Let's talk EXP debt death penalty, at max level.

Wellspring

Taken from the chat of the Lassiz dev stream:

"joppa_vr: Currently lose exp on death, and will accumulate exp debt instead of losing the level."

Now, that it has been confirmed as the "current" system, but certainly not set in stone... What are everyone's thoughts on exp debt, instead of losing a level -- specifically in regards to max-level game play?

For levels 1-49, the exp debt (instead of losing a level) seems sufficient.

However, taking the system at face value, after reaching max level 50, there's no reason to accumulate exp. Where's the death penalty now?


Below is just my experience (feel free to disagree or share your own):

Using my experience in Vanguard at launch as an example, once people hit max level, the exp debt penalty meant nothing. There was no reason to worry about getting a rez anymore. Eventually, you'd max out your exp debt at -200% and that was it. Simply ignore it for the rest of your gaming, or until a month or 2 before the expansion (which in Vanguard's case, they didn't raise the max level until way after everyone in my guild quit playing anyways).


In Conclusion:

Are you fine with the exp debt penalty being rendered "obsolete" at max-level? And if not, does anyone have any ideas on how the exp penalty can be adjusted to still be meaningful at lvl 50 gameplay?

Sovrath

Are you sure there isn't something in place for max level players?

This just sounds to me like you are listening to them regarding the general death penalty but nothing has been said regarding fine details.

To that end, "yes" there should be some sort of level loss or penalty at top level. "in my opinion".

Lokero

Well, I absolutely despise level loss... at least at max level.  I don't mind it earlier on.
I definitely prefer some type of debt at max level over it.

However, they definitely need to find a punishment at max level that actually matters.  This could be as simple as multiplying stat debuffs per so many % of debt.  However, debuffs can potentially be a royal nuisance for people mid-raid, etc., so they'd have to account for that.

Point being that they should come up with a separate system for max level than they have for prior ones, in my opinion.

Just say no to level loss at end-game  

Amathe

When I played EQ, fear of losing a level was very real. Any time I leveled I would be extra cautious for a while until I had my "safety bubble" to absorb any deaths. This is one of many features I only ever encountered in Everquest, and I guess I just assumed it would be in Pantheon. 

What I can't speak to is what happens to max level characters, because I never had a max level character in EQ. [Close, but no cigar]. 

While I am a big fan of the game I confess I was a little sad to see that de-leveling was out - or seems to be. 

jpedrote52

Completly agree, there should be de-leveling at least  at max level, otherwise XP loss on death looses it's purpose at max level. 

Mendel

One of the most memorable times I had in EQ1 was when I *dinged* 27th level about 2 dozen times.  It was a learning experience trying to figure out aggro without a character that could actually taunt or take damage and non-effective healing.  (Enchanter(me), Monk and Druid).  I could easily out agro the others with a slow.  We needed slow to have a chance against the mobs we were fighting (lions in S. Karana).   Neither the druid or I could DoT, without sacrificing the possibility of mezzing.  The druid had difficulty in keeping either the monk or I healed.  At that particular time, root was too unreliable to use as we frequently had adds strung out all over the North half of the zone.  That didn't work so well for me.  (This probably happened around Aug/Sep 99).

But despite that episode, losing levels is okay with me.  It is preferable to experience debt by a long way.  It makes a better memory, anyway.

Wizardry

#1 I hate any focus on max level play ,especially before a game is even out.

#2 I would like to see everything based on skills,so if you die that is
a sign that points to lack of skill,therefore dying means you lose skills.
So for example you have a 220 rating with a sword but die while using a sword,so your sword skill might drop according to how much the battle was a challenge.

Die to an even strength foe,you lose several skill points,maybe 6-8 points in sword skill.Was a too easy foe then lose 10 points of skill,,a +2 foe then only lose maybe 3-4 points sword skill.


The second part is a temporary injured status,meaning all your skills are lowered for a short time while you recover.So Agi.INT.STR/DEX all down 10 point for a minute,then maybe diminishes to -5 for another 1-2 minutes,until only -2 stats for another minute ,then back to full health.

Wellspring

Sovrath said:

Are you sure there isn't something in place for max level players?

This just sounds to me like you are listening to them regarding the general death penalty but nothing has been said regarding fine details.

To that end, "yes" there should be some sort of level loss or penalty at top level. "in my opinion".

Correct, all we can go by is the info provided so far. And how the exp debt system worked in Vanguard (which is an inspiration and was also created by Brad McQuaid).

Nothing is set in stone at the moment, and I'm sure they have a lot of details to work out.

I'm just trying to bring some awareness of the possible shortcoming to the exp debt system, so that max-level isn't an afterthought (like it appears to have been in Vanguard).

Soki123

Wizardry said:

#1 I hate any focus on max level play ,especially before a game is even out.

#2 I would like to see everything based on skills,so if you die that is
a sign that points to lack of skill,therefore dying means you lose skills.
So for example you have a 220 rating with a sword but die while using a sword,so your sword skill might drop according to how much the battle was a challenge.

Die to an even strength foe,you lose several skill points,maybe 6-8 points in sword skill.Was a too easy foe then lose 10 points of skill,,a +2 foe then only lose maybe 3-4 points sword skill.


The second part is a temporary injured status,meaning all your skills are lowered for a short time while you recover.So Agi.INT.STR/DEX all down 10 point for a minute,then maybe diminishes to -5 for another 1-2 minutes,until only -2 stats for another minute ,then back to full health.

1. blah blah blah
 
2.blah blah blah

Wellspring

Wizardry said:

#1 I hate any focus on max level play ,especially before a game is even out.

I get it. "Enjoy the adventure, don't focus on the end game."

But don't be short-sighted. Vanguard launched w/ that philosophy (0 raid content, no quests past lvl 40, the exp debt system described) and look how that turned out.

When designing a system as important as the death exp penalty, you have to take into account all levels of play -- especially max level. Because after the first X amount of time it takes to initially level up, max level play is what everyone will be experiencing from then on out.

Sovrath

Wellspring said:

Wizardry said:

#1 I hate any focus on max level play ,especially before a game is even out.

I get it. "Enjoy the adventure, don't focus on the end game."

But don't be short-sighted. Vanguard launched w/ that philosophy (0 raid content, no quests past lvl 40, the exp debt system described) and look how that turned out.

When designing a system as important as the death exp penalty, you have to take into account all levels of play -- especially max level. Because after the first X amount of time it takes to initially level up, max level play is what everyone will be experiencing from then on out.

Though ... Vanguard was sort of rushed out without really being finished.

Wizardry

Wellspring said:

Wizardry said:

#1 I hate any focus on max level play ,especially before a game is even out.

I get it. "Enjoy the adventure, don't focus on the end game."

But don't be short-sighted. Vanguard launched w/ that philosophy (0 raid content, no quests past lvl 40, the exp debt system described) and look how that turned out.

When designing a system as important as the death exp penalty, you have to take into account all levels of play -- especially max level. Because after the first X amount of time it takes to initially level up, max level play is what everyone will be experiencing from then on out.

Sorry but you just supported MY argument not your own.
SHORT sighted would be to aim at ONE particular topic like END game,which is or should be LESS than 1% of a GAME.
The other guys bla bla bla is embarrassing,not even the common decency to state his opinion just an immature response,i would think an adult is better than that,idk maybe hes not an adult so i should excuse him.

Mylan12

Amathe said:

When I played EQ, fear of losing a level was very real. Any time I leveled I would be extra cautious for a while until I had my "safety bubble" to absorb any deaths. This is one of many features I only ever encountered in Everquest, and I guess I just assumed it would be in Pantheon. 

What I can't speak to is what happens to max level characters, because I never had a max level character in EQ. [Close, but no cigar]. 

While I am a big fan of the game I confess I was a little sad to see that de-leveling was out - or seems to be. 

In real early EQ, they didn't cap experience so after awhile you did not care about getting an experience res in a raid and such. It was only a problem if you just leveled and was close to level 49. Of course later on they raised the level above 50 and took away most of the excess experience and capped experience at the current max level.  I doubt they make that mistake in Pantheon.

Mylan12

Wellspring said:

Taken from the chat of the Lassiz dev stream:

"joppa_vr: Currently lose exp on death, and will accumulate exp debt instead of losing the level."

Now, that it has been confirmed as the "current" system, but certainly not set in stone... What are everyone's thoughts on exp debt, instead of losing a level -- specifically in regards to max-level game play?

For levels 1-49, the exp debt (instead of losing a level) seems sufficient.

However, taking the system at face value, after reaching max level 50, there's no reason to accumulate exp. Where's the death penalty now?


Below is just my experience (feel free to disagree or share your own):

Using my experience in Vanguard at launch as an example, once people hit max level, the exp debt penalty meant nothing. There was no reason to worry about getting a rez anymore. Eventually, you'd max out your exp debt at -200% and that was it. Simply ignore it for the rest of your gaming, or until a month or 2 before the expansion (which in Vanguard's case, they didn't raise the max level until way after everyone in my guild quit playing anyways).


In Conclusion:

Are you fine with the exp debt penalty being rendered "obsolete" at max-level? And if not, does anyone have any ideas on how the exp penalty can be adjusted to still be meaningful at lvl 50 gameplay?

Sort of depends on if they have some alt advancement at max level for extra skills and such and if so will you be able to lose levels in it?  I also assume you would have to die a lot of times to go from max out max level to the next lower level so this would mainly be an issue for people that just leveled and then only if they are in a level locked area (which we don't know will exist in Pantheon like they did in EQ).  In early EQ level 50 experience was not capped so the big worry was getting your corpse as you were on a clock back then.  For me the big reason I didn't want to die in "early" EQ was corpse recovery and not exp loss. So guess it also depends on how they end up doing the corpse thing.
 

acidblood

Level loss could work... but, how does that interact with gear, skills, access to certain features, balance of enemies vs. a 'low' level player, etc.?

For example: Do pieces of gear / skills become 'unusable' if you drop below a certain level? Are they scaled? And what problems would that cause?

Would a level based stat penalty suffice? i.e. Where the penalty is applied on what would be 'level loss', and only removed once the 'level' is regained.

Dullahan

The sting of death is a big part of what keeps the world mysterious and items rare and valuable. At every time the player should have to weigh the chance of dying and loss against potential gains. When you no longer have levels to lose, you can go anywhere and risk everything, essentially gaming the system, because there really is no risk.

Experience and levels should be lost.

malikhigh1978

Two things. If you are going to implement something like this, don't make it exp, that's just going to jack up peoples gearsets, and make people frustrated. Instead, make it a stat levied vitae penalty that they need to earn xp to work off. Secondarily, allow those at max level to bank xp, up to a level, so that IF they die, they don't automatically suffer. Only after repeated mistakes should they suffer. 

1AD7

This topic is of great interest to me.  I was theory crafting for a potential solution awhile back and this is what I came up with:

Spirit Conversion

Spirit Conversion is a concept that could be added to the game for max-level players.  Upon reaching max level, players will no longer be able to lose experience which would nullify an important aspect of the death penalty.  I believe that death should be meaningful at all levels and the idea behind this is to add an additional type of bankable currency (spirit power) to the game that max-level players can lose a portion of in the event of their death.  Spirit power is accumulated by killing NPC's in the game, and the amount awarded would scale based on the NPC's level and whether or not it is a Named or Raid Boss.  I am going to quote the FAQ as a reference point for how VR envisions their death penalty, and will then provide more information on how the system would work.

 

7.0 Will there be a ‘death penalty’?
"We want the player to respect and even fear the environment, but also to be enticed by it. A big part of achieving this balance is making sure there is an incentive to avoid death. While the details of this system are not yet fleshed out (and will likely be tweaked and changed a bit during beta), you can expect death to be something you’d rather avoid. That said, if a death penalty is too severe, it can keep players away from some of the more challenging and rewarding content, and we are keeping this in mind as well. So death will sting, but it will also not involve losing an unreasonable amount of experience, or levels, or a permanent loss of items."

 

The amount of spirit power awarded per NPC would scale higher and higher based on the challenge level of each NPC killed.  Here is a rough outline:

 

(For the sake of discussion, raid bosses would only award full points if they are white con or higher, anything blue-con or lower would be treated as a named group NPC of the same con.  A description of this color con system can be found at the end of this post.)

Contested large raid size boss = 50 spirit power

Contested mid raid size boss = 35 spirit power

Contested small raid size boss = 25 spirit power

Non-Contested large raid size boss = 20 spirit power

Non-Contested mid raid size boss = 15 spirit power

Non-Contested small raid size boss = 10 spirit power

 

Red-Con named group NPC = 8 spirit power

Orange-Con named group NPC = 6 spirit power

Yellow-Con named group NPC = 5 spirit power

White-Con named group NPC = 3 spirit power

Blue-Con named group NPC = 2 spirit power

Green-Con named group NPC = 1 spirit power

 

Red-con group NPC = .5 spirit power

Orange-con group NPC = .4 spirit power

Yellow-con group NPC = .3 spirit power

White-con Group NPC = .2 spirit power

Blue-con Group NPC = .075 spirit power

Green-con Group NPC = .025 spirit power

 

Now that we know how spirit level values could scale, let's consider how this concept could affect the death penalty in greater detail:

 

"We want the player to respect and even fear the environment, but also to be enticed by it.  A big part of achieving this balance is making sure there is an incentive to avoid death."

The spirit conversion concept is literally predicated on the very first sentence.  With this system, players would be forced to respect their environment, but they are also enticed by it because every NPC they kill can offer additional spirit power.  When a player dies, they lose some of that spirit power.  Spirit power can be used to buy something desirable.  I don't want to lose my spirit power!  Sounds like an incentive to avoid death to me!

 

"That said, if a death penalty is too severe, it can keep players away from some of the more challenging and rewarding content, and we are keeping this in mind as well.  So death will sting, but it will also not involve losing an unreasonable amount of experience, or levels, or a permanent loss of items."

This is a great point, and in regards to just how much spirit power would be lost upon death, let's assume a value that could depend on several variables.  Perhaps each death would scale the amount lost.  Let's say it starts at 100 for the first death, 200 for the second death, 300 for the third death, and eventually caps at around 500, but resets daily?  This is where the banking aspect comes into play, and it should be flexible enough so that players can develop a strategy with how often they use it.  What if a player has the option to bank their accumulated spirit power as often as they like, but after each successive banking they are required to pay a gold/plat fee that scales higher and higher the more often you do it, but resets weekly?  After the week is over that cost would reset to the point where your first spirit power bank is free and then it continues to scale up again.  This could be an awesome plat sink.  It allows players to mitigate the risk of their deaths for a cost while still maintaining a constant sense of danger/risk while they have any unbanked spirit power on their person.

I feel something like this would strike a very reasonable balance where all player types can benefit from the system and it's flexible enough to allow them to mitigate their risk.  At any given moment, players would need to be cognizant of their surroundings and do their best to avoid death.  They are still incentivized to adventure in the world as much as possible to maximize how much spirit power they can accumulate, and with the daily/weekly reset timers, there is enough of a cushion present that they won't find themself in a hole that they can't climb out of.  By adding a currency cost to the banking process, this also introduces an important plat sink into the game that can help stem off inflation.  By making the rewards for this system desirable, the art of avoiding death should be at the forefront of every player's mind while they navigate the dangerous world of Terminus.  This kind of end-game risk vs reward death penalty would be very appealing to me.

 

 

The color con system has been used in many games but here is a reference point:

Red-con = 8 levels or higher

Orange-con = 4-7 levels higher

Yellow-con = 1-3 levels higher

White-con = Even level

Blue-con = 1-3 levels lower

Green-con = 4-7 levels lower

Grey-con = 8 levels or lower

Dullahan

An extra stat related to how recently/frequently you die that provides a penalty or bonus could be a pretty interesting alternative to just experience loss.

Albatroes

Xodic said:

There should be a punishment for death at all levels. Without punishment, reward and accomplishment mean little to nothing. That raid you died 50 times on to complete just means that you're persistent, brought by a lack of fear and remorse for your decisions.

I don't like anything that has a static timer on it. Losing stats for an x amount of time is the epitome of bad game design to me. It doesn't bring any meaningful consequence, and it's something that can be completely mitigated via a bathroom break.

So what's something that can still prevent careless face rolling of the keyboard, but doesn't prevent you from staying in town due to the fear of dying?

The only thing I can think of, is a separate system that can influence your stats permanently. For instance, lets call it a courage system; and when you die you lose courage. When you complete great feats you gain courage. Let's imagine this system is a slider and has a middle ground that is considered normal, it's a place where most players will be. People who die all the time, will lose courage and start to slip into cowardice, they slightly lose stat points that don't mean a whole lot in the grand scheme of things, but as most players will not want their character to lose ANY it will have a mental impact.

You don't have to lose levels. You just have to make the player feel that their character is being affected by death.

I couldn't agree more with you. In FFXI, level loss definitely motivated the high end community to usually want to perform at their best. If you look at mmorpgs like wow and FFXIV, the general public doesn't care about really anything mainly because most of the content doesn't even matter or even has any loss if not doing it or if you fail constantly. Couple that with an AA like system, so you had to choose your time wisely on if you cared more about advancement or keeping your level since getting exp could be rough at times.

svann

I still remember the tears of that guy that abused experience penalty in vanguard.  He made artwork with his corpses.  Then when they increased max level from 50 to 55, he was the last on the server to level up.  Dont be that guy.

Also, even without level loss it really sucks to have to run back because some idiot playing with clownshoes wiped the raid again.  Dont be that guy either.

TwoTubes

Part of me hopes that the player base considers the Progeny system mandatory and all of this max lvl concern is inconsequential.

Wellspring

Wizardry said:

Wellspring said:

Wizardry said:

#1 I hate any focus on max level play ,especially before a game is even out.

I get it. "Enjoy the adventure, don't focus on the end game."

But don't be short-sighted. Vanguard launched w/ that philosophy (0 raid content, no quests past lvl 40, the exp debt system described) and look how that turned out.

When designing a system as important as the death exp penalty, you have to take into account all levels of play -- especially max level. Because after the first X amount of time it takes to initially level up, max level play is what everyone will be experiencing from then on out.

Sorry but you just supported MY argument not your own.
SHORT sighted would be to aim at ONE particular topic like END game,which is or should be LESS than 1% of a GAME.
The other guys bla bla bla is embarrassing,not even the common decency to state his opinion just an immature response,i would think an adult is better than that,idk maybe hes not an adult so i should excuse him.

I think you're confusing max level content, with hardcore raiding content. If 99% of the game is built for levels <49, then that would be a sad day for everyone when they finally reach lvl 50 and discover there is nothing to do (exactly like what happened in Vanguard).

Nonetheless, I'm glad my post helped support your argument that you "hate any focus on max level play"...

Kayo83

I think the Corpse Run + XP Debt is a great idea and is ample punishment. Specially if they want to make the games AI more challenging than previous games.  Not having to worry about it once reaching level cap is a nice reward for making it there in the first place and encourages more end game play.

svann

Yea naked corpse run is enough penalty all by itself.  Then xp debt on top of it thats plenty.

Gyva02

I really hope Pantheon does not become EQNerf or EQLite.

XP loss and potentially losing a level needs to be real. In EQ you didn't always lose a level if you died only if you were barley into your level but nonetheless you had to be careful as multiple deaths with little to no xp gain in between the deaths very well could de-level you. With no risk the rewards are not as sweet...