Guild Wars 2

So when the game first launched (as far as I can remember) the only punishment for death in WvW beyond needing to run back out into the fray was a subtle charge for repairing your armor. With the removal of a silver cost to repair gear, there is little to no impact when it comes to player deaths. I would like to propose a solution that would easily rectify this situation.

Please, make it so that participation is lowered upon death. Preferably this would mean that dying resets your participation to 0, but if that feels too drastic you could have it bring you down to tier 2 participation, one tier below the required paricipation level for receiving skirmish reward chests. Once again, if that seems too punishing, you could have it drop half a tier or a full tier per death. I just can’t help but feel as though this participation tier system is the perfect remedy for an issue that has been nagging at me from the beginning.

Many times over the years I have showed a friend Gw2, and inevitably I show them my favorite game mode. The question I always get is “what happens when you die”. Everyone is disappointed by the real answer to that question.

To be fair, they did add warpoint on kill. More with bloodlust, as per usual.

Right… because people need more reasons to sit on walls and use siege rather than coming out to fight. No thanks.

Choppy.4183:

Right… because people need more reasons to sit on walls and use siege rather than coming out to fight. No thanks.

Sure I’ll agree to that.

If you agree to permanently ban every player standing in spawn for more than 10 seconds from WvW so those of us that actually play get outnumbered when we are supposed to.

Deal?

oh yes perfect after that how about we stop scoring and turn pvp off so that its just a loot train that kittens clockwise around the map collecting lords rooms.

People were already hating that even though you were in combat with another play, it didn’t count towards participation.. but you want to make that even worse by removing basically the remaining amount of participation they have left?

._.

Terrible idea. It’d just encourage hiding in towers, which is boring, not engaging in combat.. which is fun.

Increasing death penalty would simply make blobs bigger and roamers less interested going out solo or as small groups.

Choppy.4183:

Right… because people need more reasons to sit on walls and use siege rather than coming out to fight. No thanks.

Or, people need more reason to 10v1 when they do “fight”. Again, no thanks!

Players should be incentivized to fight and possibly die. Adding a death penalty would only incentivize players to run away from fights, which already happens too much.

OP, your suggestion would result in easily the most boring, unrewarding WvW experience imaginable. Even if it were even a partial drop in participation, it would result in groups completely avoiding conflict.

I’m on a server that isn’t T1, because I want actual fights, not just running away and PPT’ing.

JesseBensen.4817:

Many times over the years I have showed a friend Gw2, and inevitably I show them my favorite game mode. The question I always get is “what happens when you die”. Everyone is disappointed by the real answer to that question.

And to be completely honest, the only reason they’re disappointed by the answer is because either:
1. They expected it to be like Runescape’s wilderness for some ridiculous reason, probably because you set that false expectation yourself.

2. You have absolutely 0 flair for the dramatic.

Like, seriously.

Death in this game actually has an effect on a fight.

If you die, you rally an enemy.

If all of you die, you potentially lose whatever you were trying to defend, or lose your chance on whatever you were trying to attack.

Not to mention the humiliation that comes with a wipe for any organized guild. A lot of these guilds have very big egos, and poke fun at you for wiping.

There’s your “punishment”.

If that’s not enough, maybe put a dollar in a jar every time you die.

I definitely wouldn’t want more players avoiding conflict, and I suppose that is one facet that I didn’t really consider when pondering this idea, so fair enough. I agree that the war score on player kills was a step in the right direction, but its not very personal. Maybe I’m just a cynical kitten who wants the players I kill to be punished beyond just knowing that they lost. In either case, it gives me something to think about hehe. So scrap the lowered participation idea. Does anybody have any viable suggestions for ways in which players can be punished for their deaths? Perhaps a system that involves an additional reward to the player who contributed the most to the death? That way (in theory) the impact of players avoiding conflict due to the negatives of dying will be mitigated by players going out of their way to seek out conflict for potential gain.

Beyond cynicism, one of the things that pushed me to actually create this topic was a situation earlier today. I wiped a group of 3 just outside of their camp. I started on the camp and before long the three players I had killed began coming into the camp attempting to kill me one after the other. I would kill one, he would respawn and start his trek back, and by the time I had killed the third, the first one to die was already back at the camp and the cycle continued on until I decided to leave it alone and abandoned the camp. I guess I just wish there was a viable system that might make those guys say “hey, we keep getting killed trying to stop this dude from taking our camp. Sure, we could keep this up and prevent him from capping, but would that really be wise considering every time he kills us we….” Right now the only way to finish that sentence is “Would that really be wise considering every time he kills us we give his team a few points?” It’s just not enough.

JesseBensen.4817:

Beyond cynicism, one of the things that pushed me to actually create this topic was a situation earlier today. I wiped a group of 3 just outside of their camp. I started on the camp and before long the three players I had killed began coming into the camp attempting to kill me one after the other. I would kill one, he would respawn and start his trek back, and by the time I had killed the third, the first one to die was already back at the camp and the cycle continued on until I decided to leave it alone and abandoned the camp. I guess I just wish there was a viable system that might make those guys say “hey, we keep getting killed trying to stop this dude from taking our camp. Sure, we could keep this up and prevent him from capping, but would that really be wise considering every time he kills us we….” Right now the only way to finish that sentence is “Would that really be wise considering every time he kills us we give his team a few points?” It’s just not enough.

so you had a roamers wet dream and your upset about it?

Wow, that’s a terrible idea. The last thing we need is people being “afraid” to fight.

How about when you die in WvW you can’t play that character anymore? Your team can’t res you but they can hold a touching memorial for you. Maybe it’ll be enough to finally bring red, green and blue together in a spirit of peace and reconciliation so we can end this kitten , dirty war.

Oh wait, we actually want the war because it’s fun. Never mind.

JesseBensen.4817:

Beyond cynicism, one of the things that pushed me to actually create this topic was a situation earlier today. I wiped a group of 3 just outside of their camp. I started on the camp and before long the three players I had killed began coming into the camp attempting to kill me one after the other. I would kill one, he would respawn and start his trek back, and by the time I had killed the third, the first one to die was already back at the camp and the cycle continued on until I decided to leave it alone and abandoned the camp. I guess I just wish there was a viable system that might make those guys say “hey, we keep getting killed trying to stop this dude from taking our camp. Sure, we could keep this up and prevent him from capping, but would that really be wise considering every time he kills us we….” Right now the only way to finish that sentence is “Would that really be wise considering every time he kills us we give his team a few points?” It’s just not enough.

I literally did almost exactly this last week and my final thoughts weren’t “death should be more impactful” but instead “I should have kited instead of holding my ground.”

Went in to Pangloss Mine, killed the NPC’s, had a lengthy fight with an Ele, killed it, another Ele came, killed it, the first one came back, a Scrapper soon followed, downed them both by the time a Thief showed up, finished them both, worked on the Thief, a Reaper and Dragonhunter showed up, the first three came back and the camp upgraded and reset, at which point I died from being overwhelmed.

Did that as a vanilla Necro. Felt pleased that I was such a chore to bring down rather than upset that I’d lost, lol. Fight must have lasted like 8 minutes as I was able to cast Plaguelands 3 times before dying.

Well at the moment, when you die you:

• Give warscore to enemy team
• Give a loot bag (that could potentially give a precursor etc)
• Give the enemy WXP
• Throws you back to a waypoint, away from the action (possibly separating you from group)
• Makes you unable to defend/attack/walk to wherever you where.
• Damages one of your armor-pieces.
• Boost his ego and makes his chest hair grow (or whatever happens with women, not going to ask).

There are quite a few drawbacks to it, but each separately might not be very punishing (which is good, we want people to come out and fight!) collectively they take you out of the combat, and makes you wish to do better (hopefully).

If you want something more “punishing” like I dunno, lose 1 gold when you die, even worse the enemy get the 1g. Or one of your armor pieces are ruined permanently. What do you think would happen ? Personally I think no one would bother to fight (boring).

2 minute locked inside citadel so they can’t come out and fight you again? 5 minute cripple that can’t be removed? 50% health death penalty for 3 minutes?

The problem with all those, are that they are boring, and encourages boring play (play safe, never risk, 5vs1 etc, not to mention trolling/griefing for some of them, spawncamp etc).

If anything, most would probably like lessening of at least one of the existing penalties, the back to waypoint one. And make a way we can throw around portable waypoints, so people can respawn and run right back into the meat grinder. Think Zombie vs Zombie war, where both sides endlessly reanimate.

Uhm, /rant. Sorry.

I’m totally against a death penalty that focuses participation. In my opinion, any fight action against another player (even if it’s blocked, or dodged, or whatever) should reset the participation decay timer to 5:00. Always keep in mind that in a 1vs1 fight, if someone wins, the other loses, and there’s no reason to be exceedingly punishing.

Now, the issue of “I’m dead ? I don’t care, I just respawn and come back” is really annoying when fighting near spawns, I agree with that. Impairing participation is just not the appropriate answer. Unfortunately, I’ve got no appropriate answer to suggest right now.

JesseBensen.4817:

So when the game first launched (as far as I can remember) the only punishment for death in WvW beyond needing to run back out into the fray was a subtle charge for repairing your armor. With the removal of a silver cost to repair gear, there is little to no impact when it comes to player deaths. I would like to propose a solution that would easily rectify this situation.

Please, make it so that participation is lowered upon death. Preferably this would mean that dying resets your participation to 0, but if that feels too drastic you could have it bring you down to tier 2 participation, one tier below the required paricipation level for receiving skirmish reward chests. Once again, if that seems too punishing, you could have it drop half a tier or a full tier per death. I just can’t help but feel as though this participation tier system is the perfect remedy for an issue that has been nagging at me from the beginning.

Many times over the years I have showed a friend Gw2, and inevitably I show them my favorite game mode. The question I always get is “what happens when you die”. Everyone is disappointed by the real answer to that question.

What happens when you, and your side, are farmed by superior players and numbers? Pretty sure you’d change your tune quickly.

…There are already a number of drawbacks to dying, so what you’re proposing is an unnecessarily harsh penalty that certainly won’t create a healthy competitive environment.

As if there aren’t enough cowardly people shirking fights with very little loss to them currently.

Go play eve. This is a horrible idea and would absolutely decimate WvW.

To the OP:

That is the risk of capping a point that they have fast access to. You needed to adapt to the situation and needed to come up with a better strat (which is also a mild l2p). as a Daredevil main in WvW, I need to understand this myself, else im not taking that point w/o someone helping me.

Also…gj on the 3v1 :p

JesseBensen.4817:

Maybe I’m just a cynical kitten who wants the players I kill to be punished beyond just knowing that they lost.

Knowing you’ve lost is traditionally considered to be the worst punishment possible. I think knowing you’ve lost is enough; all the ego bruise, none of the disincentive.

I wish there were portable waypoints, so we could all get back to melting each others’ faces more quickly. Nothing is worse than wandering around without fights.

SpellOfIniquity.1780:

Choppy.4183:

Right… because people need more reasons to sit on walls and use siege rather than coming out to fight. No thanks.

As per anyone that’s played WvW, people are plenty enough afraid of dying.

This is just dumb. Sorry not trying to be disrespectful or anything, but you need to get a clue! This is one of the worst ideas I have heard in quite some time…

This does not make deaths impactful. It just punishes roamers more than zerglings because roamers need much longer to reach t6 participation than zerglings.

Making deaths impactful would mean banning you from the map for lets say 5 minutes after death.

While I don’t support the idea of your participation going down, I agree that dying should punish you more severely in WvW. As many have stated however, there’s no easy answer to this.

In a perfect scenario, if dying would actually mean something, it would encourage more strategic play and highlight the importance of everyone doing their job well (front/backlines, support awareness, good commanding etc.) and introduce a whole new world of tacticism into WvW. No more boring zerg vs. zerg bloodfests; the skill and positioning would matter more than numbers. The fights would become a lot more fun. Also, killing another player while roaming would feel really satisfying and dying would encourage you to learn from your mistakes and get better.

I personally think that the best ‘punishment’ for dying would be that when you die, you are locked in the spawn zone for X number of minutes (2-5 minutes, 1 if outnumbered). You could still use the vendors and sort out your inventory and such, but wouldn’t be able to exit the spawn area until the timer goes out.

There are problems though. As many have mentioned, siege camping would become a real pain. With my suggestion, a small group of people on an empty map could completely hunt and shut down solo roamers, for example.

No easy answers.

SpellOfIniquity.1780:

Choppy.4183:

Right… because people need more reasons to sit on walls and use siege rather than coming out to fight. No thanks.

Did you consider the implications before making this suggestion or did you just think people need to be punished for dying?

If there is a penalty for dying greater than giving the enemy a war point and having to run back or have someone res you it us going to greatly affect how people play. That will be to avoid dying at all cost because they lose all rewards.

So you want a game mode that you are supposed to fight in that no one will want to fight in because they will lose all rewards?

Unless I am missing something, please explain how you think this will improve the game mode?

Also I just makes is more necessary to Map Omni blob and the stack more server to avoid losses to dying. This idea of your OP would do nothing but completely kill off WvW. More so with the huge disparity between populations of servers in the same match up.

This will make servers who are completely out numbered. Plain out not play WvW for the the whole week maybe even quit GW2 completely.

Or this will simply make stacking one or two servers the only way to play WvW. Leaving the other players on the others servers to never gain rewards or spend more time locked in spawn then actually playing WvW.

Either these are all very bad ideas. That only servers to kill off WvW, rather then save it.

I would only give in to these ideas. If ANet completely did away with the AOE cap. Thus hard nerfing mindless unorganized zerging against inferior numbers of more skillful players.

wtf no

Firmly in the already enough cowardice around here camp

OP means: We need maximum Karma train. People miss the Eotm Ktrain, Wxp and Exp era.

Sora Shadow.9160:

OP means: We need maximum Karma train. People miss the Eotm Ktrain, Wxp and Exp era.

The OP has a poorly thought out idea but, people do miss EotM and KTrains.

You must encourage your team to fight because they lose morale like npc. High morale, good fights. low morale, lots of wipes.

Sovereign.1093:

You must encourage your team to fight because they lose morale like npc. High morale, good fights. low morale, lots of wipes.

Are you saying that NPCs have… morale?

Anet are monsters!!!