Death Decay Poll

@Earl Atogrim von Draken , decay will always bring opposition, even if it is just word association. I understand you are frustrated. I am beyond frustrated. There are many different people from many different nationalities here. I give you my consent to use me as a whipping post. Lash out at me Earl, I will never report you.

 

Lol. The title is death decay poll..
Why open it if you dont want to read the discussion?
As for looping around.. welcome to every single topic with opposed views?

Theres 500 regular players still playing sota right now.
The sheer amount of opposition towards thr current decay system, with thr people who are still here, should be enough for them to start looking at other options.
( god knows how many people quit or gave up already with the decay system being part of the reasons ).

Like i said in other threads. I play long sessions at a time so i CAN play through decay still, but i strongly feel overall its a bad system. And its part of the reason i dont play unless i have time for long sessions. Which means i invest time in other games in those small dosses.
And its lack of appeal for issues not addressed, means more and more the people i play games with are in othrr games. Meaning i play other games evrn when i DO have long session times.

Decay in sota is poorly done. Ive posted it 50x, but i feel they arnt willing to listen anymore. So think im done beating a dead horse.
Maybe the higher end players will quit over it, that fixes their high end player problem. Lol.

 

That's kind but that's not the point.
It's not your fault.
If anybody is to blame it is Port for failing to explain the system. The mechanics behind it, the need for it and how it actually works in the live version of the game. In words everybody is able to understand.
Yes there have been posts about it but obviously they weren't enough. Maybe it is because Chris is a true born theory crafter and some of his posts read exactly like that.
And of course there are parts of the community that just BELIEVE decay is bad. And fighting beliefs is pointless. Let's take my own part of the community, ze germanz. Most part of us think decay is bad. If I ask one why I get no useful explanation. If I ask if they ever got thrown back by it the answer is either a 'no' or a 'I don't know'. They just decided to believe it's a bad thing and stopped playing or went to green areas because they actually might die. There is nothing left to do about that.
So let decay die and either come up with something else or let go of a cap and in the end we will all have 200 gms. I know that would make a couple of people very happy. Because 'the gap', another great unknown as it seems, get people on the edge as well. How dare they to give another person the possibility to be better than me!

 

Because I might miss your insights.
You might think that something isn't there because you don't read it. I usually don't. I think the topic sucks but that doesn't mean the discussion isn't important.

And while we are at it:
I don't see a lot of high end players complaining about it.

 

I'm familiar with all the patch notes and I have no skill beyond GM. I stand by what I said.

 

I usually argue as to why I do not favor decay along the lines of how decay is not necessary (how skill gains require an inordinate amount of time and give tiny, incremental gains on an exponential curve; how the combat bar and deck are an effective bottleneck limiting what a player can contribute to a given situation), but there is another powerful line of argument that has been echoed several times in this thread and should not be underestimated: the detrimental effect death decay is having on incentive to play and player retention.

This is a big one and Portalarium, fine designers of games that they are, should take note; the loss of desire to play SotA and/ or scaling back across the board (from group play to solo) being directly attributable as reaction to death decay is massive, especially among those of higher levels and also those thoughtful of what higher levels entail and whether the demands of this game are worth the rewards. Everyone knows someone whom this has impacted negatively and, because we are playing in a (potentially) social game, this negative impact reaches far and wide by the proxy of dominos falling all around.

It's an existential moment, not just for the players weighing whether it is cost effective to continue, not just for those weighing if SotA is a (the?) game to settle into and make roots, it is also an existential moment for Portalarium: what kind of player are you looking to retain? The above mentioned player demographic are an important one and it would be a shame for Port to let them and like minded persons slip through their fingers.

Many persons whom say they are fine w/ decay today have not yet seen what this translates into for their tomorrow... when they do, they will have (perhaps) reached that existential moment, too.

No, the community is not split by thirds; per the poll on this thread, over 50% do not favor decay (37.1% want decay done away with, 11.8% feel the loss is excessive and 3.2% want it lightened; again, 48.9% alone feel the effects of decay are excessive or should be done away w/ completely).

 

The poll as it is is worthless because you can pick 2 options with one of them added later
In other words: this poll is designed to fuel the rage. If by mistake or by purpose isn't up to me to decide.

 

I agree w/ you insofar as polls do not generally capture what's necessarily going on; especially this one and especially here. I referenced it primarily because it's what we got and it was referenced by the user I was replying to.

Could the questions/ areas into which we fall re the matter have been better outlined? Sure, but it isn't so bad and does capture something of the situation. Does this sample represent player sentiment across the player base? Maybe, maybe not; but it certainly affords an opportunity for its quantifiable expression. Also, re ability to vote two options... I am unaware of this; I got just one vote.

Though I am not one to say the results are iron clad, I wouldn't go anywhere near to calling them worthless. If anything, the results have been surprising and I am sure they will give occasion for our liege, @Lord British to have a WTF (What the Felucca, for the uninitiated) and existential moment.

 

With the current decay system, they tried something and it failed. Either diligently overhaul it to make a game-worthy mechanic, or remove it from the game entirely.
SotA devs desperately need to learn to let go of failed ideas, and follow through with what remains.
Neck-deep in a mire of half-baked concepts, their lack of focus and adaptability is what continues to stop the Shroud devs from taking any noteable steps forward in gameplay.

 

Oh they are. But that's not the point.
The point is that the outrage of roughly 50% of the community is real, no matter how odd the poll is ^^
So, i don't disagree with your general statement.
I just disagree with the handywork of the OP.

 

It's still running, although it's a shadow of its former self.

It's been running for about 20 years. I played it for 5. Mostly what ran it down was games like WoW.

I'm not even going to argue that the decay system is correct, or not having it is correct. I'm just saying that I don't mind it. I think this topic largely comes down to attitude and expectations. If this was an already-existing game like Eve, people will largely understand - and agree to - its play style up front, instead of it changing on them mid-way.

The people who don't like the decay aren't wrong... nor are the people who don't mind it.

I've said that if the game suddenly made PVP non-consensual, I'd drop the game like a hot potato. That's one of the things that appeals to me, and I signed up for. I've read plenty by people who seem to argue that open PVP is great, good for everything, and automatically makes any game better (I'm paraphrasing). That wouldn't matter to my position.. I wouldn't want to play anymore.

 

This is part of the problem
Players on one end of the spectrum, the high level players, the players who spend most of their time day in day out churning out more and more experience ? The players the system is designed to limit? - can just keep right on grinding through it and its no big deal. Its annoying yes, and the higher you are the more annoying it is, but it is not insurmountable.

Again, there is a need to think long term.


Consider losing 200k at lvl 100
If you made level 100 in a couple of months, you're hitting the xp fairly hard on a regular basis and this is a drop in the bucket.
If you made level 100 in 11 months, it starts to get painful.
If it takes you 6 years to get to level 100, then the amount of xp you are gaining per day is a lot less, and a single death will set you back potentially weeks based on your normal acquisition rate.
The level 70-80 crowd who is saying "decay is fine" are not looking at this with a long term view in mind. Maybe they just don't plan to be here for the long haul, but to some of us who are, it is pretty obvious that this system is not sustainable as the average player level rises.

I'm a reasonable example of someone who grinds xp maybe one day every couple of weeks. Most of the time I'm at the bottom of a mine or running around in a forest getting incidental xp from things that are stood between me and the next cotton bush. I'm not by any means a person who enjoys grinding every day. Half the time I log in and never make it out of town. Therefore, during "normal" play, my xp pool doesn't really move. If I go mining /gathering for an evening it might go up by 100-200k after serveral hours. A single death will negate everything I accomplished that entire evening - often sending me negative. This is assuming I'm training zero skills and not using any of the xp I'm earning. While yes, I'm capable of putting on my "xp" deck/gear and going and grinding back what I've lost from a death in fairly short order, I don't like being forced to use my time *again* to "pay" for something that I've already earned once. Earning it back through normal gameplay letting it trickle in would take hours, assuming no more mishaps; I have to specifically switch to "hardcore mode" if I want those kinds of gains. I already feel compelled by other game mechanics to spend a certain % of my playtime grinding trivial mobs to afford all the cash sinks, and being forced to spend another large chunk of it grinding up death insurance or re-grinding xp already earned previously isn't going to leave much time left to do things that I actually enjoy doing.

So currently, the only solution is: Don't do anything risky, don't explore, don't try challenging content, don't experiment with other builds, don't group with anyone and share my xp or I'll just double the amount of time needed to get what I want to do, done. I hate this feeling of being afraid to step away from the computer for a minute because if my character gets killed its a huge setback. I guess I felt if the decay system was actually accomplishing what it was meant to accomplish the whole thing would be more palatable, but it isn't. It isn't closing the gap, it is just slapping limits on where I don't think limits need to be. The scaling of the experience system and minimal gains after a certain point already functions as an extremely effective soft cap.

I honestly think that if someone wants to invest the amount of time into the game to achieve 200 skills at GM, then good for them. If they invest that kind of time they deserve it. Some people may do it in a couple of years. Most people it will take considerably longer. Guess what? You can still only slot 10 skills at a time (deck limit) so the real benefit is versatility or slightly, slightly SLIGHTLY higher passive bonuses. Why is this a problem? Even looking at it from a PvP perspective the minimal benefits for level 120 in a skill vs. lvl 100 in a skill isn't insurmountable. Will they have a slight edge? Sure, but after investing years longer into the game they deserve to have a slight edge. We've got a game here that is open ended, with plenty of skills to learn and customize a build from, which is a great system. It seems counterintuitive to me to then say "Ok, but the more of this stuff you learn and try out the more we are going to punish you." What? Then just put hard caps and be done with it.

If you reach the point where you can't make progress any more and you're just grinding to pay XP tax, it kills the incentive to grind. It kills the incentive to do anything that might cause you to lose even more xp. Essentially, you are done, and its time to move on to the next game. Many people have already done so citing decay as the one of the key reasons. Many more are just insulted by / put off by it and wont even put in the time to begin with.

 

No, you can only choose one option.

The new option was added almost immediately, when there was something like a dozen votes. Not great, but not nearly the problem you think.

 

My bad, you are correct.
That was another poll.

 

Ze Germans.

 

Ze Germanz.

 

The proponents for decay really just want a leash for the players who managed to bug/cheat or simply power play their way to 50+ GM skills. Thats why I think we should be limited to a specific number of skill treees, so you cant have a "do everything" character. If there were limitations, the game as a whole would improve and decay would be unnecessary. I think you should be able to get 140 in a crafting skill if you work hard for it, but with that kind of specialization, have no other time for other professions. All accomplished with limiting skill trees, not individual skill caps.

I personally think its ridiculous that we have players soloing dragons and other boss mobs.

 

The problem isn't just decay. Skill experience for the entire game is esoteric and unexplained in the game itself. Even the XP pool number, which is one of the most important numbers in game to a player, is buried on the skills screen.

This skill advancement and decay system might be better if it was used to give the avatar and gamer better feedback. For example, if my pool is steadily growing could the game flash up a message saying 'You are progressing in mastery of your skills well.' If my pool is drastically dwindling over time, could the game periodically flash up a message that tells me 'You have learned as much as you can here.' If my pool has taken a huge dive can the game tell me 'You have grown weaker in defeat.' With a chat box interaction driven game it seems there is more opportunity for the Avatr to interact with himself or herself, not just NPCs, in this way.

Theorycraft explanations here in the forums are great. But ultimately the game isn't about flying the forums. The game has to explain why this stuff matters to an Avatar. SOTA has a great opportunity to differentiate its skill advancement system here further.

 

We see lots of interesting debate about concerns for decay limiting progressin even before launch. I also recall seeing the graphic drawn in the last telethon showing that the actual intent is to normalize very high level skill experience levels back to the more intended curve. While all of this might be logical for Episode 1, I started wondering what happens for later episodes? Once we reach a point of diminishing skill returns in episode 1 will we always be soft capped by current decay for later episodes? Or will this be offset by higher XP mobs in later episodes to enable us to drive skills higher? Will that simply up the ante for both more skill gain offset by more skill decay? In other words, is what we are concerned about for Episode 1 only going to become more and more pronounced in later episodes?

 

Reading your example it sounds to me that the knowledge of what might happen and it’s possible results are frightening people to take risks but what if that knowledge disappears?
We are still in alpha and thus might see more information as for the release version is intended.
It is of course just a guess but it could be possible that all these values we can see are not visible in the release version. (While testing these values are still some kind of important for us to know.)
As far as I remember at least some devs would like to let most values disappears from our client...so it is not that impossible.
Would you honestly still worry about decay and let it influence your gameplay if you wouldn’t neither know about your adventure level, pooled experience, about how much experience you gain by killing monsters nor how much experience you just lost on dying?