You do prove a point Turok, but like the old saying goes, sometimes too much of something can be a bad thing. Too much negative reinforcement will make the person seek to avoid penalties rather than seek rewards. Too much positive reinforcement makes people unprepared for bad consequences. You have to find a striking balance in between to get a good disciplinary system that will effectively prepare someone or something for life. This involves rewards and penalties and punishments, so that a person will seek rewards and beneficiary actions to avoid bad consequences (but not like the state of complete negative reinforcement, for this person is seeking rewards rather than seeking to avoid penalties).
This is my opinion, of course, so this does not mean I'm 100% right, but in my opinion games are leaning a little too much toward the positive reinforcement idea, when instead games should reach the striking middle point.
Edit Part: Well Turok, we like the risks, but mostly because risks can bring great rewards...or complete disaster. Sort of like gambling. Why do things the straight-forward, easy way when you could try to accomplish greater feats (considering the rewards is completely worth the risk, which means I don't condone someone trying to break a dangerous life-threatening world record for the sake of being remembered in a book).
They became less punishing with the creation of WoW. As soon as WoW hit the market, their nonexistant death penalty set the new low standard for following casual games.
Now most games have a meaningless death penalty. Its really sad how low standards have dropped cause of WoW
Yeah cause it's fun, i know i'm a sadomasochist, i like dying and loose all the xp i made in the last hour. I play MMO to lose my time, that's what i like.
Yeah cause it's fun, i know i'm a sadomasochist, i like dying and loose all the xp i made in the last hour. I play MMO to lose my time, that's what i like.
So basically, you like it when death is absolutely meaningless, and you can just mindlessly walk through the game without any kind of effort or fear? Why go into a dungeon then? Why was Moria so great in the LotR films, cause of the great sense of fear. Imagine if you went into that scene knowing none of them could die.
Whoa, when I created this thread yesterday, I did not expect this level of interest. It seems that death penalties in mmorpgs are a subject of controversy.
This has come to mind. For all of us who do like rogue-likes, what is your specific reason(s)?
For me, it's more of the part of recovery and using whatever comes to hand. I learned a long time ago with these games to take whatever you can find, and learn crafting skills so I could create armor for myself or sell it off to others. That is why I fell in love with my first mmorpg, Runescape. It had a brutal death punishment in which you lost everything except your equipped weapon and a few random items, and I unfortunately found myself on the dying part alot. So, I learned to mine ores and smith armor. So, in no time, I became a successful player on that game. The idea of taking whatever you find and learning to create your own armor has always greatly appealed to me, and that concept became more important in rogue-likes. So, for those of you who love rogue-likes, what is your reason(s)?
Antipathy: First off, yes, I do play alot of rogue-likes. Secondly, "rogue-like" is used to describe games with severely harsh death punishments nowadays. Yes, I do know that Rogue is a single player turn-based game (so apparently I do know alot about the game's history too). Modern day rogue-like mmorpgs don't neccessarily have to follow that exact formula. Now it can be an mmorpg and doesn't have to be turn-based to be called a rogue-like, as long as it has severe death punishments like it's granddaddy had. I'm being serious about the game my friend played. It wasn't big, and I think it was made by an indy developer, but it existed. Also, what do you mean fear isn't a huge and important aspect of rogue-likes? It is a huge part, but you're thinking of fear too negatively. Fear didn't keep me from entering those dungeons, it added thrill to the whole adventure. Like one wise man said: "If all difficulties were known at the outset of a long journey, most of us would never start out at all." Vrazule: So, a guy that plays a wizard game aiming towards the kids-tween group is any better? Don't forget, we are all gamers, all nerdy, all hoping that we were ninjas, or had wings, etc.
Um, no. I'm not looking to be anything other than myself. I don't watch much TV. While I love reading books, I also love playing computer games because they are entertainment, not a replacement for any lack of achievement or satisfaction from my real life. Games by their very definition are about having fun and most of us prefer it to be a relaxing fun, not an uptight, boorish, masochistic and addiction based nightmare. It's hardcore freaks like you that give the genre such a bad reputation in the real world. You guys try to turn these things into something other than a game. It's twitsted and sad. The nerdy, no lifer developers are just as much to blame as their consumer counterparts.
I play Wizard 101 because it's the only real casual game available that I can stomach. Free Realms is too childish. I would prefer an adult oriented game that was completely casual with absolutely no hardcore content what so ever. Until then, I'm stuck with single player games and Wizard 101 and hopefully, Star Wars The Old Republic. The hardcore's deathgrip on the industry is still strong, but it's slipping fast and despite the prevelance of hardcore oriented developers, they can't ignore the casuals any longer if they want to make huge amounts of money.
With PvE raiding, it has never been a question of being "good enough". I play games to have fun, not to be a simpering toady sitting through hour after hour of mind numbing boredom and fawning over a guild master in the hopes that he will condescend to reward me with shiny bits of loot. But in games where those people get the highest progression, anyone who doesn't do that will just be a moving target for them and I'll be damned if I'm going to pay money for the privilege. - Neanderthal
So, for those of you who love rogue-likes, what is your reason(s)?
Purely the adrenaline rush when you avoid dying - like crossing a zone full of red mobs or soloing in Unrest in EQ1 where one mistake means a nasty CR so you're on a permanent adrenaline rush. You can't get that rush unless there's a nasty death penalty (although some people don't seem to understand it's the rush from *avoiding* the penalty we want - not the penalty itself. You can't get one without the other).
You do prove a point Turok, but like the old saying goes, sometimes too much of something can be a bad thing. Too much negative reinforcement will make the person seek to avoid penalties rather than seek rewards. Too much positive reinforcement makes people unprepared for bad consequences. You have to find a striking balance in between to get a good disciplinary system that will effectively prepare someone or something for life. This involves rewards and penalties and punishments, so that a person will seek rewards and beneficiary actions to avoid bad consequences (but not like the state of complete negative reinforcement, for this person is seeking rewards rather than seeking to avoid penalties). This is my opinion, of course, so this does not mean I'm 100% right, but in my opinion games are leaning a little too much toward the positive reinforcement idea, when instead games should reach the striking middle point. Edit Part: Well Turok, we like the risks, but mostly because risks can bring great rewards...or complete disaster. Sort of like gambling. Why do things the straight-forward, easy way when you could try to accomplish greater feats (considering the rewards is completely worth the risk, which means I don't condone someone trying to break a dangerous life-threatening world record for the sake of being remembered in a book).
I also firmly believe that you have to balance positive and negative reinforcement or at least make sure that positive reinforcement only applies to non-trivial tasks (ie reward but do not spoil)
The key difference for me is that I believe that MMORPGs are finally achieving a good balance after being skewed toward negative reinforcements for so long.
I do not equate greater risks with greater rewards. To me the challenge is to accomplish the same goal without taking risks. There is no challenge to me if you rely on luck or uneducated guesses to reach your goal. I guess it is my training speaking since I was educated and trained in a profession where if you need to take risks, you pretty much failed in your task.
It's a fantasy world, so I can suspend disbelief about almost anything. Gnomes with rocket packs, Unicorns on roller skates? Fine, whatever. If it pays the bills to put Coke billboards in Isengard, I can deal with it.
But a roleplaying game where death has no sting? That is the most non-immersive situation there can possibly be.
Death should be painful, but very very RARE. It should only happen when you do something stupid; not when the boss mob is tougher than you could possibly have known about the first time through a dungeon; and not when your hand slips on the mouse button.
The problem is that a lot of computer game players - not just in MMORPGs, but in FPS and other games - don't feel like the game is "hard" unless they die at least a hundred times.
But there's really no reason for that. I think games should have lesser "punishments" short of death. The original EQ had downtime for overuse of mana or loss of hitpoints. The problem was that you got a four-minute time out if you barely survived, but you still got a two-minute time out if you fought a perfect fight against an opponent at the optimum level. The new WoW-style game has done away with what I would call the "bad" downtime, but it also does away with the "good" downtime. You can lose 99% of your health and be back in the fight and seconds, but losing 101% means death - why?
I think there should be no downtime at all (even the WoW-style 10-second eating and drinking stop) if you're fighting well - why punish me if I'm doing exactly what I should be doing? Once a fight is over, I should get my breath back almost instantly. But if something goes wrong - say you get that third add you weren't expecting - then you should start to accrue damage that builds up and doesn't go away until you stop and bandage for a bit.
Then, only if you press on while injured, and do something blatantly stupid, would you finally get the "Big D." But only when you clearly DESERVE it. Then it should be a real timeout - maybe ten minutes or more. Just like for kids, not a punch in the face but just some time to stop what you're doing and think about and how to avoid doing it next time.
Vrazule: So, in your perfect real life world, exactly how do you find time to argue in an mmorpg discussion thread?
Ok, listen up everyone (you especially Vrazule). I would please ask everyone here to stick to the topic about death penalties inside mmorpgs so we can keep this interesting topic going without being shut down. So, Vrazule, that snappy yet effective remark I just gave you will be my last on this thread. If you wish to start a forum war between hardcores and casuals, please create another thread for that purpose.
Now, back to subject.
So crafting gear and using it on the battlefield (where I lose the gear often) is my favorite reason, and Tupodawg's reason is pure survival and knowing you got through an intensely dangerous area. What is everyone else's favorite reason for playing a rogue-like?
Antipathy: First off, yes, I do play alot of rogue-likes. Secondly, "rogue-like" is used to describe games with severely harsh death punishments nowadays. Yes, I do know that Rogue is a single player turn-based game (so apparently I do know alot about the game's history too). Modern day rogue-like mmorpgs don't neccessarily have to follow that exact formula. Now it can be an mmorpg and doesn't have to be turn-based to be called a rogue-like, as long as it has severe death punishments like it's granddaddy had. I'm being serious about the game my friend played. It wasn't big, and I think it was made by an indy developer, but it existed. Also, what do you mean fear isn't a huge and important aspect of rogue-likes? It is a huge part, but you're thinking of fear too negatively. Fear didn't keep me from entering those dungeons, it added thrill to the whole adventure. Like one wise man said: "If all difficulties were known at the outset of a long journey, most of us would never start out at all." Vrazule: So, a guy that plays a wizard game aiming towards the kids-tween group is any better? Don't forget, we are all gamers, all nerdy, all hoping that we were ninjas, or had wings, etc.
Um, no. I'm not looking to be anything other than myself. I don't watch much TV. While I love reading books, I also love playing computer games because they are entertainment, not a replacement for any lack of achievement or satisfaction from my real life. Games by their very definition are about having fun and most of us prefer it to be a relaxing fun, not an uptight, boorish, masochistic and addiction based nightmare. It's hardcore freaks like you that give the genre such a bad reputation in the real world. You guys try to turn these things into something other than a game. It's twitsted and sad. The nerdy, no lifer developers are just as much to blame as their consumer counterparts.
I play Wizard 101 because it's the only real casual game available that I can stomach. Free Realms is too childish. I would prefer an adult oriented game that was completely casual with absolutely no hardcore content what so ever. Until then, I'm stuck with single player games and Wizard 101 and hopefully, Star Wars The Old Republic. The hardcore's deathgrip on the industry is still strong, but it's slipping fast and despite the prevelance of hardcore oriented developers, they can't ignore the casuals any longer if they want to make huge amounts of money.
Im sorry, if you think todays games are hardcore, you are never going to find an adult mmo that you will like. The hardcore deathgrip has not been there since eq1, (10 years ago). Wait, I do have one for you. It actually is probably right up your alley. Go check out Dungeon Runners. that is the exact type of game you are describing that you would like to play.
When you say that its twisted and sad that we are trying to turn a game into another game is just flat out wrong. The type of game your looking for is a single player rpg. MMORPG's are not ever going to be like playing old maid or some random (pick your favorite) board game. They are meant to be a lot more indepth than those type of games.
My opinion? Game developers are too afraid to implement anything that causes a significant setback for the player. They want to coddle the player, make them feel like a "winner" all the time. You see the same thing happening in (American)society today with things like little league baseball and football. Everyone gets a trophy and is a "winner". Noone "loses" anymore when they are growing up, and consequently they cry and moan when introduced to the fact they you will lose sometimes when you are older. Well, game companies have decided to continue the "everyone's a winner, let's walk on eggshells" design mentality. Funny thing is people lose at board games, people lose at card games, yet they still continue to play. There are plenty of games out there that take a time investment in which you can lose it all and have to start over. Yet, people still continue to play. They just have to play more cautiously, and think about their moves. I guess it's like the difference between checkers and chess, though. I't be nice to have more "chess-like" MMOs out there, for sure.
The difference is board games and card games are a one-time purchase -- companies make their money immediately from selling the game to a distributor. MMO developers are dependent on the continuing subscriber revenue stream and a hardcore death penalty can compromise that.
I have yet to see where a harsh death penalty caused a game to not be profitable or cause a game to close. I can cite and example, EvE, where a harsh death penalty is in place (having your ship blown up and then getting podded) and the game, overtime, has grown in subscriber base.
It does take a level of intelligently incorporating it (death penalty), that I will say. That said, I've yet to see a death penalty system where you couldn't get back the majority of what you lost (or an equivalent) within a day or three. Most time in a few hours.
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
Khalathwyr, that was an excellent thought and statement you have.
Another fun point in rogue-likes is when you are in the point of recovery (meaning you are getting more equipment and stuff to replace what you lost from dying). Some people like me continuously craft equipment to replace what we lose. And some people just take what they can find. Whatever happens, we do eventually recover. Do we always get back the equipment we lost replaced with good equipment? No, but we are makeshift experts, so who cares if you're wearing a wizard's hat with leather gloves and boots, complete with chainmail chestplate and leggings? All about survival and making due with what you have, an aspect I have always loved about rogue-likes.
So, for those of you who love rogue-likes, what is your reason(s)?
Purely the adrenaline rush when you avoid dying - like crossing a zone full of red mobs or soloing in Unrest in EQ1 where one mistake means a nasty CR so you're on a permanent adrenaline rush. You can't get that rush unless there's a nasty death penalty (although some people don't seem to understand it's the rush from *avoiding* the penalty we want - not the penalty itself. You can't get one without the other).
Exactly what I was trying to get across. You can not have that type of feeling without the penalty. Its not that we want to die and get hit with the penalty, its the penalty itself is enough to give you the rush without having to experience it.
Yeah cause it's fun, i know i'm a sadomasochist, i like dying and loose all the xp i made in the last hour. I play MMO to lose my time, that's what i like.
So basically, you like it when death is absolutely meaningless, and you can just mindlessly walk through the game without any kind of effort or fear? Why go into a dungeon then? Why was Moria so great in the LotR films, cause of the great sense of fear. Imagine if you went into that scene knowing none of them could die.
To kill new boss and get new loot?
Plus low death penalty != no effort. Many people can learn the boss fight in WOWs. Boss fights can still be very difficult when there is no death penalty.
And there is always one .. TIME. Just wasting two hours with nothing to show is penalty enough. There is no need for more.
My opinion? Game developers are too afraid to implement anything that causes a significant setback for the player. They want to coddle the player, make them feel like a "winner" all the time. You see the same thing happening in (American)society today with things like little league baseball and football. Everyone gets a trophy and is a "winner". Noone "loses" anymore when they are growing up, and consequently they cry and moan when introduced to the fact they you will lose sometimes when you are older. Well, game companies have decided to continue the "everyone's a winner, let's walk on eggshells" design mentality. Funny thing is people lose at board games, people lose at card games, yet they still continue to play. There are plenty of games out there that take a time investment in which you can lose it all and have to start over. Yet, people still continue to play. They just have to play more cautiously, and think about their moves. I guess it's like the difference between checkers and chess, though. I't be nice to have more "chess-like" MMOs out there, for sure.
The difference is board games and card games are a one-time purchase -- companies make their money immediately from selling the game to a distributor. MMO developers are dependent on the continuing subscriber revenue stream and a hardcore death penalty can compromise that.
I have yet to see where a harsh death penalty caused a game to not be profitable or cause a game to close. I can cite and example, EvE, where a harsh death penalty is in place (having your ship blown up and then getting podded) and the game, overtime, has grown in subscriber base.
It does take a level of intelligently incorporating it (death penalty), that I will say. That said, I've yet to see a death penalty system where you couldn't get back the majority of what you lost (or an equivalent) within a day or three. Most time in a few hours.
Eve is niche. Sure it is a successful niche game. If it is not so niche (less death penalty, more PvE ...) it probably would be a LOT bigger. It is the ONLY established space ship MMORPG out there and it can even hit 500k subscribers over so many years.
Nariusseldom: Eventually I will play EVE Online, and I wish to see everything intact (or improved). Everything works on that game, and like you said, it is a successful game. No need to change what has worked before. And if you haven't gotten what I'm saying, it's leave the rogue-like aspect of EVE Online alone, you already have hundreds of games that are less death punishment and more pve.
Brif: Well, I"m guessing that return scrolls are useless in your game. But seriously, a game that has elements that makes it beneficiary to die?!? Is mmorpg gaming really coming down to that?
Nariusseldom: Eventually I will play EVE Online, and I wish to see everything intact (or improved). Everything works on that game, and like you said, it is a successful game. No need to change what has worked before. And if you haven't gotten what I'm saying, it's leave the rogue-like aspect of EVE Online alone, you already have hundreds of games that are less death punishment and more pve. Brif: Well, I"m guessing that return scrolls are useless in your game. But seriously, a game that has elements that makes it beneficiary to die?!? Is mmorpg gaming really coming down to that?
Successful BUT niche. Who don't want BIGGER success? Even Eve is trying to add some more PvE content to entice the mainstream. See their latest expansion.
And while harsh death penalty works for the current niche Eve audience, it works MUCH BETTER for the HUGE WOW audience. Why not go with the more popular option? They can TRIPLE their size even if they get 20% of WOW's western audience (like 1M).
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the core game mechanic in every single RPG on the planet to reduce your enemies HP to zero without letting yours reach zero?
If your HP reaches zero you lose, but what does "lose" mean? In single player games it meant game over, you lose all of your progress from your last saved game. In MMORPGs the core mechanic is still there, so you still supposedly lose when you die, but the definition of losing is faded and lost now days with games like WoW, because you don't actually lose barely anything at all. And if the definition of losing is faded and unclear, then how do you define winning in the same system? If losing is just because the RNG didn't get you the item you wanted, then go download a slot machine game and have a blast.
You guys need to see past all of the changes that competition in this industry has brought to the table and realize that these are hardly RPGs anymore, but instead just a colorful waste of time. All of the MMO developers want to be the one who rewards the player the most, and then players get where they want to log on and just win win win, no matter what they are doing. I've actually seen people argue that since they pay a monthly sub, they should not have to lose at anything in the game.. Well I'll tell you what, I'll make a game where you click your mouse on a big red button and win, it's that easy. Just pay me $15 a month and click click click and you can win win win until your fingers bleed.
Sure win win win games can be fun for a short while. I'm sure we've all played shooters on godmode before. But when you actually start getting good at the game, there is no way you would waste time like that, it just wouldn't be fun at all anymore.
Well, Narusselda, first off WOW is one of the hugest reasons why rogue-likes aren't seen as often. Also, a game should be successful for the reasons it become successful in the first place. EVE Online should not be forced to cater to casuals to make more income, it should stay the way it is to offer a unique experience. And the developer of EVE Online obviously agree with this idea, which is why they have not changed the death punishment system (you lose your ship, and only get money back if you had the ship insured). This is why I am highly considering playing EVE Online soon. The developers are not greedy and change important aspects of the game just to net in more people, they instead build upon their original idea and keep the original concept in mind, all the while keeping their fanbase happy.
Also, to answer that second post about wondering why dying to get free transport back to town with no penalty is so bad, well, read the entire thread to get a good feel of why I said that...
Games with little to no death penalty seems lame to me. But hey I'm used to FFXI where you lose xp and can even de level. I also liked AO cuz if you didn't save your progress and died you'd lose all that xp you just worked for
I had a time in FFXI where I actually lost a whole level because every party I joined in that day was crappy. But yet I played that game for 3 years but yet every other game has managed to hold me for maybe months at the most.
Death penalties make me think more and play harder and makes me not want to die. No like in games where your like eh oh well I'll die and nothing will happen, they just don't challenge me at all and I get bored.
You know what? It occures to me that the percieved harshness of a death penalty may be directly proportional to the value a person places on how quickly he can reach max level.
In other words; if you feel a strong need to rush to max level as quickly as possible even a modest death penalty will feel harsh. But if you are the type who isn't in any particular hurry then a modest penalty will feel quite light.
Obviously different people are evaluating the relative harshness of death penalties differently. There has to be some reason for that. Here is penalty X. Person A percieves it as being a nasty sting. Person B percieves it as being too light to count as a penalty at all.
It's just an idea I thought I'd throw out there. I've never been the type to get obsessed with rapid leveling so maybe that is part of the reason why light penalties don't feel like penalties to me at all. For someone like me who isn't in a great hurry to begin with they have to take it up a notch to make it feel painful to me.
if it hasn't been painfully obvious for all these years the "harsh" death penalties are usually more inclined to the "niche", if you will, market and will probably not see any real application, for good reason.
Comments
You do prove a point Turok, but like the old saying goes, sometimes too much of something can be a bad thing. Too much negative reinforcement will make the person seek to avoid penalties rather than seek rewards. Too much positive reinforcement makes people unprepared for bad consequences. You have to find a striking balance in between to get a good disciplinary system that will effectively prepare someone or something for life. This involves rewards and penalties and punishments, so that a person will seek rewards and beneficiary actions to avoid bad consequences (but not like the state of complete negative reinforcement, for this person is seeking rewards rather than seeking to avoid penalties).
This is my opinion, of course, so this does not mean I'm 100% right, but in my opinion games are leaning a little too much toward the positive reinforcement idea, when instead games should reach the striking middle point.
Edit Part: Well Turok, we like the risks, but mostly because risks can bring great rewards...or complete disaster. Sort of like gambling. Why do things the straight-forward, easy way when you could try to accomplish greater feats (considering the rewards is completely worth the risk, which means I don't condone someone trying to break a dangerous life-threatening world record for the sake of being remembered in a book).
They became less punishing with the creation of WoW. As soon as WoW hit the market, their nonexistant death penalty set the new low standard for following casual games.
Now most games have a meaningless death penalty. Its really sad how low standards have dropped cause of WoW
Darkfall Travelogues!
Yeah cause it's fun, i know i'm a sadomasochist, i like dying and loose all the xp i made in the last hour. I play MMO to lose my time, that's what i like.
So basically, you like it when death is absolutely meaningless, and you can just mindlessly walk through the game without any kind of effort or fear? Why go into a dungeon then? Why was Moria so great in the LotR films, cause of the great sense of fear. Imagine if you went into that scene knowing none of them could die.
Darkfall Travelogues!
Whoa, when I created this thread yesterday, I did not expect this level of interest. It seems that death penalties in mmorpgs are a subject of controversy.
This has come to mind. For all of us who do like rogue-likes, what is your specific reason(s)?
For me, it's more of the part of recovery and using whatever comes to hand. I learned a long time ago with these games to take whatever you can find, and learn crafting skills so I could create armor for myself or sell it off to others. That is why I fell in love with my first mmorpg, Runescape. It had a brutal death punishment in which you lost everything except your equipped weapon and a few random items, and I unfortunately found myself on the dying part alot. So, I learned to mine ores and smith armor. So, in no time, I became a successful player on that game. The idea of taking whatever you find and learning to create your own armor has always greatly appealed to me, and that concept became more important in rogue-likes. So, for those of you who love rogue-likes, what is your reason(s)?
Um, no. I'm not looking to be anything other than myself. I don't watch much TV. While I love reading books, I also love playing computer games because they are entertainment, not a replacement for any lack of achievement or satisfaction from my real life. Games by their very definition are about having fun and most of us prefer it to be a relaxing fun, not an uptight, boorish, masochistic and addiction based nightmare. It's hardcore freaks like you that give the genre such a bad reputation in the real world. You guys try to turn these things into something other than a game. It's twitsted and sad. The nerdy, no lifer developers are just as much to blame as their consumer counterparts.
I play Wizard 101 because it's the only real casual game available that I can stomach. Free Realms is too childish. I would prefer an adult oriented game that was completely casual with absolutely no hardcore content what so ever. Until then, I'm stuck with single player games and Wizard 101 and hopefully, Star Wars The Old Republic. The hardcore's deathgrip on the industry is still strong, but it's slipping fast and despite the prevelance of hardcore oriented developers, they can't ignore the casuals any longer if they want to make huge amounts of money.
With PvE raiding, it has never been a question of being "good enough". I play games to have fun, not to be a simpering toady sitting through hour after hour of mind numbing boredom and fawning over a guild master in the hopes that he will condescend to reward me with shiny bits of loot. But in games where those people get the highest progression, anyone who doesn't do that will just be a moving target for them and I'll be damned if I'm going to pay money for the privilege. - Neanderthal
Purely the adrenaline rush when you avoid dying - like crossing a zone full of red mobs or soloing in Unrest in EQ1 where one mistake means a nasty CR so you're on a permanent adrenaline rush. You can't get that rush unless there's a nasty death penalty (although some people don't seem to understand it's the rush from *avoiding* the penalty we want - not the penalty itself. You can't get one without the other).
I also firmly believe that you have to balance positive and negative reinforcement or at least make sure that positive reinforcement only applies to non-trivial tasks (ie reward but do not spoil)
The key difference for me is that I believe that MMORPGs are finally achieving a good balance after being skewed toward negative reinforcements for so long.
I do not equate greater risks with greater rewards. To me the challenge is to accomplish the same goal without taking risks. There is no challenge to me if you rely on luck or uneducated guesses to reach your goal. I guess it is my training speaking since I was educated and trained in a profession where if you need to take risks, you pretty much failed in your task.
It's a fantasy world, so I can suspend disbelief about almost anything. Gnomes with rocket packs, Unicorns on roller skates? Fine, whatever. If it pays the bills to put Coke billboards in Isengard, I can deal with it.
But a roleplaying game where death has no sting? That is the most non-immersive situation there can possibly be.
Death should be painful, but very very RARE. It should only happen when you do something stupid; not when the boss mob is tougher than you could possibly have known about the first time through a dungeon; and not when your hand slips on the mouse button.
The problem is that a lot of computer game players - not just in MMORPGs, but in FPS and other games - don't feel like the game is "hard" unless they die at least a hundred times.
But there's really no reason for that. I think games should have lesser "punishments" short of death. The original EQ had downtime for overuse of mana or loss of hitpoints. The problem was that you got a four-minute time out if you barely survived, but you still got a two-minute time out if you fought a perfect fight against an opponent at the optimum level. The new WoW-style game has done away with what I would call the "bad" downtime, but it also does away with the "good" downtime. You can lose 99% of your health and be back in the fight and seconds, but losing 101% means death - why?
I think there should be no downtime at all (even the WoW-style 10-second eating and drinking stop) if you're fighting well - why punish me if I'm doing exactly what I should be doing? Once a fight is over, I should get my breath back almost instantly. But if something goes wrong - say you get that third add you weren't expecting - then you should start to accrue damage that builds up and doesn't go away until you stop and bandage for a bit.
Then, only if you press on while injured, and do something blatantly stupid, would you finally get the "Big D." But only when you clearly DESERVE it. Then it should be a real timeout - maybe ten minutes or more. Just like for kids, not a punch in the face but just some time to stop what you're doing and think about and how to avoid doing it next time.
Vrazule: So, in your perfect real life world, exactly how do you find time to argue in an mmorpg discussion thread?
Ok, listen up everyone (you especially Vrazule). I would please ask everyone here to stick to the topic about death penalties inside mmorpgs so we can keep this interesting topic going without being shut down. So, Vrazule, that snappy yet effective remark I just gave you will be my last on this thread. If you wish to start a forum war between hardcores and casuals, please create another thread for that purpose.
Now, back to subject.
So crafting gear and using it on the battlefield (where I lose the gear often) is my favorite reason, and Tupodawg's reason is pure survival and knowing you got through an intensely dangerous area. What is everyone else's favorite reason for playing a rogue-like?
Um, no. I'm not looking to be anything other than myself. I don't watch much TV. While I love reading books, I also love playing computer games because they are entertainment, not a replacement for any lack of achievement or satisfaction from my real life. Games by their very definition are about having fun and most of us prefer it to be a relaxing fun, not an uptight, boorish, masochistic and addiction based nightmare. It's hardcore freaks like you that give the genre such a bad reputation in the real world. You guys try to turn these things into something other than a game. It's twitsted and sad. The nerdy, no lifer developers are just as much to blame as their consumer counterparts.
I play Wizard 101 because it's the only real casual game available that I can stomach. Free Realms is too childish. I would prefer an adult oriented game that was completely casual with absolutely no hardcore content what so ever. Until then, I'm stuck with single player games and Wizard 101 and hopefully, Star Wars The Old Republic. The hardcore's deathgrip on the industry is still strong, but it's slipping fast and despite the prevelance of hardcore oriented developers, they can't ignore the casuals any longer if they want to make huge amounts of money.
Im sorry, if you think todays games are hardcore, you are never going to find an adult mmo that you will like. The hardcore deathgrip has not been there since eq1, (10 years ago). Wait, I do have one for you. It actually is probably right up your alley. Go check out Dungeon Runners. that is the exact type of game you are describing that you would like to play.
When you say that its twisted and sad that we are trying to turn a game into another game is just flat out wrong. The type of game your looking for is a single player rpg. MMORPG's are not ever going to be like playing old maid or some random (pick your favorite) board game. They are meant to be a lot more indepth than those type of games.
The difference is board games and card games are a one-time purchase -- companies make their money immediately from selling the game to a distributor. MMO developers are dependent on the continuing subscriber revenue stream and a hardcore death penalty can compromise that.
I have yet to see where a harsh death penalty caused a game to not be profitable or cause a game to close. I can cite and example, EvE, where a harsh death penalty is in place (having your ship blown up and then getting podded) and the game, overtime, has grown in subscriber base.
It does take a level of intelligently incorporating it (death penalty), that I will say. That said, I've yet to see a death penalty system where you couldn't get back the majority of what you lost (or an equivalent) within a day or three. Most time in a few hours.
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
Chavez y Chavez
Khalathwyr, that was an excellent thought and statement you have.
Another fun point in rogue-likes is when you are in the point of recovery (meaning you are getting more equipment and stuff to replace what you lost from dying). Some people like me continuously craft equipment to replace what we lose. And some people just take what they can find. Whatever happens, we do eventually recover. Do we always get back the equipment we lost replaced with good equipment? No, but we are makeshift experts, so who cares if you're wearing a wizard's hat with leather gloves and boots, complete with chainmail chestplate and leggings? All about survival and making due with what you have, an aspect I have always loved about rogue-likes.
Purely the adrenaline rush when you avoid dying - like crossing a zone full of red mobs or soloing in Unrest in EQ1 where one mistake means a nasty CR so you're on a permanent adrenaline rush. You can't get that rush unless there's a nasty death penalty (although some people don't seem to understand it's the rush from *avoiding* the penalty we want - not the penalty itself. You can't get one without the other).
Exactly what I was trying to get across. You can not have that type of feeling without the penalty. Its not that we want to die and get hit with the penalty, its the penalty itself is enough to give you the rush without having to experience it.
So basically, you like it when death is absolutely meaningless, and you can just mindlessly walk through the game without any kind of effort or fear? Why go into a dungeon then? Why was Moria so great in the LotR films, cause of the great sense of fear. Imagine if you went into that scene knowing none of them could die.
To kill new boss and get new loot?
Plus low death penalty != no effort. Many people can learn the boss fight in WOWs. Boss fights can still be very difficult when there is no death penalty.
And there is always one .. TIME. Just wasting two hours with nothing to show is penalty enough. There is no need for more.
The difference is board games and card games are a one-time purchase -- companies make their money immediately from selling the game to a distributor. MMO developers are dependent on the continuing subscriber revenue stream and a hardcore death penalty can compromise that.
I have yet to see where a harsh death penalty caused a game to not be profitable or cause a game to close. I can cite and example, EvE, where a harsh death penalty is in place (having your ship blown up and then getting podded) and the game, overtime, has grown in subscriber base.
It does take a level of intelligently incorporating it (death penalty), that I will say. That said, I've yet to see a death penalty system where you couldn't get back the majority of what you lost (or an equivalent) within a day or three. Most time in a few hours.
Eve is niche. Sure it is a successful niche game. If it is not so niche (less death penalty, more PvE ...) it probably would be a LOT bigger. It is the ONLY established space ship MMORPG out there and it can even hit 500k subscribers over so many years.
There is no death penalty in WAR so I often just die for a free lift back to a city.
Nariusseldom: Eventually I will play EVE Online, and I wish to see everything intact (or improved). Everything works on that game, and like you said, it is a successful game. No need to change what has worked before. And if you haven't gotten what I'm saying, it's leave the rogue-like aspect of EVE Online alone, you already have hundreds of games that are less death punishment and more pve.
Brif: Well, I"m guessing that return scrolls are useless in your game. But seriously, a game that has elements that makes it beneficiary to die?!? Is mmorpg gaming really coming down to that?
Successful BUT niche. Who don't want BIGGER success? Even Eve is trying to add some more PvE content to entice the mainstream. See their latest expansion.
And while harsh death penalty works for the current niche Eve audience, it works MUCH BETTER for the HUGE WOW audience. Why not go with the more popular option? They can TRIPLE their size even if they get 20% of WOW's western audience (like 1M).
And that is bad because?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the core game mechanic in every single RPG on the planet to reduce your enemies HP to zero without letting yours reach zero?
If your HP reaches zero you lose, but what does "lose" mean? In single player games it meant game over, you lose all of your progress from your last saved game. In MMORPGs the core mechanic is still there, so you still supposedly lose when you die, but the definition of losing is faded and lost now days with games like WoW, because you don't actually lose barely anything at all. And if the definition of losing is faded and unclear, then how do you define winning in the same system? If losing is just because the RNG didn't get you the item you wanted, then go download a slot machine game and have a blast.
You guys need to see past all of the changes that competition in this industry has brought to the table and realize that these are hardly RPGs anymore, but instead just a colorful waste of time. All of the MMO developers want to be the one who rewards the player the most, and then players get where they want to log on and just win win win, no matter what they are doing. I've actually seen people argue that since they pay a monthly sub, they should not have to lose at anything in the game.. Well I'll tell you what, I'll make a game where you click your mouse on a big red button and win, it's that easy. Just pay me $15 a month and click click click and you can win win win until your fingers bleed.
Sure win win win games can be fun for a short while. I'm sure we've all played shooters on godmode before. But when you actually start getting good at the game, there is no way you would waste time like that, it just wouldn't be fun at all anymore.
"Good? Bad? I'm the guy with the gun."
Well, Narusselda, first off WOW is one of the hugest reasons why rogue-likes aren't seen as often. Also, a game should be successful for the reasons it become successful in the first place. EVE Online should not be forced to cater to casuals to make more income, it should stay the way it is to offer a unique experience. And the developer of EVE Online obviously agree with this idea, which is why they have not changed the death punishment system (you lose your ship, and only get money back if you had the ship insured). This is why I am highly considering playing EVE Online soon. The developers are not greedy and change important aspects of the game just to net in more people, they instead build upon their original idea and keep the original concept in mind, all the while keeping their fanbase happy.
Also, to answer that second post about wondering why dying to get free transport back to town with no penalty is so bad, well, read the entire thread to get a good feel of why I said that...
Games with little to no death penalty seems lame to me. But hey I'm used to FFXI where you lose xp and can even de level. I also liked AO cuz if you didn't save your progress and died you'd lose all that xp you just worked for
I had a time in FFXI where I actually lost a whole level because every party I joined in that day was crappy. But yet I played that game for 3 years but yet every other game has managed to hold me for maybe months at the most.
Death penalties make me think more and play harder and makes me not want to die. No like in games where your like eh oh well I'll die and nothing will happen, they just don't challenge me at all and I get bored.
You know what? It occures to me that the percieved harshness of a death penalty may be directly proportional to the value a person places on how quickly he can reach max level.
In other words; if you feel a strong need to rush to max level as quickly as possible even a modest death penalty will feel harsh. But if you are the type who isn't in any particular hurry then a modest penalty will feel quite light.
Obviously different people are evaluating the relative harshness of death penalties differently. There has to be some reason for that. Here is penalty X. Person A percieves it as being a nasty sting. Person B percieves it as being too light to count as a penalty at all.
It's just an idea I thought I'd throw out there. I've never been the type to get obsessed with rapid leveling so maybe that is part of the reason why light penalties don't feel like penalties to me at all. For someone like me who isn't in a great hurry to begin with they have to take it up a notch to make it feel painful to me.
if it hasn't been painfully obvious for all these years the "harsh" death penalties are usually more inclined to the "niche", if you will, market and will probably not see any real application, for good reason.