread and it's a shame to let them all go to waste. Like the 2%, 4%, 6%, 8% and 10% system based on how many times you have died.

That would probably get the best slice of feedback when it comes to what is perceived as a "nerf" or necessary "re-balancing of a broken game concept"... I would certainly be willing to compromise on a death penalty but 10% at cap is fairly extreme, especially with binding removing items from the economy/swapping between toons.

What do you think devs? New poll, please?

The patriarch of the Eladrin Tribe has said he saw MT's idea and liked it for its simplicity. He was going to talk to Codog about it today. Hope we get a post listing what came from that meeting...

[MysticTheurge]

What do you think devs? New poll, please?

Polling the customer base before they've even had a chance to see a thing in action generally seems like a wasted effort.

Few people, if any, are actually going to be making an informed decision. Most are going to be responding solely in a reactionary fashion.

[Ron]

the enhancements system was different in that the main agrument was whether the system would allow you to specialize like tyou used to with 4 enhancements. This issue has the possibility of being much more polarizing as it is pitting 2 styles of play against another, and those who think death should hurt, and those who think a video game should not be painful to play no matter how close to the rules it becomes by doing so.

I would argue (once again) that part of what makes a game fun is the risk involved. Yeah, it's gonna hurt to die, nobody likes to be killed and take the consequences of the risk. But that's what makes the rewards all the sweeter.

I get that there is a certain segment of the population that LIKES to play without a death penalty. However, MOST people do not, they find it boring and pointless (in support of this argument I turn your attention to other games that have tried the "no death penalty" route. The only two active ones that I know of are children's games (SIMS and that Disney one). The one adult one that I know of that tried it failed miserably, Auto Assault). The "No Death Penalty" doesn't really work for most people, they need to have a certain amount of fear (for lack of a better word) to keep things interesting. That's part of the fun.

Now, what has happened with this game is that once you hit 14, there is no death penalty. And everyone who is in the "pointless and boring" camp got bored and left. What we have remaining (and I know I'm generalizing, it doesn't apply to everyone) is the camp that LIKES the no death penalty situation. That's why there is such vocal oppostion to this, I suspect. Everyone who was here who would have been in favor of this system is gone. They left long ago.

So the question is, given that, is it wise to antagonize the group you have left and implement one now? I would argue "yes". Yeah, some people will leave for other games (where they are going to go I have no clue, since there is no non-trivial game that doesn't have a penalty in some fasion). But in order to bring in a new population (and keep them), you need to have that penalty there to keep things interesting for them. The population of this game is NEVER going to rise with the system we have in place now, at best it would remain stable. By giving players a certain amount of excitement (in the form of risk) at the cap, we can keep more of them around than we would otherwise, and this game has a chance to actually increase it's population levels.

Yes, it will change how this game is played, to an extent. I honestly don't think that's a bad thing. The LAST thing we need is more people sitting bored at the cap.

Anyway, that's my argument

[totmacher]

Polling the customer base before they've even had a chance to see a thing in action generally seems like a wasted effort.

Few people, if any, are actually going to be making an informed decision. Most are going to be responding solely in a reactionary fashion.

No, it shows that you can trust your base to consider the issue at hand and make a choice about it either way. I think a lot of people would accept a death penalty that was mostly reasonable. Finding a "mostly reasonable" one is what that poll would do.

[MysticTheurge]

No, it shows that you can trust your base to consider the issue at hand and make a choice about it either way.

I'm generally what you might consider an "optimist" but I tend to have little faith in "the general public" when it comes to carefully considering issues and thinking before leaping to conclusions.

But who knows, maybe I'm the only one who feels that way.

[The_Phenx]

I know this has been mentioned already but I strongly think death penalty and item wear should not be related to one another in any way whatsoever.

If a mage hits my character with finger of death or PK, there isn't even any logical reason for items to get damaged. I just don't see why death would equal automatic damage while you can fight for a whole hour and not get damaged at all, makes no sense to link the two together.

Agreed 10,000%. What does death have to do with item wear. I can not fathom how this is in any way a positive or realistic change.

Are we supposed to believe that the monsters have taken time in the middle of a fight to stop and wreck all our gear out of spite? I killed you...HA now I wreck your stuff while your friends are stabbing me.

This gear damage effect should only occur on a party wipe... then the baddies might be justified in their abuse of our corpses.

Of course ALL of this could be remedied with master craftsmen who can for a price (and maybe a steep one) be able to remove permanent damage from your gear. Then you wouldn't need any of the complicated hoo-ha, or binding... etc.

My $.02

[Hendrik]

I'm generally what you might consider an "optimist" but I tend to have little faith in "the general public" when it comes to carefully considering issues and thinking before leaping to conclusions.

But who knows, maybe I'm the only one who feels that way.

Nope.

A person can be very smart. It's when you put a lot of them together and then they become dangerous.

[The_Phenx]

Now, what has happened with this game is that once you hit 14, there is no death penalty. And everyone who is in the "pointless and boring" camp got bored and left.

I think most people left because of lack of new content, and problems with the content that was released.

And yes a death penalty is a good thing. It just needs to make sence.

I also think once the bugs are all ironed out and the new systems are in place Turbine should do a new media blitz with a giant paid update. I own an ad company, and its what I would do.

[ArkoHighStar]

I would argue (once again) that part of what makes a game fun is the risk involved. Yeah, it's gonna hurt to die, nobody likes to be killed and take the consequences of the risk. But that's what makes the rewards all the sweeter.

I get that there is a certain segment of the population that LIKES to play without a death penalty. However, MOST people do not, they find it boring and pointless (in support of this argument I turn your attention to other games that have tried the "no death penalty" route. The only two active ones that I know of are children's games (SIMS and that Disney one). The one adult one that I know of that tried it failed miserably, Auto Assault). The "No Death Penalty" doesn't really work for most people, they need to have a certain amount of fear (for lack of a better word) to keep things interesting. That's part of the fun.

Now, what has happened with this game is that once you hit 14, there is no death penalty. And everyone who is in the "pointless and boring" camp got bored and left. What we have remaining (and I know I'm generalizing, it doesn't apply to everyone) is the camp that LIKES the no death penalty situation. That's why there is such vocal oppostion to this, I suspect. Everyone who was here who would have been in favor of this system is gone. They left long ago.

So the question is, given that, is it wise to antagonize the group you have left and implement one now? I would argue "yes". Yeah, some people will leave for other games (where they are going to go I have no clue, since there is no non-trivial game that doesn't have a penalty in some fasion). But in order to bring in a new population (and keep them), you need to have that penalty there to keep things interesting for them. The population of this game is NEVER going to rise with the system we have in place now, at best it would remain stable. By giving players a certain amount of excitement (in the form of risk) at the cap, we can keep more of them around than we would otherwise, and this game has a chance to actually increase it's population levels.

Yes, it will change how this game is played, to an extent. I honestly don't think that's a bad thing. The LAST thing we need is more people sitting bored at the cap.

Anyway, that's my argument

Your assumption Ron is that you are in the majority, and we really don't know either way. This system wil be a big hit with one segment of the population, and loathed by the other, and just as you claim people left this game because of xp debt, you will see people leave due to the change making their gaming experience no longer fun. The real question is how many people will leave. and it seems fairly evident that most who are against it, myself included will leave if the system is implemented with item damage in place. We will just have to wait and see just how many people that is and whether it will influence Turbine in any way. If we are indeed in the minority and Turbines gets new players ot balance out our loss then good luck and enjoy your new game. If Turbine sees a negative impact to subscriber numbers then they will either have to act or accept lower subscriber numbers and toil on.

[miceelf88]

There may be a 'grand(er)' design in play here...

The Devs have mentioned that the items created in the new system are pretty 'neat'. If by neat they mean they are equivalent to present items and are more customizable to character playstyle then this discussion may be moot. Players will be able to replace their degrading equipment with comparable Eldridge forged items.

Also, methinks that the xp debt is being dropped because:

- increase probability that the new quests are gonna kill characters more often.
- the xp of the new quests is not going to be as high as we would expect so as to increase the time spent leveling.
- traps are gonna kill quite a few people on hard and elite in the new mod.

Of course this is pure speculation Ahh the speculation....

But if the goal is to be more newbie friendly, and to have the new system hurt much less at low levels than at high levels, it's exactly backward. The new content is mostly high level, right? And that's precisely the levels at which death in the new system is going to hurt much MORE than death in the old system. I barely play my high level cleric as it is. With the new system, I'll just play him even less.

[ArkoHighStar]

But if the goal is to be more newbie friendly, and to have the new system hurt much less at low levels than at high levels, it's exactly backward. The new content is mostly high level, right? And that's precisely the levels at which death in the new system is going to hurt much MORE than death in the old system. I barely play my high level cleric as it is. With the new system, I'll just play him even less.

that is why I suggested increasing penalties by quest difficulty and not level, as all level based systems in thsi game have needed to be reworked at least once

[Hendrik]

Your assumption Ron is that you are in the majority, and we really don't know either way. This system wil be a big hit with one segment of the population, and loathed by the other, and just as you claim people left this game because of xp debt, you will see people leave due to the change making their gaming experience no longer fun. The real question is how many people will leave. and it seems fairly evident that most who are against it, myself included will leave if the system is implemented with item damage in place. We will just have to wait and see just how many people that is and whether it will influence Turbine in any way. If we are indeed in the minority and Turbines gets new players ot balance out our loss then good luck and enjoy your new game. If Turbine sees a negative impact to subscriber numbers then they will either have to act or accept lower subscriber numbers and toil on.

I'm going to be sad to see you go Arko.

[miceelf88]

The one poll that WOULD make sense (unless the devs have already made their mind up about it, which I really hope isn't the case) would be a set of questions about the CURRENT (i.e., xp debt) penalty, along with some options. Such as:

Fine as is
Too lenient
Too harsh.
Too harsh at low levels and lenient when capped,

etc.

I am just not convinced that the main reason most people who leave, leave, is because of xp debt. Eladrin says he got lots of complaints about it from newbies, and I am getting the sense that his mind is made up (at least about changing from the current system), but I just wonder if it was a few vocal people who didn't get the memo that this isn't WOW, or if it was consistent complaint.

Most of the casual/new players I know who left, left because it was hard to find groups that were patient with them and not zerging and/or because of bad PUG experience more generally (or because of unviability of solo play). Or just frustration. Those are all things that made me consider leaving. But xp debt in particular? I just don't see it as a very common complaint as the "#1 reason for leaving" or whatever.

I don't see the new system making existing players more newbie friendly, making solo play more viable, or reducing the frustration factor. If newer/casual players who somehow made it to level 8 or 9 got screamed at before when they screwed up or made tactical errors, I don't see this helping AT ALL.

I really hope the devs will reconsider.

[Marabias]

As much as my post will be lost in the drowning pool of other posts I will have to say I do not like the idea of a death penalty that is tied to item damage. Most of my deaths happen for 2 reasons. Game bugs/lag that’s beyond anyone’s control or because I joined a bad pug. Lucky for me I can stop joining pugs, can't stop the lag or other game bugs though. The binding idea is like icing on the cake. I don't understand why there is a sudden desire to get us to bind our gear. Ether you want us to stop putting used gear on the AH, or you want us to stop passing our gear to guildies or you don't want us to pass our gear to our rerolls. I don't really understand the idea behind this at all. I will give it a go as most people will. But this item damage stuff looks like the last straw for a number of people.

[Ron]

Your assumption Ron is that you are in the majority, and we really don't know either way. This system wil be a big hit with one segment of the population, and loathed by the other, and just as you claim people left this game because of xp debt, you will see people leave due to the change making their gaming experience no longer fun. The real question is how many people will leave. and it seems fairly evident that most who are against it, myself included will leave if the system is implemented with item damage in place. We will just have to wait and see just how many people that is and whether it will influence Turbine in any way. If we are indeed in the minority and Turbines gets new players ot balance out our loss then good luck and enjoy your new game. If Turbine sees a negative impact to subscriber numbers then they will either have to act or accept lower subscriber numbers and toil on.

Yep, I agree 100%. These are the big questions. Only time will tell, I suppose, heh.

Although just to clarify. I don't think people left *because* of the xp debt. They left because xp debt is meaningless at the cap, and therefore death is meaningless, which results in boredom, which THEN results in them leaving the game.

[GeneralDiomedes]

Agreed 10,000%. What does death have to do with item wear. I can not fathom how this is in any way a positive or realistic change.

There are a lot of game mechanics that aren't realistic. Explain how my body disappears and soul stone appears upon death. How can I release from a dungeon and teleport to a bind point? Why does Raise Dead work without a body? Why doesn't lava destroy all of my equipment? How can I recall from a dungeon at all?

The point is, there is no other mechanic that I can think of that actually punishes a capped character, who at that point is mainly after loot. Do we randomly strip away favor? Start to chip away at your stats? Start to make your soul a bit 'thin' so that you no longer benefit from morale effects? Let's hear your ideas.

It basically embarrases me to think that Dungeons and freakin' Dragons has the weakest death penalty of all the fantasy MMOs.

[miceelf88]

This is not meant at all as in any way a criticism of Marabias- who seems like a standup guy or gal, but his quote highlighted exactly the problem with the new system from teh perspective of the casual/slow/newbie gamer:

"Most of my deaths happen for 2 reasons. Game bugs/lag that’s beyond anyone’s control or because I joined a bad pug. Lucky for me I can stop joining pugs, can't stop the lag or other game bugs though."

It's the only logical way to respond to the new system. BUT, it's going to hurt pugs. I don't fault the better players for taking this tack, as it makes complete sense for them to do so. But just look at that again:

"I can stop joining pugs"

Is this really what the devs want?