I'm aware of no MMORPG on the market which completely lacks a death penalty. So the OP must be a happy gamer indeed. No significant portion of game designers or players advocates zero death penalty. We are merely against excessive death penalty (which is a huge difference.) In fact all existing death penalties cost you Time, which is functionally identical to the real money used in Poker.
WoW has no death penalty for PVP.
You can die 100,000 times in a single BG, your team can still win, and you lose no durability.
Time is not identical to money in Poker. If it was, single hands wouldn't last 30min - 1hr in a 10man game. Time is not a penalty.
When you die in WOW PVP it costs you (a) Time and (b) Location. Both of which are crucial to winning (even though one player's time and location isn't enough on its own to lose a team the game.)
Time is always the penalty. It's the entire basis for all penalties in everything. Want to buy a car? That costs you x months of wages. Want to play a MMORPG? That costs you x hours of wages each month. Die in an MMORPG? That costs you x minutes of farming gold, and x seconds of running back to where you were when you died.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
See with me all these board game and sports if I lose, i lose oh well. No reason to really try my hardest to win if im already losing because im not really losing anything. I can challenge the person again or start another game by myself depending which game it is. Now if there were some sort of consequence for losing the game then hell yeah im going to try my hardest to win because I don't want to suffer the consequence of losing. Im really not a competitive person, I never really liked playing sports well besides Dagorhir and paintball. But in those there are penalties, you get hit it can possibly hurt and your dead so you have to sit out and wait for the match to be over which can end up lasting a while.
See, I don't get that. I'm not a competitive person, either, but I'm no fan of losing. WIth harsh death penalties, you'd find me ever more taking the path which will least likely lead to me dying. With small penalties, I'm more likely to risk dying. But either way, I'm going to do my best to not die. Penalties have little to do with it.
Perhaps they aren't ALL trying to hurt people. But a great number of them are. That's why most ffa and faction PvP is a gankfest, as opposed to toe to toe epic battles the likes of which make folks like Metalhead drool.
I don't think it's a stretch to say that ganking is a big part of the culture of PvP. And since most games don't reward it, and in many cases give penalties, people still do it. What else could they be doing it for other than wanting to grief other players?
therefore, what greater joy could you give to gankers besides stacking huge death penalties on those people, most of whom would have the good sense to cancel their sub after the 3rd or 4th time suffering huge losses from death?
Wtf dude! You call me out when in my very own post history I've said I was an anti-pker in UO and even against FFA full loot games without safe areas.
Seriously was there a need to use my name in your post?
No, you misunderstood my post! You've always talked about wanting epic battles, and finding mostly PvP ganking. Please reread that sentence, I was referring to your appreciation of the LATTER...
I like harsh death penalties when they make sense and are balanced. In a Game like Eve you lose you ship, modules, implants and Rigs when you die/get podded. This sounds pretty fucked up but this is needed to keep the market flowing. Also when the killer of this person goes to loot the wreck of the victim 80% of the Modules/cargo is blow to hell along with the ship and implants.
That right there makes sense. You lose shit, this helps the market and the killer gets something but not everything.
Lets take a fucked up death penalty system like Darkfall. In a game like Darkfall you lose all your armor, weapons, mounts & materials when you die. This is pretty messed up but unlike Eve what the killer gets in return is not balanced at all. They get 100% of the players shit. Now if gear never goes away how the hell is this DP system helping crafters and the games economy? It's just being circulated and inflating the game more and more.
See it makes no sense. So as much as the Op wants to make analogies of Dp in mmos understand the Dp could ruin a game. A dp system needs to be thought out and balanced properly for it to work. This is alot of work for most developers and most wont even bother.
Well in DF gear has durability and doesn't last long if you use it, you can go through it quite quickly. As for EVE items degrade very slowly by comparison, that's probably why they blow up to stimulate the market. It actually evens itself out, DFO items break quickly and EVE items don't but get destroyed on dieing.
So the gear does go away quickly in DFO, trust me.
OH I know it has duribility, sorry it was early when i first typed this.
What i was getting at is balance.
See the PKer in DF gets too much for the effort imo.
Wouldn't it be more realistic if several pieces of gear are damaged beyond repair after you ruthlessly nuke or stab someone through their armor?
Thats why i was saying it makes no sense.
Things need balance and while I do enjoy high risk pvp I also like to know that someone isnt getting overly rewarded for a kill.
Disregard this post if gear does break on death because last time i played it didnt.
Gear doesn't break on death, but recieving too higher a reward is dependant on what the other guy has. It's a simpe risk vs reward, I see a naked noob logging and I kill him I get pretty much nothing of value for my effort despite it all dropping. I kill a noob fighting Goblins, I wouldn't even bother taking his gear. I see a higher level guy in some bloodcrafted armour with R65+ weapons, I'm gonna die most probably. A few friends and we can take him but the loot is split.
I understand you see it as the rewards are too high but let me put this to you. As a current DFO player and former EVE player (two years) I can say that in EVE the risk is far too low. In EVE it's just way too easy to get away from your enemy in PvP, you know who is in a system upon arrival, now there's warp to 0 and people only engage in a fight when they wish to 99% of the time or they're just dumb or newbies. I felt the risk was far too low in EVE and the rewards for actually growing a pair and risking a decent set up were too low for anyone to bother. Hence everyone flying about in 0.0 in gangs of cruisers despite being billionares.
imo you shouldnt be rewarded heavily for killing someone.
YOu should give a guy a taste (an item or two) for the kill but never everything.
pvp should be a risk and you should have to grow a pair and take a chance if you wanna pvp knowing that there's more risk than reward as a PKer.
Imagine if you got everything in Eve? Imagine if you could even take implants off a player? Jesus christ their wouldn't be a anti pk or pver in the game (kinda like Darkfall).
See balance has an effect on everything, maybe if the risk was higher and the reward lower in DF it would feel more like a world with people doing other things than killing.
Don't get me wrong I like Darkfall but there are a few design decisions i disagree with, not enough to not play here and there but enough for me to bitch here to my fellow sandbox players.
It's a perfect analogy and hopefully will bring many people into understanding that it isn't a 'hardcore vs. casual' argument in the slightest.
You become more vested and involved when the outcome has consequences. While you can enjoy the game of poker either way, you aren't as immersed without having pennies at stake. To further this ideal: playing poker without any sort of monetary betting (even if you're just playing for OREOs) removes the whole betting element. 'All in' becomes very boring very quick, because it becomes meaningless. You actually *remove* a whole element of play by making losing (and by contrast) winning meaningless.
This can easily be extrapolated into being defined in a micro/macro-casm way, and applied to any sort of gaming.
The flipside: you don't want to bet every dime you own in poker, so that losing prevents future winning. Penalties need to be capped to allow the [poker] player to recover and still be able to play the game.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc. We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be. So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away. - MMO_Doubter
If a Mind Game doesn't have a penalty, then it's pretty much worthless. Relate them to sports all you want, find me a popular mind game that people play ALOT that doesn't have a penalty of some sort (that's not time).
Chess.
Me thinks the death penalty in Chess starts right from the beginning ,if your opponent is good he eats you alive piece by piece and slowly and theres nothing you can do.
I have been playing MMOs for a very long time and I could not figure out why some of the recent games weren't catching my interest like older ones did. That was until I played Darkfall for the first time recently. There is a genuine feeling of excitement on each and every encounter when there is a real possibility of losing everything you have each time you leave town. It forces you to be cautious... to be wary of every player who comes near you and anywhere new that you explore. While being PK'd might occasionally be annoying, its worth it if the rest of the game feels exciting...
Needless to say, I am addicted to an MMO again. Something that has not happened for me for a very very long time... despite my best efforts.
Back to the OP's example, I play Texas Holdem on my cell phone. I 've got the AI pretty well figured out (though I don't have the difficulty jacked to max) and I'm undefeated against dozens of opponents and have a bankroll of over 100K. (in play money). Sometimes when I play I'll jack the bets up to thousand of dollars.
In real life, I don't even play Texas holdem, and if I ever did it would be a the cheap tables, and I'd never lose more than like 100 bucks.
Same with games, some times people aren't willing to risk everything from a death, just not why they play the game, so they want no part of severe death penalties.
All games have death penalties as another poster pointed out, however we each have our own preference as to how much of a penallty is acceptable.
I thnk EVE is just fine, other folks say its either too harsh or too easy. Same with DF or WOW for that matter, all just player preference.
IMO, Shadowbane had one of the best looting schemes out there, players could drop everything they were carrying in their pack, including any gold (forcing you to bank often) but could not lose the gear they were wearing.
This encouraged players to take risks and batlle hard, and if they lost the extra struff, wasn't a big deal. (though I hated getting my corpse looted after a particuarly good PVE run.).
Shame that few other games have copied that mechanic.
Edit: EVE almost does this, they let a player insure T1 Ships so that there's little risk, but insurance usually doesn't cover the modules. (which could exceed ship cost) Where they screw up IMO is in not insuring T2 ships the same way, which discourages many players from risking them, sort of like the naked fighting that goes on in DF.
I'd love to fly a Maurader into PVP combat, but at a cost of a billion to buy it and a billion to reasonably fit it, I'm not going to do it. If I had about 1/2 to 2/3r'ds of that cost reimbursed, you'd see me pvping in them.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Originally posted by pojung It's a perfect analogy and hopefully will bring many people into understanding that it isn't a 'hardcore vs. casual' argument in the slightest. You become more vested and involved when the outcome has consequences. While you can enjoy the game of poker either way, you aren't as immersed without having pennies at stake. To further this ideal: playing poker without any sort of monetary betting (even if you're just playing for OREOs) removes the whole betting element. 'All in' becomes very boring very quick, because it becomes meaningless. You actually *remove* a whole element of play by making losing (and by contrast) winning meaningless. This can easily be extrapolated into being defined in a micro/macro-casm way, and applied to any sort of gaming. The flipside: you don't want to bet every dime you own in poker, so that losing prevents future winning. Penalties need to be capped to allow the [poker] player to recover and still be able to play the game.
Comparing MMOs to poker fails. When you start a new hand in poker, the slate is clean and it's a fair game all over again. When you start a new 'hand' in an MMO with full looting on, you're playing with 4 cards while the person that won last hand is playing with 6. Or, even if that player didn't get anything, you still only have 4 cards to his 5.
MMOs are unique in the amount of continuity involved compared to other games. Penalizing someone in an MMO has consequences bigger than any sort of loss in a sport, where the worst that can happen is one doesn't advance to the next round. In MMOs, death penalties often force players to repeat content, which is usually repeated far too much to begin with and quite boring. If it happens too much, players will quit.
It's a perfect analogy and hopefully will bring many people into understanding that it isn't a 'hardcore vs. casual' argument in the slightest.
It's actually a 'gambler' vs 'gamer' argument. The gamblers cannot understand how the gamers can get immersed and give their best when a challenge does not involve risking stuff outside the actual challenge. The gamers do not understand why the gamblers cannot get enjoyment out of the purity of the challenge itself and instead want to muddy it up by bringing in outside restrictions into the challenge.
Someone else mentioned how death penalties motivate them to do better when trying to beat content. The gamer in me does not understand why that person was not trying their best in the first place. If they need a death penalty to motivate them then they do not actually get the enjoyment out of the challenge but instead the risk itself.
ffs still so many carebears. why they didnt die yet
Because they're in safe areas.
@ Thread
That comparison with soccer fails. You lose a match and either you are eliminated from that championship, you lose chances of getting in another higher-level championship, you may end up in a lower division if you lose too much at your current one, etc. There's no magical retry button, you don't lose gear but your "level" is related to your win/loss ratio, and in elimination matches you can't lose, or you face perma-death for the rest of that championship.
It depends on the MMO, you can either go the sports way, the "collector's" way or the "explorer's" way with death penalties (completely different concepts I remember right now).
Sports way - As mentioned, your win/loss ratio is what determines your level. Lose too much and get back to "newbie" grade. Gear shouldn't make a difference. Guild Wars PvP fully follows this path and it's a true winner for those that enjoy this way. You don't lose gear but you lose imaginary things, number-based like rating or points.
"Collector's" way - Focus here is gear. The winner takes it, it's about the risk and danger of losing real things you've acquired. The imaginary numbers from above are real stuff (within the game reality, I guess), be that gear, money. Games mostly following this are the full-loot games - EVE (though that insurance does really make it a lot smoother than it should be, *cough*), Darkfall, Mortal Online, UO (before *cough* magical insurance *cough*).
"Explorer's" way - Focus here is on the journey, losing time, your progress. Mostly used for PvE, dying at the 9th floor of some very big dungeon just before reaching the boss and starting it all over again from the 1st floor.
I don't think that analogy works actually, The reason is in poker by playing for real money there is the ability to gain more money but also lose it, with increased risk comes increased rewards. MMOs are not like that, with a death penalty you have more risk but not more reward to compensate, and I don't think the presence of a death penalty makes items more valuable to the player, how useful the items are does. Cause it is not like by risking more I feel the rewards are better, it is still just an epic weapon I need to make my character better, not too interesting either way, adding a penalty just acts as a setback in me trying to get it, it doesn't make the reward better.
For risk and reward to actually work in a game you would need an option to risk more by some penalty but also get better rewards, that is the only way the risk and reward relationship could exist in an MMO, otherwise you are just punishing people.
No, I think the analogy is very good although it's certainly not a new thing to use this analogy. The thing with mmorpgs these days is that they are all reward and no risk. It's like playing poker knowing you will always win. The big problem with the analogy is in the value of the money you win because that doesn't translate well to the artificial environment of mmo's.
So I would tweak the analogy a bit and say it's more like playing poker for play money in all cases but with a death penalty you can win or lose and without a death penalty you can only win...every hand. So even though you are playing for play money the game could still be interesting if you at least have to risk losing your play money. But if everyone wins every hand it would get boring very quickly. The <no death penalty> version of play-money poker would have a extra guy standing there (analogous to the game server) dumping extra play money into the game every hand so everyone always wins.
So you play every hand whether you have a pair of dueces or a royal flush and it's all the same because you always win...pretty damn boring.
I would agree with you that it might be nice if there was a way to choose your level of risk and get correspondingly better rewards (if things go well) by doing so. But first we would have to convince developers to bring risk back AT ALL.
Anyway I do very much agree with the OP. I remember when I finally gave in and tried WoW. I was traveling through a area which was far too high level for me and I didn't care if my character lived or died because there was no significant death penalty. I didn't even bother trying to find a safe way through because, well, why should I? I just ran straight through, died, ghosted back in about 20 seconds, revived myself, ran some more, died, ghosted back, ran some more, etc. untill I made it through. That was one of the moments in my brief WoW career when I was shaking my head thinking, "My God this game sucks." Because there was no fear and no reason for me to even try to play more intelligently when I could do it that way. There was also no satisfaction for getting through the area.
When there is no reason at all to care if your character lives or dies it really does destroy any feeling of adventure or excitement a game might have.
I'm aware of no MMORPG on the market which completely lacks a death penalty. So the OP must be a happy gamer indeed. No significant portion of game designers or players advocates zero death penalty. We are merely against excessive death penalty (which is a huge difference.) In fact all existing death penalties cost you Time, which is functionally identical to the real money used in Poker.
WoW has no death penalty for PVP.
You can die 100,000 times in a single BG, your team can still win, and you lose no durability.
Time is not identical to money in Poker. If it was, single hands wouldn't last 30min - 1hr in a 10man game. Time is not a penalty.
BG's would be more tactical if you only got ONE LIFE in a round. Like in elimination-like matches in SoF2, or CS. Then you'd see much of the asshat zerg charges disappear and people play like it mattered.
Earth and Beyond had the best penalty system as far as XP. You could do two things... work it off, or stop playing that toon and it'd slowly regen on its own.
Basically right now, death penalty means a timesink implemented for punishment of complete loss of HP. The form of timesink can be loss of XP, or value (equipment, money), which in order to get back... you need to put more time into so you can breaking even.
"Time is not identical to money in Poker. If it was, single hands wouldn't last 30min - 1hr in a 10man game. Time is not a penalty." Your point of view is based on while the hand is being played. AFTER you have lost the hand, you lose the money... in which case it will take X amount of time to regain at the table.
"There is only one thing of which I am certain, and that's nothing is certain."
If a Mind Game doesn't have a penalty, then it's pretty much worthless. Relate them to sports all you want, find me a popular mind game that people play ALOT that doesn't have a penalty of some sort (that's not time).
Chess.
Me thinks the death penalty in Chess starts right from the beginning ,if your opponent is good he eats you alive piece by piece and slowly and theres nothing you can do.
When a Chess player loses a piece, there's no "You lose your next 3 turns" penalty preventing him from playing his moves.
When a Chess player loses a match, there's no "You can't play the game for 7 days" penalty preventing him from immediately playing the game again.
Yet if designed by certain MMORPG players, these penalties would exist.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I don't think that analogy works actually, The reason is in poker by playing for real money there is the ability to gain more money but also lose it, with increased risk comes increased rewards. MMOs are not like that, with a death penalty you have more risk but not more reward to compensate, and I don't think the presence of a death penalty makes items more valuable to the player, how useful the items are does. Cause it is not like by risking more I feel the rewards are better, it is still just an epic weapon I need to make my character better, not too interesting either way, adding a penalty just acts as a setback in me trying to get it, it doesn't make the reward better.
For risk and reward to actually work in a game you would need an option to risk more by some penalty but also get better rewards, that is the only way the risk and reward relationship could exist in an MMO, otherwise you are just punishing people.
No, I think the analogy is very good although it's certainly not a new thing to use this analogy. The thing with mmorpgs these days is that they are all reward and no risk. It's like playing poker knowing you will always win. The big problem with the analogy is in the value of the money you win because that doesn't translate well to the artificial environment of mmo's.
So I would tweak the analogy a bit and say it's more like playing poker for play money in all cases but with a death penalty you can win or lose and without a death penalty you can only win...every hand. So even though you are playing for play money the game could still be interesting if you at least have to risk losing your play money. But if everyone wins every hand it would get boring very quickly. The <no death penalty> version of play-money poker would have a extra guy standing there (analogous to the game server) dumping extra play money into the game every hand so everyone always wins.
So you play every hand whether you have a pair of dueces or a royal flush and it's all the same because you always win...pretty damn boring.
I would agree with you that it might be nice if there was a way to choose your level of risk and get correspondingly better rewards (if things go well) by doing so. But first we would have to convince developers to bring risk back AT ALL.
Anyway I do very much agree with the OP. I remember when I finally gave in and tried WoW. I was traveling through a area which was far too high level for me and I didn't care if my character lived or died because there was no significant death penalty. I didn't even bother trying to find a safe way through because, well, why should I? I just ran straight through, died, ghosted back in about 20 seconds, revived myself, ran some more, died, ghosted back, ran some more, etc. untill I made it through. That was one of the moments in my brief WoW career when I was shaking my head thinking, "My God this game sucks." Because there was no fear and no reason for me to even try to play more intelligently when I could do it that way. There was also no satisfaction for getting through the area.
When there is no reason at all to care if your character lives or dies it really does destroy any feeling of adventure or excitement a game might have.
The weird thing with the poker analogies is that if you look at the big, televised poker events, they are buy-in prize tournaments. You pay for the entry and then you essentially play with 'play money'. When you get to the final table, the top non-winning players still walk away with a prize. And those guys are generally considered the best poker players in the world.
For a 'gamer' the 'win every hand' comment is ludicrous. If you lost he fight you the fight you lost, there is no win there. You only win if you actually win the fight. Everything else is a loss.
It's a perfect analogy and hopefully will bring many people into understanding that it isn't a 'hardcore vs. casual' argument in the slightest.
It's actually a 'gambler' vs 'gamer' argument. The gamblers cannot understand how the gamers can get immersed and give their best when a challenge does not involve risking stuff outside the actual challenge. The gamers do not understand why the gamblers cannot get enjoyment out of the purity of the challenge itself and instead want to muddy it up by bringing in outside restrictions into the challenge.
Someone else mentioned how death penalties motivate them to do better when trying to beat content. The gamer in me does not understand why that person was not trying their best in the first place. If they need a death penalty to motivate them then they do not actually get the enjoyment out of the challenge but instead the risk itself.
Not bad=) PLenty of people need risk to actually try. I don't, but thats just me. I don't need the developer to kick me in the rear to motivate me. If' I'm not trying to do my best, why am I playing, right? And if the game isn't challenging me, I'm not sticking around for long. I've outgrown repetitive time sinks that like to call themselves games.
Most people I know or play with regularly just like playing the game. Winning and losing is good enough. The challenge is fine. I minor penalty to highlight that loss in fine. EVERYONE I know who enjoys MMOs with much more time consuming penalties are in different stages of their life. When you have 2 hrs at night to play a game after a long day at work, after taking care of the kids and family, you sure as hell don't want 1/2 that time or more literally erased in seconds. Thats just not worth it to us. However, those still in college, or highschool or guys in the guild that are single and can play for 6 hrs at a clip really don't care about the penalty as much, because they have all the time in the world to recoup. Whats another hour? Time for them has a whole different meaning. As you get older, your time becomes more valuable unless your life just hasn't changed that much in 10 yrs and for many playing MMOs, thats just the way it is. Some people haven't grown all that much since the late 90s while others have.
Your priorities shift a great deal. I don't expect MMOs to change for ME, but I'll only play MMOs that have developers that understand its JUST A GAME!!! FUN first. Life first. Videogame is not your life. Many of us that started playing 10 yrs ago have grown and certain developers intend to grow with us. Others don't. Fine by me. I only play whats fun and wasting time isn't FUN for me anymore. A while ago, I didn't care. Now I do. For those that can't understand that enjoy wasting time. Its your life=) DO as you wish.
The problem is you'll never please everyone regardless of what death penalty you do.
On one extreme you have those that want perma death / massive gear or exp loss / a dev coming to your house, slapping your face, telling you to L2P and telling your family you are n00b.
On the other exterme you have those that want no penalty at all or even a reward (content gets easier if you die too many times).
You'll never make everyone happy. You have to try to pick some penalty in the middle that will be acceptable to the most people if you want to max. your customer base.
In trying to explain to some folks on this board the importance, in regards to immersion and risk and reward, for having a death (or failure) penalty, I think I have finally come up with an analogy: Imagine playing poker with play money. Doesn't really hurt when you lose, but doesn't really mean as much when you win. Now, imagine playing poker (small stakes) with real money. Losing sort of stings, but winning has a thrill; gets the adrenaline pumping. Such a game would draw a person in more than the former example. A penalty for failure is critical for MMO's to have immersion and for rewards to fully be appreciated.
I'm sorry, I don't think this is a very good analogy at all.
If I'm playing cards and we are betting real money, that money has a wider affect on my life than simply a momentary amusement. Even if isn't a lot, if I lose I may not be able to take my girl to that movie this week, or I may have get my daughter a 50 dollar christmas gift versus a 70 dollar (whatever the numbers you get the idea.
If I win well I can go to 2 movies, of get two more people gifts, or get my daughter a much better gift. The money has real world implications and potentially has a much much wider affect on my life than simple entertainment at a card game.
In a video game though if I die and lose everything and a crapload of time, I can get up and walk away and nothing in my life outside of the entertainment is affected in any way whatsoever(assuming I'm playing responsibly and not ignoring other aspects of my life). Conversely if I win and get the god-smiting sword of uberness, so what, if I leave the computer my life outside of the game is not affected in any way whatsoever.
You cannot use something that can so easily affects mutliple areas of your life to compare something that (again if your not ignoring other areas of life) stops at a keyboard. Compare like versus like, compare something that doesn't affect you other than entertainment. A soccer game with friends for an annual trophy, against a group we've never beaten before - nothing would be affected other our time with the game but would still be nice.
Does there need to some penalty. Sure, but it should be tied to the reward. If i'm getting a piddly little sword or some copper, death is more hassle than it's worth. But if that uber sword of god smiting is on the line I don't mind having to pay a little more for it. Practical to do? Probably not but it would be nicer.
Venge Sunsoar
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
See with me all these board game and sports if I lose, i lose oh well. No reason to really try my hardest to win if im already losing because im not really losing anything. I can challenge the person again or start another game by myself depending which game it is. Now if there were some sort of consequence for losing the game then hell yeah im going to try my hardest to win because I don't want to suffer the consequence of losing. Im really not a competitive person, I never really liked playing sports well besides Dagorhir and paintball. But in those there are penalties, you get hit it can possibly hurt and your dead so you have to sit out and wait for the match to be over which can end up lasting a while.
See, I don't get that. I'm not a competitive person, either, but I'm no fan of losing. WIth harsh death penalties, you'd find me ever more taking the path which will least likely lead to me dying. With small penalties, I'm more likely to risk dying. But either way, I'm going to do my best to not die. Penalties have little to do with it.
Oh let me rephrase that, Im not a competitive person with all things. I guess im just weird that if there is no real penalty for dying or losing it just doesn't really feel worth trying harder because if I die or lose there are no repercussion. But if a game has a penalty for dying or losing I will put more effort into not dying because I don't want to die or lose because I know the repercussions are not good.
Im competitive when there is something at stake like a harsh death penalty, getting hurt or sitting out for a while. Because I enjoy these games I want to keep playing them as often as possible and I get the satisfaction of over coming that risk of not being set back or having to sit out or getting hurt.
Originally posted by Torik For a 'gamer' the 'win every hand' comment is ludicrous. If you lost he fight you the fight you lost, there is no win there. You only win if you actually win the fight. Everything else is a loss.
Alright, I don't want to get into a big arguement over the perfection or lack of perfection in the analogy so let's just look at the way things really work in these games.
You run up to a jabberwocky and start fighting.
You kill it and win whatever rewards there are to win. Experience or loot or both or something else.
or
It kills you...BUT...you don't lose anything. You can't lose anything because the game doesn't allow it. You didn't kill the creature but you didn't lose anything either. Your character pops back up and you run right back and fight it some more with no fear because you know you can't lose anything.
So, with no penalty you might not always win but you certainly never lose. So basically you will always either win or break even but you will never lose.
Put a serious death penalty in there and if the Jabberwocky kills you you lose something. Suddenly it has all become much more intense and interesting. Suddenly you have reason to fear death at the claws of the Jabberwocky, a strange and novel sensation for the recent generation of gamers I'm sure but one they might come to appreciate if they ever experienced it.
Originally posted by Torik For a 'gamer' the 'win every hand' comment is ludicrous. If you lost he fight you the fight you lost, there is no win there. You only win if you actually win the fight. Everything else is a loss.
Alright, I don't want to get into a big arguement over the perfection or lack of perfection in the analogy so let's just look at the way things really work in these games.
You run up to a jabberwocky and start fighting.
You kill it and win whatever rewards there are to win. Experience or loot or both or something else.
or
It kills you...BUT...you don't lose anything. You can't lose anything because the game doesn't allow it. You didn't kill the creature but you didn't lose anything either. Your character pops back up and you run right back and fight it some more with no fear because you know you can't lose anything.
So, with no penalty you might not always win but you certainly never lose. So basically you will always either win or break even but you will never lose.
Put a serious death penalty in there and if the Jabberwocky kills you you lose something. Suddenly it has all become much more intense and interesting. Suddenly you have reason to fear death at the claws of the Jabberwocky, a strange and novel sensation for the recent generation of gamers I'm sure but one they might come to appreciate if they ever experienced it.
Well I lost the time it took to try to beat him the first time, and I lose the time it takes for me to rez, then go back to him and try him again (if I choose to). Not much all in all a few minutes probably
The question then is if I win, will he drop anything or give me anything worth more than a few minutes of my time?
Venge sunsoar
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Originally posted by cukimunga Oh let me rephrase that, Im not a competitive person with all things. I guess im just weird that if there is no real penalty for dying or losing it just doesn't really feel worth trying harder because if I die or lose there are no repercussion. But if a game has a penalty for dying or losing I will put more effort into not dying because I don't want to die or lose because I know the repercussions are not good. Im competitive when there is something at stake like a harsh death penalty, getting hurt or sitting out for a while. Because I enjoy these games I want to keep playing them as often as possible and I get the satisfaction of over coming that risk of not being set back or having to sit out or getting hurt.
It's a difference in mindset. We play to win, you play not to lose.
Question: Should single player games have a death penalty? I run out and start shooting stuff up in Mass Effect, but someone pops up, hits me with a neutralize effect and then shoots me dead.
I pop back up at the last point I saved and charge right back into combat without fear because if I die, I can load again.
I don't lose anything except time under this system. Yet it still makes for a fun single player experience.
Originally posted by Torik For a 'gamer' the 'win every hand' comment is ludicrous. If you lost he fight you the fight you lost, there is no win there. You only win if you actually win the fight. Everything else is a loss.
Alright, I don't want to get into a big arguement over the perfection or lack of perfection in the analogy so let's just look at the way things really work in these games.
You run up to a jabberwocky and start fighting.
You kill it and win whatever rewards there are to win. Experience or loot or both or something else.
or
It kills you...BUT...you don't lose anything. You can't lose anything because the game doesn't allow it. You didn't kill the creature but you didn't lose anything either. Your character pops back up and you run right back and fight it some more with no fear because you know you can't lose anything.
So, with no penalty you might not always win but you certainly never lose. So basically you will always either win or break even but you will never lose.
Put a serious death penalty in there and if the Jabberwocky kills you you lose something. Suddenly it has all become much more intense and interesting. Suddenly you have reason to fear death at the claws of the Jabberwocky, a strange and novel sensation for the recent generation of gamers I'm sure but one they might come to appreciate if they ever experienced it.
If he kills me I lose the satisfaction of winning.
It has a lot to do with what your 'default state' is. For me 'beat the challenge' is the default state with 'beat the challenge in an awesome way' being the positive state and 'not beat the challenge' being the negative state. So by not beating the challenge I automatically experience failure and a loss. Any additional death penalty only makes the loss bigger but does not create it. ie a death penalt is merely a 'lose more' thing.
Comments
WoW has no death penalty for PVP.
You can die 100,000 times in a single BG, your team can still win, and you lose no durability.
Time is not identical to money in Poker. If it was, single hands wouldn't last 30min - 1hr in a 10man game. Time is not a penalty.
When you die in WOW PVP it costs you (a) Time and (b) Location. Both of which are crucial to winning (even though one player's time and location isn't enough on its own to lose a team the game.)
Time is always the penalty. It's the entire basis for all penalties in everything. Want to buy a car? That costs you x months of wages. Want to play a MMORPG? That costs you x hours of wages each month. Die in an MMORPG? That costs you x minutes of farming gold, and x seconds of running back to where you were when you died.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
See, I don't get that. I'm not a competitive person, either, but I'm no fan of losing. WIth harsh death penalties, you'd find me ever more taking the path which will least likely lead to me dying. With small penalties, I'm more likely to risk dying. But either way, I'm going to do my best to not die. Penalties have little to do with it.
Perhaps they aren't ALL trying to hurt people. But a great number of them are. That's why most ffa and faction PvP is a gankfest, as opposed to toe to toe epic battles the likes of which make folks like Metalhead drool.
I don't think it's a stretch to say that ganking is a big part of the culture of PvP. And since most games don't reward it, and in many cases give penalties, people still do it. What else could they be doing it for other than wanting to grief other players?
therefore, what greater joy could you give to gankers besides stacking huge death penalties on those people, most of whom would have the good sense to cancel their sub after the 3rd or 4th time suffering huge losses from death?
Wtf dude! You call me out when in my very own post history I've said I was an anti-pker in UO and even against FFA full loot games without safe areas.
Seriously was there a need to use my name in your post?
No, you misunderstood my post! You've always talked about wanting epic battles, and finding mostly PvP ganking. Please reread that sentence, I was referring to your appreciation of the LATTER...
Well in DF gear has durability and doesn't last long if you use it, you can go through it quite quickly. As for EVE items degrade very slowly by comparison, that's probably why they blow up to stimulate the market. It actually evens itself out, DFO items break quickly and EVE items don't but get destroyed on dieing.
So the gear does go away quickly in DFO, trust me.
OH I know it has duribility, sorry it was early when i first typed this.
What i was getting at is balance.
See the PKer in DF gets too much for the effort imo.
Wouldn't it be more realistic if several pieces of gear are damaged beyond repair after you ruthlessly nuke or stab someone through their armor?
Thats why i was saying it makes no sense.
Things need balance and while I do enjoy high risk pvp I also like to know that someone isnt getting overly rewarded for a kill.
Disregard this post if gear does break on death because last time i played it didnt.
Gear doesn't break on death, but recieving too higher a reward is dependant on what the other guy has. It's a simpe risk vs reward, I see a naked noob logging and I kill him I get pretty much nothing of value for my effort despite it all dropping. I kill a noob fighting Goblins, I wouldn't even bother taking his gear. I see a higher level guy in some bloodcrafted armour with R65+ weapons, I'm gonna die most probably. A few friends and we can take him but the loot is split.
I understand you see it as the rewards are too high but let me put this to you. As a current DFO player and former EVE player (two years) I can say that in EVE the risk is far too low. In EVE it's just way too easy to get away from your enemy in PvP, you know who is in a system upon arrival, now there's warp to 0 and people only engage in a fight when they wish to 99% of the time or they're just dumb or newbies. I felt the risk was far too low in EVE and the rewards for actually growing a pair and risking a decent set up were too low for anyone to bother. Hence everyone flying about in 0.0 in gangs of cruisers despite being billionares.
imo you shouldnt be rewarded heavily for killing someone.
YOu should give a guy a taste (an item or two) for the kill but never everything.
pvp should be a risk and you should have to grow a pair and take a chance if you wanna pvp knowing that there's more risk than reward as a PKer.
Imagine if you got everything in Eve? Imagine if you could even take implants off a player? Jesus christ their wouldn't be a anti pk or pver in the game (kinda like Darkfall).
See balance has an effect on everything, maybe if the risk was higher and the reward lower in DF it would feel more like a world with people doing other things than killing.
Don't get me wrong I like Darkfall but there are a few design decisions i disagree with, not enough to not play here and there but enough for me to bitch here to my fellow sandbox players.
PLaying: EvE, Ryzom
Waiting For: Earthrise, Perpetuum
It's a perfect analogy and hopefully will bring many people into understanding that it isn't a 'hardcore vs. casual' argument in the slightest.
You become more vested and involved when the outcome has consequences. While you can enjoy the game of poker either way, you aren't as immersed without having pennies at stake. To further this ideal: playing poker without any sort of monetary betting (even if you're just playing for OREOs) removes the whole betting element. 'All in' becomes very boring very quick, because it becomes meaningless. You actually *remove* a whole element of play by making losing (and by contrast) winning meaningless.
This can easily be extrapolated into being defined in a micro/macro-casm way, and applied to any sort of gaming.
The flipside: you don't want to bet every dime you own in poker, so that losing prevents future winning. Penalties need to be capped to allow the [poker] player to recover and still be able to play the game.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc.
We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be.
So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away.
- MMO_Doubter
Chess.
Me thinks the death penalty in Chess starts right from the beginning ,if your opponent is good he eats you alive piece by piece and slowly and theres nothing you can do.
Generation P
I have to agree with you OP.
I have been playing MMOs for a very long time and I could not figure out why some of the recent games weren't catching my interest like older ones did. That was until I played Darkfall for the first time recently. There is a genuine feeling of excitement on each and every encounter when there is a real possibility of losing everything you have each time you leave town. It forces you to be cautious... to be wary of every player who comes near you and anywhere new that you explore. While being PK'd might occasionally be annoying, its worth it if the rest of the game feels exciting...
Needless to say, I am addicted to an MMO again. Something that has not happened for me for a very very long time... despite my best efforts.
Back to the OP's example, I play Texas Holdem on my cell phone. I 've got the AI pretty well figured out (though I don't have the difficulty jacked to max) and I'm undefeated against dozens of opponents and have a bankroll of over 100K. (in play money). Sometimes when I play I'll jack the bets up to thousand of dollars.
In real life, I don't even play Texas holdem, and if I ever did it would be a the cheap tables, and I'd never lose more than like 100 bucks.
Same with games, some times people aren't willing to risk everything from a death, just not why they play the game, so they want no part of severe death penalties.
All games have death penalties as another poster pointed out, however we each have our own preference as to how much of a penallty is acceptable.
I thnk EVE is just fine, other folks say its either too harsh or too easy. Same with DF or WOW for that matter, all just player preference.
IMO, Shadowbane had one of the best looting schemes out there, players could drop everything they were carrying in their pack, including any gold (forcing you to bank often) but could not lose the gear they were wearing.
This encouraged players to take risks and batlle hard, and if they lost the extra struff, wasn't a big deal. (though I hated getting my corpse looted after a particuarly good PVE run.).
Shame that few other games have copied that mechanic.
Edit: EVE almost does this, they let a player insure T1 Ships so that there's little risk, but insurance usually doesn't cover the modules. (which could exceed ship cost) Where they screw up IMO is in not insuring T2 ships the same way, which discourages many players from risking them, sort of like the naked fighting that goes on in DF.
I'd love to fly a Maurader into PVP combat, but at a cost of a billion to buy it and a billion to reasonably fit it, I'm not going to do it. If I had about 1/2 to 2/3r'ds of that cost reimbursed, you'd see me pvping in them.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Comparing MMOs to poker fails. When you start a new hand in poker, the slate is clean and it's a fair game all over again. When you start a new 'hand' in an MMO with full looting on, you're playing with 4 cards while the person that won last hand is playing with 6. Or, even if that player didn't get anything, you still only have 4 cards to his 5.
MMOs are unique in the amount of continuity involved compared to other games. Penalizing someone in an MMO has consequences bigger than any sort of loss in a sport, where the worst that can happen is one doesn't advance to the next round. In MMOs, death penalties often force players to repeat content, which is usually repeated far too much to begin with and quite boring. If it happens too much, players will quit.
It's actually a 'gambler' vs 'gamer' argument. The gamblers cannot understand how the gamers can get immersed and give their best when a challenge does not involve risking stuff outside the actual challenge. The gamers do not understand why the gamblers cannot get enjoyment out of the purity of the challenge itself and instead want to muddy it up by bringing in outside restrictions into the challenge.
Someone else mentioned how death penalties motivate them to do better when trying to beat content. The gamer in me does not understand why that person was not trying their best in the first place. If they need a death penalty to motivate them then they do not actually get the enjoyment out of the challenge but instead the risk itself.
Because they're in safe areas.
@ Thread
That comparison with soccer fails. You lose a match and either you are eliminated from that championship, you lose chances of getting in another higher-level championship, you may end up in a lower division if you lose too much at your current one, etc. There's no magical retry button, you don't lose gear but your "level" is related to your win/loss ratio, and in elimination matches you can't lose, or you face perma-death for the rest of that championship.
It depends on the MMO, you can either go the sports way, the "collector's" way or the "explorer's" way with death penalties (completely different concepts I remember right now).
Sports way - As mentioned, your win/loss ratio is what determines your level. Lose too much and get back to "newbie" grade. Gear shouldn't make a difference. Guild Wars PvP fully follows this path and it's a true winner for those that enjoy this way. You don't lose gear but you lose imaginary things, number-based like rating or points.
"Collector's" way - Focus here is gear. The winner takes it, it's about the risk and danger of losing real things you've acquired. The imaginary numbers from above are real stuff (within the game reality, I guess), be that gear, money. Games mostly following this are the full-loot games - EVE (though that insurance does really make it a lot smoother than it should be, *cough*), Darkfall, Mortal Online, UO (before *cough* magical insurance *cough*).
"Explorer's" way - Focus here is on the journey, losing time, your progress. Mostly used for PvE, dying at the 9th floor of some very big dungeon just before reaching the boss and starting it all over again from the 1st floor.
Then you see games mixing these.
No, I think the analogy is very good although it's certainly not a new thing to use this analogy. The thing with mmorpgs these days is that they are all reward and no risk. It's like playing poker knowing you will always win. The big problem with the analogy is in the value of the money you win because that doesn't translate well to the artificial environment of mmo's.
So I would tweak the analogy a bit and say it's more like playing poker for play money in all cases but with a death penalty you can win or lose and without a death penalty you can only win...every hand. So even though you are playing for play money the game could still be interesting if you at least have to risk losing your play money. But if everyone wins every hand it would get boring very quickly. The <no death penalty> version of play-money poker would have a extra guy standing there (analogous to the game server) dumping extra play money into the game every hand so everyone always wins.
So you play every hand whether you have a pair of dueces or a royal flush and it's all the same because you always win...pretty damn boring.
I would agree with you that it might be nice if there was a way to choose your level of risk and get correspondingly better rewards (if things go well) by doing so. But first we would have to convince developers to bring risk back AT ALL.
Anyway I do very much agree with the OP. I remember when I finally gave in and tried WoW. I was traveling through a area which was far too high level for me and I didn't care if my character lived or died because there was no significant death penalty. I didn't even bother trying to find a safe way through because, well, why should I? I just ran straight through, died, ghosted back in about 20 seconds, revived myself, ran some more, died, ghosted back, ran some more, etc. untill I made it through. That was one of the moments in my brief WoW career when I was shaking my head thinking, "My God this game sucks." Because there was no fear and no reason for me to even try to play more intelligently when I could do it that way. There was also no satisfaction for getting through the area.
When there is no reason at all to care if your character lives or dies it really does destroy any feeling of adventure or excitement a game might have.
WoW has no death penalty for PVP.
You can die 100,000 times in a single BG, your team can still win, and you lose no durability.
Time is not identical to money in Poker. If it was, single hands wouldn't last 30min - 1hr in a 10man game. Time is not a penalty.
BG's would be more tactical if you only got ONE LIFE in a round. Like in elimination-like matches in SoF2, or CS. Then you'd see much of the asshat zerg charges disappear and people play like it mattered.
Earth and Beyond had the best penalty system as far as XP. You could do two things... work it off, or stop playing that toon and it'd slowly regen on its own.
Basically right now, death penalty means a timesink implemented for punishment of complete loss of HP. The form of timesink can be loss of XP, or value (equipment, money), which in order to get back... you need to put more time into so you can breaking even.
"Time is not identical to money in Poker. If it was, single hands wouldn't last 30min - 1hr in a 10man game. Time is not a penalty." Your point of view is based on while the hand is being played. AFTER you have lost the hand, you lose the money... in which case it will take X amount of time to regain at the table.
"There is only one thing of which I am certain, and that's nothing is certain."
Chess.
Me thinks the death penalty in Chess starts right from the beginning ,if your opponent is good he eats you alive piece by piece and slowly and theres nothing you can do.
When a Chess player loses a piece, there's no "You lose your next 3 turns" penalty preventing him from playing his moves.
When a Chess player loses a match, there's no "You can't play the game for 7 days" penalty preventing him from immediately playing the game again.
Yet if designed by certain MMORPG players, these penalties would exist.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
No, I think the analogy is very good although it's certainly not a new thing to use this analogy. The thing with mmorpgs these days is that they are all reward and no risk. It's like playing poker knowing you will always win. The big problem with the analogy is in the value of the money you win because that doesn't translate well to the artificial environment of mmo's.
So I would tweak the analogy a bit and say it's more like playing poker for play money in all cases but with a death penalty you can win or lose and without a death penalty you can only win...every hand. So even though you are playing for play money the game could still be interesting if you at least have to risk losing your play money. But if everyone wins every hand it would get boring very quickly. The <no death penalty> version of play-money poker would have a extra guy standing there (analogous to the game server) dumping extra play money into the game every hand so everyone always wins.
So you play every hand whether you have a pair of dueces or a royal flush and it's all the same because you always win...pretty damn boring.
I would agree with you that it might be nice if there was a way to choose your level of risk and get correspondingly better rewards (if things go well) by doing so. But first we would have to convince developers to bring risk back AT ALL.
Anyway I do very much agree with the OP. I remember when I finally gave in and tried WoW. I was traveling through a area which was far too high level for me and I didn't care if my character lived or died because there was no significant death penalty. I didn't even bother trying to find a safe way through because, well, why should I? I just ran straight through, died, ghosted back in about 20 seconds, revived myself, ran some more, died, ghosted back, ran some more, etc. untill I made it through. That was one of the moments in my brief WoW career when I was shaking my head thinking, "My God this game sucks." Because there was no fear and no reason for me to even try to play more intelligently when I could do it that way. There was also no satisfaction for getting through the area.
When there is no reason at all to care if your character lives or dies it really does destroy any feeling of adventure or excitement a game might have.
The weird thing with the poker analogies is that if you look at the big, televised poker events, they are buy-in prize tournaments. You pay for the entry and then you essentially play with 'play money'. When you get to the final table, the top non-winning players still walk away with a prize. And those guys are generally considered the best poker players in the world.
For a 'gamer' the 'win every hand' comment is ludicrous. If you lost he fight you the fight you lost, there is no win there. You only win if you actually win the fight. Everything else is a loss.
It's actually a 'gambler' vs 'gamer' argument. The gamblers cannot understand how the gamers can get immersed and give their best when a challenge does not involve risking stuff outside the actual challenge. The gamers do not understand why the gamblers cannot get enjoyment out of the purity of the challenge itself and instead want to muddy it up by bringing in outside restrictions into the challenge.
Someone else mentioned how death penalties motivate them to do better when trying to beat content. The gamer in me does not understand why that person was not trying their best in the first place. If they need a death penalty to motivate them then they do not actually get the enjoyment out of the challenge but instead the risk itself.
Not bad=) PLenty of people need risk to actually try. I don't, but thats just me. I don't need the developer to kick me in the rear to motivate me. If' I'm not trying to do my best, why am I playing, right? And if the game isn't challenging me, I'm not sticking around for long. I've outgrown repetitive time sinks that like to call themselves games.
Most people I know or play with regularly just like playing the game. Winning and losing is good enough. The challenge is fine. I minor penalty to highlight that loss in fine. EVERYONE I know who enjoys MMOs with much more time consuming penalties are in different stages of their life. When you have 2 hrs at night to play a game after a long day at work, after taking care of the kids and family, you sure as hell don't want 1/2 that time or more literally erased in seconds. Thats just not worth it to us. However, those still in college, or highschool or guys in the guild that are single and can play for 6 hrs at a clip really don't care about the penalty as much, because they have all the time in the world to recoup. Whats another hour? Time for them has a whole different meaning. As you get older, your time becomes more valuable unless your life just hasn't changed that much in 10 yrs and for many playing MMOs, thats just the way it is. Some people haven't grown all that much since the late 90s while others have.
Your priorities shift a great deal. I don't expect MMOs to change for ME, but I'll only play MMOs that have developers that understand its JUST A GAME!!! FUN first. Life first. Videogame is not your life. Many of us that started playing 10 yrs ago have grown and certain developers intend to grow with us. Others don't. Fine by me. I only play whats fun and wasting time isn't FUN for me anymore. A while ago, I didn't care. Now I do. For those that can't understand that enjoy wasting time. Its your life=) DO as you wish.
The problem is you'll never please everyone regardless of what death penalty you do.
On one extreme you have those that want perma death / massive gear or exp loss / a dev coming to your house, slapping your face, telling you to L2P and telling your family you are n00b.
On the other exterme you have those that want no penalty at all or even a reward (content gets easier if you die too many times).
You'll never make everyone happy. You have to try to pick some penalty in the middle that will be acceptable to the most people if you want to max. your customer base.
I'm sorry, I don't think this is a very good analogy at all.
If I'm playing cards and we are betting real money, that money has a wider affect on my life than simply a momentary amusement. Even if isn't a lot, if I lose I may not be able to take my girl to that movie this week, or I may have get my daughter a 50 dollar christmas gift versus a 70 dollar (whatever the numbers you get the idea.
If I win well I can go to 2 movies, of get two more people gifts, or get my daughter a much better gift. The money has real world implications and potentially has a much much wider affect on my life than simple entertainment at a card game.
In a video game though if I die and lose everything and a crapload of time, I can get up and walk away and nothing in my life outside of the entertainment is affected in any way whatsoever(assuming I'm playing responsibly and not ignoring other aspects of my life). Conversely if I win and get the god-smiting sword of uberness, so what, if I leave the computer my life outside of the game is not affected in any way whatsoever.
You cannot use something that can so easily affects mutliple areas of your life to compare something that (again if your not ignoring other areas of life) stops at a keyboard. Compare like versus like, compare something that doesn't affect you other than entertainment. A soccer game with friends for an annual trophy, against a group we've never beaten before - nothing would be affected other our time with the game but would still be nice.
Does there need to some penalty. Sure, but it should be tied to the reward. If i'm getting a piddly little sword or some copper, death is more hassle than it's worth. But if that uber sword of god smiting is on the line I don't mind having to pay a little more for it. Practical to do? Probably not but it would be nicer.
Venge Sunsoar
See, I don't get that. I'm not a competitive person, either, but I'm no fan of losing. WIth harsh death penalties, you'd find me ever more taking the path which will least likely lead to me dying. With small penalties, I'm more likely to risk dying. But either way, I'm going to do my best to not die. Penalties have little to do with it.
Oh let me rephrase that, Im not a competitive person with all things. I guess im just weird that if there is no real penalty for dying or losing it just doesn't really feel worth trying harder because if I die or lose there are no repercussion. But if a game has a penalty for dying or losing I will put more effort into not dying because I don't want to die or lose because I know the repercussions are not good.
Im competitive when there is something at stake like a harsh death penalty, getting hurt or sitting out for a while. Because I enjoy these games I want to keep playing them as often as possible and I get the satisfaction of over coming that risk of not being set back or having to sit out or getting hurt.
Alright, I don't want to get into a big arguement over the perfection or lack of perfection in the analogy so let's just look at the way things really work in these games.
You run up to a jabberwocky and start fighting.
You kill it and win whatever rewards there are to win. Experience or loot or both or something else.
or
It kills you...BUT...you don't lose anything. You can't lose anything because the game doesn't allow it. You didn't kill the creature but you didn't lose anything either. Your character pops back up and you run right back and fight it some more with no fear because you know you can't lose anything.
So, with no penalty you might not always win but you certainly never lose. So basically you will always either win or break even but you will never lose.
Put a serious death penalty in there and if the Jabberwocky kills you you lose something. Suddenly it has all become much more intense and interesting. Suddenly you have reason to fear death at the claws of the Jabberwocky, a strange and novel sensation for the recent generation of gamers I'm sure but one they might come to appreciate if they ever experienced it.
Alright, I don't want to get into a big arguement over the perfection or lack of perfection in the analogy so let's just look at the way things really work in these games.
You run up to a jabberwocky and start fighting.
You kill it and win whatever rewards there are to win. Experience or loot or both or something else.
or
It kills you...BUT...you don't lose anything. You can't lose anything because the game doesn't allow it. You didn't kill the creature but you didn't lose anything either. Your character pops back up and you run right back and fight it some more with no fear because you know you can't lose anything.
So, with no penalty you might not always win but you certainly never lose. So basically you will always either win or break even but you will never lose.
Put a serious death penalty in there and if the Jabberwocky kills you you lose something. Suddenly it has all become much more intense and interesting. Suddenly you have reason to fear death at the claws of the Jabberwocky, a strange and novel sensation for the recent generation of gamers I'm sure but one they might come to appreciate if they ever experienced it.
Well I lost the time it took to try to beat him the first time, and I lose the time it takes for me to rez, then go back to him and try him again (if I choose to). Not much all in all a few minutes probably
The question then is if I win, will he drop anything or give me anything worth more than a few minutes of my time?
Venge sunsoar
It's a difference in mindset. We play to win, you play not to lose.
Question: Should single player games have a death penalty? I run out and start shooting stuff up in Mass Effect, but someone pops up, hits me with a neutralize effect and then shoots me dead.
I pop back up at the last point I saved and charge right back into combat without fear because if I die, I can load again.
I don't lose anything except time under this system. Yet it still makes for a fun single player experience.
Wow that pretty much sums up decades of research into motivation. Fear or loss, or desire for gain.
Venge Sunsoar
Alright, I don't want to get into a big arguement over the perfection or lack of perfection in the analogy so let's just look at the way things really work in these games.
You run up to a jabberwocky and start fighting.
You kill it and win whatever rewards there are to win. Experience or loot or both or something else.
or
It kills you...BUT...you don't lose anything. You can't lose anything because the game doesn't allow it. You didn't kill the creature but you didn't lose anything either. Your character pops back up and you run right back and fight it some more with no fear because you know you can't lose anything.
So, with no penalty you might not always win but you certainly never lose. So basically you will always either win or break even but you will never lose.
Put a serious death penalty in there and if the Jabberwocky kills you you lose something. Suddenly it has all become much more intense and interesting. Suddenly you have reason to fear death at the claws of the Jabberwocky, a strange and novel sensation for the recent generation of gamers I'm sure but one they might come to appreciate if they ever experienced it.
If he kills me I lose the satisfaction of winning.
It has a lot to do with what your 'default state' is. For me 'beat the challenge' is the default state with 'beat the challenge in an awesome way' being the positive state and 'not beat the challenge' being the negative state. So by not beating the challenge I automatically experience failure and a loss. Any additional death penalty only makes the loss bigger but does not create it. ie a death penalt is merely a 'lose more' thing.