I couldn't remember off hand and I'm posting pre-coffee so it could be, I just remember hearing Malarious complain yesterday during an astral hunt about having to stand around and wait to phoenix. It felt like a long time last time I died during a raid on Nil, at least?
Does this mean we can scrap the timer for dying in non-enemy territory? Because there seems little point so someone hunting who dies on astral say, who now has to sit around before they can phoenix. Different story if it's your enemy territory and even arguably domoths.
You're adding extra IFs to the change. You can easily define enemy vs nonenemy territory (Though how you'll handle enemy NPC territory vs enemy player-controlled territory?) with a single if. Then you have to define aetherbubble during a domoth claim, aetherbubble during aetherflares, village during revolt, astral during ascension, death during Death/Chaos/etc challenges.
Forgiveness is the fragrance that the violet sheds on the heel that has crushed it.
For all deaths: You come back with 0 active power. It has to fill from your reserves normally. For enemy territory deaths: You lose 15% reserves on resurrection, or however many you had left. If you have 0% reserves, you lose experience as normal.
That's 2 if statements, but I think that players will regulate each other if excessive raiding means massive overdrawing.
Except people can also draw from ships and certain classes have a more pronounced power usage than others. (Not to mention that I can reclaim pretty much full reserves by clearing out Air of essence) Using power as a control is a bad idea.
Forgiveness is the fragrance that the violet sheds on the heel that has crushed it.
I don't dislike the idea, but I'm not confident that it will have any meaningful impact for the reasons stated above. "It costs power," tends to be pretty low on the "Reasons people don't do things," list. The reason the 2 million essence loss curbs the frequency of raids is because that can amount to several hours of bashing or organizing an aetherhunt for an hour or so. Drawing 15% of reserves takes a handful of minutes.
No the death timer should be universal and should increase only in enemy territory. This way, domoths, revolts, and nodes are covered.
I'm a bit confused. Domoths, revolts and nodes don't usually happen in enemy territory. How are they covered if timer only increases in enemy territory?
Forgiveness is the fragrance that the violet sheds on the heel that has crushed it.
People are discussing removing the timer in non enemy territory. I want it to stay because the aforementioned activities occur outside of it, and have lots of pk.
People are discussing removing the timer in non enemy territory. I want it to stay because the aforementioned activities occur outside of it, and have lots of pk.
Ah, so the suggestion is... increase only in enemy territory, but still have the base 15s for everywhere else. Got it.
Forgiveness is the fragrance that the violet sheds on the heel that has crushed it.
Is the timer for non enemy territory even that long? If memory serves, it's pretty short.
It's the same timer for all areas as I recall; remember that it was put in for the purpose of Domoths (so you can't just die and pop up again immediately with a bubblix). I don't think that there is currently an extended delay for enemy territory, that's what is being discussed here.
The current experience loss is definitely way too high as-is for dying in player-enemy territory.
I personally prefer the idea of extending the time-until-you-can-self-rez each time you die, but the first death itself should have a bumped-up time (to account for the fact that you're now not losing as much per death).
Possible unpopular opinion but get rid of xp loss for non-demis. Retain essence loss for demis and above, others have made good suggestions there if it would need to be lessened. Implement some sort of 'death debuff' such as lowering h/m/e, for everyone. Possibly re-purpose current xp loss curbing abilities to make this less harsh, or honestly just bin them / give them another purpose. And please give us an option to skip the whole pray for salvation text after the first time. I get it, roleplay, it's great but damn sitting there for 10 minutes to wait for your harsh punishment to arrive is about as fun as scrubbing a toilet with a toothbrush.
You have received a new honour! Congratulations! On this day, you have shown your willingness to ensure a bug-free Lusternia for everyone to enjoy. The face of Iosai the Anomaly unfolds before you, and within you grows the knowledge that you have earned the elusive and rare honour of membership in Her Order. Curio Exchange - A website to help with the trading of curio pieces in Lusternia.
Possible unpopular opinion but get rid of xp loss for non-demis.
I would be happy with this, or with level-capping until Titan. As in, "if you die before Titan, you cannot kill yourself back to a lower level." Level 100 on the border and die? Level 99! On the border of level 99 and die? Level 98! On the border of level 98 and die?... you're 98 at 0.0% exp.
Possible unpopular opinion but get rid of xp loss for non-demis.
I would be happy with this, or with level-capping until Titan. As in, "if you die before Titan, you cannot kill yourself back to a lower level." Level 100 on the border and die? Level 99! On the border of level 99 and die? Level 98! On the border of level 98 and die?... you're 98 at 0.0% exp.
Titans do get a nice stat boost and all, but on the other hand it is a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuge grind which is about as long as all the levels before combined. Maybe settle in the middle, half xp loss for titans?
You have received a new honour! Congratulations! On this day, you have shown your willingness to ensure a bug-free Lusternia for everyone to enjoy. The face of Iosai the Anomaly unfolds before you, and within you grows the knowledge that you have earned the elusive and rare honour of membership in Her Order. Curio Exchange - A website to help with the trading of curio pieces in Lusternia.
I like enemy territory deaths taking much longer and think it provides two benefits: 1. makes raids easier to deal with and 2. provides more emphasis on things like soulrez, Vernal Life, resurgem being useful.
If we are looking into experience loss, can we remove the massive experience gain from killing titans? Titans are a lot easier and more profitable to grief than any Demigod, and any Demigod that is in danger of losing Demigod can just sit and influence a stack of guards and not be in danger anymore.
2014/04/19 01:38:01 - Leolamins drained 2000000 power to raise Silvanus as a Vernal Ascendant.
2014/07/23 05:01:29 - Silvanus drained 2000000 power to raise Munsia as a Vernal Ascendant.
2015/05/24 06:03:07 - Silvanus drained 2000000 power to raise Arimisia as a Vernal Ascendant.
2015/05/24 06:03:58 - Silvanus drained 2000000 power to raise Lavinya as a Vernal Ascendant.
1. There are two types of enemy territories from the Player's perspective. There is enemy territory that you raid into, and there is enemy terrotory that you don't really care about, except that it is a bashing ground.
-- Proposal: Recognize this difference in the code. There is unclaimed enemy territory, and enemy territory claimed by Organizations. Allow places like Celest, to claim territory where Merians are the main mobs to be bashed, etc.
2. From what I can tell, the biggest problem with XP loss, is for people who get killed in territory that they are just there to bash in. They get ganked by people who "abuse" the fact that if they are bashing they must be an enemy and thus open to be killed. -- For these territories, remove or significantly reduce the XP loss, and make no other change.
3. For places that people raid, increase the time to respawn, and/ or perhaps give an incurable peace affliction for X minutes after being brought back to life.
I don't think it's abusing anything that people get killed in areas they are enemied to. It's part of the conflict roleplay - if I'm going to go slay merians, why shouldn't Celest be able to protect them from attack? There are places to hunt without getting enemied if it's something people worry about, or you can influence freely. I don't want to die for hunting merian and also have the same sort of xp loss I'd have raiding Nil, so no thanks to allowing orgs to claim new territory. They already have through roleplay.
Your information is very out of date, Daganev. Extra experience loss is already only applied to org territories - it doesn't even apply to Godrealms, which is part of why they're raided so often.
Your information is very out of date, Daganev. Extra experience loss is already only applied to org territories - it doesn't even apply to Godrealms, which is part of why they're raided so often.
Thanks. So the complaints I'm hearing is just about the lack of avenger protection then?
Most people who hunt in enemy territory know they're free game, and stay alert and ready to run (I know I always have) to avoid ganks. I'm not sure how many people complain about this lack of avenger protection but it's entirely avoidable - bash in non-enemying territory (like the tunnels or astral), influence everything, or get amnesties. I like this game of consequences, even for what you choose to hunt!
Games have been around for decades and I believe all these
solutions have been tried so why not learn from past mistakes?
Raiders want to lose less experience, presumably so they can
raid more. The experience loss was raised in part to stop constant or long term
raiding.
The proposed suggestion seems to be a longer death timer. In
the last couple of decades, the trend in gaming has been to get away from this
as a mechanic and to instead get people back into combat and raids faster. The
general wisdom being something along the lines of it not being fun to be dead.
A longer death timer does not seem like a way to reduce
griefing raids. Most raids are not Smob raids. Far more are hit and run on
angels/demons/daughters/villages/etc. Raiders already get a strong upper hand
in determining when the conflict starts. A few minutes time out seems more like
a bathroom break and a chance to grab a beer than a deterrent.
However, for those who do not grief, spending significant
time out of combat doesn’t seem like much fun. The game seems to be moving
towards more instances of unavoidable locks and quicker kills (I know this hasn’t
played out and we’ll have to see) and has always had a bit of a bar in
returning to combat due to planar mechanics. Longer deaths means longer to
reform for a counter attack. Top players seem to favour this, since it rewards
their play, but as the same time seems to encourage others to give up.
There is a need for some mechanic to break sieges. Many
players are at the endgame and sit around waiting for some PK to happen, but
there are still other players who don’t want to defend hour after hour.
One of the benefits of experience loss is that if you raid
and lose the slate isn’t just reset to zero. You have a real tangible loss.
Solutions should address this.
I think I’d rather see a system of ‘negative effects’ where
if you die in enemy territory it becomes a bit of a drawback to keep returning
over and over. Small penalty at first and ramps up from there. It could be
something not unlike insanity. The org sets a certain type of guard in each of
their territories and the guard stars afflicting you. One death occasional
stupidity. Two deaths distortion (stops hit and running). Three deaths
occasional stuns. And so on.
I think that wouldn't solve the problem. Ultimately, PKers will wait out those effects if they become too severe, which is equatable to the longer death timer. Note that experience loss isn't going away, just getting lessened from the monster it is now.
Moreover, punishing raiders by inhibiting their ability to PK via status effects seems pretty lame. What would happen if a counter-raid occurred and they were still suffering negative effects. Discretionaries already make it difficult enough for a potential raider.
Please forgive me, but I don't think I quite understand the problem statement. The banter seems to revolve around finding a more perfect penalty for being wuss-slapped. If I understand correctly, the principle problem is that while we would like to encourage some raiding, if the penalty is too soft then we'll have too much raiding; it would become a general nuisance and simple harassment.
A number of options have been proposed, most of which seem quite feasible too. But before getting into some of the more technical details, I would like to examine the problem space in a bit more detail. If we can penalize anything associated with a Character, then why should we limit ourselves to just the primary 6 stats or the hme trinity? While not every option may be applicable to every character, the choice of penalty can easily be restricted to only those which are applicable. Also, why not make these penalties as non-linear as possible? The logistic function is the bread and butter of most nonlinear systems I monkey with, but I think exponential decay is a better fit here.
First let us examine the space of penalties possible when being killed in any territory: 1) Experience/Essence loss. 2) Cool-down time penalty to lich/vitae/pheonix. 3) Family prestige/esteem/honour loss. 4) Guild-related stat penalties (such as Charisma or Strength). 5) Loot/equipment/kit item loss.
Currently #'s 1 and 2 seem to be applied, and seem to be applied universally. #3 could certainly be included for those characters which are part of a Lesser or Great House. #4 may prove controversial. I oppose #5, but include it for sake of completion. #5 might be tenable if restricted to non-artifact and non-runed items, but even then I suspect this to be the most contentious option.
Secondly we must consider the MAXIMUM penalty we are comfortable with, and possibly may need to decide different values for each of the above categories or even sub-categories. Depending on one's skill choices, #4 (Guild-related stats) might come in several flavours such Primary, Secondary, Tertiary, and Everything-Else for example. Different house orientations might have different penalty values as well (Honour might have a severe penalty, for example). There is plenty of range here, and of course one can always fine-tune these values after seeing something in action in the development and staging environments before deploying to the production environment.
Thirdly we track the number of times a character has been slain in the different territory types we're concerned about. I've heard Enemy Territory and Domoth Realms mentioned, but almost any attribute of a room could be used for the key in our dictionary (perhaps we want to track 4 known Cosmic Planes and EtherSeren and EtherGlom as well?).
Now let N be the number of times a character has died in said territory within the last 25 RL hours. When a character dies in territory we care about, we select our penalty from the above list (in addition to the traditional penalties, such as Experience/Essence loss) and then calculate the additional penalty's magnitude via the function: 1 - e^(-(5/L)*N). Variable L is our limit and requires some explaining.
The final thing we must decide is our level of patience in the face of stupidity, variable L. Most people get the message after dying once or twice, but some sieges have been known to drag out for several deaths. How many times should a character die in the concerned territory (Enemy territory, for example) before they should suffer the maximum penalty? If we think people should get the message at 5 times, then L = 5. This means they would suffer roughly 63.2% of the maximum penalty on their first death, and it increases as N increases, approaching the maximum. Since this is asymptotic to the maximum from below, it will never reach it but on the other hand, death's 6+ do continue to receive the maximum penalty. This function has a benefit of being extremely quick if using single-precision (Float32) numbers on any system made since 1996 thanks to in-core hardware support (or off-loading to a dedicated math processor, such as found on most video cards).
If we think perhaps this is too steep for the first death, we can simply increase L. If L = 25, then a characters first penalty would only be ~17% the maximum penalty (in addition to the standard penalties), but does increase (roughly 30% for the second death, 55% for the third death, ...).
Assuming the player is not intending to grief through nuisance raids, almost any value between 10 and 25 would work to detour against excessive raiding, but still remain weak enough to encourage "legit" raiding. I quoted that last term because it is fairly subjective, but the more experienced raiders know exactly what I'm talking about and have formed a fairly coherent consensus.
Death is to be expected while raiding and domothing. I don't think one or two deaths should not be terribly crippling, but there must come a point when the assaulting team needs to come to their senses and simply call it quits. Either they have established their foothold within the first few minutes, or they need to evacuate. There are artifcacts which facilitate ferrying corpses back to the nexus for rezzing and then returning the combatants to the fray. Even with 3 minute distortion timers and such, a determined assault force can sometimes hold out long enough for the transport guy to return with reinforcements (from the recently slain), thus extending an otherwise untenable situation which only serves to harass and annoy the defending forces. By using a ratchet to increase penalties for dying within the concerned territory, based on total number of deaths within the previous 25 RL hours, assaulting teams will need to think twice after a second death, because at this point the penalty should become quite tangible.
Bonus Points: Consider encouraging counter-attacks. To do this we may need to modulate variable N (above) based on the number of deaths or kills (or both) while defending one's own territory. Allied foreigners would not receive any such benefit, but the impetus of avenging one's honour ought to be on the home team any way. In any event, N must be non-negative, so no matter how the value is computed it may be wise to use Max( 0, N ) in the above formula.
The raiding xp penalty is not a 'wuss-slap', it represents the loss of a long stretch of monotonous grind, paid at some future time. It's like taking out a line of credit, you're going to have to pay for it somewhere down the line, and it'll suck. That's the real problem though, that it's at once horrendously high for the average player to do very often... but does nothing in the short term to dissuade someone who has decided to blow their savings on harassing you. Creating some different solution that addresses both problems would be best: Some method of persuading 'lemming raiders' from perpetual occupation of enemy territories without making it prohibitivly expensive for the 'casual raider' to participate in player-initiated group combat without tying themselves to turning a grindy (and very heavy) millstone later. B
Of all solutions I've heard presented, I believe that some kind of increasing 'time-out' is the best solution. First, let me address the other potentials you briefly mention. By and large, the main debate here is what to do about dying while raiding, and not in PvE or other sanctioned events . As such, some of these solutions might work as a replacement for PvE/Grinding deaths, something that some of the IREs have already done (abolish PvE xp loss).
Honor losses for raiding already exist, in the form of the 'wanton killing' loss tick*. This only kicks in if you're winning or killing people, but it does represent a drain on your honor for overeager raiding. However, a loss of honor does nothing functional for the majority of players, especially at the relatively low rate. Those who are worried about this will simply move their house to Blood. Personally, I wish that the family system were less gamified - as it stands, I don't feel much positive value in the family honor system.
Stat maluses for dying during a raid wouldn't do anything to curb nuisance raids, which tend to by definition not be focused around offensive efficacy. This is assuming that you meant offensive stats, like strength. In addition, not all classes are built equally around stats. Decimate a warrior's Strength, they're in trouble offensively. Drop a Nihilist's Int and... they shrug, their offense is (traditionally) entire non-stat based. As a blanket solution, this kind of thing just wouldn't effect everyone equally, which is a bad start. Not to mention that stats are getting a total makeover in the overhaul!
I don't think that gold/equipment costs to dying are going to be controversial. On the contrary, I doubt anyone will make any argument on their behalf. Non-Class, non-Artifact equipment is either sentimental in some fashion and totally beyond any reasonable penalty's scope (A figurine of my husband, this bauble, this robe I personally designed, etc.), or a gold tax that will be utterly ignored, unless it's super high... in which case we're back in the same grind-boat with slightly different paint.
No, I think that the best solution would be to implement a 'time out' period of some fashion that starts very low (to allow for reasonable deaths during a raid) and ramps up such that after a certain number of deaths have elapsed, you're unlikely to continue returning as your group is increasingly tapped out of the fight at any given moment. Pair that with some mechanic (MUCH discussed in other threads, pms if you want my own take) to eventually bring closure to entirely one sided raids (where the raiding party isn't dying enough to kick in this kind of penalty), and you're done. You've created a fairly clear lose condition (when we die, we're out for 10 minutes) and win condition (they weren't killing us, and we can't raid anymore... but we get a cookie for hitting that cutoff!).
The distinction worth noting here is that this time out shouldn't, imo, stop you from otherwise playing the game, it should only make it such that you are pushed out of raiding. This limits the scope of the change to this one specific application, while still allowing for expansion of the mechanic if things go well. Presto: You're hedged out of your raid directly, instead of indirectly through a mounting grind cost... and you're not saddling newer raiders with big grind costs when they die!
*I'm pretty sure it ticks when raiding. It only DOESN'T when defending your own territory or during sanctioned events like a revolt, afaik.
Comments
Forgiveness is the fragrance that the violet sheds on the heel that has crushed it.
For enemy territory deaths: You lose 15% reserves on resurrection, or however many you had left. If you have 0% reserves, you lose experience as normal.
That's 2 if statements, but I think that players will regulate each other if excessive raiding means massive overdrawing.
Forgiveness is the fragrance that the violet sheds on the heel that has crushed it.
Forgiveness is the fragrance that the violet sheds on the heel that has crushed it.
Forgiveness is the fragrance that the violet sheds on the heel that has crushed it.
The current experience loss is definitely way too high as-is for dying in player-enemy territory.
I personally prefer the idea of extending the time-until-you-can-self-rez each time you die, but the first death itself should have a bumped-up time (to account for the fact that you're now not losing as much per death).
You have received a new honour! Congratulations! On this day, you have shown your willingness to ensure a bug-free Lusternia for everyone to enjoy. The face of Iosai the Anomaly unfolds before you, and within you grows the knowledge that you have earned the elusive and rare honour of membership in Her Order.
Curio Exchange - A website to help with the trading of curio pieces in Lusternia.
You have received a new honour! Congratulations! On this day, you have shown your willingness to ensure a bug-free Lusternia for everyone to enjoy. The face of Iosai the Anomaly unfolds before you, and within you grows the knowledge that you have earned the elusive and rare honour of membership in Her Order.
Curio Exchange - A website to help with the trading of curio pieces in Lusternia.
If we are looking into experience loss, can we remove the massive experience gain from killing titans? Titans are a lot easier and more profitable to grief than any Demigod, and any Demigod that is in danger of losing Demigod can just sit and influence a stack of guards and not be in danger anymore.
1. There are two types of enemy territories from the Player's perspective. There is enemy territory that you raid into, and there is enemy terrotory that you don't really care about, except that it is a bashing ground.
-- For these territories, remove or significantly reduce the XP loss, and make no other change.
3. For places that people raid, increase the time to respawn, and/ or perhaps give an incurable peace affliction for X minutes after being brought back to life.
Games have been around for decades and I believe all these solutions have been tried so why not learn from past mistakes?
Raiders want to lose less experience, presumably so they can raid more. The experience loss was raised in part to stop constant or long term raiding.
The proposed suggestion seems to be a longer death timer. In the last couple of decades, the trend in gaming has been to get away from this as a mechanic and to instead get people back into combat and raids faster. The general wisdom being something along the lines of it not being fun to be dead.
A longer death timer does not seem like a way to reduce griefing raids. Most raids are not Smob raids. Far more are hit and run on angels/demons/daughters/villages/etc. Raiders already get a strong upper hand in determining when the conflict starts. A few minutes time out seems more like a bathroom break and a chance to grab a beer than a deterrent.
However, for those who do not grief, spending significant time out of combat doesn’t seem like much fun. The game seems to be moving towards more instances of unavoidable locks and quicker kills (I know this hasn’t played out and we’ll have to see) and has always had a bit of a bar in returning to combat due to planar mechanics. Longer deaths means longer to reform for a counter attack. Top players seem to favour this, since it rewards their play, but as the same time seems to encourage others to give up.
There is a need for some mechanic to break sieges. Many players are at the endgame and sit around waiting for some PK to happen, but there are still other players who don’t want to defend hour after hour.
One of the benefits of experience loss is that if you raid and lose the slate isn’t just reset to zero. You have a real tangible loss. Solutions should address this.
I think I’d rather see a system of ‘negative effects’ where if you die in enemy territory it becomes a bit of a drawback to keep returning over and over. Small penalty at first and ramps up from there. It could be something not unlike insanity. The org sets a certain type of guard in each of their territories and the guard stars afflicting you. One death occasional stupidity. Two deaths distortion (stops hit and running). Three deaths occasional stuns. And so on.
Moreover, punishing raiders by inhibiting their ability to PK via status effects seems pretty lame. What would happen if a counter-raid occurred and they were still suffering negative effects. Discretionaries already make it difficult enough for a potential raider.
A number of options have been proposed, most of which seem quite feasible too. But before getting into some of the more technical details, I would like to examine the problem space in a bit more detail. If we can penalize anything associated with a Character, then why should we limit ourselves to just the primary 6 stats or the hme trinity? While not every option may be applicable to every character, the choice of penalty can easily be restricted to only those which are applicable. Also, why not make these penalties as non-linear as possible? The logistic function is the bread and butter of most nonlinear systems I monkey with, but I think exponential decay is a better fit here.
First let us examine the space of penalties possible when being killed in any territory:
1) Experience/Essence loss.
2) Cool-down time penalty to lich/vitae/pheonix.
3) Family prestige/esteem/honour loss.
4) Guild-related stat penalties (such as Charisma or Strength).
5) Loot/equipment/kit item loss.
Currently #'s 1 and 2 seem to be applied, and seem to be applied universally. #3 could certainly be included for those characters which are part of a Lesser or Great House. #4 may prove controversial. I oppose #5, but include it for sake of completion. #5 might be tenable if restricted to non-artifact and non-runed items, but even then I suspect this to be the most contentious option.
Secondly we must consider the MAXIMUM penalty we are comfortable with, and possibly may need to decide different values for each of the above categories or even sub-categories. Depending on one's skill choices, #4 (Guild-related stats) might come in several flavours such Primary, Secondary, Tertiary, and Everything-Else for example. Different house orientations might have different penalty values as well (Honour might have a severe penalty, for example). There is plenty of range here, and of course one can always fine-tune these values after seeing something in action in the development and staging environments before deploying to the production environment.
Thirdly we track the number of times a character has been slain in the different territory types we're concerned about. I've heard Enemy Territory and Domoth Realms mentioned, but almost any attribute of a room could be used for the key in our dictionary (perhaps we want to track 4 known Cosmic Planes and EtherSeren and EtherGlom as well?).
Now let N be the number of times a character has died in said territory within the last 25 RL hours. When a character dies in territory we care about, we select our penalty from the above list (in addition to the traditional penalties, such as Experience/Essence loss) and then calculate the additional penalty's magnitude via the function: 1 - e^(-(5/L)*N). Variable L is our limit and requires some explaining.
The final thing we must decide is our level of patience in the face of stupidity, variable L. Most people get the message after dying once or twice, but some sieges have been known to drag out for several deaths. How many times should a character die in the concerned territory (Enemy territory, for example) before they should suffer the maximum penalty? If we think people should get the message at 5 times, then L = 5. This means they would suffer roughly 63.2% of the maximum penalty on their first death, and it increases as N increases, approaching the maximum. Since this is asymptotic to the maximum from below, it will never reach it but on the other hand, death's 6+ do continue to receive the maximum penalty. This function has a benefit of being extremely quick if using single-precision (Float32) numbers on any system made since 1996 thanks to in-core hardware support (or off-loading to a dedicated math processor, such as found on most video cards).
If we think perhaps this is too steep for the first death, we can simply increase L. If L = 25, then a characters first penalty would only be ~17% the maximum penalty (in addition to the standard penalties), but does increase (roughly 30% for the second death, 55% for the third death, ...).
Assuming the player is not intending to grief through nuisance raids, almost any value between 10 and 25 would work to detour against excessive raiding, but still remain weak enough to encourage "legit" raiding. I quoted that last term because it is fairly subjective, but the more experienced raiders know exactly what I'm talking about and have formed a fairly coherent consensus.
Death is to be expected while raiding and domothing. I don't think one or two deaths should not be terribly crippling, but there must come a point when the assaulting team needs to come to their senses and simply call it quits. Either they have established their foothold within the first few minutes, or they need to evacuate. There are artifcacts which facilitate ferrying corpses back to the nexus for rezzing and then returning the combatants to the fray. Even with 3 minute distortion timers and such, a determined assault force can sometimes hold out long enough for the transport guy to return with reinforcements (from the recently slain), thus extending an otherwise untenable situation which only serves to harass and annoy the defending forces. By using a ratchet to increase penalties for dying within the concerned territory, based on total number of deaths within the previous 25 RL hours, assaulting teams will need to think twice after a second death, because at this point the penalty should become quite tangible.
Bonus Points:
Consider encouraging counter-attacks. To do this we may need to modulate variable N (above) based on the number of deaths or kills (or both) while defending one's own territory. Allied foreigners would not receive any such benefit, but the impetus of avenging one's honour ought to be on the home team any way. In any event, N must be non-negative, so no matter how the value is computed it may be wise to use Max( 0, N ) in the above formula.