Death Penalty Opinions

[Amorana]

Also, your math on where to cap is off... It's not as simple as 39 times is the limit. It would have to be a hard cap at some percentage no matter the number of deaths. Just trying to make sure that's understood before some drastic bug is set in motion.

For example... If your health pool is 1 million (and therefore you have whatever stat level would get you to 1 Million health), you can die 50 times before your max available health pool gets to the point that it no longer rounds to 1 (aka, drops below 0.5).

However, if your health pool starts out at 2 thousand, you can only die 28 times before your max available health would no longer round to 1.

Just wanted to point out that flaw in the 39 number. I'm sure it was meant theoretically somehow, but just in case. Don't want someone to find out the hard way. My numbers are obviously examples, but I'm just trying to get to the point that the max number of deaths before you hit 0 will vary dependent upon what your starting stat level is.

[Jhael]

So, I've worked with some people's suggestions, and have devised a potential scheme for a new death system. This explanation involves some wizardly gibber-jabber about the way the information is stored and handled, but it doesn't have any wiz-info that I feel needs to be kept secret. Rather, it just clearly explains what I thought might work.

Please discuss and comment on if you think this would be a good idea, and what you predict might result from such a situation in terms of pvp and player dynamics.

Thanks!
G.

Code: Select all

...

So, I do like the spirit/concept of your proposed changes. I like the concept of rewarding a player for not just idling during their 'sentence' and like the concept of placing a stat restriction on the player during their 'sentence.' I think, though, that your implementations of these concepts won't quite work the way you hope.

On the reward for un-idle play, I would like to echo Amorana's thoughts. When Irk dies, 25% means he's still a myth (probably). When Jhael dies, I'm probably an expert, stat-wise of course. I remember being expert sized ... it sucked; I couldn't do anything worthwhile on my own. Irk still being a myth, though will likely not effect him as much (PvE-wise). Irk will still be able to sneeze on the Barrow Downs and collect all their loot. Jhael will struggle to farm Gont guards. Because a smaller player will be penalized so much harder, it will be nearly impossible for them to do anything worthwhile during their sentence, and gain the desired boost at the end. I think we'd see many smaller people just idling during their sentence and the bigger folks be (nearly) unaffected by it. Still, don't get me wrong, I like the concept.

I'm not convinced that the new death system can be created in a static manner and be fair for all players of all sizes. I think you might need to consider a dynamic approach based on the characters size. Unfortunately, I don't know enough about the backend to really be able to suggest anything meaningful here (ie. I don't have the numbers here to really understand the full implications of what 25% does to each size). Just that perhaps if an adept dies, they shouldn't take a massive (to them) 25% stat restriction and a super myth probably ought to be subjected to a bit more than a measly 25%.

The only thing that I dislike about the stat restriction is that stat imbues, or effects, would be rendered useless for a minimum of 10 days. There are many situations where I think this concept, as it currently stands, would backfire and piss people off. If I spend hours and hours and plats upon plats to acquire enough stones to imbue something with a wisdom imbuement (for example), I would likely be doing it to gain enough power to attempt something cool (risky). But, if dying during that attempt would mean that I could no longer use that imbuement, likely for the remainder of Arma, I wouldn't have any reason to create the item ... or gather the stones. Stat-imbuements would lose a lot of value, in my mind.

Again, I like the concept. I think if you take into consideration some sort of sliding scale to adjust the 'sentence' according to player size and reconsider your stance on imbuements, you'd have a better system.

I really like the idea of the sentence lasting X time from the first death. This allows for multiple deaths (ex. Fluffy vs Kiara) to still serve a purpose without falling as quickly into the realm of griefing.

Also, your math on where to cap is off... It's not as simple as 39 times is the limit. It would have to be a hard cap at some percentage no matter the number of deaths. Just trying to make sure that's understood before some drastic bug is set in motion.

For example... If your health pool is 1 million (and therefore you have whatever stat level would get you to 1 Million health), you can die 50 times before your max available health pool gets to the point that it no longer rounds to 1 (aka, drops below 0.5).

However, if your health pool starts out at 2 thousand, you can only die 28 times before your max available health would no longer round to 1.

Just wanted to point out that flaw in the 39 number. I'm sure it was meant theoretically somehow, but just in case. Don't want someone to find out the hard way. My numbers are obviously examples, but I'm just trying to get to the point that the max number of deaths before you hit 0 will vary dependent upon what your starting stat level is.

I think one of us misunderstands G's thought here. I understood that it would increase the penalty to 2%. So...

Code: Select all

First death    - 25% penalty
Second         - 27% penalty
Third          - 29% penalty
....
Thirty sixth   - 97% penalty
Thirty seventh - 99% penalty
Thirty eighth  - 99% penalty

I guess after working that out, I'm a bit confused about the 39 number that G mentions. But I'm sure he would be willing to clarify. :hope:

Either way:
X% of N, where X >= 1 and N > 50 will never = 0, if default rounding is followed.
I guess the key is to round up if N can be less than 50 since 1% of 50 is 0.5, which would default round to 1 and 1% of 49 is 0.49, which would default round to 0.

[Ydred]

After watching the current misunderstandings let me say it could be simplier and easy for all to grasp something based on the old(death system) since we all know the current old system, why not simply modify that system?

Current death is like 1/3 or 1/4 of your existence ..... and drops you to touchy or so brute.

Why not decrease death to 1/2 or 1/4 of the current numbers ..... and also decrease the brute you are dropped to (til death penalty ends at TOUCHY) to extremely pacificistic. So at worst you died and were 1/2 the penalty we now face and were at worst to remove that penalty at touchy brute.

I bet almost 95% understand fully what I just said.

Of course if they dont, then not only are a few lying but the hopeful visitors we wish to attract .... who probably are not lying ..... should give great pause to complexity.

I agree with Ydred. There's almost nothing I like about the proposal. Sorry to sound so negative... I'm really trying to find anything... But I just can't.

You are not the only one. Normally I see forward with views the admin posits .... I am not seeing those now

[Zar]

First of all, I REALLY REALLY like a direction of the proposal.

Great work of thinking, Gorboth!

Unfortunately I don't have time now.
But I will write my comments a bit later.

All I want to say now:

It is awesome proposal!!!

[Amorana]

The only thing that I dislike about the stat restriction is that stat imbues, or effects, would be rendered useless for a minimum of 10 days. There are many situations where I think this concept, as it currently stands, would backfire and piss people off. If I spend hours and hours and plats upon plats to acquire enough stones to imbue something with a wisdom imbuement (for example), I would likely be doing it to gain enough power to attempt something cool (risky). But, if dying during that attempt would mean that I could no longer use that imbuement, likely for the remainder of Arma, I wouldn't have any reason to create the item ... or gather the stones. Stat-imbuements would lose a lot of value, in my mind.

Also, your math on where to cap is off... It's not as simple as 39 times is the limit. It would have to be a hard cap at some percentage no matter the number of deaths. Just trying to make sure that's understood before some drastic bug is set in motion.

For example... If your health pool is 1 million (and therefore you have whatever stat level would get you to 1 Million health), you can die 50 times before your max available health pool gets to the point that it no longer rounds to 1 (aka, drops below 0.5).

However, if your health pool starts out at 2 thousand, you can only die 28 times before your max available health would no longer round to 1.

Just wanted to point out that flaw in the 39 number. I'm sure it was meant theoretically somehow, but just in case. Don't want someone to find out the hard way. My numbers are obviously examples, but I'm just trying to get to the point that the max number of deaths before you hit 0 will vary dependent upon what your starting stat level is.

I think one of us misunderstands G's thought here. I understood that it would increase the penalty to 2%. So...

Code: Select all

First death    - 25% penalty
Second         - 27% penalty
Third          - 29% penalty
....
Thirty sixth   - 97% penalty
Thirty seventh - 99% penalty
Thirty eighth  - 99% penalty

I guess after working that out, I'm a bit confused about the 39 number that G mentions. But I'm sure he would be willing to clarify. :hope:

Either way:
X% of N, where X >= 1 and N > 50 will never = 0, if default rounding is followed.
I guess the key is to round up if N can be less than 50 since 1% of 50 is 0.5, which would default round to 1 and 1% of 49 is 0.49, which would default round to 0.

First, yes, my reading came a bit different. Thanks for providing yours, as on second glance I think your interpretation is correct.

Second on imbues, that is one of my big problems as well. If you think about it, when we die currently we never lose more than a level, unless perhaps when quite small. The effect of a 25% stat drop is several levels. So not only do we run the risk of a Fluffy/Kiara death 9 times scenario, but you during that time frame would be even more unable to defend yourself. Stack on that the fact that imbues do not stack anymore, that you won't be able to use stat imbues (what about non-stat imbues?), and yes I could see that making a lot of people angry.

Lastly this I think would have a chilling effect on guild wars. Any time one broke out, players would sit in their guild for fear of losing 25% of their stats and not being able to defend as the war continues. If a champion stands no chance against a myth mage, what will 75% of a champion hope to achieve for 10 days? If we ever want to get pvp back to the point of guild conflicts, I do not think this system is the way to go.

[Jhael]

Lastly this I think would have a chilling effect on guild wars. Any time one broke out, players would sit in their guild for fear of losing 25% of their stats and not being able to defend as the war continues. If a champion stands no chance against a myth mage, what will 75% of a champion hope to achieve for 10 days? If we ever want to get pvp back to the point of guild conflicts, I do not think this system is the way to go.

This is an interesting point that I had not considered, but certainly seems very true. I think it's worth mentioning that, even with the current death system, this is an issue (though I don't think you're suggesting it isn't). This in particular is a difficult scenario to manage, though.

Arguably the current system provides a harsher penalty due to the time required to gain back your lost experience. So, if Fluffy killed Jhael today (actually a few months ago when Death wasn't unemployed), it might take me a couple weeks to a month to recover back to my size. Under the proposed system, if Fluffy killed Jhael ... I would at least be back in the mix in 10 days, and that's why I really like time limit portion of it. After dying once, I don't need to be too worried about dying again, because my 'recovery' will still end at the same time. But it's tough to weigh that positive against the negative fact that I can do nothing to gain any stats back for at least 10 days. I'm hoping that we can reconsider the stance on imbues in some fashion ... perhaps applying the same penalty to stat gains from imbues as is imposed on the character. So ... 25% stat penalty and 25% decrease in stat imbuement benefit.

[Ragni]

Got to say I don't like it either, I don't like the fact that it's a time based system where after 10 days of doing nothing for 2 hours a day you recover just as fast as someone who is active during the same time. I also question the need for such a change, the poll on this topic asked ask the question should we have a death penalty or not and the large majority of people said yes, surely the next question should be "Do we need to change from the existing system ?". It might be the majority of people don't think there is a need to change from the existing systems which we are all used to.

Personally I think the current penalty (25% I think) is a bit harsh, I would find a way of varying the amount of exp you lost depending on what killed you. Maybe the difference between the average stats of the killer and of the victim could be used to adjust the death penalty. Then you would only feel the full force of the penalty if you got killed by something/someone the same size as you or smaller, if you will killed by something bigger than you would receive a smaller penalty down to a minimum of 5% or something.

Ragni

[Arcon]

I really like this idea. Especially that death won't have any effect on the brute or xp in general and that if you are out doing stuff during this time you'll have a nice surprise after those 10 days.
Also 10 days don't seem to be such a big deal. People can idle or just hang around talking to people if they want to or go out and grind/quest even if it is harder.

It seems that people are worried about how much 25% of their stats really is, is it based on the actually levels or if it is based on the xp we have on each stat. If it is based on the xp we wouldn't loose much more then now I think. If you have imortal in one stat and you loose 25% of it just the step between epic and imortal will be so big that it isa huge chunk of that stat loss I am guessing. If Gorboth could explain a bit more in detail with examples on how much 25% loss in one stat really is. For example, one human with all the stats at immortal, how would that humans stats be? I doubt people will start loosing several mortal levels because of it.

[Ydred]

Just ugh to me. I like none of it and dislike the imbuement aspect the most.

25% is far too high. At myth, sure, that might drop you to what... Titan? And that's only if you're a fresh myth. If you're at an insane size and grind for years on end with 200 scripts while you watch netflix like Irk, you probably don't even drop your stats below myth level.

No, the way things work now .... 25% of myth is still in the legend range. I missed this part of your post.

I still find the overall proposal as I did before. I am awaiting Zars thoughts incase I am missing something.

[Makfly]

Looking at Gorboths proposal isolated from other issues, I think it is a good suggestion with potential.
One immediate thought I had when reading it was that players should recieve an XP-bonus to incentivize players to leave their guildhall and go kill stuff while they are penalized. This could be something like +15%* at the lower levels that scales down to 0% at higher levels.

*Or simply let the percentage match the stat-reduction, the higher the stat-reduction the higher the Xp-bonus.

Unfortunately I think Gorboths proposal only has promise if another problem is solved along side it - The festering sore that is size-imbalance.
This problem continues to ensure that healthy mechanics and balance cannot be introduced to Genesis.

Solve the size-imbalance and guild balancing, death mechanics and other initiatives may have more of a chance of actually working as intended.