plaguelands.comDeath Dealer: Experience Loss or Experience Debt
Penalty upon death hasn’t evolved much since the mmogs of yore, some current concepts include shared death penalties and a debt system where experience loss will stack after multiple deaths. Most death penalties I’ve come across and read about usually revolve around experience points and hindering that player for a short time from advancing forward in experience points. More and more current mmogs are utilizing experience debt that stacks when players die multiple times over the quick one-two punch of direct experience loss. While debt and loss are similar on the surface, the two penalties are very different from one another. The different is hidden in the layers, particularly how players perceive between the two penalties.
I’ve recently read several threads on different forums discussing both penalties. Nothing new, this topic is discussed frequently on various forums, so it’s my turn to fuel the fodder
Players are willing to take larger risks with the penalty of experience debt, until their experience debt starts stacking after multiple deaths. After the penalty normal experience is still progressing players basically have two experience bars now, the first bar is already enough, two bars is downright annoying, especially if this second bar happens to be red and visible to the player. I actually find experience debt more annoying than loss, but the repercussions from loss are far more detrimental on the playing experience.
A lot of recent opinions on a gameplay forum favored direct experience loss because of the chance for level loss, this is reasoning for admiring loss is all kinds of stupid. Over 300 days played in Everquest and over 50 days while guiding and level loss wasn’t much of an issue, after you built up a small amount of experience as a barrier losing your level was unlikely and in most cases only happened in the most dire circumstances like failed attempts when breaking the Plane of Fear.
Direct experience loss does more harm than good and a lot of players and even some developers don’t understand how this one penalty ruins the potential playing experience of thousands of gamers. A lot of more hardcore players who want a challenging environment thus they appreciate a stiff death penalty. Some believe the perception from a harsher penalty will encourage players to avoid death at all costs. This is true, but a lot of these players overlook what exactly is in that cost. This is a simple cause of cause and effect, with a direct loss penalty a large segment of players are afraid to take any risks at all. These players will select the path of least resistance, efficiency versus risk versus time, escaping the challenge until they reach maximum level or a certain point in their progression where death doesn’t matter so much.
My strongest dislike with the concepts of experience debt and loss is the archaic nature of them, the genre needs to improve, accessibility reasons, uniqueness and most importantly innovation. If I die to another player instead of an npc in most mmogs the penalties between the two will be different, shouldn’t a more dynamic death penalty be implemented across the board? If a player dies to a forest creature, being your typical generic looking yogi the bear or bambi the lamb in their mid-levels versus dying to a unique bad ass looking monster in a dungeon shouldn’t the death penalty between the two vary? Why does the penalty have to be so fucking static. Also, I can’t forget or leave out the shiny lewtz, what about balancing different death penalties on some encounters versus their rewards.
I’ve witnessed several developers claim a death penalty is supposed to be about punishing the player for their action, even the more lighter penalties do this with corpse runs. Developers must balance out the equilibrium between life and death and experience loss is the most natural and easiest method. The goal of the penalty is to ultimately hinder character progression for an allotment of time. This same concept can be implemented without loss or debt, if these are the only two options I would prefer another implementation where I am losing a certain percent of experience for a certain duration.
If a player dies, depending on the area, they will receive a certain percentage of loss on the experience points they earn for a certain amount of time. Players aren’t earning as much experience as they could be and the experience penalty isn’t permanent if the player decides to log off in disgust. It’s just like a buff, in fact, players can bypass the experience penalty by participating in other activities instead. Players will still feel rewarded for staying alive and yet the punishment surrounding experience gain remains.
Another reason I would prefer a duration loss of some kind also takes into account other reasons. I’m barely scratching the surface, but for example one reason why I would prefer a duration over loss and debt is certain classes die more than others in different scenarious, in particular tanks, pullers and healers. Why should they be harshly punished for learning new encounters, why should the pullers die more than others, why are they forced to grind on their own time to make up for the learning process. Developers need to move the fuck on from the past, it is time to evolve from this stupid bullshit us players have been putting up with for the last decade.
Less players will stay in safe areas to avoid the risk of harsher penalties. The playing experience can still contain a myriad of challenging elements which encourage players to partake in risk instead of detering challenging gameplay. Avoiding death isn’t a challenge for these players, the touted player skills do not enhance if they hunt in areas where the chance of death is minimal. Players who prefer being kicked in the nuts won’t be satisfied with this penalty, but the game can still be challenging depending on the other systems and this death penalty isn’t much different than loss or debt, the concept is the same, albeit it doesn’t leave that stain you log off. Players could have both harsh and light penalties in a more dynamic penalty system.
About this entry
You’re currently reading “Death Dealer: Experience Loss or Experience Debt,” an entry on Plaguelands
- Published:
- 02.16.06 / 3pm
- Category:
- Death Penalty, Experience Debt, Experience Loss, Game Design, Mmog
I don’t think that players being afraid to take risks is much of an issue if the rewards are balanced well against the risk. You take risks, you get rewarded for it. If the good shit is in dangerous areas, players will go there as long as it’s worth the risk. Those who don’t want to take the risk won’t get the shiniest shinies.
Getting rid of exp debt/loss does indeed motivate players to take more risks but these risks aren’t real risks when death has little or no consequences. The players takes the risk of dying but death is meaningless.
Success in MMORPG depends almost exclusively on one thing: time investment. Therefor, the only substantial risk is time loss. Everything else doesn’t matter. There can be no other kind of penalty upon death, it’s not possible.
Even your suggested “duration loss” model is nothing but a slight variation of the standard time loss scheme. Frankly, I fail to see how it would make a relevant difference. It only adds the option to log off or do something that doesn’t earn exp until the exp loss expires. In the end, it’s still time loss.
You criticism of the static nature of exp loss appears to be valid at the first glance but I think that having both, a static and dynamic element, is a good compromise. Everquest had that. Death = exp loss + corpse run. The corpse run was the dynamic element. Dying in the depths of Lower Guk resulted in a much higher time loss from corpse retrieval than dying to a forrest creature in Faydark.
And yes, there is also an indirect dynamic element to the “static” exp loss mechanism: people die more often in dungeons which tend to be more dangerous than outdoor areas.
To say it bluntly: I think you’re wrong.
I also don’t think that making exp loss more dynamic with regard to classes dying more often is feasible because you cannot possibly model the mechanics to be “fair”. In raids you usually have complete wipes - why should one class be punished more severly for a collective failure than another one? What about full group wipes? What about soloing vs grouping? Maybe one class is more prone to dying when grouping while another one dies more often when soloing.
You’d have to design a ridiculously complex ruleset to deal with the pethora of different scenarios and the result would still be unfair. Why bother? It’s not that big a deal, really.
Everquests death system worked. It was flawed but it worked. So does DAoC’s death system. WoW’s death system on the other hand does not work that well. I found myself solving many quests by conducting suicide runs in order thin out the spawns so I can tackle the boss. I fact, I had close to zero respect for the game enviroment. When dying has little consequence, you do stupid things on purpose because they’re usually worth it. It also destroys the sense of danger and immersion.
I don’t think death systems can really evolve because there is nothing they could evolve into. In the end, it’s always time loss and the only difference will be the degree of time loss incurred by death, no matter how you dress it.
WRT the debt vs loss debate, I kinda liked what Brad McQuaid posted on the official Vanguard forums a while ago. Apparently, Sigil is toying with the idea to give the player the choice between loss and debt, since the end result is identical. If you opt for loss and run out of exp then you incur debt instead of deleveling. Sounds like a neat idea to me.
It is an issue for me and has been when I first rolled a character in Greater Faydark over 5 years ago and has followed me from one virtual world to another. Particularly these issues arise when I am attempting to concoct a well-rounded group for certain areas that are more out of the way which will contain decent loot, but are dangerous and in a lot of cases the experience won’t be as lucrative as other main hubs.
A lot of players I have encountered in this manner do not wish to even make the attempts since their motivations are set on acquiring experience in the most efficient way possible. Velks is one older example that comes to mind, this zone had great camps for decent loot in the deeper recesses of the dungeon, unfortunately these areas were hardly ever camped by the players on my server.
I do not want to remove the risk, I want to encourage more players who wouldn’t normally indulge in these risks without dangling just carrots in their face. Risks are fun, but I do believe there needs to be some punishment otherwise these risks have absolutely no meaning.
Time investment loss is exactly what I took into consideration when devising other alternatives for the standard death penalty we know of and I definitely agree with you. The difference between the three penalties are that loss and debt are stains on a character, more permanent and duration is more of a nuisance as you know,
In theory from an armchair development view duration should be just as effective as the other penalties, albeit all players can not be satisfied, this is impossible since we all perceive these elements differently, and it’s likely that those who prefer the sting would dislike the duration penalty.
The matter of importance remains in how players perceive these penalties. It’s all psychology, direct loss stings, accumulative debt is annoying, and duration could be tweaked where it’s less annoying and not as much of a sting as debt. Combing other elements such as the traditional corpse run would also provide the dynamic element you mentioned and would be the suitable middle ground I would prefer in place of debt and loss.
My main complaint is that I am broken, I want new patterns, more dynamic elements, I want more players taking risks and having fun with the game instead of playing it safe in the same 10×10 whack-a-mole farm spot or follow this rail. I want risk to be dangerous, but yet far more accessible to the majority playerbase than how we experience them now. A plethora of death penalties would be very confusing and frustrating, but simply scaling the duration loss depending on type of mob or overall area wouldn’t be confusing or very taxing and it would be a little different.
We should think of other ways the death system can evolve, instead of revolving around experience loss, we have new ways of experience gain through quests and travel. We have tons of concepts we can experiment with, there are many implementations around time sinks and investment loss aside from experience loss and debt, after all virtual worlds are built around such mechanics.
For example we could evolve death by implementing an afterlife of sorts, similar to the light world versus the dark world in Zelda: A Link to the Past. Another example is we could expand the concept of when players are knocked unconscious instead of death on certain raid encounters.
Of course, this is all mental masturbation on my part, and I expect the mainstream genre will see no true in breadth expanding in this area for decades, but it’s still a fun discussion.
Vanguard is also toying with optional shared debt in groups, which would also alleviate the sting of deaths from certain key classes on raids. I also don’t mind debt in place of losing a level, losing a level is underrated, but I understand a lot of players who prefer loss and appreciate their perception of knowing there is a chance of loss that exists, even if the circumstances if that loss does happen is extreme at best.
By the way, welcome to the foray, best of luck with the frequent updates, sometimes it is difficult for me, but a lot easier for others.
I’ve played EQ from release through SoV. I’m aware of the problems you mention but you identified the penalty upon death as the main culprit and that’s where I disagree. In my opinion, the penalty was a minor contributing factor and nothing more. There were several more important reasons why people shunned away from certain dungeons:
1. The underused dungeons weren’t hubs. Dungeon entrance areas used to be the place where people looked for groups and groups looked for players. This was reinforced by EQ’s screwed up class system (Holy Trinity) which made it difficult and time-consuming to built viable groups. The excessive travel times in EQ were another important reason for this. Players concentrated in certain areas because it was the fastest way to get going after logging on.
2. Itemization. Some dungeons had tons of great loot, others had only few items of interest, which could often be substituted by comparably good loot from more attractive zones. Was there ever a good reason to go to Najena, Peramfrost, SolA or Upper Guk? EQ’s itemization issues were one of the main culprits.
3. Proximity to hub areas like cities and to bind points.
This was a major issue during Kurnark. Most Kunark dungeons were simply too far away from the popular hub areas and bind points. Kaesora is a good example.
4. Difficulty level.
There were quite a number of places where difficultly was completely out of whack. One place that immediately springs to mind was the first revamped zone in EQ: Splitpaw. The difficulty level of revamped Splitpaw was ridiculous over the top for its level range and no matter how you design your death system, places that are too difficult when compared to the alternatives will always be unattractive. Also Mistmoore and Permafrost. These zones btw. also suffered from shitty itemization.
In most cases, the reasons for dungeons being underused were a combination of all factors. Splitpaw, Kaesora and Permafrost scored equally bad in all four points. The reason I never even considered going to Kaesora or Splitpaw after checking out these places for the first time wasn’t death penalty. The reason that that these places were inherently unattactive. To be honest, death penalty rarely crossed my mind, it was always other factors.
Death penalty comes into play when you try to decide whether it’s worth the risk to venture deeper into a dungeon. With a more punishing death pentalty you’re more likely to play it safe. When death is trivial, you’d probably give it a shot. The end-result is likely the same: you either can do it or you can’t.
Let’s imagine for a second EQ had had a death system like the one you proposed. I don’t really think it would have changed all that much. IMO, most risk vs reward problems in EQ had little to do with the death penalty.
Now, if I understand you correctly, you don’t want to reduce the time penalty incurred by death, you want to redress it so it is less punishing psychologically. I’m not really convinced that your idea can achieve that.People will ALWAYS try to minimize risk and people aren’t stupid. Redressing death penalty doesn’t work, people will see right through it. If your death penalty is X then it will remain X, not matter how you present it to the player.
Fading penalties won’t make a shred of a difference in your current game session. The knowledge that the penalty will be gone tomorrow won’t help you today. The annoyance factor is pretty much the same. You can either suck it up and continue playing or call it a night. I don’t think a death system that encourages players NOT to play is a good system.
Another major problem I see with fading debt/loss is that it makes deaths that occur late in a gaming session far less punishing than death that occur early in a gaming session. If you die right away you’re stuck with debt for the rest of your gaming session. If you die 15 minutes before you would have logged for the night then the penalty is virtually meaningless - it will be gone the next time you log on.
I understand where you’re coming from. I certainly would like to see game mechanics that encourage players to leave trodden paths. I just don’t think that tweaking the death penalty will do the job, especially if you don’t want to eliminate risk but merely redres it.
Some other points…
I’ve always been a fan of the shared group exp penalty in EQ2 and never quite understood why virtually everyone hated it. Sure, sometimes you’d be punished because a group member is a moron but I always found that argument to be more of a made-up hysteric knee-jerk reaction than something that actually happened frequently in-game. The fact is that MMORPGs may be complex games but all it takes to be a good player is knowledge and experience. Skill or intellect are rarely a part of the equation. Every retard can be an adaequate player and in 8 years of MMORPGing I’ve rarely encountered truly bad players. Most do their jobs like they are supposed to. In WoW you have a higher degree of inexperienced players, especially tanks, because people solo their way from 1-60 and the way you generate aggro as a tank in WoW is rather obscure. As soon as people gain an understanding of the game mechanics, they adapt. I’ve seen n00b tanks going from clueless to adaequate in less than 5 minutes. Becoming a good MMORPG player must be one of the easiest achivements in the world. I think shared penalty is a good concept to tackle the “healer always dies” problem but it’s again a mere tweak and not a substantial revision of the old death pentalty system.
I too find debt more annoying and frustrating than loss. Being set back but advancing at a normal pace is not as frustrating as advancing at half the pace.