Death: Stakes and Consequences

  • Bosun Rotrr
    Master

    I'm really interested in hearing from seasoned, expert players on this.

    What's specifically wrong with having high stakes/consequences for dying? Why won't it work in SoT?

    Here's how I think the game lacks ... balance. Currently, there seems to be no stakes for dying, and therefore no incentive, for NOT dying. Why should there be? Well, dying should not become part of the strategy to defeat ones opponent. Right now it's too easy. Way too easy. I see many skilled players, and many not so skilled, purposely killing themselves to spawn back as part of a further strategy to defeat others. Whether it be for cheap revenge or because they just don't care. Why value this life, when you know you can just simply respawn and get another? Endlessly.
    Skilled expert players attain more and more hard earned wealth and commendations, company points, new cosmetic purchases, etc ... yet without having to fear losing some, or all of it, and having to start from scratch; as if you were beginning again like a new player.
    Shouldn't the incentive to gaining skill, power and influence have the check and balance of being thoughtful; thinking twice about attacking indiscriminately in any given situation? The stakes are great. Or should be. All that hard earned notoriety and point aquisition might vanish, after all, simply because you attacked someone and got yourself killed foolishly. I mean the ease with which you can die should not be the contributing factor in your achievements - but right now, it is. Imo, we need a gameplay mechanism to force players to value their lives, their earnings(?),and to pick their battles wisely; because
    there should be a hefty price to pay for making mistakes and being wreckless, or stupid, or not on your game...

    Anyone can be an expert when they're virtually immortal.

    Here's one hypothetical game mechanic scenario I see as having some possible potential:

    It would work on a sliding scale of sorts. So, new inexperienced players are treated much as they are now; they die and respawn with a new boat and little if any penalty. But as a player gets better, and achieves increasingly higher levels of commendation and gold, reputation, etc, the stakes/consequences of dying increase gradually and have value; weight. The top 10% let's say, expert players, whom have the most gold, commendations, points, kills, ship sinkings, etc, etc, risk losing everything... and if they make a hasty, foolish, wreckless decision, they must start from square one, like a beginner - and lost all stature in any hypothetical leaderboard, for example.

    Oh how the mighty will fall, and only the most powerful, and wise, will risk everything to attack a lone slooper, just for the thrill of the kill. Or, decide to go into battle with evenly matched opponents.

    Please explain why a graded scale, or system of consequences, for dying, would not work in SoT.

    Without consequences, players don't have any incentive to think before they act, or care. There must be VALUE in a pirate's life and achievements... It has to be worth something to those who are willing to risk it all, to attack that newbie, or choose to do major battle for king of the hill pirate supremacy and bragging rights.

    Would be great to see a leaderboard somewhere also where each player has a ranking/skill point as compared to other players.

    What do you think? Anyone, feel free. I am especially interested in hearing from the cream of the crop skallywags (you know who you are). Appreciate your time and apologies for this post length.

  • Login To Reply
    28
    Posts
    22.6k
    Views
  • SurveyorPete
    Legend
    Insider

    @starship42

    From my reading of your post, I get the impression that you are mostly concerned about the low cost of dying in PvP contexts.

    However, that is not the only time that sacrificial death is used to advantage. When doing ordinary quests, such as GH or (especially) OOS, it can be easier to die when your health is low than to try to survive. You get refreshed, your ammo is reloaded, you get respawn in a safe place, and you save precious bananas!

    This strategy is especially useful if a couple of powder-keg skellies pop up. I just often lead the skellies away from my crewmates, shouting "Follow me, skellies!", let a bunch gather around me so we all die together.

  • rockinpodunk
    Captain
    Insider

    I have a couple of points to make.

    First, I agree that dying should actually be meaningful

    Second, if this became a thing, I think it should only apply to pvp deaths. Sometimes things happen in PVE that are completely out of your control. I've been glitched into a rock, unable to move, and was forced to have a crewmates Kill me with a GP barrel on more than one occasion. I was also in a narrow cave passage and had a simultaneous spawn of one GP skeleton in front of me and one GP skeleton behind me. Even for PVP deaths, it would only work if they can guarantee there wouldn't be issues with mismatched hit markers, getting shot through solid objects, ping and latency issues, hackers, and a whole list of other things that are guaranteed to happen, at least occasionally, in any online game. Also griefing teammates that blow each other up with GP barrels.

    Bottom line, this won't work in SOT, but there must be some other way to make dying a lot less desirable.

  • Dragonsire2016
    Seafarer

    @starship42 I think for people not interested in PvP it would be deal breaker.the risk/loss is already unbalanced in your scenario if the defender looses he is punished as well.

  • Wombaxx
    Master
    Insider
    Founder

    Since a main part of the game is grinding... it could be implemented as a feature, that the more voyages you do, without dying, the bigger the reward will be for said voyages... Maybe stack it to a maximum of 15% and not more than that... but that would also make the players more focused on voyages, than just kill to get loot :)

  • Bosun Rotrr
    Master

    @ant-heuser-kush Thanks. Yeah, I heard about that too. I was just curious about what some of the seasoned players here thought about it and wanted to hear their arguments, against or for the idea.

  • Bosun Rotrr
    Master

    @surveyorpete Thanks for your response. It seems you have added more justification for considering an increase in applying some kind of higher stakes dying cost. Yet you seem to describe this tactic more as a benefit, rather than deteriment.

    For me it is interesting that so many players complain and report PC cheaters/hackers (or players they believe are hackers/cheaters), yet this tactic, death as a tool to gain advantage, in my view, is a built-in form of cheating, in a sense. I'm willing to bet the developers didn't forsee players who would use death and respawning, as a way to tactically gain advantage. I mean, I understand it is important to be able to respawn after making a mistake, or running into an unforseen danger, but I just think as it is set up currently, it is Soooo easy to die and respawn, so predictable, that one can actually base ones entire strategy on the luxury of knowing there are no penalties, no consequences, in ones choice to just die on the fly - its almost like they might as well have introduced pirtate teleportation into the premises of the game, because that in effect is what players are using cheap death/respawn tactics for. It's just too easy.

    How about a 3 strikes and your out deal? You get two deaths/rwespawns, but on the 3rd death your done, for that session, with that particular crew?

  • Bosun Rotrr
    Master

    @rockinpodunk Thanks for the response. Sounds reasonable. I can understand that frustration of accidental death beyond ones control. No player should have to pay a hefty price for something they had no control over. Very reasonable. Agreed.

  • SurveyorPete
    Legend
    Insider

    @starship42

    You understood me correctly. In PvE, I do see death as a legitimate tactic.

    "Three strikes and you're out" is way too harsh. Doing an Athena's quest, for example, with all the best self-preservation instincts in the world, you could easily die three times on the first island you visit. No one would ever complete an Athena's!

    In other contexts, I have argued that scuttling your ship should kick you off the server, because, well, to me scuttling is the ultimate admission of surrender/defeat. There should never be a tactical advantage to sinking your own ship. I got howled down for that idea. "Three deaths and you're out" is never going to fly. It would make the game unplayable.

  • Bosun Rotrr
    Master

    @dragonsire2016 Thanks for the reply. Tell me if I'm wrong - do players who prefer no pvp usually not have much less in terms of wealth and "points"?

    So if the bottom 33 1/3 % lose very little, or next to nothing, and the intermediates lose a little more, and the top 33 1/3 % lost a much larger portion? If you made the percentages of loss gradual as one becomes increasingly wealthy and higher ranking, one accrues higher stakes. I see pirates who have the greatest amounts of wealth as those who regularly go to battle and plunder. Am I wrong?

    The trick would be to find that sweet spot, where the percentage of loss doesn't prevent those who want to take risks and battle from doing battle, so that losing doesn't outweigh the advantages of winning. The rewards must be high, but not so high that noone cares about dying. And the penalty for defeat must be high, but not so high that noone wants to go to battle with anyone for fear of losing too much.

  • UrihamRayne
    Legend
    Insider
    Founder

    Against PvE there is very little punishment for death, you only get robbed of your time. Against PvP it's a different story entirely, and this game is not a PvE game exclusively. I have lost count on the amount of people that beg incessantly for PvE only server because they genuinely fear losing to other players, while you are here suggesting there is no stakes in death. Sure if the game lacks stakes for dying against skelletons you make it sound like the game is easy and a cakewalk, but you purposely didn't mention how players have a chanse of losing everything they had in every session before turning it in at an outpost to other players if they aren't skilled enough to defend themselves.

  • DrunkPunk138
    Master
    Founder

    @wombaxx said in Death: Stakes and Consequences:

    Since a main part of the game is grinding... it could be implemented as a feature, that the more voyages you do, without dying, the bigger the reward will be for said voyages... Maybe stack it to a maximum of 15% and not more than that... but that would also make the players more focused on voyages, than just kill to get loot :)

    I like this. It provides incentive for staying alive without punishing people who get in situations where it is unavoidable.

  • Straw Hat Blake
    Master
    Insider

    I feel like the “death tax” would have been welcomed with open arms if the coins that you lost were there for the one that killed you

  • Bosun Rotrr
    Master

    @wombaxx I like that idea! We definitely don't want to lose the incentive to do battle and plunder... or to not want to earn ones living honestly through voyages, etc. There must be a sweet spot but consequences for failing at each. In my opinion, at any rate. Death for me seems to easy. That's my pet peeve with this game so far. It's so easy people are using it as a tactic, which it really shouldn't be. Death of your character means defeat. It is a signal one needs to perhaps learn from a mistake made. To improve ones game. It's not meant as a stand-in for teleportation.

  • Kondrites
    Marauder

    @starship42 I normally do not post on this type of discussion but, I do not like any type of death penalty/consequences for the sole purpose of the many days I get home from work and just want to relax.
    When I am playing SOT and get surprised by another ship (not very often) but it happens, I just jump up on the canopy and sit. Yep, I am the one all the pvp'rs hate because I don't feel like playing a pvp game at the time so they fire at will with I think I counted 12 cannon shots from the galleon before I got knocked off the canopy and someone jumped into the water to finish me off with a pistol.
    Big deal because I had nothing on board.
    I would hate to be penalized because I don't feel like trying to go 1v4 against a galleon.

  • canadianmuscle3
    Founder

    Rare already said no to anything death tax related or punishment for dying. Its gone to Davy Jones Locker for ever form all the back lash they had months ago when they tired to implement something. So many people want it to remain open world allowing them to do crazy stuff with out the fear of punishment for dying.

  • DrunkPunk138
    Master
    Founder

    @starship42 said in Death: Stakes and Consequences:

    Death of your character means defeat.

    Eh, I think this is where I disagree. Death itself means losing a component of the battle, the ship sinking itself is what counts as defeat. I suppose one could argue that death should have a more meaningful impact in the effort towards that definition of defeat, but I think it already does a great job of that. What you lose when your character dies is time: time you could be participating in the ship battle. That may not sound significant by itself, but I truly believe it is. Time is a valuable resource in this game, and you also lose a significant chunk of that when you lose your ship. It takes significant time to really accomplish anything in this game, from landing on a destination to obtaining a reasonable amount of loot and then turning it in. A PvP encounter that you win can take away significant chunks of time, and it creates an even bigger impact when you lose.

    This is why I'm primarily against a monetary loss when you die or lose your ship. For the people who tend to crew up, gold doesn't mean too much, but for the people who solo (and especially the newer people, who take even more time to accomplish small tasks due to a lack of knowledge and familiarity of game mechanics), a monetary loss is a huge impact. It doesn't really balance well between crew sizes and experience. For me, it would be meaningless. I always have 300k gold at all times, I never go below this number. But the solo struggling to get their first ship cosmetics or hit a reasonable level in a faction, it would be compounded by their loss of loot and likely sour the experience. I just don't see a good way to balance death penalties in a way that would create an even level of impact.

    This makes the solution @Wombaxx proposed far more attractive. It provides that incentive on an even level without punishing people for death, a thing that can often be avoided but at times surely cannot. It would mean situations where people get camped or griefed upon logging in before departing from an outpost don't become more sour than they already are, and the people who simply don't care about the bonus would just make less gold and/or rep.

  • Bosun Rotrr
    Master

    @ant-heuser-kush Thanks, man. Fair enough. I can appreciate the fun in what you are describing. I certainly wouldn't want to see players inhibited from taking crazy a*s risks...

    I mean, part of the enjoyment of this game IS the pure anarchy and chaos one can get up to and find oneself in.

    I get that.

    Hmmm... What if... hypothetical game mechanic....

    You as a player EARNED lives? So, for instance, a mechanism in game, part of a mission/voyage, allowed players to EARN new lives. The best skilled players would likely accumulate alot of lives that they could spend in any way they like at any time.

    However, those EARNED LIVES only apply to you when you attack someone and are defeated. The offensive player loses a LIFE when he dies in pvp. The defensive player, if he dies, does not.

    It would be an insurance policy for aggressive pirates who love taking risks and attacking pvp.

    So, you and your opponent have 5 lives each. You attack a player, becoming the official "offender". If you successfully kill the defender, he doesn't lose one of his lives, but you get all his treasure, etc. If he kills you, YOU lose a life, and go down to 4 lives left.

    If your opponent is the attacker and therefore the offender, and he dies, HE loses a life and goes down to 4 lives left, and you get his treasure, etc.

    Such a system then gives you plenty of leeway to go on killing sprees - to a point. Once you get low on lives, you need to earn more before going b*****s again.

    This would give new players, or people who just don't want to pvp, a chance to respawn without penalty after being attacked by aggressive players. So everyone is allowed to be an offending attacker... if they have enough lives earned previously, to spare.

    This way, expert players, who have maybe hundreds of lives total, can go nuts. They will likely win more than they lose anyway. All victims of these experts would not lose any lives for being defenders, or people who didn't start the fight, but were victims of those attacks.

    The penalty doesn't have to be a tax - it could simply mean once you run out of lives, you either earn more, or die one last time and start again fresh as a new player with nothing in another session.

    Earning lives could be a way for tired old pirates to help others - Cal it a Redemption/Karma system.

    Yes, you get to be a crazy psychopath, but you must earn it, and once your lives are used up, you must earn more by being helpful to others (or get the boot to another server and start fresh with nothing but a boat and 0 0 0 level). You can go back to being a crazy psychopath again once you've earned enough lives to have that luxury.

  • Bosun Rotrr
    Master

    @urihamrayne Thanks for your response.

    I'll try to clarify. It's too easy to choose to die, in my view. Clearly those who do die/respawn regularly and use it as a tactic, to gain advantage or a shortcut in game, have little to lose, or think they do.
    I'm not saying players who die don't have a lot to lose if in game they have worked to amass a lot of loot and are afraid of it getting stolen. That's different.

    It's a pirate game. Pirates will be pirates. That's not my concern. My concern is the death/respawn mechanism part of the game, and how players are taking death - for granted - and in my view, in a sense, are "legally" cheating. I'm simply arguing for a stronger consequence, or higher stakes, for choosing to die - as a tactic.

    Players who are afraid of dying because they have lots of loot on board and have worked hard for it, isn't the same. That's fair game. I say plunder away.

    I don't think dying should be a hindrance to a player to the point that they give up and quit the game. Noone wants that. But dying/respawning as a tactic is, imv, being abused. Dying/respawning also being taken for granted, as if death were meaningless and should have no consequence and it doesn't matter that I made a stupid mistake, and should know better, and that's no different than the consequence of dying for reasons beyond my control that weren't my fault.

    I'm just arguing for dying having more weight. More stakes or consequence - not a substitute teleportation device.

  • Strinder
    Master
    Insider

    Forgive me this but I see this entire line as a solution in search of a problem.

    What exactly is wrong with the status quo? Perhapse being specific about answering that question will help an obvious solution present itself.

  • UrihamRayne
    Legend
    Insider
    Founder

    @starship42 said in Death: Stakes and Consequences:

    My concern is the death/respawn mechanism part of the game, and how players are taking death - for granted - and in my view, in a sense, are "legally" cheating. I'm simply arguing for a stronger consequence, or higher stakes, for choosing to die - as a tactic.

    I'm just arguing for dying having more weight. More stakes or consequence - not a substitute teleportation device.

    but then you say in your post...

    Players who are afraid of dying because they have lots of loot on board and have worked hard for it, isn't the same.

    As if you recognize there are points in time that players opt not to die even if it has no weight because they fear that they may lose something. Here is the key to what is the problem with your suggestion, is that you are not explaining what is the abuse in question, to the point I'm feeling pressed to state that there is no abuse in place for "choosing to die". A death strips off your agency upon the game for a minute depending on how graceful the loading times are feeling, if you are concerned about a teleporting mechanic in place, we had the mermaids for a while and they aren't serving much of a abusive purpose right now (safe for some bugs), all of the death interactions so far have been in the design of the game's developers, it's a time hinderance, you lose time. Time can be very meaningless if you are not pressed for it in some situations, therefore death in some cases is very meaningless and has little weight, while at other situations time can be of critical necessity for the player to make a last second save of their ship, a kill that seals the fate of a crew or a decision that can lead to loot or loss, so in this case death is very meaningful and is much less desirable, and there are times where you lose your ship and you are trying to do something risky, where death means the end of your attempt as you will be sent back to your ship without accomplishing anything, here death is a failstate for the player.

    In this way death in SoT has weight depending on the situation, not much on what it actually does to the players, imposing artificial punishments will create a certain fear in players not in the situations but instead in the mechanic and they will be upset at the mechanic instead of the situation, causing frustration towards the game, most people fail to recognize that situations can be avoided and there is always a chanse for victory in any endeavour, but some still do, and for those they don't really deserve to be punished for trying to be bolder and being risky even if it means losing everything, because adding on top of that even more punishment will make players less inclined on trying to be risky pirates, that is the last thing you'd want for this game.

  • Bosun Rotrr
    Master

    @strinder Solution in search of a problem? Not sure what you mean. You may not see a problem with the game as is, that's cool. You may not think there's a problem with death/respawning endlessly without any consequence, or players deliberately choosing to die as a tactic...

    That's fine. I think the reason why people post in a suggestions are welcome forum is that those who created the forum are open to suggestions for possible improvement. Not everyone will, or is obliged to agree that there is any need for suggestions, or improvement. Fair enough. But if someone like myself does, subjectively, perceive a problem, then I'm going to accept that welcome.

    That it seems to easy to die, and that there is little consequence, so much so that it is being done deliberately, and that that degrades and diminishes enjoyment, in this game, is my subjective opinion, and may very well be a matter of taste. Some will agree with me, others won't. I appreciate your input.

  • m1sterpunch
    Master
    Insider

    @starship42 said in Death: Stakes and Consequences:

    My concern is the death/respawn mechanism part of the game, and how players are taking death - for granted - and in my view, in a sense, are "legally" cheating. I'm simply arguing for a stronger consequence, or higher stakes, for choosing to die - as a tactic.

    I'd be interested to hear a scenario that you allude to but don't describe that players use to "abuse" the respawning in the game to gain an advantage.

    Scuttling a ship to get a better spawn closer to the sinking is one but that's not what you're talking about here. If you die in game you are forced to wait while the game continues without you so I fail to see how that isn't a penalty enough and the ultimate loss is the sinking of your ship and losing the ability to return to the battle.

  • Bosun Rotrr
    Master

    @urihamrayne But most players are NOT afraid of the consequences of dying because of losing some or all of their commendations, merchant totals 50 50 50, Legendary status, or their gold total...

    Only of losing their hard earned loot for that day/session. Wasting their time.

    All that stays the same. In my view that is a problem. Neither attacker nor defender has anything to lose at the moment - that affects their ongoing, permenent record; just that day of pilferring.

    Anyone can die at any time. If they lose their ship and loot that session, whoopie-ding. They can do it again some other day/session. A little frustrating, but easy to overcome and forget.

    Then we have : I don't like how this day is going - I think I'll just scuttle and start over.

    Players that scuttle their boats to respawn at more favourable outposts because they want to be on the east side of the map as opposed to the west side. This outpost as opposed to that. Or they spawned in a storm. How inconvenient. Or they saw a ship coming... quick, scuttle and start again. Damn, here comes meg, scuttle time. Oh I have no bananas... here come the skellies... time to die. Blimy, my boat is way down there and I'm way up here... I think I'll just jump off this cliff and hope for the best. Etc, etc.

    Players who jump off their boats with GP barrel to detonate it under an enemy opponents boat, knowing he will respawn back to his own boat, if he dies. Again, not having lost anything. The players he kills will respawn again, not having lost anything, except their boats, and possibly any supplies or treasure for that day/session.

    But nothing meaningful. No real value or cost. No stakes. Real poker players play for money, not plastic play chips. I'm not suggesting gambing here - it was an analogy. Playing Pirates for whimsical fun can be fun when you really aren't losing anything, but playing with a little more at stake can make a game all that much more interesting. Not to the point of scaring everyone into pacifists. But just putting a cost or some sort on cheap death/suicide/respawns. That's all.

    I other responses above I make a point of stateing that we certainly don't want to disincentivize pirating and taking risks. But we also don't want to make the risks so easy, so cheap and repetitive, so lacking in actual risk, that dying becomes a repetitive o**y of pure who cares anything goes kill/respawn/kill/respawn/kill/respawn, etc... or part of the strategy to teleport somewhere after suicide bombing a galleon.

    If you never really die and never really lose anything, your life session for that day has no value, your work is meaningless and empty. Dying/respawning itself becomes a grind. There's nothing needed to learn or improve, or make some sort of progress beyond increasing ones gold total.

    I believe that has the potential to make a video game mundane, repetitive and empty more than giving it weight and purpose by upping each players stakes and value for each life, if just a little.

  • Ghostfire1981
    Vanguard
    Insider

    In strongly against loosing gold/exp as a punishment, because of many of the reasons in different posts above.

    However, if we really need some kind of harsher punishments, how about 2x or 4x longer time on the ship of the dead? If that was implemented, death would be really dangerous and punishing, as your ship is now potentially undefended for lets say a minute or more, giving the winners plenty of time to loot it or sink it. This would certainly make people think twice before attacking, as now there is a true danger of loosing your ship and a lot of precious time. This would also make people stop players from all kinds of suicide tactics.

    However im against all kinds of death penalties, and the game is good as it is. But if the community really want some kind of punishment, longer spawning times would be my choice.

  • SupriseAutopsy
    Ship Mate

    @starship42 if you had played the gunpowder skelly event solo, you'd know why a death tax or penalty wouldn't be a good idea for this game. If you'd ever run into a fray of 6 pistol skellies and 2 blunderbuss skellies, you'd know why a death tax would be a bad idea. If you've ever had a galleon chase you for 40 minutes while running away solo, or even duo, you'd know why this is a horrible idea. There's a reason the community screamed against Rare's original death tax idea, now you want players to lose commendations for dying too? That's not the way to go about it. Maybe a bonus gold for however long you've been alive in one session, but I'm 100% against any penalty for dying.

  • Chaos5715
    Insider

    PvP is my favorite thing about SoT. However, I rarely go out of my way to attack ships. I don't like harassing people going about their business. I do always go for skull forts for the chance of pvp, and I use the rainbow homophobe bait flag with noob ship colors so that I am an enticing target. It's always hilarious having a galleon come charging at us and yelling "They're not noobs they're legends!" as they sink lol.

    I rarely die in pvp, and I fail to see the logic in the "dying gives people an advantage in pvp" statements. I like to stay alive when using GP. Outside of pvp I die a lot just for fun. My friends and I enjoying killing each other with GP, I will use GP to get back to the ship instead of the mermaid that is right next to me, I kill myself to respawn animals on an island or fix bugged skellies, and I jump to my death to conserve bananas because I'm OCD about keeping them at 100 XD.

    With that being said, I do feel the punishment should be a tad harsher. Not financially, but double the death duration at least, and maybe after being sunk the mermaid takes you to an island and you still have to wait a few minutes for your ship to respawn.

  • Strinder
    Master
    Insider

    @starship42 said in Death: Stakes and Consequences:

    That it seems to easy to die, and that there is little consequence, so much so that it is being done deliberately, and that that degrades and diminishes enjoyment, in this game, is my subjective opinion, and may very well be a matter of taste. Some will agree with me, others won't. I appreciate your input.

    Fair enough... but why? Why is it that it "degrades and diminishes [your] enjoyment..."? If you want any solution that is acceptable answering this question is important and should not be handwaved away as simple opinion and taste as it is the core of the argument you are making.

Login To Reply
28
Posts
22.6k
Views
7 out of 28