I had once a vision of an mmorpg where the quality of the players would be defined by their lvl ad not from their gear (items lvls). That means that the improvement of the players would be continual throught their adventures and not static like the usual mmorpg's where after u hit lvl cap u just start farming raids or battlegrounds for justbetter gear in order to raise your actual lvl by items (wow).
Defined by their level? Genius! We could even reward players gear based on their level, to further differentiate and reward skilled play!
We might call this new type of level "arena rating", to differentiate it from existing games where leveling is automatic. You would gain arena rating from winning, and lose it from losing (death penalty!,) and the magnitude of change would be based on the relative ratings between the two competing teams.
This is a new idea, we should run with it!
I think if you want to talk about why Arena PvP is a bad idea, maybe start a Topic called "Why Carebear PvP systems are better than real world FFA PvP systems". I will participate in that one..
Hmm, I think it might have something to do with the fact that "carebear pvp systems" like arenas are an actual test of the players' skill, while real world FFA PvP systems are just a test to see who has the most people.
I'm gonna have to agree with you on that one. For example in EVE you don't win because of skill you win because your side had X number of battleships then the other side. WoW's pvp is fun BG's are normally equal and the Arenas are fun i don't personally play WoW but it's got good balanced pvp.
You obviously don't play EVE either since you have no clue what really wins battles in EVE. Blobbing is one tactic, but not the only tactic that wins the day.
But back to the OP, I agree that severe DP's are a good thing, but the trick is, how much is enough? DFO players think FFA looting at death is fine, I'm not so cool with it even though in EVE we have a form or it. That I'm able to more easily control my losses is why I avoid DFO, however if it was like Shadowbane where you only lost the loot you were carrying I'd enjoy it more.
Players have a wide variance in their tolerance towards death penalties and most devs these days cater to the largest demographic which has players solidly against 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
I had once a vision of an mmorpg where the quality of the players would be defined by their lvl ad not from their gear (items lvls). That means that the improvement of the players would be continual throught their adventures and not static like the usual mmorpg's where after u hit lvl cap u just start farming raids or battlegrounds for justbetter gear in order to raise your actual lvl by items (wow).
Defined by their level? Genius! We could even reward players gear based on their level, to further differentiate and reward skilled play!
We might call this new type of level "arena rating", to differentiate it from existing games where leveling is automatic. You would gain arena rating from winning, and lose it from losing (death penalty!,) and the magnitude of change would be based on the relative ratings between the two competing teams.
This is a new idea, we should run with it!
I think if you want to talk about why Arena PvP is a bad idea, maybe start a Topic called "Why Carebear PvP systems are better than real world FFA PvP systems". I will participate in that one..
Hmm, I think it might have something to do with the fact that "carebear pvp systems" like arenas are an actual test of the players' skill, while real world FFA PvP systems are just a test to see who has the most people.
I'm gonna have to agree with you on that one. For example in EVE you don't win because of skill you win because your side had X number of battleships then the other side. WoW's pvp is fun BG's are normally equal and the Arenas are fun i don't personally play WoW but it's got good balanced pvp.
You obviously don't play EVE either since you have no clue what really wins battles in EVE. Blobbing is one tactic, but not the only tactic that wins the day.
But back to the OP, I agree that severe DP's are a good thing, but the trick is, how much is enough? DFO players think FFA looting at death is fine, I'm not so cool with it even though in EVE we have a form or it. That I'm able to more easily control my losses is why I avoid DFO, however if it was like Shadowbane where you only lost the loot you were carrying I'd enjoy it more.
Players have a wide variance in their tolerance towards death penalties and most devs these days cater to the largest demographic which has players solidly against them.
I agree there are many other ways to win in battles in EVE. Sadly, having superior numbers usually wins the day.
A game doesn't "need" a significant death penalty. But there are certain important aspects of the game that benefit from having one.
Grouping and community have suffered a great deal from the minimization of death penalties. In games that have one, sure, you can solo. But a lot can go wrong soloing and it only takes one or two deaths to erase your gains. So people grouped up for safety reasons. Which meant that other people meant more to them, they met and interacted with more people, and they cared about their reputation on the server. You also may need help if you died. Which meant additional player interaction and interdependence.
The death penalty also gave the game an emotional component. You entered a zone with a feeling of trepidation. You experienced fear. That made the game more immersive and real, as well as more exciting. You couldn't just run around carelessly, safe in the knowledge that the worst that could happen to you was a 1 minute run back. The focus you attained because of your concerns made the game more enjoyable.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
Roleplaying games needs to simulate loser feeling somehow,or there is no victory.
To those who didnt know,these games only simulates winning,you get new items,exp ,money,etc when you kill something,but when you die,you dont lose anything.
Roleplaying games needs to simulate loser feeling somehow,or there is no victory.
To those who didnt know,these games only simulates winning,you get new items,exp ,money,etc when you kill something,but when you die,you dont lose anything.
Roleplaying games needs to simulate loser feeling somehow,or there is no victory.
To those who didnt know,these games only simulates winning,you get new items,exp ,money,etc when you kill something,but when you die,you dont lose anything.
No victory with winning?
now ask from yourself how can you win something when theres no way to lose.
I agree, most games have a almost pointless death penalty, while alot dont even have one. I think that EVE is going in the right direction with clones and what not, but I think games need to have a major death penalty. I would like to try an MMO where death penalty is complete death and restart as a new character, personally, I think I would enjoy a game like that, because it adds fear to the game.
I agree, most games have a almost pointless death penalty, while alot dont even have one. I think that EVE is going in the right direction with clones and what not, but I think games need to have a major death penalty. I would like to try an MMO where death penalty is complete death and restart as a new character, personally, I think I would enjoy a game like that, because it adds fear to the game.
I agree, most games have a almost pointless death penalty, while alot dont even have one. I think that EVE is going in the right direction with clones and what not, but I think games need to have a major death penalty. I would like to try an MMO where death penalty is complete death and restart as a new character, personally, I think I would enjoy a game like that, because it adds fear to the game.
Ide like to see a Death Penalty thats close and Personal, perhaps, a Damage in stats, loosing stats that damage your performance, then a few side quests that send you out to repair your stats, something that would give you pause to think before runing headlong into a dungeon with no fear, funny ive seen a death penalty in WOW that increase repair costs to equipment and players get all bent outa shap over it, can you imagine if those little kids in WOW had a real death penalty something of note? something that adds that emotion of fear to playing feild?
The gear Idea would change, from what can get me through the Instance the fastest, to What can keep me alive the longest.
(Note: By Death Penalty I am referring to major penalties: Exp loss, etc. Durability loss is not a penalty when gold is meaningless) Why is Death Penalty a good idea? Games without a death penalty have
Too many max levels characters. These are the same people who would have been held back in any normal MMORPG, because their lack of skill would have kept them at the appropriate level until they've gained some skills. Every max level player in these games is just a number or statistic. They can't become famous, because there are probably 1000 other max levels of the same class due to the trivial leveling system.
It's an MMORPG. You're not "famous" because you can tolerate a horribly boring grind when other people can't. You may be obsessive compulsive, or easily entertained, but not "famous".
What does it have to do with grinding? They make getting to max level too easy anymore. The lack of a Death Penalty is just part of that.
MMORPGs should have grinds, otherwise you will just be a statistic in them. Or at least require some skill to get to the max level, maybe not dying every other fight with NPCs? Lol.
And yeah max levels are famous if reaching max level is actually difficult again.
I agree, most games have a almost pointless death penalty, while alot dont even have one. I think that EVE is going in the right direction with clones and what not, but I think games need to have a major death penalty. I would like to try an MMO where death penalty is complete death and restart as a new character, personally, I think I would enjoy a game like that, because it adds fear to the game.
Lol. I didn't mean that kind of penalty.
The problem with those kind of penalties is that it doesn't make sense in an MMORPG. In an MMORPG, the point is to advance your characters level, your gear, etc. If you make them lose everything, and it is too time consuming to get to the top, people are gonna just quit whenever they die..Who wants to play a game for 40 days then die because of some server glitch and lose everything?
The problem with Darkfall is that you lose too much. Who wants to PvP in a game if you're going to lose gear when you die? People would just hide in towns all day. Zones outside of safe zones would be empty.
EQ had the right penalty, an exp loss that was percentage based, and your corpse stays where you die, making you spend even more time to recover it.
I agree, most games have a almost pointless death penalty, while alot dont even have one. I think that EVE is going in the right direction with clones and what not, but I think games need to have a major death penalty. I would like to try an MMO where death penalty is complete death and restart as a new character, personally, I think I would enjoy a game like that, because it adds fear to the game.
Lol. I didn't mean that kind of penalty.
The problem with those kind of penalties is that it doesn't make sense in an MMORPG. In an MMORPG, the point is to advance your characters level, your gear, etc. If you make them lose everything, and it is too time consuming to get to the top, people are gonna just quit whenever they die..Who wants to play a game for 40 days then die because of some server glitch and lose everything?
The problem with Darkfall is that you lose too much. Who wants to PvP in a game if you're going to lose gear when you die? People would just hide in towns all day. Zones outside of safe zones would be empty.
EQ had the right penalty, an exp loss that was percentage based, and your corpse stays where you die, making you spend even more time to recover it.
Personally I think that kind of penalty would be good for hardcore games, I would like to try it but until I can I can't be sure if it would work but it does make it more realistic, or maybe not that deep but something along with EVEs cloneing system, where you loose stats, and skills, along with very expencive, rare, possible one of a kind items, and even rebuying them involves searching systems for parts. Beside complete death, I like EVEs system, because you do loose alot, but not everything, unless you never update your clone...then you loose almost everything
Also, I meant it would be good more more MMOGs. Where you have items, money and rep, but not really XP or skills or atleast a big ammount of skills. It would be good for games where its like a sandbox like eve, except without there being like 5000 skills. So for games that its rep and money based, so if you die and are like one of the top 10 most wanted in the game, you can be pronounced dead, and you have to start over, without rep, money, and certain skills.
The problem with Darkfall is that you lose too much. Who wants to PvP in a game if you're going to lose gear when you die? People would just hide in towns all day. Zones outside of safe zones would be empty.
My primary problem with darkfall is that you can carry away unrealistic amounts of items,you can unwear for example platemail from corpse way too fast,you can delete items in a game what triest to be realistic,theres too many flaws .
no ,dont you understand,you are calling losing to nonsense.
Again, do not blame people for not accepting your invalid and flawed arguments.
The loser does not need to suffer a damage in order to make someone else victorious.
The truth is, you can lose just simply by failing without any loss.
Loss is optional, nothing as needed.
They need to lose something significant..
It's not that the fact that you won that made you feel good. It's the fact that you didn't die, and didn't lose what you were afraid of losing.
Now, that other guy can get a rez or something, but he won't fully recover. Sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. Sure you feel bad for the other guy, or maybe you are happy about it if you really didn't like them. Either way, it is better than PvP where you don't feel anything (like games without Death Penalties)
no ,dont you understand,you are calling losing to nonsense.
Again, do not blame people for not accepting your invalid and flawed arguments.
The loser does not need to suffer a damage in order to make someone else victorious.
The truth is, you can lose just simply by failing without any loss.
Loss is optional, nothing as needed.
They need to lose something significant..
It's not that the fact that you won that made you feel good. It's the fact that you didn't die, and didn't lose what you were afraid of losing.
Now, that other guy can get a rez or something, but he won't fully recover. Sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. Sure you feel bad for the other guy, or maybe you are happy about it if you really didn't like them. Either way, it is better than PvP where you don't feel anything (like games without Death Penalties)
um, no.
Losing is significant. However, it seems that people are arguing a very subjective point of view. H.Froglock, you might not have any issue with losing for losing sake but I can assure you that there are people, myself included who actually value the idea of winning/losing for its own sake. The sting of failure is actually very palpable for them as a concept. So is the joy of winning for its own sake.
I realize this might be a difficult thing to grasp for a person who likes to "up the stakes" but take into account that just the idea of winning or losing can actually have value unto itself without anything else attached.
What you are saying is that these concepts don't ring for you. But that is "you".
Just becasue you don't value it doesn't make it any less real.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
I have to agree. I do not really agree with the principles behind level-based games, but if you are going to have levels, then they should mean something. Someone that has made it to the maximum level should be impressive. That is why serious experience penalties (for pve-based games) have my vote all the way. If you need to group, and play with some skill to defeat encounters, and if you fail you lose some actual time and effort, than the importance of doing well is more significant. I know MMOs do not have the same levels of difficulty that we used to find in single player games.
I am sure all of you have played the original Marion Bros. at some point, even if you are too young to have gotten the Nintendo when it game out. That game was hard. You had to do things right, the first time, or you died horribly. Once you died horribly, you were dead. You had a finite number of chances, after which, that was it. Game over. That kind of danger tapered off at some point, but I still think it is a good idea. I am not promoting "hardcore" games, in which death is really death, but something where death is upsetting, would be good.
I know some people argue that "it's a game, and we should not have to endure anythign even slightly unpleasant during our gametime." Perhaps that is true, but for me, if there is no risk, there is no reward. That is true in life, and in games, if there is no risk, I feel like I have accomplished nothing, no matter what I do.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
Comments
Very nice indeed.
Defined by their level? Genius! We could even reward players gear based on their level, to further differentiate and reward skilled play!
We might call this new type of level "arena rating", to differentiate it from existing games where leveling is automatic. You would gain arena rating from winning, and lose it from losing (death penalty!,) and the magnitude of change would be based on the relative ratings between the two competing teams.
This is a new idea, we should run with it!
I think if you want to talk about why Arena PvP is a bad idea, maybe start a Topic called "Why Carebear PvP systems are better than real world FFA PvP systems". I will participate in that one..
Hmm, I think it might have something to do with the fact that "carebear pvp systems" like arenas are an actual test of the players' skill, while real world FFA PvP systems are just a test to see who has the most people.
I'm gonna have to agree with you on that one. For example in EVE you don't win because of skill you win because your side had X number of battleships then the other side. WoW's pvp is fun BG's are normally equal and the Arenas are fun i don't personally play WoW but it's got good balanced pvp.
You obviously don't play EVE either since you have no clue what really wins battles in EVE. Blobbing is one tactic, but not the only tactic that wins the day.
But back to the OP, I agree that severe DP's are a good thing, but the trick is, how much is enough? DFO players think FFA looting at death is fine, I'm not so cool with it even though in EVE we have a form or it. That I'm able to more easily control my losses is why I avoid DFO, however if it was like Shadowbane where you only lost the loot you were carrying I'd enjoy it more.
Players have a wide variance in their tolerance towards death penalties and most devs these days cater to the largest demographic which has players solidly against 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
Defined by their level? Genius! We could even reward players gear based on their level, to further differentiate and reward skilled play!
We might call this new type of level "arena rating", to differentiate it from existing games where leveling is automatic. You would gain arena rating from winning, and lose it from losing (death penalty!,) and the magnitude of change would be based on the relative ratings between the two competing teams.
This is a new idea, we should run with it!
I think if you want to talk about why Arena PvP is a bad idea, maybe start a Topic called "Why Carebear PvP systems are better than real world FFA PvP systems". I will participate in that one..
Hmm, I think it might have something to do with the fact that "carebear pvp systems" like arenas are an actual test of the players' skill, while real world FFA PvP systems are just a test to see who has the most people.
I'm gonna have to agree with you on that one. For example in EVE you don't win because of skill you win because your side had X number of battleships then the other side. WoW's pvp is fun BG's are normally equal and the Arenas are fun i don't personally play WoW but it's got good balanced pvp.
You obviously don't play EVE either since you have no clue what really wins battles in EVE. Blobbing is one tactic, but not the only tactic that wins the day.
But back to the OP, I agree that severe DP's are a good thing, but the trick is, how much is enough? DFO players think FFA looting at death is fine, I'm not so cool with it even though in EVE we have a form or it. That I'm able to more easily control my losses is why I avoid DFO, however if it was like Shadowbane where you only lost the loot you were carrying I'd enjoy it more.
Players have a wide variance in their tolerance towards death penalties and most devs these days cater to the largest demographic which has players solidly against them.
I agree there are many other ways to win in battles in EVE. Sadly, having superior numbers usually wins the day.
A game doesn't "need" a significant death penalty. But there are certain important aspects of the game that benefit from having one.
Grouping and community have suffered a great deal from the minimization of death penalties. In games that have one, sure, you can solo. But a lot can go wrong soloing and it only takes one or two deaths to erase your gains. So people grouped up for safety reasons. Which meant that other people meant more to them, they met and interacted with more people, and they cared about their reputation on the server. You also may need help if you died. Which meant additional player interaction and interdependence.
The death penalty also gave the game an emotional component. You entered a zone with a feeling of trepidation. You experienced fear. That made the game more immersive and real, as well as more exciting. You couldn't just run around carelessly, safe in the knowledge that the worst that could happen to you was a 1 minute run back. The focus you attained because of your concerns made the game more enjoyable.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
Roleplaying games needs to simulate loser feeling somehow,or there is no victory.
To those who didnt know,these games only simulates winning,you get new items,exp ,money,etc when you kill something,but when you die,you dont lose anything.
Generation P
No victory with winning?
No victory with winning?
now ask from yourself how can you win something when theres no way to lose.
Generation P
Like this?
I agree, most games have a almost pointless death penalty, while alot dont even have one. I think that EVE is going in the right direction with clones and what not, but I think games need to have a major death penalty. I would like to try an MMO where death penalty is complete death and restart as a new character, personally, I think I would enjoy a game like that, because it adds fear to the game.
Like this?
yes,because you refuse to understand what losing means or in worst case you dont even know,yes just like I explained.
Generation P
Nothing stops you from doing this in any game.
Nothing stops you from doing this in any game.
I meant, a game that forces you to do this.
Ide like to see a Death Penalty thats close and Personal, perhaps, a Damage in stats, loosing stats that damage your performance, then a few side quests that send you out to repair your stats, something that would give you pause to think before runing headlong into a dungeon with no fear, funny ive seen a death penalty in WOW that increase repair costs to equipment and players get all bent outa shap over it, can you imagine if those little kids in WOW had a real death penalty something of note? something that adds that emotion of fear to playing feild?
The gear Idea would change, from what can get me through the Instance the fastest, to What can keep me alive the longest.
So it is me to blame for not understanding a nonsense you say?
It's an MMORPG. You're not "famous" because you can tolerate a horribly boring grind when other people can't. You may be obsessive compulsive, or easily entertained, but not "famous".
What does it have to do with grinding? They make getting to max level too easy anymore. The lack of a Death Penalty is just part of that.
MMORPGs should have grinds, otherwise you will just be a statistic in them. Or at least require some skill to get to the max level, maybe not dying every other fight with NPCs? Lol.
And yeah max levels are famous if reaching max level is actually difficult again.
Lol. I didn't mean that kind of penalty.
The problem with those kind of penalties is that it doesn't make sense in an MMORPG. In an MMORPG, the point is to advance your characters level, your gear, etc. If you make them lose everything, and it is too time consuming to get to the top, people are gonna just quit whenever they die..Who wants to play a game for 40 days then die because of some server glitch and lose everything?
The problem with Darkfall is that you lose too much. Who wants to PvP in a game if you're going to lose gear when you die? People would just hide in towns all day. Zones outside of safe zones would be empty.
EQ had the right penalty, an exp loss that was percentage based, and your corpse stays where you die, making you spend even more time to recover it.
So it is me to blame for not understanding a nonsense you say?
no ,dont you understand,you are calling losing to nonsense.
Why games need a Death Penalty
if in that game winner is the killer then how is it possible that who got killed is a winner also?
truth is that we are talking about toys,not games.
toys doesnt need loser functions,thats all,very simple.
but question is,how many can admit that they are playing online toys,not games.
Generation P
Lol. I didn't mean that kind of penalty.
The problem with those kind of penalties is that it doesn't make sense in an MMORPG. In an MMORPG, the point is to advance your characters level, your gear, etc. If you make them lose everything, and it is too time consuming to get to the top, people are gonna just quit whenever they die..Who wants to play a game for 40 days then die because of some server glitch and lose everything?
The problem with Darkfall is that you lose too much. Who wants to PvP in a game if you're going to lose gear when you die? People would just hide in towns all day. Zones outside of safe zones would be empty.
EQ had the right penalty, an exp loss that was percentage based, and your corpse stays where you die, making you spend even more time to recover it.
Personally I think that kind of penalty would be good for hardcore games, I would like to try it but until I can I can't be sure if it would work but it does make it more realistic, or maybe not that deep but something along with EVEs cloneing system, where you loose stats, and skills, along with very expencive, rare, possible one of a kind items, and even rebuying them involves searching systems for parts. Beside complete death, I like EVEs system, because you do loose alot, but not everything, unless you never update your clone...then you loose almost everything
Also, I meant it would be good more more MMOGs. Where you have items, money and rep, but not really XP or skills or atleast a big ammount of skills. It would be good for games where its like a sandbox like eve, except without there being like 5000 skills. So for games that its rep and money based, so if you die and are like one of the top 10 most wanted in the game, you can be pronounced dead, and you have to start over, without rep, money, and certain skills.
My primary problem with darkfall is that you can carry away unrealistic amounts of items,you can unwear for example platemail from corpse way too fast,you can delete items in a game what triest to be realistic,theres too many flaws .
it could be good but at the moment ,its not.
Generation P
Again, do not blame people for not accepting your invalid and flawed arguments.
The loser does not need to suffer a damage in order to make someone else victorious.
The truth is, you can lose just simply by failing without any loss.
Loss is optional, nothing as needed.
Again, do not blame people for not accepting your invalid and flawed arguments.
The loser does not need to suffer a damage in order to make someone else victorious.
The truth is, you can lose just simply by failing without any loss.
Loss is optional, nothing as needed.
They need to lose something significant..
It's not that the fact that you won that made you feel good. It's the fact that you didn't die, and didn't lose what you were afraid of losing.
Now, that other guy can get a rez or something, but he won't fully recover. Sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. Sure you feel bad for the other guy, or maybe you are happy about it if you really didn't like them. Either way, it is better than PvP where you don't feel anything (like games without Death Penalties)
Again, do not blame people for not accepting your invalid and flawed arguments.
The loser does not need to suffer a damage in order to make someone else victorious.
The truth is, you can lose just simply by failing without any loss.
Loss is optional, nothing as needed.
They need to lose something significant..
It's not that the fact that you won that made you feel good. It's the fact that you didn't die, and didn't lose what you were afraid of losing.
Now, that other guy can get a rez or something, but he won't fully recover. Sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. Sure you feel bad for the other guy, or maybe you are happy about it if you really didn't like them. Either way, it is better than PvP where you don't feel anything (like games without Death Penalties)
um, no.
Losing is significant. However, it seems that people are arguing a very subjective point of view. H.Froglock, you might not have any issue with losing for losing sake but I can assure you that there are people, myself included who actually value the idea of winning/losing for its own sake. The sting of failure is actually very palpable for them as a concept. So is the joy of winning for its own sake.
I realize this might be a difficult thing to grasp for a person who likes to "up the stakes" but take into account that just the idea of winning or losing can actually have value unto itself without anything else attached.
What you are saying is that these concepts don't ring for you. But that is "you".
Just becasue you don't value it doesn't make it any less real.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
I have to agree. I do not really agree with the principles behind level-based games, but if you are going to have levels, then they should mean something. Someone that has made it to the maximum level should be impressive. That is why serious experience penalties (for pve-based games) have my vote all the way. If you need to group, and play with some skill to defeat encounters, and if you fail you lose some actual time and effort, than the importance of doing well is more significant. I know MMOs do not have the same levels of difficulty that we used to find in single player games.
I am sure all of you have played the original Marion Bros. at some point, even if you are too young to have gotten the Nintendo when it game out. That game was hard. You had to do things right, the first time, or you died horribly. Once you died horribly, you were dead. You had a finite number of chances, after which, that was it. Game over. That kind of danger tapered off at some point, but I still think it is a good idea. I am not promoting "hardcore" games, in which death is really death, but something where death is upsetting, would be good.
I know some people argue that "it's a game, and we should not have to endure anythign even slightly unpleasant during our gametime." Perhaps that is true, but for me, if there is no risk, there is no reward. That is true in life, and in games, if there is no risk, I feel like I have accomplished nothing, no matter what I do.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
WTF? No subscription fee?
I respect it as your opinion but that does not mean it is truth nor count as an argument.
It is not better, it is different.