I typically like to break death penalties down into cost in terms of time lost (Time being the most grandular resource for MMORPGs). For permadeath that cost is ever increasing. The longer you play the more you have to lose. Its a mechanic that basically penalizes you for playing.
That said if the game let you max level and get the best equipment in a span of 4hours then in actuality it would be less harsh than some games currently on the market.
If the game's mechnics supported the concept it could work. Don't expect people to risk a 2 month investment in time to a random chance encounter, lose, and still continue to play though.
In any case I can't see it doing anything but encouraging people to group more. But it would also probably encourage people to play classes that won't die first (less tanks or healers depending on the game).
So when did I make my statements about the degradation of the general player populations about me? You're the only one making it about me with your baseless assumptions and accusations that I'm supposidly puting myself upon a pedastal above other players.
I'm not even going to begin to talk about my ability, because I have no need to defend myself from your baseless assumptions. My 'skill' has no bearing on the fact that the percentage of terrible gamers has steadily risen over the past decade, and that because of this the resulting reception of a permadeath game would received with significantly different player behavior today than it would have a decade ago.
Define "bad player"? Last time I knew, people played mmorpg to have fun and werent doing it as a job oO. Just because someone doesnt have enough time to do all end content, get uber gear or something doesnt make them a bad player. Just because someone is not as great as controlling her/his character doesnt mean they can't learn it or have other strengths. Sorry, but that does sound a big arrogant to say No offense though. Just stick to your friends if you think other players are too bad to play with you.
And about the question: Im not really sure. In one way, it would bring players together. Like-minded people would form guilds and help and protect each other. They would be a tight-knit community. On the other hand, meeting others or making new friends in the game would be nearly impossible, because everyone would be cautious. New players would really have it hard. Some might farm new players and kill them over and over again. Also, there would be a lot of rage if a character died, I can already see the threads on the forums complaining about it. And of course, if you die, you start over, meaning you lose your friend's list and social contacts, at least some of them.
So I can't really answer the question, it could work both ways.
I voted that it would do neither; that players would act the same way regardless of whether a game had permadeath or not. There's so many variables that go into merely defining what permadeath even is. I think a game could incorporate permadeath mechanics in a way that most players wouldn't consider it to be hardcore permadeath.
The term has such a negative conotation that many players wouldn't bother looking into the mechanic if a game company tried to tout it as a feature. Either that or the company could not even mention that there was permadeath mechanics in the game and most players would probably not even notice. It depends on what exactly permadeath is, and how it's incorporated into the rest of the mechanics in the game, in my opinion. I believe that players change the mechanics of games more than the mechanics are able to change the players.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
perma death in mmos is justa dumb idea. Even the most hardcore mudds were not dumb enough to perma class/races more than a month before they realized it is an awful idea. Anygame that you logn on to multiple times a week for multiple months should never have perma death.
Loss of items (open loot) can be done (not appealing to most but doable), loss of exp and possibly levels (doable), perma death (not doable).
Edit that poll for bad idea it would cause people never to play the game.
I play a MUD called Discworld. It supports perma-death, but it uses an ingenious method actually. You can buy as many lives as you want but if you run out then your character is dead(You lose all your stuff, you can keep you name, all you possessions and money are gone, and you pretty much go through character creation again. Also, PvP deaths in discworld does not count against your lives UNLESS someone has put a contract on your head =P)The lives are not cheap either.
Perma-death is very doable in MMOs of today if you implement the right system. Look at EvE online, it damn near has perma-death because I promise you, when you forget to update your clone and lose 4-5months of training...it will feel like perma-death. Now I recognize that this is not complete perma-death but it is still quite a harsh system. The bonuses to perma-death and perma-death like systems that are implemented correctly far outweigh the downside. For one, it adds risk to the game, which makes it INFINITLEY more fun and that is worth more than all the tier-10 sets in the game. With this risk comes a feeling of purpose to playing the game. Whereas without perma-death or harsh consequences of dieing, there is no real risk to dieing( OH NO we have to fight the boss again, or OH NO I have to wait to respawn...).
But the catch is that the system has to be implemented properly. If it is not, perma-death and harsh consequences for dieing will only provide a griefing tool and take away from gameplay.
I would argue, that that's not really permadeath.
DragonRealms had pretty much the same system. You had to create orbs ahead of time and fill them with your current learning XP, or else you'd die, permanently. It equated to a fairly lengthy downtime activity, but not a big deal for the time.
A harsh DP, sure, but nothing like permadeath.
In Eve, clones are relatively cheap. If you're even remotely prepared and don't have expensive cybers, it's the ship that it hurts to lose, which can also be insured.
But your post proves the point, that no developer, even in the beginning of MMG's was/is stupid enough to allow a player to risk so much without an easy way of circumventing the loss.
I think we have a differing view of the definition of perma-death. In my mind, if at any point you can lose all your skills, equipment, basically everything you have earned while playing due to your characters hp hitting 0 then that is perma-death. Sure, in Discworld and EvE you could argue that it is easy to avoid perma-death by buying lives(updating your clones) and then be circumvented for the losses of ships through insurance, but you cannot argue that it is not perma-death according to my definition. In EvE, you can avoid perma-death easily, BUT let us say that you got killed and had an updated clone and it saved you, then you hop in your shuttle to go back to Corp space or something, but you forgot to buy a new clone because it "slipped your mind." You get destroyed and podded, having NO back-up clone what so ever...You are fucked, back to the start. Would you not call that perma-death?? Sure you have your possessions leftover, but you are now back to where you started when you logged on for the first time!
In my paragraph, I was trying to highlight the importance of the how important the implementation of perma-death is to the success of the feature. Perma-death is there to add immersion and the adrenaline and fun that comes from the risk/reward system, and it works fantasticly when implemented correctly. Sticking it in a game like WoW would not be suitable. For a game to have perma-death, it really has to be built around the implementation of it and not all game models are suitable for it. I argue that it is possible, it has been done, and it is alot of fun.
The first online RPG I ever played had permadeath. It's a fine mechanic as long as your game is designed to expect it. Most deaths were temporary, and influence and reputation were much more valuable than your equipment. Nobody flipped out over the death system, because it was expected and understood. No single mechanic is make or break like this. The way the mechanic fits into the game as a whole is.
Important facts: 1. Free to Play games are poorly made. 2. Casuals are not all idiots, but idiots call themselves casuals. 3. Great solo and group content are not mutually exclusive, but they suffer when one is shoved into the mold of the other. The same is true of PvP and PvE. 4. Community is more important than you think.
I play these games for fun and having my character wiped regardless the reason simply isn't fun to me. So the only effect it would have far as I'm concerned is I simply wouldn't play the game.
1. For god's sake mmo gamers, enough with the analogies. They're unnecessary and your comparisons are terrible, dissimilar, and illogical.
2. To posters feeling the need to state how f2p really isn't f2p: Players understand the concept. You aren't privy to some secret the rest are missing. You're embarrassing yourself.
3. Yes, Cpt. Obvious, we're not industry experts. Now run along and let the big people use the forums for their purpose.
The first online RPG I ever played had permadeath. It's a fine mechanic as long as your game is designed to expect it. Most deaths were temporary, and influence and reputation were much more valuable than your equipment. Nobody flipped out over the death system, because it was expected and understood. No single mechanic is make or break like this. The way the mechanic fits into the game as a whole is.
In my paragraph, I was trying to highlight the importance of the how important the implementation of perma-death is to the success of the feature. Perma-death is there to add immersion and the adrenaline and fun that comes from the risk/reward system, and it works fantasticly when implemented correctly. Sticking it in a game like WoW would not be suitable. For a game to have perma-death, it really has to be built around the implementation of it and not all game models are suitable for it. I argue that it is possible, it has been done, and it is alot of fun.
^This.
Stages of acceptance:
(1) It's completely impossible. (2) It's possible, but it's not worth doing. (3) I said it was a good idea all along.
So when did I make my statements about the degradation of the general player populations about me? You're the only one making it about me with your baseless assumptions and accusations that I'm supposidly puting myself upon a pedastal above other players.
I'm not even going to begin to talk about my ability, because I have no need to defend myself from your baseless assumptions. My 'skill' has no bearing on the fact that the percentage of terrible gamers has steadily risen over the past decade, and that because of this the resulting reception of a permadeath game would received with significantly different player behavior today than it would have a decade ago.
Define "bad player"? Last time I knew, people played mmorpg to have fun and werent doing it as a job oO. Just because someone doesnt have enough time to do all end content, get uber gear or something doesnt make them a bad player. Just because someone is not as great as controlling her/his character doesnt mean they can't learn it or have other strengths. Sorry, but that does sound a big arrogant to say No offense though. Just stick to your friends if you think other players are too bad to play with you.
And about the question: Im not really sure. In one way, it would bring players together. Like-minded people would form guilds and help and protect each other. They would be a tight-knit community. On the other hand, meeting others or making new friends in the game would be nearly impossible, because everyone would be cautious. New players would really have it hard. Some might farm new players and kill them over and over again. Also, there would be a lot of rage if a character died, I can already see the threads on the forums complaining about it. And of course, if you die, you start over, meaning you lose your friend's list and social contacts, at least some of them.
So I can't really answer the question, it could work both ways.
I dont know if I would use the term Bad players, but, extraordinarily average. The herp derp 'oops' moments that frequent and pull an extra pack of mobs, the irrational freakouts that get scared easy and back into extra mobs, of off a cliff, the healer that suddenly realized he/she has to go pick up their grandma from the airport/douse the cat thats on fire/bake a cake. If you dont actually believe that the average quality of gamer has dropped significantly over the last 10 years then you really need a reality check. More people are gaming now, it used to be the domain of the nerdy types who gamed because they were good at it, and found ways to excel, now its every Joe Bloggs and his dog that can call themselves a gamer, and thanks to WoW, you have such accessablity that literally any mouthbreather can claim to be a gamer.
For me, I dont want to trust my character to people I dont know, who have been untested under fire, wont freak out and run, wont teleport out if things looks dicey, wont fake a DC. I want people that I can trust if my characters progression is on the line in a game with PermaDeath. Casuals and PuGs dont cut it, they dont make the grade, I wouldnt even trust a PuG to tie their own damned shoes, thats how badly the gaming community has degenerated. Its not about feeling superior, its being able to recognise and discern that the level of skill has degraded over time because of the influx of gamers, the pool is very shallow now. Its the same argument people use when talking about WoW and the asshats you get. (Paraphrasing) 'Theres 12 million subs, so there are more asshats!' same argument can be used for MMO's 'Theres more players overall, so there are more average and below average players in the mix'.
To bring it back to the original premise, Permadeath would see the end of PuG's, and tightly knit groups would form, a community would flourish in that people would know the guys who have an itchy teleport to safety finger, and those who go the extra mile to keep you from death. The loss of a character would be felt by all, everyone would know the pain of losing a character, condolences would be offered. The potential for community growth is immense.
Define "bad player"? Last time I knew, people played mmorpg to have fun and werent doing it as a job oO. Just because someone doesnt have enough time to do all end content, get uber gear or something doesnt make them a bad player. Just because someone is not as great as controlling her/his character doesnt mean they can't learn it or have other strengths. Sorry, but that does sound a big arrogant to say No offense though. Just stick to your friends if you think other players are too bad to play with you.
There is a difference between an unskilled player, and a genuinely bad player.
An unskilled player is a player who still needs to learn the ropes, and is usually aware of it. Someone who keeps in mind that their performance has an impact on other players they may group with. They're willing to put in the effort to progress and/or learn, and not just have other people carrying their dead weight or have things handed to them. They don't want to be a burden.
A bad player doesn't care if they're pulling their weight. They don't care if they waste the time of others. They don't care if their carelessness is getting other players killed. They want to be able to put in as little effort as possible while still being rewarded. All they care about is themselves.
In a game like WoW where death penalties are easy to shrug off, dealing with an unskilled player is usually not a problem so long as they're not trying to bite off more than they can chew... i.e. getting into an instance they're not ready for. The former however, is even a stretch to deal with in a game like WoW. But, you don't know whether a player is simply unskilled, or careless, or even decen, until you group with them. Which again, is not that big of a gamble in a low death penalty game. In a permadeath game however, would you truly be as trusting of PUG players as you would in a low death penalty game?
You can call it arrogance if that's what you feel it is. Personally, I simply think it's being sensible. When death penalties rise, players take further precaution to prevent death. Not pugging, particularly in today's lack of player 'quality', is simply one precaution.
I think we have a differing view of the definition of perma-death. In my mind, if at any point you can lose all your skills, equipment, basically everything you have earned while playing due to your characters hp hitting 0 then that is perma-death. Sure, in Discworld and EvE you could argue that it is easy to avoid perma-death by buying lives(updating your clones) and then be circumvented for the losses of ships through insurance, but you cannot argue that it is not perma-death according to my definition. In EvE, you can avoid perma-death easily, BUT let us say that you got killed and had an updated clone and it saved you, then you hop in your shuttle to go back to Corp space or something, but you forgot to buy a new clone because it "slipped your mind." You get destroyed and podded, having NO back-up clone what so ever...You are fucked, back to the start. Would you not call that perma-death?? Sure you have your possessions leftover, but you are now back to where you started when you logged on for the first time!
In my paragraph, I was trying to highlight the importance of the how important the implementation of perma-death is to the success of the feature. Perma-death is there to add immersion and the adrenaline and fun that comes from the risk/reward system, and it works fantasticly when implemented correctly. Sticking it in a game like WoW would not be suitable. For a game to have perma-death, it really has to be built around the implementation of it and not all game models are suitable for it. I argue that it is possible, it has been done, and it is alot of fun.
I know it sounds a bit obstinate, but I'm sorry, the ONLY definition of perma-death is that when your character dies, they're dead forever. That's really the only definition that fits, and certainly the only one the OP is addressing.
But that's just arguing semantics, I suppose. My Greatness shall grant you a boon of leniency on the term(/self snark :P )... it DID work fine in DragonRealms, but remember, that was the Age of the NonMaxLvL MUD, where one level could take folks dozens of hours of gameplay and so, you weren't so stupid as to wander out without at least 1 orb filled.
But in the end, it really didn't add any additional sense of risk, which is the point of permadeath. In this case, when you died, you woke up in a temple fresh as a daisy, though you lost your "learning" state, and you had to go hoof it to get your loot.
It just offered a downtime activity where you did crafting and ended up in a "learning" state, and you focused that experience into an orb. So as a game mechanic, it didn't really serve as permadeath at all.
In the example you describe that I'm familiar with, Eve, you have to be supremely foolish to get caught in a potential podkill situation without a good clone. It's not like they expire or anything.
In your other game, you just "buy extra lives"? Correct me if I'm misinterpreting that, but that just doesn't seem like a big deal... lest ya have to pay RL cash for them.
In any of those cases, where's the perma-death risk? If you die, you lose your ship(Eve), you lose money(your game). In Eve, you can never die permanently; when you're podded, you end up in the nearest friendly hi-sec station, where you can't be touched.
Simple facts is that permadeath does not make a whole lot of players happy, some like it most don't and you end up with a good bit of fears people need to think about.
Fear 1. Hackers: Someone hacks an account, gets a party together and gets them all killed simply for his or her own jollies. Or sells off all the gear of everyone on the account then kills the characters off to cover the tracks.
Fear 2. Intentional training: This has nothing to do with leveling up, this is where a high level player grabs a lot of mobs runs them into a group that has no chance of killing them then logging off or feigning death to keep themselves alive while the low level party dies.
Fear 3. Crash death.
Fear 4. Death by glitch.
These are a few of them, most games that have any perma death in them have a limited safety net. Look at a lot of the muds out there with perma death, you will find some kind of system for players to insure they will come back from death without finding someone to rez them. Which is an important thing, Resurrection, if you instance the whole thing to cut down on trains, griefing, and people breaking stuns will lead to no resurrections by random players walking through.
The long run fear over bought account players that have no idea how to play, the long list of greif and glitch ways to die, and the ever popular mob spawn death, will lead to players being to nervous to do anything but hunt near zone lines.
You want perma death in an mmo you need it to be an option, either do X to back your character up via teaching an apprentice, clone, magic object to bring you back, or die for good when you die. It's just simple math, someone losses a max level character forever they are going to be ticked. In games like diablo it makes some sense because it is the same stuff over and over and your not facing what you do in an mmo. Very few people are going to pay 14.99 to play a game that they could be sent back to zero over any thing thing, and at the end of the day companies want money.
I think we have a differing view of the definition of perma-death. In my mind, if at any point you can lose all your skills, equipment, basically everything you have earned while playing due to your characters hp hitting 0 then that is perma-death. Sure, in Discworld and EvE you could argue that it is easy to avoid perma-death by buying lives(updating your clones) and then be circumvented for the losses of ships through insurance, but you cannot argue that it is not perma-death according to my definition. In EvE, you can avoid perma-death easily, BUT let us say that you got killed and had an updated clone and it saved you, then you hop in your shuttle to go back to Corp space or something, but you forgot to buy a new clone because it "slipped your mind." You get destroyed and podded, having NO back-up clone what so ever...You are fucked, back to the start. Would you not call that perma-death?? Sure you have your possessions leftover, but you are now back to where you started when you logged on for the first time!
In my paragraph, I was trying to highlight the importance of the how important the implementation of perma-death is to the success of the feature. Perma-death is there to add immersion and the adrenaline and fun that comes from the risk/reward system, and it works fantasticly when implemented correctly. Sticking it in a game like WoW would not be suitable. For a game to have perma-death, it really has to be built around the implementation of it and not all game models are suitable for it. I argue that it is possible, it has been done, and it is alot of fun.
Your definition accepts very broad understanding of perma-death. It would be utter, complete idiocracy to not update your clone. Furthermore I'm pretty sure you wouldn't lose all your SP either. So no permadeath there. Only a huge setback. You can make up your own definition just as I can call a splinter in my foot a "mortal wound". There is no perma-death in Eve. Deleting your character voluntarily after your death would be equally... stupid. I have no better word for it.
Permadeath hasn't been implemented in a major title succesfully, if at all. I doubt we will see it ever in a mainstream game with character progression. I agree all of the game's features must complement this mechanic, but with it, it brings a lot more bad things than good. Even when the game was designed around it.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
I think we have a differing view of the definition of perma-death. In my mind, if at any point you can lose all your skills, equipment, basically everything you have earned while playing due to your characters hp hitting 0 then that is perma-death. Sure, in Discworld and EvE you could argue that it is easy to avoid perma-death by buying lives(updating your clones) and then be circumvented for the losses of ships through insurance, but you cannot argue that it is not perma-death according to my definition. In EvE, you can avoid perma-death easily, BUT let us say that you got killed and had an updated clone and it saved you, then you hop in your shuttle to go back to Corp space or something, but you forgot to buy a new clone because it "slipped your mind." You get destroyed and podded, having NO back-up clone what so ever...You are fucked, back to the start. Would you not call that perma-death?? Sure you have your possessions leftover, but you are now back to where you started when you logged on for the first time!
In my paragraph, I was trying to highlight the importance of the how important the implementation of perma-death is to the success of the feature. Perma-death is there to add immersion and the adrenaline and fun that comes from the risk/reward system, and it works fantasticly when implemented correctly. Sticking it in a game like WoW would not be suitable. For a game to have perma-death, it really has to be built around the implementation of it and not all game models are suitable for it. I argue that it is possible, it has been done, and it is alot of fun.
Your definition accepts very broad understanding of perma-death. It would be utter, complete idiocracy to not update your clone. Furthermore I'm pretty sure you wouldn't lose all your SP either. So no permadeath there. Only a huge setback. You can make up your own definition just as I can call a splinter in my foot a "mortal wound". There is no perma-death in Eve. Deleting your character voluntarily after your death would be equally... stupid. I have no better word for it.
Permadeath hasn't been implemented in a major title succesfully, if at all. I doubt we will see it ever in a mainstream game with character progression. I agree all of the game's features must complement this mechanic, but with it, it brings a lot more bad things than good. Even when the game was designed around it.
I don't think it's ever more than 10-20%, though if you've been playing for, say, 5 years... yyyyyyyyooooooowtch! But if you've been playing for 5 years, you know better.
Closest I've seen to permadeath in an MMO is Jedi in pre-cu SWG. Even then, it wasn't "one death, you're gone". You got several within a certain period of time, and it kept getting more and more lenient as updates went on. Even then, I'm not sure you lost your Jedi slot if you PD'd. Methinx you just got to roll another Jedi. Could be wrong.
And yep, I know that probably fails your "successfully" qualifier.
I don't think it's a very good poll as it leaves too many variables unanswered.
If it was easier to go out and kill the average mob with tactics like kiting and such, then it was to find a group and go kill said mob, then obviously I would solo more. If it wasn't, I would group more.
I really don't think that permadeath plays a major role in deciding how a person will play, or at least it isn't for me, except for more extreme situations. It just boils down to how much a person can manage on their own vs how much they are willing to put up with someone else.
For the sake of providing the OP with an answer - I'm going to say it would make me solo more rather then group because I can live with my own mistakes easier then I can put up with someone else's.
All of my posts are either intelligent, thought provoking, funny, satirical, sarcastic or intentionally disrespectful. Take your pick.
I get banned in the forums for games I love, so lets see if I do better in the forums for games I hate.
I enjoy the serenity of not caring what your opinion is.
Permadeath would bring people together but they would be edgy as hell around eachother if you assume open PvP aswell. The second your health bar drops to near zero and the fight is all but over, zap. You're dead.
This type of permadeath would also result in a huge hit to your subscriber base. The game would have to be shallow (read: allow you to advance quickly) or it just wouldn't be worth the time leveling/advancing to the state in which you previously were.
Slightly off-topic:
How about "permadeath" in the form of forcing a (random) server change?
More-or-less the same effect if there are enough servers.
You would lose your contacts, any real estate that you owned, anything still in unopened mail, etc. But you keep your character, and anything he owned (Inventory and in storage).
I voted that it would do neither; that players would act the same way regardless of whether a game had permadeath or not. There's so many variables that go into merely defining what permadeath even is. I think a game could incorporate permadeath mechanics in a way that most players wouldn't consider it to be hardcore permadeath.
The term has such a negative conotation that many players wouldn't bother looking into the mechanic if a game company tried to tout it as a feature. Either that or the company could not even mention that there was permadeath mechanics in the game and most players would probably not even notice. It depends on what exactly permadeath is, and how it's incorporated into the rest of the mechanics in the game, in my opinion. I believe that players change the mechanics of games more than the mechanics are able to change the players.
Yeah, the poll conveniently sidesteps the "dramatically niche audience" factor, so "neither" is probably the correct answer (and I agree with the rest of your post too.)
Although some might argue that reducing your potential audience by millions and millions of players would sort of eliminate a lot of potential community before it even existed.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
It will cause them to run in fear and then cancel their subscription.
The real issue here is you aren't defining permadeath at all.
Will it be difficult to kill a person? Will it take a quick knife across the throat? Will it take 20 people beating on someone?
Are there going to be any advantages to killing someone?
Are there going to be any disadvantages to killing someone?
Are there going to be safe areas?
Are there going to be NPC guards?
Is there some sort of justice system involved?
All of those questions greatly affect the answer to your question. And the list goes on nearly indefinitely. If no one knows the rules of the game, how can we determine if perma-death will bring people together or tear them apart?
Are you asking what would happen under the WoW ruleset if people would perma-die? Are you asking what would happen under the Darkfall ruleset if people would perma die? Are you asking based on your own version of a game that could include perma-death?
I think people are having trouble answering the question the way you want them to because there just isn't enough information.
Excellent response! Perhaps I am the idiot in this case :P Oops!
Alright, some great questions asked and I definitely have some fault on this one. Perhaps it is why the question goes unanswered by many.
Let's throw out some hypotheticals to help resolve the issue of permadeath, and perhaps soften it.
1) Death is a difficult task. It requires players to stick around and risk themselves after falling below 50% health. Any player can easily get away alive if above 50% health. Let's say when they enter a "danger zone" it becomes a heavier risk, and the longer they stay, the more they risk.
2) Let's say that for every character death, there is actually only a 10% chance for permadeath. So 1 out of 10 players who die, actually suffer permadeath. So not only is death hard to come by, but players have to specifically risk their lives sticking around after their HP falls to a "danger zone", they have many abilities to escape, 99% chance to escape if not in "danger zone" hp, and even if they die there's only a 10% chance they'll suffer permadeath.
3) Progression is much faster than traditional MMO's. There are no levels, only skill system. Players will not lose more than a months progression, or if they play hardcore a weeks? Idk. ANd let's say some forms of progression dont perma-die. Bank items stay forever. Epic Weapons stay until they break. All items break eventually, so loss isnt as big a deal. Gold is stored in the bank and can only be lost if players DONT suffer 10% permadeath but DO die, and it's optional (Pay a Gold ransom or let the character Permadie).
4) There is no FFA open PvP. The PvP is only in specific zones or battlegrounds, or only if players "flag" or only on a PvP server. (Idk, be creative. Assume whatever you think sounds best.)
5) There are safe zones, NPC guards. Also, only "dangerous" marked mobs come to kill. Some "newbie" marked mobs NEVER kill, only steal gold. So not only is death only 10%, but not all mobs even invoke that 10% chance.
6) And in PvP, there is 0% gain from killing a player. All battlegrounds are objective based, where causing the player to flee is more important, and chasing after players actually hurts your side bc you dont get objectives. You can't loot other players either, so no incentive to kill outside of eliminating a threat.
Does this help?
If being a developer means being quiet, mature, well-spoken, and disconnected from the community, then by all means do me a favor and believe I'm not one.
Pre - P.S. - I never said I support permadeath, nor said it is not possibly a frustrating idea. The question is not for or against permadeath, only "What would happen if..."
I still don't see why some people have a hard time answering the question.
NEITHER- there wouldn't be any players, is NOT an answer, nor should it be.
The topic is hypothetical. If you have players in a world, the same players in any world, and it had permadeath- would it bring them together or tear them apart?
Very, very simple.
I am seriously scratching my head why so many people are unable to comprehend what the word HYPOTHETICAL means. And no, I didn't say this is a hypothetical, but anyone with common sense should assume so, as well as there are players who are playing for one reason or another. Why? Because the question is NOT "Is this a good idea?"
Very, very simple. Neither is not an option, nor should it be. If you are unable to comprehend the SIMPLE question- don't vote in the poll. That's even more simple...
If being a developer means being quiet, mature, well-spoken, and disconnected from the community, then by all means do me a favor and believe I'm not one.
First of tldr. But, I would say both in all honesty.
Starting out it would be chaos as those who chose to kill early would have the advantage for a long amount of time. However I think they would be the minority shortly allowing the rest to band together and with numbers to at least even the playing field. While the community would probably start to flourish within the established areas venturing to far would probably get you killed by the rouges. Or, if it's more even there would be constant wars and I'm not sure how it would work out.
Ill just go ahead and tell you what I think about the 'losing a months progress' thing.
This on its own would stop grouping on the most part. BUT there will be a few people who would go out and group and hunt together. Also, most of the people would end up taking on mobs they can surely solo.
Point 1:
Most people would NOT take the risk of fighting mobs they have trouble fighting because most people tend to overvalue their goods.
Point 2:
PUGs will surely suffer for fear of getting a bad group of people. The people who usually lead PUGs will have a very hard time getting people but when they do and it IS successful, then they may start their own grouping circle and as they get more fame and it starts getting put on guides, it may increase the number of people PUGing but it will still be a minority of the population.
Point 3:
Guilds who take things seriously and challenge themselves will flourish. Just like Corps in EVE. They may or may not group, but they will tend to help each other out and will usually group together.
Point 4:
Like EVE, you WILL have a bunch(maybe half of more of the population) in safe areas where they pretty much wont die unless they afk.
Point 5:
Judging by all these, I expect it to not affect the populations group people much. It will be kind of like MMOs where people who group are a minority, and soloers make up the majority.
So my answer would be..."It will not kill grouping but it will skew it so it makes even less players group up."
And again, I get my points from looking at how EVE and Darkfall is. Then I compared it to MMOs where the death penalty is rather weak. See, in MMOs where death penalty is weak, people tend to hate deaths. People tend to hate losing so permadeath will only push people to be safer. Most of the western mmo players tend to equate safe with solo and unsafe in group settings.
Depending on how groups and group content are handled, it would either push hardcore players and achievers OR crafters/gatherers to the grouped content.
But if everything is soloable and the whole point of grouping was just to make it safe, then the only point of grouping is to be safer, this would skew it quite a bit. People who want to level fast will go with whichevers faster, while the rest solo until they find a group.
PS: These are all from a pve perspective. I never played PVP outside eve and WoW and I never really had much experience with that community.
Edit:
If you could let me know more of the workings of the game then Id gladly give a different answer.
Also, looking at the poll, my answer would be all 3 in a way because more people will play the same way as if theres no permadeath, but the middleground people would be pushed to either grouping more or soloing more.
So please please if you can let me know how groups in general will be handled in game?
WoW-like grouping = People will tend to group less. These will probably be a guild only thing and you will see a lot of people retreating and they will know almost immediately when theyre going to lose. So at around 70% hp, they will knowif they sohuld run or they can take it. Can they run? if not, even less people will group if yes, youll have grouping as a guild only thing.
DOMO- like grouping = Or this is what I call...Soloers grouping together to solo together safely. They each will be able to take their own enemies but there will really be no hard coded trinity for the most part but a healer will be great. At some point yes there will be "tank" characters but because of the rarity of groups, you only see "Tank" characters in guilds. Healers will be in demand soyou will see them around just like in other games but this time, tanks will be much rarer.
EVE-like grouping = They can solo it, but you can group to let others help but its mostly letting them leech off you. Here, PUGs will be around in small numbers (possibly bored people who just wants company) and most of the people will be built for soloing so...Kind oflike Champions Online where everyone is usually tank mages.
City of Heroes-like grouping = Scaling content. These will absolutely forcepeople to form rigid groups. People will not group up unless they are absolutely sure they wont die. Which will pretty much kill grouping until the guides come out after the hardcoreguilds experiment on the best teams. This is where elitists will shine and be able to go miles ahead of other players. You will also be expected to see a lot of "GUILD X IS HACKING/FAVORED BY DEVS/etc" posts on the forums.
Please note all those are PVE and Sorry for the wall lol
''/\/\'' Posted using Iphone bunni ( o.o) (")(") **This bunny was cloned from bunnies belonging to Gobla and is part of the Quizzical Fanclub and the The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club**
I suppose the flip side of "is there a community if you've eliminated millions of potential players before they even started playing?" is "When the game's entire community is 1000 players, they'll be brought together out of fear of playing completely alone."
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
http://www.dark-wind.com does a great job with perma death. You are a gang leader. You have multiple characters that you control. At first it's not a big deal to lose a new character, but later after you've built them up you tend to be more careful. You also die from old age so you can never get too attached.
"I am not in a server with Gankers...THEY ARE IN A SERVER WITH ME!!!"
Comments
I typically like to break death penalties down into cost in terms of time lost (Time being the most grandular resource for MMORPGs). For permadeath that cost is ever increasing. The longer you play the more you have to lose. Its a mechanic that basically penalizes you for playing.
That said if the game let you max level and get the best equipment in a span of 4hours then in actuality it would be less harsh than some games currently on the market.
If the game's mechnics supported the concept it could work. Don't expect people to risk a 2 month investment in time to a random chance encounter, lose, and still continue to play though.
In any case I can't see it doing anything but encouraging people to group more. But it would also probably encourage people to play classes that won't die first (less tanks or healers depending on the game).
Define "bad player"? Last time I knew, people played mmorpg to have fun and werent doing it as a job oO. Just because someone doesnt have enough time to do all end content, get uber gear or something doesnt make them a bad player. Just because someone is not as great as controlling her/his character doesnt mean they can't learn it or have other strengths. Sorry, but that does sound a big arrogant to say
No offense though. Just stick to your friends if you think other players are too bad to play with you.
And about the question: Im not really sure. In one way, it would bring players together. Like-minded people would form guilds and help and protect each other. They would be a tight-knit community. On the other hand, meeting others or making new friends in the game would be nearly impossible, because everyone would be cautious. New players would really have it hard. Some might farm new players and kill them over and over again. Also, there would be a lot of rage if a character died, I can already see the threads on the forums complaining about it. And of course, if you die, you start over, meaning you lose your friend's list and social contacts, at least some of them.
So I can't really answer the question, it could work both ways.
I voted that it would do neither; that players would act the same way regardless of whether a game had permadeath or not. There's so many variables that go into merely defining what permadeath even is. I think a game could incorporate permadeath mechanics in a way that most players wouldn't consider it to be hardcore permadeath.
The term has such a negative conotation that many players wouldn't bother looking into the mechanic if a game company tried to tout it as a feature. Either that or the company could not even mention that there was permadeath mechanics in the game and most players would probably not even notice. It depends on what exactly permadeath is, and how it's incorporated into the rest of the mechanics in the game, in my opinion. I believe that players change the mechanics of games more than the mechanics are able to change the players.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
I think we have a differing view of the definition of perma-death. In my mind, if at any point you can lose all your skills, equipment, basically everything you have earned while playing due to your characters hp hitting 0 then that is perma-death. Sure, in Discworld and EvE you could argue that it is easy to avoid perma-death by buying lives(updating your clones) and then be circumvented for the losses of ships through insurance, but you cannot argue that it is not perma-death according to my definition. In EvE, you can avoid perma-death easily, BUT let us say that you got killed and had an updated clone and it saved you, then you hop in your shuttle to go back to Corp space or something, but you forgot to buy a new clone because it "slipped your mind." You get destroyed and podded, having NO back-up clone what so ever...You are fucked, back to the start. Would you not call that perma-death?? Sure you have your possessions leftover, but you are now back to where you started when you logged on for the first time!
In my paragraph, I was trying to highlight the importance of the how important the implementation of perma-death is to the success of the feature. Perma-death is there to add immersion and the adrenaline and fun that comes from the risk/reward system, and it works fantasticly when implemented correctly. Sticking it in a game like WoW would not be suitable. For a game to have perma-death, it really has to be built around the implementation of it and not all game models are suitable for it. I argue that it is possible, it has been done, and it is alot of fun.
Talking bout the issues..and keepin it funky.
The first online RPG I ever played had permadeath. It's a fine mechanic as long as your game is designed to expect it. Most deaths were temporary, and influence and reputation were much more valuable than your equipment. Nobody flipped out over the death system, because it was expected and understood. No single mechanic is make or break like this. The way the mechanic fits into the game as a whole is.
Important facts:
1. Free to Play games are poorly made.
2. Casuals are not all idiots, but idiots call themselves casuals.
3. Great solo and group content are not mutually exclusive, but they suffer when one is shoved into the mold of the other. The same is true of PvP and PvE.
4. Community is more important than you think.
I play these games for fun and having my character wiped regardless the reason simply isn't fun to me. So the only effect it would have far as I'm concerned is I simply wouldn't play the game.
1. For god's sake mmo gamers, enough with the analogies. They're unnecessary and your comparisons are terrible, dissimilar, and illogical.
2. To posters feeling the need to state how f2p really isn't f2p: Players understand the concept. You aren't privy to some secret the rest are missing. You're embarrassing yourself.
3. Yes, Cpt. Obvious, we're not industry experts. Now run along and let the big people use the forums for their purpose.
Shabam! This man gets it.
Talking bout the issues..and keepin it funky.
^This.
Stages of acceptance:
(1) It's completely impossible. (2) It's possible, but it's not worth doing. (3) I said it was a good idea all along.
http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1014633/Classic-Game-Postmortem
I dont know if I would use the term Bad players, but, extraordinarily average. The herp derp 'oops' moments that frequent and pull an extra pack of mobs, the irrational freakouts that get scared easy and back into extra mobs, of off a cliff, the healer that suddenly realized he/she has to go pick up their grandma from the airport/douse the cat thats on fire/bake a cake. If you dont actually believe that the average quality of gamer has dropped significantly over the last 10 years then you really need a reality check. More people are gaming now, it used to be the domain of the nerdy types who gamed because they were good at it, and found ways to excel, now its every Joe Bloggs and his dog that can call themselves a gamer, and thanks to WoW, you have such accessablity that literally any mouthbreather can claim to be a gamer.
For me, I dont want to trust my character to people I dont know, who have been untested under fire, wont freak out and run, wont teleport out if things looks dicey, wont fake a DC. I want people that I can trust if my characters progression is on the line in a game with PermaDeath. Casuals and PuGs dont cut it, they dont make the grade, I wouldnt even trust a PuG to tie their own damned shoes, thats how badly the gaming community has degenerated. Its not about feeling superior, its being able to recognise and discern that the level of skill has degraded over time because of the influx of gamers, the pool is very shallow now. Its the same argument people use when talking about WoW and the asshats you get. (Paraphrasing) 'Theres 12 million subs, so there are more asshats!' same argument can be used for MMO's 'Theres more players overall, so there are more average and below average players in the mix'.
To bring it back to the original premise, Permadeath would see the end of PuG's, and tightly knit groups would form, a community would flourish in that people would know the guys who have an itchy teleport to safety finger, and those who go the extra mile to keep you from death. The loss of a character would be felt by all, everyone would know the pain of losing a character, condolences would be offered. The potential for community growth is immense.
There is a difference between an unskilled player, and a genuinely bad player.
An unskilled player is a player who still needs to learn the ropes, and is usually aware of it. Someone who keeps in mind that their performance has an impact on other players they may group with. They're willing to put in the effort to progress and/or learn, and not just have other people carrying their dead weight or have things handed to them. They don't want to be a burden.
A bad player doesn't care if they're pulling their weight. They don't care if they waste the time of others. They don't care if their carelessness is getting other players killed. They want to be able to put in as little effort as possible while still being rewarded. All they care about is themselves.
In a game like WoW where death penalties are easy to shrug off, dealing with an unskilled player is usually not a problem so long as they're not trying to bite off more than they can chew... i.e. getting into an instance they're not ready for. The former however, is even a stretch to deal with in a game like WoW. But, you don't know whether a player is simply unskilled, or careless, or even decen, until you group with them. Which again, is not that big of a gamble in a low death penalty game. In a permadeath game however, would you truly be as trusting of PUG players as you would in a low death penalty game?
You can call it arrogance if that's what you feel it is. Personally, I simply think it's being sensible. When death penalties rise, players take further precaution to prevent death. Not pugging, particularly in today's lack of player 'quality', is simply one precaution.
I know it sounds a bit obstinate, but I'm sorry, the ONLY definition of perma-death is that when your character dies, they're dead forever. That's really the only definition that fits, and certainly the only one the OP is addressing.
But that's just arguing semantics, I suppose. My Greatness shall grant you a boon of leniency on the term(/self snark :P )... it DID work fine in DragonRealms, but remember, that was the Age of the NonMaxLvL MUD, where one level could take folks dozens of hours of gameplay and so, you weren't so stupid as to wander out without at least 1 orb filled.
But in the end, it really didn't add any additional sense of risk, which is the point of permadeath. In this case, when you died, you woke up in a temple fresh as a daisy, though you lost your "learning" state, and you had to go hoof it to get your loot.
It just offered a downtime activity where you did crafting and ended up in a "learning" state, and you focused that experience into an orb. So as a game mechanic, it didn't really serve as permadeath at all.
In the example you describe that I'm familiar with, Eve, you have to be supremely foolish to get caught in a potential podkill situation without a good clone. It's not like they expire or anything.
In your other game, you just "buy extra lives"? Correct me if I'm misinterpreting that, but that just doesn't seem like a big deal... lest ya have to pay RL cash for them.
In any of those cases, where's the perma-death risk? If you die, you lose your ship(Eve), you lose money(your game). In Eve, you can never die permanently; when you're podded, you end up in the nearest friendly hi-sec station, where you can't be touched.
Simple facts is that permadeath does not make a whole lot of players happy, some like it most don't and you end up with a good bit of fears people need to think about.
Fear 1. Hackers: Someone hacks an account, gets a party together and gets them all killed simply for his or her own jollies. Or sells off all the gear of everyone on the account then kills the characters off to cover the tracks.
Fear 2. Intentional training: This has nothing to do with leveling up, this is where a high level player grabs a lot of mobs runs them into a group that has no chance of killing them then logging off or feigning death to keep themselves alive while the low level party dies.
Fear 3. Crash death.
Fear 4. Death by glitch.
These are a few of them, most games that have any perma death in them have a limited safety net. Look at a lot of the muds out there with perma death, you will find some kind of system for players to insure they will come back from death without finding someone to rez them. Which is an important thing, Resurrection, if you instance the whole thing to cut down on trains, griefing, and people breaking stuns will lead to no resurrections by random players walking through.
The long run fear over bought account players that have no idea how to play, the long list of greif and glitch ways to die, and the ever popular mob spawn death, will lead to players being to nervous to do anything but hunt near zone lines.
You want perma death in an mmo you need it to be an option, either do X to back your character up via teaching an apprentice, clone, magic object to bring you back, or die for good when you die. It's just simple math, someone losses a max level character forever they are going to be ticked. In games like diablo it makes some sense because it is the same stuff over and over and your not facing what you do in an mmo. Very few people are going to pay 14.99 to play a game that they could be sent back to zero over any thing thing, and at the end of the day companies want money.
Your definition accepts very broad understanding of perma-death. It would be utter, complete idiocracy to not update your clone. Furthermore I'm pretty sure you wouldn't lose all your SP either. So no permadeath there. Only a huge setback. You can make up your own definition just as I can call a splinter in my foot a "mortal wound". There is no perma-death in Eve. Deleting your character voluntarily after your death would be equally... stupid. I have no better word for it.
Permadeath hasn't been implemented in a major title succesfully, if at all. I doubt we will see it ever in a mainstream game with character progression. I agree all of the game's features must complement this mechanic, but with it, it brings a lot more bad things than good. Even when the game was designed around it.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
I don't think it's ever more than 10-20%, though if you've been playing for, say, 5 years... yyyyyyyyooooooowtch! But if you've been playing for 5 years, you know better.
Closest I've seen to permadeath in an MMO is Jedi in pre-cu SWG. Even then, it wasn't "one death, you're gone". You got several within a certain period of time, and it kept getting more and more lenient as updates went on. Even then, I'm not sure you lost your Jedi slot if you PD'd. Methinx you just got to roll another Jedi. Could be wrong.
And yep, I know that probably fails your "successfully" qualifier.
I don't think it's a very good poll as it leaves too many variables unanswered.
If it was easier to go out and kill the average mob with tactics like kiting and such, then it was to find a group and go kill said mob, then obviously I would solo more. If it wasn't, I would group more.
I really don't think that permadeath plays a major role in deciding how a person will play, or at least it isn't for me, except for more extreme situations. It just boils down to how much a person can manage on their own vs how much they are willing to put up with someone else.
For the sake of providing the OP with an answer - I'm going to say it would make me solo more rather then group because I can live with my own mistakes easier then I can put up with someone else's.
All of my posts are either intelligent, thought provoking, funny, satirical, sarcastic or intentionally disrespectful. Take your pick.
I get banned in the forums for games I love, so lets see if I do better in the forums for games I hate.
I enjoy the serenity of not caring what your opinion is.
I don't hate much, but I hate Apple© with a passion. If Steve Jobs was alive, I would punch him in the face.
Permadeath would bring people together but they would be edgy as hell around eachother if you assume open PvP aswell. The second your health bar drops to near zero and the fight is all but over, zap. You're dead.
This type of permadeath would also result in a huge hit to your subscriber base. The game would have to be shallow (read: allow you to advance quickly) or it just wouldn't be worth the time leveling/advancing to the state in which you previously were.
Slightly off-topic:
How about "permadeath" in the form of forcing a (random) server change?
More-or-less the same effect if there are enough servers.
You would lose your contacts, any real estate that you owned, anything still in unopened mail, etc. But you keep your character, and anything he owned (Inventory and in storage).
Food for thought.
Multiplayer shooters have had permadeath for years.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
Yeah, the poll conveniently sidesteps the "dramatically niche audience" factor, so "neither" is probably the correct answer (and I agree with the rest of your post too.)
Although some might argue that reducing your potential audience by millions and millions of players would sort of eliminate a lot of potential community before it even existed.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Excellent response! Perhaps I am the idiot in this case :P Oops!
Alright, some great questions asked and I definitely have some fault on this one. Perhaps it is why the question goes unanswered by many.
Let's throw out some hypotheticals to help resolve the issue of permadeath, and perhaps soften it.
1) Death is a difficult task. It requires players to stick around and risk themselves after falling below 50% health. Any player can easily get away alive if above 50% health. Let's say when they enter a "danger zone" it becomes a heavier risk, and the longer they stay, the more they risk.
2) Let's say that for every character death, there is actually only a 10% chance for permadeath. So 1 out of 10 players who die, actually suffer permadeath. So not only is death hard to come by, but players have to specifically risk their lives sticking around after their HP falls to a "danger zone", they have many abilities to escape, 99% chance to escape if not in "danger zone" hp, and even if they die there's only a 10% chance they'll suffer permadeath.
3) Progression is much faster than traditional MMO's. There are no levels, only skill system. Players will not lose more than a months progression, or if they play hardcore a weeks? Idk. ANd let's say some forms of progression dont perma-die. Bank items stay forever. Epic Weapons stay until they break. All items break eventually, so loss isnt as big a deal. Gold is stored in the bank and can only be lost if players DONT suffer 10% permadeath but DO die, and it's optional (Pay a Gold ransom or let the character Permadie).
4) There is no FFA open PvP. The PvP is only in specific zones or battlegrounds, or only if players "flag" or only on a PvP server. (Idk, be creative. Assume whatever you think sounds best.)
5) There are safe zones, NPC guards. Also, only "dangerous" marked mobs come to kill. Some "newbie" marked mobs NEVER kill, only steal gold. So not only is death only 10%, but not all mobs even invoke that 10% chance.
6) And in PvP, there is 0% gain from killing a player. All battlegrounds are objective based, where causing the player to flee is more important, and chasing after players actually hurts your side bc you dont get objectives. You can't loot other players either, so no incentive to kill outside of eliminating a threat.
Does this help?
If being a developer means being quiet, mature, well-spoken, and disconnected from the community, then by all means do me a favor and believe I'm not one.
Pre - P.S. - I never said I support permadeath, nor said it is not possibly a frustrating idea. The question is not for or against permadeath, only "What would happen if..."
I still don't see why some people have a hard time answering the question.
NEITHER- there wouldn't be any players, is NOT an answer, nor should it be.
The topic is hypothetical. If you have players in a world, the same players in any world, and it had permadeath- would it bring them together or tear them apart?
Very, very simple.
I am seriously scratching my head why so many people are unable to comprehend what the word HYPOTHETICAL means. And no, I didn't say this is a hypothetical, but anyone with common sense should assume so, as well as there are players who are playing for one reason or another. Why? Because the question is NOT "Is this a good idea?"
Very, very simple. Neither is not an option, nor should it be. If you are unable to comprehend the SIMPLE question- don't vote in the poll. That's even more simple...
If being a developer means being quiet, mature, well-spoken, and disconnected from the community, then by all means do me a favor and believe I'm not one.
First of tldr. But, I would say both in all honesty.
Starting out it would be chaos as those who chose to kill early would have the advantage for a long amount of time. However I think they would be the minority shortly allowing the rest to band together and with numbers to at least even the playing field. While the community would probably start to flourish within the established areas venturing to far would probably get you killed by the rouges. Or, if it's more even there would be constant wars and I'm not sure how it would work out.
Well your permadeath got way too softened up...
BUT!
Ill just go ahead and tell you what I think about the 'losing a months progress' thing.
This on its own would stop grouping on the most part. BUT there will be a few people who would go out and group and hunt together. Also, most of the people would end up taking on mobs they can surely solo.
Point 1:
Most people would NOT take the risk of fighting mobs they have trouble fighting because most people tend to overvalue their goods.
Point 2:
PUGs will surely suffer for fear of getting a bad group of people. The people who usually lead PUGs will have a very hard time getting people but when they do and it IS successful, then they may start their own grouping circle and as they get more fame and it starts getting put on guides, it may increase the number of people PUGing but it will still be a minority of the population.
Point 3:
Guilds who take things seriously and challenge themselves will flourish. Just like Corps in EVE. They may or may not group, but they will tend to help each other out and will usually group together.
Point 4:
Like EVE, you WILL have a bunch(maybe half of more of the population) in safe areas where they pretty much wont die unless they afk.
Point 5:
Judging by all these, I expect it to not affect the populations group people much. It will be kind of like MMOs where people who group are a minority, and soloers make up the majority.
So my answer would be..."It will not kill grouping but it will skew it so it makes even less players group up."
And again, I get my points from looking at how EVE and Darkfall is. Then I compared it to MMOs where the death penalty is rather weak. See, in MMOs where death penalty is weak, people tend to hate deaths. People tend to hate losing so permadeath will only push people to be safer. Most of the western mmo players tend to equate safe with solo and unsafe in group settings.
Depending on how groups and group content are handled, it would either push hardcore players and achievers OR crafters/gatherers to the grouped content.
But if everything is soloable and the whole point of grouping was just to make it safe, then the only point of grouping is to be safer, this would skew it quite a bit. People who want to level fast will go with whichevers faster, while the rest solo until they find a group.
PS: These are all from a pve perspective. I never played PVP outside eve and WoW and I never really had much experience with that community.
Edit:
If you could let me know more of the workings of the game then Id gladly give a different answer.
Also, looking at the poll, my answer would be all 3 in a way because more people will play the same way as if theres no permadeath, but the middleground people would be pushed to either grouping more or soloing more.
So please please if you can let me know how groups in general will be handled in game?
WoW-like grouping = People will tend to group less. These will probably be a guild only thing and you will see a lot of people retreating and they will know almost immediately when theyre going to lose. So at around 70% hp, they will knowif they sohuld run or they can take it. Can they run? if not, even less people will group if yes, youll have grouping as a guild only thing.
DOMO- like grouping = Or this is what I call...Soloers grouping together to solo together safely. They each will be able to take their own enemies but there will really be no hard coded trinity for the most part but a healer will be great. At some point yes there will be "tank" characters but because of the rarity of groups, you only see "Tank" characters in guilds. Healers will be in demand soyou will see them around just like in other games but this time, tanks will be much rarer.
EVE-like grouping = They can solo it, but you can group to let others help but its mostly letting them leech off you. Here, PUGs will be around in small numbers (possibly bored people who just wants company) and most of the people will be built for soloing so...Kind oflike Champions Online where everyone is usually tank mages.
City of Heroes-like grouping = Scaling content. These will absolutely forcepeople to form rigid groups. People will not group up unless they are absolutely sure they wont die. Which will pretty much kill grouping until the guides come out after the hardcoreguilds experiment on the best teams. This is where elitists will shine and be able to go miles ahead of other players. You will also be expected to see a lot of "GUILD X IS HACKING/FAVORED BY DEVS/etc" posts on the forums.
Please note all those are PVE and Sorry for the wall lol
''/\/\'' Posted using Iphone bunni
( o.o)
(")(")
**This bunny was cloned from bunnies belonging to Gobla and is part of the Quizzical Fanclub and the The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club**
I suppose the flip side of "is there a community if you've eliminated millions of potential players before they even started playing?" is "When the game's entire community is 1000 players, they'll be brought together out of fear of playing completely alone."
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
http://www.dark-wind.com does a great job with perma death. You are a gang leader. You have multiple characters that you control. At first it's not a big deal to lose a new character, but later after you've built them up you tend to be more careful. You also die from old age so you can never get too attached.
"I am not in a server with Gankers...THEY ARE IN A SERVER WITH ME!!!"
Diablo II Hardcore mode was permadeath, and I have never really got the same buzz from any other game then I got at certain stages of that.
Of course, it made me avoid PuG's like the plague, unless I was seriously overpowered for the level of content.
So in summary, I would say perma-death would not bring most players together.