Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Does Harsh Death Penalty really make the Challenge, or does Harder Gameplay make the Challenge?

17810121321

Comments

  • ScrogdogScrogdog Member Posts: 380

    I agree completely with the notion put forth that just because a game may have a harsh penalty that doesn't mean it's good.  Right.  Add a harsh DP to WoW and I'm still not playing it.

    I would say, however, that if someone says that they are "old school" or "hardcore" that usually means a number of things like harsher DPs, no or minimal fast travel, item decay... stuff like that.  DP is only part ofthe picture.

    Still, even if a game had ALL of the things that I just mentioned that still doesn't mean that it's a good game.  Rather, I would say that if you take a good game, and have the option of layering some of those things on top of it, then I would prefer to play it over the same game that didn't have those things.

  • AxehiltAxehilt Member RarePosts: 10,504

    Originally posted by Creslin321

    Originally posted by Axehilt


    Originally posted by UOlover

     No challenge for you, you can't speak for everyone and that's fine, it's what makes the world go round heh. There are people who do see it as a challenge.

    If people have flawed personal definitions of what challenge is, all I can do is present a more logical definition of challenge.  I can't force them to accept superior logic, I can only present it to them.

    Again, if there's no skill component, there's no challenge.  And while there's a skill component to the concept of difficulty (how much skill is required to avoid failure) there isn't in the concept of penalty (what happens if you fail.)

    Fact remains, the majority of death penalties do not challenge players, they merely delay/inconvience them.  And the few death penalties which do involve some form of a skill check tend to be less compelling gameplay than a game's normal gameplay.

    Beating Contra with 3 lives = Very hard.

    Beating Contra with 99 lives = Very easy.

    The only difference here is the death penalty.  With 3 lives the death penalty is you get three free shots then it's over, with 99, you get 99 free shots then its over.

    Death penalty is definitely not the only thing that contributes to difficulty, but it DOES contribute.

    Contra's death system doesn't have a direct correlation to MMORPGs, which focus aren't singular failure points (you live or you die.)

    The closest MMORPG mechanic is your health bar.  Beating a boss is very hard with a 300 life points, but very easy with 9900 life points.  But you only really incur a true penalty when you fail all the way (lose all your lives.)

    "What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver

  • LoktofeitLoktofeit Member RarePosts: 14,247

    Originally posted by ArChWind

    Originally posted by Loktofeit


    Originally posted by ArChWind



    There was similar discussion awhile back about imposing stiff penalties up to an including perma death.


     


    I think one way to maybe satisfy more players is for them to be asked on character creation what kind of punishment they want and give them a server list that has that level of punishment. By placing each player in the environment they choose, they are all on a level playing field so everyone has the same DP.


     


    Give them maybe 4 options.


     


    1.- I want perma death.


     


    2 – I want Massive DP.


     


    3. - I want medium DP.


     


    4. - I want no DP.


     


    Of course this segregates the game community as a whole and is difficult to maintain. It would be an interesting case study though on population distributions.

    The problem with that is that people generally want to change their level of risk. The optimal solution would be to find a way to allow players to make such choices dynamically during gameplay.

    There are a few games out that let them choose the difficulty but none that I know that up the DP for the instances. Maybe developers should also up the DP as well as the challenge or let the player pick the DP when entering said instance.

    Puzzle Pirates - loss of cargo in PvE is minimal. Loss of cargo in PVP can be substantial. Loss during a blockade (attempt to take a city) and you could end up maimed or lose your ship.Also, in Puzzle Pirates, there is no risk as a citizen of an island, some risk if you choose to become an establishment owner (taxes, laws) and great risk as owner of a city/island (revenue and control).

    EVE Online - penalty for death in high security space can be loss of ship but a good chance to retain what wasnt destroyed inthe explosion. In low sec, you havce a good chance of getting looted and a slight chance of having your pod blown up and suffering possible stat loss. In nullsec, if you lose and you dont lose ship, all cargo and pod then your opponent was exceptionally nice to you.

    Ultima Online - PvE (low chance of loss), guild wars(loss determined by war rules and consensual opponents), factions (can lose acces to entire towns) and Felucca(FFA - full loot) allow one to adjust their risk and penalties for actions.

    Vindictus - the game allows players to select certain challenges as objectives for each runwhich includes things like running through with no armor, completing in less than x minutes, completing without using potions, completing solo, etc. It's the opposite of upping the penalty for failure - its upping the reward for choosing greater difficulty. :) Same basic premise,but far more effective at getting the player to choose the more challenging of two options.

    Of the games that I currently play, those are the ones that allow me to adjust my penalty. My favorite of which is EVE where I'm often carebearing it in missions, but occasionally head into Low Sec andnullsec when I want to up the risk/reward factor for a night.

     

     

     

     

    There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
    "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre

  • RobsolfRobsolf Member RarePosts: 4,607

    Originally posted by Loktofeit

    Originally posted by Robsolf


    Originally posted by Loktofeit


    Originally posted by Palebane

    Is it that players despise losing so bad, they have to make it more comfortable?

    I think it's more that losing is a foreign concept in MMOs. I mean, how many missions/quests in MMOs can you actually fail? And of the ones that you can actually fail, how many have any consequence for failure? Most MMOs are designed to aid you in your leveling to cap, while most other types of games are designed to constantly prevent you from reaching the cap and although some may be on personal quests to 'win' an MMO, it's rare if at all that you will find an MMO that will let you lose at it.

     

    It's hard to tell if you're intentionally being obtuse or just very bad at strawmen. However, I will humor your example. You illustrate my point exactly in that a player is meant to defeat appropriate levelled mobs. Collection quests like you describe almost never have a timer or a cosequence if the collection is not made. The MMO is designed to insure you can complete the task and gain your xp. This holds true to such a universal degree that if an appropriately levelled rat was a challenge to kill in order to collect the tales players would petition that it is overpowered unless it was flagged elite or boss. If you have examples that indicate this is not the default design of MMOs, please share the links.  

    Mobs from older games were no different, from the mob standpoint.  If you knew how to play, then you were fine, with some exceptions which I'll mention later.

    You made the statement that MMO's were somewhat distinct in their lack of a death penalty/consequences.  I gave examples that are contrary to that point.  Now you're arguing that "back in the good ol' days" mobs were more difficult.  I'm not sure what this has to do with death penalties. 

     

    There is no consequence for failing those quests. You receive no penalty, nothing in the game world changes and there is no consequence to just abandoning the quest altogether. Furthermore, you can do the quest over and over until you finally succeed. The most classic example is class progression quests, which in LOTRO, like L2 and many other games before it, were made significantly easier after the first six months.

    And so it is with any game with a save system.  You die?  Just load your last game.  None of the consequences of your failure exist, anymore.  And as I said, this is a LIGHTER DP than most MMO's. 

     

    Don't play any Wizardry, Ultima or Bard's Tale CRPGs. It might be a rude awakening. ;)

    Refresh my memory.  Were you able to save your game in all those titles?  Yes?  What was the consequence of loading your old game, then?  If no, you couldn't save, then reread what I said.  I wasn't talking about those games.

     

    You do realize that in most CRPGs (because we are talking MMORPGs, and those are the singleplayer equivalent) a death penalty would be redundant because you've already lost your character and everything that you owned, right? There's nothing left to penalize.

    Yes.  And I also realize that if it allows you to save a game, it also allows you to LOAD it, without any of the consequences of your death, aka "game over".

     

    If your experiences with CRPGs is only the recent past then I can see how you can think that, as many CRPGs have shifted toward aiding you to the end rather than preventing your arrival at the end. So, in that light, I want to ask you a serious question:

      If you played a new MMO and even levelled mobs were consistently difficult to kill, would you think that was normal or that something wasn't working right?  Now, I'm not asking you what you would like from an MMO, but specifically from your past experience with MMOs, would that seem normal or would it seem like something was broken?

    I'll ignore the experience dig. 

    I'd expect your average trash mob to be pretty easy to kill.  However, I recall the days of Bard's Tale, and Wasteland, and many similar titles, and mob to mob, the actual ENCOUNTER was about the same level of difficulty.  The "challenge" would come that in travelling, the random(nowadays called "dynamic") wanderin' monstah systems of the day(that replaced ACTUAL content) could potentially have you running into a group of mobs with each step you take.  And healing was DnD based; you didn't suddenly have all your HP back for the next encounter.  5 Gundroid encounters in a row, and you'd have to load your last saved game due to the simple unluck of the draw.

    I'm not sure what this question does to make a point for harsh Death Penalties, since, again, those games had a Save feature.  Light/no death penalty to the player.  

  • superdfcsuperdfc Member Posts: 56

    I don't like playing games with a harsh death penalty. It prevents you from playing hard content unless you absolutely know you're ready, it's frustrating as hell when you die and you lose your items or all that damn exp, and it prevents you from taking risks. 

    Harder gameplay makes the challenge for sure. Anyone with maxed out gear and the best lootz can zerg content without fear of dying, but when games actually make it challenging for you to complete the content they become more fun. For example, would WoW's raids be hard if the only challenge was losing money when you died? No. World firsts would be earned within the day of the content patch.

  • ScrogdogScrogdog Member Posts: 380

    Originally posted by superdfc

    I don't like playing games with a harsh death penalty. It prevents you from playing hard content unless you absolutely know you're ready, it's frustrating as hell when you die and you lose your items or all that damn exp, and it prevents you from taking risks. 

    Harder gameplay makes the challenge for sure. Anyone with maxed out gear and the best lootz can zerg content without fear of dying, but when games actually make it challenging for you to complete the content they become more fun. For example, would WoW's raids be hard if the only challenge was losing money when you died? No. World firsts would be earned within the day of the content patch.

    Sorry I know this is going to sound kinda bad and I don't mean to bash you really... it's just that...

    It does not prevent you from playing hard content.  What prevents you from playing hard content is your lack of confidence in your skills (which might be there for a reason... :) just saying...)

    Right? After all... if you think you can win... why do you fear the DP?

    Perhaps attacking a boss 100 times in one evening until you can win with a lucky shot is more your cup of tea? ;)

  • PalebanePalebane Member RarePosts: 4,011

    Originally posted by Torik

    Originally posted by Palebane

     Lokto already confirmed my suspicion when he said that losing is a foreign concept in todays Online RPGs. But, to answer your question, yes, I let myself die. I don't feel any need or reason not to. And of course I get bored of the game in two weeks as I see everyone around me doing the exact same thing. For me, no reward comes from completing the encounter if it's just a matter of losing a dozen gold pieces for dying. Items are not a motivating force for me.

    To me "I let myself die" is a foreign concept.  I see no reason to play games if you are not gonna try to succeed. 

    You obviously do not enjoy game challenges as a test of skill but rather as a chance to gamble.  Frankly I do not believe that MMORPGs should be made to satisfy gamblers but gamers who want to test their skills in a persistent multiplayer environment. 

     That is kind of my point. To me, there is no reason to play games if I'm not going to try to succeed. If I am basically handed everything with minimal effort, what is the point? I call upon a different set of skills to succeed if I know the death penalty is harsh. It's not any more of a gamble, to me, than that of a light death penalty in a game would be, its about the preparation and the respect of the gameworld.

     

    When you say the developers should make games to satisfy those who wish to test their skills, it sounds like you are speaking specifcially about combat, in which case I would agree. Outside of combat, the challenges necessary to avoid a harsh death penalty are very different. The skills used to avoid a harsh death penalty outside of combat become obsolete with a light death penalty, in my opinion. And so does my will to succeed, in such conditions. You gain convenience, but you lose the depth of the dynamic social metagame the genre was based upon, I believe.

    Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.

  • bezadobezado Member UncommonPosts: 1,127

    This could go either way, but with a harsh death penalty it makes people play the game more in a professional sense if there was ever a need to use the word professional with a MMO gamer. Because players tend to know their shit, play very well and do not do things to get into those situations where they can possibly die. I think that in itself is a big challenge to learn the mechanics and game inside out to keep everything to your advantage.

    Now making the game incredibly hard by having the content (mobs or monsters) have great artificial intelligence and being very difficult because they are hard to kill makes for a more interesting social MMORPG then most. Because making it very difficult through the content makes players have to work together and that seems to be a challenge for most players now days with how many casuals their are.

  • AxehiltAxehilt Member RarePosts: 10,504

    Originally posted by Scrogdog

    Originally posted by superdfc

    I don't like playing games with a harsh death penalty. It prevents you from playing hard content unless you absolutely know you're ready, it's frustrating as hell when you die and you lose your items or all that damn exp, and it prevents you from taking risks. 

    Harder gameplay makes the challenge for sure. Anyone with maxed out gear and the best lootz can zerg content without fear of dying, but when games actually make it challenging for you to complete the content they become more fun. For example, would WoW's raids be hard if the only challenge was losing money when you died? No. World firsts would be earned within the day of the content patch.

    Sorry I know this is going to sound kinda bad and I don't mean to bash you really... it's just that...

    It does not prevent you from playing hard content.  What prevents you from playing hard content is your lack of confidence in your skills (which might be there for a reason... :) just saying...)

    Right? After all... if you think you can win... why do you fear the DP?

    Perhaps attacking a boss 100 times in one evening until you can win with a lucky shot is more your cup of tea? ;)

    The ironic part being that players who spend 100 attempts on a boss are actually going to be better players than the ones who make 5 strong attempts on a boss because they spent all the rest of their time preparing instead of fighting.

    That's the seldom-stated flip side of the "players try harder when more chips are on the table" argument: players who practice more, become more skilled.

    "What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver

  • gainesvilleggainesvilleg Member CommonPosts: 1,053

    Originally posted by Axehilt

    The ironic part being that players who spend 100 attempts on a boss are actually going to be better players than the ones who make 5 strong attempts on a boss because they spent all the rest of their time preparing instead of fighting.

     Not sure I agree with that.  If you keep trying the same strategy over and over because you know you will eventually power through it, are not really improving your tactics.

    If you need to minimize your deaths, you will probably have a more balanced attack which has more defensive and survival tactics mixed in.

    In games with no death penalty, I tend to focus my character on purely offensive skills.  When there is a high death penalty (like roguelikes for instance), I will develop many many defensive and escape skills and tactics as well.

    I would say overall the balanced player with more diverse tactics is actually a better player.

    GW2 "built from the ground up with microtransactions in mind"
    1) Cash->Gems->Gold->Influence->WvWvWBoosts = PAY2WIN
    2) Mystic Chests = Crass in-game cash shop advertisements

  • ScrogdogScrogdog Member Posts: 380

    Originally posted by Axehilt

    Originally posted by Scrogdog


    Originally posted by superdfc

    I don't like playing games with a harsh death penalty. It prevents you from playing hard content unless you absolutely know you're ready, it's frustrating as hell when you die and you lose your items or all that damn exp, and it prevents you from taking risks. 

    Harder gameplay makes the challenge for sure. Anyone with maxed out gear and the best lootz can zerg content without fear of dying, but when games actually make it challenging for you to complete the content they become more fun. For example, would WoW's raids be hard if the only challenge was losing money when you died? No. World firsts would be earned within the day of the content patch.

    Sorry I know this is going to sound kinda bad and I don't mean to bash you really... it's just that...

    It does not prevent you from playing hard content.  What prevents you from playing hard content is your lack of confidence in your skills (which might be there for a reason... :) just saying...)

    Right? After all... if you think you can win... why do you fear the DP?

    Perhaps attacking a boss 100 times in one evening until you can win with a lucky shot is more your cup of tea? ;)

    The ironic part being that players who spend 100 attempts on a boss are actually going to be better players than the ones who make 5 strong attempts on a boss because they spent all the rest of their time preparing instead of fighting.

    That's the seldom-stated flip side of the "players try harder when more chips are on the table" argument: players who practice more, become more skilled.

    Hmmm. I get the sense that you haven't read my other posts, or forgot them. :)

    To summarize;

    I have the rather odd and unfortunate tendancy, while playing role playing games, to ACTUALLY role play.  Yeah, I know. It's not exactly vogue these days... I'm seeing a pro about the problem.

    So, from that perspective. would it be natural in real life to attack when you were not confiident that there were a reasonable chance of voctory?  Would you attack something knowing you would lose just to gain intel on the mob?

    Yeah. I know, it's a game.  But playing my avatar as a "mini me" in games is what I do.  I know not everyone shares this perspective but it is what I do.

    And that is why we have these discussions. No one holds the truth for all, we only have our perspectives.

  • WSIMikeWSIMike Member Posts: 5,564

    Originally posted by Quirhid

    Originally posted by Meowhead


    Originally posted by Loke666

    Death penalties does not equal challenge.

    It just adds more grind since you nned to grind the XP or gear you lost. Harder gameplay on the other hand increases the challenge, if you suck you want get far no matter what you do, death enalty or no death penalty.

    A little death penalty can increase the adrenaline when playing, that is the good thing with it.

    Actually, there are ways to have death penalty create challenge.  Since you're an avid GW player, surprised you didn't think of it.

    The death penalty system in GW just adds to the challenge.  The more you die, the harder it gets, often times forcing you to give up and try over. :)

    It really only works because of instancing, and non-respawning monsters though, but I would say the death penalty allows one to continue playing, at the punishment of having the rest of the game more challenging (Ignoring things like candy canes for the moment.)

    That particular death penalty also brought some tactical depth to GvG matches. It fit the game very well.

    Bingo.

    And that's exactly what it does in other PvE MMOs as well.

    I see some people keep focusing on it as "it just makes you have to grind longer".

    That is one form of it, yes. But if that's all someone sees in a harsher DP, that "it only makes it take longer", then they are seeing *part* of the picture, but missing the other part...

    The other part is that losing that time you spent on having to get back xp or what-not sucks. It's supposed to suck. That's why it's considered a penalty. That's why people will use more caution when playing through a given situation. It's why people will plan strategies and attempt to execute them as well as they can. Because they don't want to die and lose the time having to get back lost xp.

    That's exactly the point of a death penalty... It gives survival that much more value, because dying actually *costs* something.

    And for those who say "just not wanting to die is incentive enough for people to try not to" sounds great in theory. However, in practice, in MMO after MMO after MMO after MMO I've played over the years, the situation has always come down in one of two ways:

    1. In MMOs with a harsher death penalty, people tend to be more tactical, less careless and have much more respect for the content they're playing through. They take nothing for granted because doing so could cost them.

    2. In MMOs with a light or almost no penalty, most players - by far the majority of what I've seen and experienced first-hand, really don't care if they die. It's a short run back from the graveyard or their home point, and they're back in the action. They are far more often careless and are more likely to rush in to an encounter like Rambo strung out on cocaine than they are like someone who actually cares if they die or not. 

    The only exception I've ever seen to people playing carelessly and recklessly in a MMO without harsh death penalties is when it comes to raiding. The reason why is very simple to deduce. It's because in a raid, the time spent has value. This isn't a quick 10 minute quest they're completing. This is a potentially hours-long endeavor by numerous people. If they wipe and lose the raid, they've wasted all their time and, of course, lost out on the chance for good loot at the end. So there you go, even in that setting, it comes back to "loss of time" being a motivator to not play recklessly.

    I've seen people actually use dying repeatedly as a tactic in combat in order to win a tough battle entirely through attrition.  They die... they res.. they come back.. and do it again. They die, they res, they come back and do it again. Eventually, the enemy or enemies is/are defeated. Dying should not be a "tactic" to defeat difficult enemies. You will never see people doing this in a game with a harsh death penalty.

    I've seen people use dying as a convenient way to get across large areas faster. Death shold not be a convenient means of transportation. You will never see people doing this in a game with a death penalty, where they're at risk of losing xp that they'll have to regain.

    As for people who say "a harsh death penalty makes people not take risks or explore", etc. etc.. That's nonsense.

    To the contrary, there are people who find exploration to be much more interesting and exciting when there's a death penalty involved and an actual sense of danger is at play. It makes them respect the environment and the creatures they see that much more. They can't simply say "oh well, if I die, I'll just respawn and run through again until I make it through".

    People take risks all the time in MMOs with harsh death penalties... FFXI, Lineage 2, EQ1, Eve Online... and various others. In each of those games, players have something to lose if they die. Regardless, they still take risks. They still explore. They still play the game. Hell, you take *a lot* of risks in those games, sometimes simply by traveling through open countryside where they can be attacked by really powerful creatures (FFXI and L2) or by enemy players (L2). In Eve, you take a risk anytime you're traveling through a lower-spec area, even if you're on your way somewhere else.

    Hell, in FFXI, a couple friends of mine and I would occasionally go off to some higher level, very dangerous area we hadn't seen much of yet and attempt to explore the region without dying. That was definitely a challenge, because it was a very difficult area, and one wrong move would = death. And of course, that death = loss of xp, the challenge of staying alive was that much more poignant.

    So.. Perhaps the individuals making those remarks should rephrase it to indicate that they don't like to take risks, and they don't like to take chances or go exploring. However, those people also need to realize that they do not represent everyone.

    "If you just step away for a sec you will clearly see all the pot holes in the road,
    and the cash shop selling asphalt..."
    - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops

    image

  • AxehiltAxehilt Member RarePosts: 10,504

    Originally posted by Scrogdog

    Originally posted by Axehilt


    Originally posted by Scrogdog


    Originally posted by superdfc

    I don't like playing games with a harsh death penalty. It prevents you from playing hard content unless you absolutely know you're ready, it's frustrating as hell when you die and you lose your items or all that damn exp, and it prevents you from taking risks. 

    Harder gameplay makes the challenge for sure. Anyone with maxed out gear and the best lootz can zerg content without fear of dying, but when games actually make it challenging for you to complete the content they become more fun. For example, would WoW's raids be hard if the only challenge was losing money when you died? No. World firsts would be earned within the day of the content patch.

    Sorry I know this is going to sound kinda bad and I don't mean to bash you really... it's just that...

    It does not prevent you from playing hard content.  What prevents you from playing hard content is your lack of confidence in your skills (which might be there for a reason... :) just saying...)

    Right? After all... if you think you can win... why do you fear the DP?

    Perhaps attacking a boss 100 times in one evening until you can win with a lucky shot is more your cup of tea? ;)

    The ironic part being that players who spend 100 attempts on a boss are actually going to be better players than the ones who make 5 strong attempts on a boss because they spent all the rest of their time preparing instead of fighting.

    That's the seldom-stated flip side of the "players try harder when more chips are on the table" argument: players who practice more, become more skilled.

    Hmmm. I get the sense that you haven't read my other posts, or forgot them. :)

    To summarize;

    I have the rather odd and unfortunate tendancy, while playing role playing games, to ACTUALLY role play.  Yeah, I know. It's not exactly vogue these days... I'm seeing a pro about the problem.

    So, from that perspective. would it be natural in real life to attack when you were not confiident that there were a reasonable chance of voctory?  Would you attack something knowing you would lose just to gain intel on the mob?

    Yeah. I know, it's a game.  But playing my avatar as a "mini me" in games is what I do.  I know not everyone shares this perspective but it is what I do.

    And that is why we have these discussions. No one holds the truth for all, we only have our perspectives.

    There is certainly a minority who likes to roleplay and a minority who are masochists, and both groups prefer harsh DP.  Nobody can argue against individual opinions.

    Which is why my stances tend to be based more in "What do most people prefer?" and it's overwhelmingly obvious that people prefer games which don't kick them in the gonads or waste their time (both of which cause players to quit games.)

    Although the stronger (and less opinion-based) thrust of the thread has been my pointing out that penalty doesn't make games harder; difficult gameplay does.

    "What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver

  • neorandomneorandom Member Posts: 1,681

    the masses that wow was dumbed down for love no penalty so they can chain fail and chain die without feeling bad about it.

     

    at the same time a game doesnt need to be mercilessly hard so that you do nothing but die and reload (like that damn ninja game on the old xbox) this would just frustrate anyone, whether there was a dp or not.

     

    what we want is a game where if youre good you play and dont really die alot or at all, if you are good at the game, not just some button mashing monkey hopeing for a banana.  but if you did die, you would kick yourself as it just cost you something to do so.

  • ScrogdogScrogdog Member Posts: 380

    Originally posted by Axehilt

    Originally posted by Scrogdog


    Originally posted by Axehilt


    Originally posted by Scrogdog


    Originally posted by superdfc

    I don't like playing games with a harsh death penalty. It prevents you from playing hard content unless you absolutely know you're ready, it's frustrating as hell when you die and you lose your items or all that damn exp, and it prevents you from taking risks. 

    Harder gameplay makes the challenge for sure. Anyone with maxed out gear and the best lootz can zerg content without fear of dying, but when games actually make it challenging for you to complete the content they become more fun. For example, would WoW's raids be hard if the only challenge was losing money when you died? No. World firsts would be earned within the day of the content patch.

    Sorry I know this is going to sound kinda bad and I don't mean to bash you really... it's just that...

    It does not prevent you from playing hard content.  What prevents you from playing hard content is your lack of confidence in your skills (which might be there for a reason... :) just saying...)

    Right? After all... if you think you can win... why do you fear the DP?

    Perhaps attacking a boss 100 times in one evening until you can win with a lucky shot is more your cup of tea? ;)

    The ironic part being that players who spend 100 attempts on a boss are actually going to be better players than the ones who make 5 strong attempts on a boss because they spent all the rest of their time preparing instead of fighting.

    That's the seldom-stated flip side of the "players try harder when more chips are on the table" argument: players who practice more, become more skilled.

    Hmmm. I get the sense that you haven't read my other posts, or forgot them. :)

    To summarize;

    I have the rather odd and unfortunate tendancy, while playing role playing games, to ACTUALLY role play.  Yeah, I know. It's not exactly vogue these days... I'm seeing a pro about the problem.

    So, from that perspective. would it be natural in real life to attack when you were not confiident that there were a reasonable chance of voctory?  Would you attack something knowing you would lose just to gain intel on the mob?

    Yeah. I know, it's a game.  But playing my avatar as a "mini me" in games is what I do.  I know not everyone shares this perspective but it is what I do.

    And that is why we have these discussions. No one holds the truth for all, we only have our perspectives.

    There is certainly a minority who likes to roleplay and a minority who are masochists, and both groups prefer harsh DP.  Nobody can argue against individual opinions.

    Which is why my stances tend to be based more in "What do most people prefer?" and it's overwhelmingly obvious that people prefer games which don't kick them in the gonads or waste their time (both of which cause players to quit games.)

    Although the stronger (and less opinion-based) thrust of the thread has been my pointing out that penalty doesn't make games harder; difficult gameplay does.

    Oh there's no question about sales numbers, that's for sure.  What most people prefer, however, is not meaningful.   Unless you are here to tell me that you buy Madonna records because it is what most people prefer.

    Or read a certain type of book because it is "best selling".

    You have a strange view of the world, friend, and I am very happy to NOT share it. :)

  • Loke666Loke666 Member EpicPosts: 21,441

    Originally posted by Scrogdog

    Oh there's no question about sales numbers, that's for sure.  What most people prefer, however, is not meaningful.   Unless you are here to tell me that you buy Madonna records because it is what most people prefer.

    Or read a certain type of book because it is "best selling".

    You have a strange view of the world, friend, and I am very happy to NOT share it. :)

    Actually, the majority of people do look on what others like and not. Why do you think people check out  top lists for stuff?

    And even people like me that listens to alternative music will give bands friends have recommended a chance, even though I just wont buy any CD just on peoples word.

    The reason books have stickers that say bestseller on them is because they actually sell more with that on. They really do.

    A lot of people have tried Wow because others do and have said that they should try it, many MMO players started out that way.

    Few people would (hopefully) listen to music they hate because others do it but many do decide what albums to buy or games for that matter by checking in whats hot right now.

    I am afraid it is you with the strange world view, not a bad one but not realistic either.

    If everyone else would jump off a building a promise you some people will follow just: because.

  • azmundaiazmundai Member UncommonPosts: 1,419

    Most of the people I raided with found the SSC sprinkler hard ... most people just A. Aren't dexterous enough for truly hard content or B. Just don't have the time to master the proper skill and play with others long enough to develop proper group cohesion. Whichever the answer, it is not entirely the developers fault. If you think for a minute that they can't make things harder .. you are crazy. They don't make it harder because they know full well that most people will fail if it is harder. Heck, most ppl fail in the faceroll crap we get here 6 years after wow. Thus, the only way to keep the other part of the population is with time sinks.

    None of this will change until they release a really good game that costs $40 a month to play and is truly hard. Or something like that. The only way that is going to happen is if we all stop paying for the utter crap they are feeding us now.

    LFD tools are great for cramming people into content, but quality > quantity.
    I am, usually on the sandbox .. more "hardcore" side of things, but I also do just want to have fun. So lighten up already :)

  • ScrogdogScrogdog Member Posts: 380

    Originally posted by Loke666

    Originally posted by Scrogdog

    Oh there's no question about sales numbers, that's for sure.  What most people prefer, however, is not meaningful.   Unless you are here to tell me that you buy Madonna records because it is what most people prefer.

    Or read a certain type of book because it is "best selling".

    You have a strange view of the world, friend, and I am very happy to NOT share it. :)

    Actually, the majority of people do look on what others like and not. Why do you think people check out  top lists for stuff?

    And even people like me that listens to alternative music will give bands friends have recommended a chance, even though I just wont buy any CD just on peoples word.

    The reason books have stickers that say bestseller on them is because they actually sell more with that on. They really do.

    A lot of people have tried Wow because others do and have said that they should try it, many MMO players started out that way.

    Few people would (hopefully) listen to music they hate because others do it but many do decide what albums to buy or games for that matter by checking in whats hot right now.

    I am afraid it is you with the strange world view, not a bad one but not realistic either.

    If everyone else would jump off a building a promise you some people will follow just: because.

    You are talking like a salesman.  Not where I was going.

    You must be a Justin Bieber fan... yes?  Hottest thing on the planet (to you), perhaps? lol

    :D

  • Loke666Loke666 Member EpicPosts: 21,441

    Originally posted by Scrogdog

    You are talking like a salesman.  Not where I was going.

    You must be a Justin Bieber fan... yes?  Hottest thing on the planet (to you), perhaps? lol

    :D

    That's the worst thing anybody ever called me. :( 

    But if enough people listens to crap they will attract more people and Justin get's richass. Don't tell me he sell his albums because of his "talent". 

  • ScrogdogScrogdog Member Posts: 380

    Originally posted by Loke666

    Originally posted by Scrogdog

    You are talking like a salesman.  Not where I was going.

    You must be a Justin Bieber fan... yes?  Hottest thing on the planet (to you), perhaps? lol

    :D

    That's the worst thing anybody ever called me. :( 

    But if enough people listens to crap they will attract more people and Justin get's richass. Don't tell me he sell his albums because of his "talent". 

    Dude, that was supposed to make you laugh! :)

    Just pointing out the utter sillyness in pronouncing that something is good because it's popular.

  • Loke666Loke666 Member EpicPosts: 21,441

    Originally posted by Scrogdog

    Dude, that was supposed to make you laugh! :)

    Just pointing out the utter sillyness in pronouncing that something is good because it's popular.

    It did.

    And I never said anything that sells is good, most stuff that is popular is crap. Rather the opposite I think.

    Death penalty however is tricky. On one hand do barely surviving when you know dying is bad give the player a kick. On the other hand don't you want your players  frustrated.

    I really can't understand the people who want an eas game with hard death penalty, easy bores me and make me quit pretty fast and I don't die then so the death penalty doesn't matter at all then. A hard game with no death penalty is funnier even if that is an extreme as well. 

    I want it too fel like I accomplished something when I play and if the game is easy I don't feel that.

  • InFaVillaInFaVilla Member Posts: 592

    Originally posted by Robsolf

    Originally posted by Creslin321


    Originally posted by Axehilt


    Originally posted by UOlover

     No challenge for you, you can't speak for everyone and that's fine, it's what makes the world go round heh. There are people who do see it as a challenge.

    If people have flawed personal definitions of what challenge is, all I can do is present a more logical definition of challenge.  I can't force them to accept superior logic, I can only present it to them.

    Again, if there's no skill component, there's no challenge.  And while there's a skill component to the concept of difficulty (how much skill is required to avoid failure) there isn't in the concept of penalty (what happens if you fail.)

    Fact remains, the majority of death penalties do not challenge players, they merely delay/inconvience them.  And the few death penalties which do involve some form of a skill check tend to be less compelling gameplay than a game's normal gameplay.

    Beating Contra with 3 lives = Very hard.

    Beating Contra with 99 lives = Very easy.

    The only difference here is the death penalty.  With 3 lives the death penalty is you get three free shots then it's over, with 99, you get 99 free shots then its over.

    Death penalty is definitely not the only thing that contributes to difficulty, but it DOES contribute.

    And yet in either case, the death penalty is still the same:  you lose a life.  And convenience-wise, both have a lesser DP than MMO's.  You get to start exactly where you left off, with no negative effects.

    Or are you trying to recommend a limited number of lives/permadeath in an MMO?

    Because if not, talking about a game with a finite number of lives and an ending is irrelevent when comparing it to a game where you have infinite lives and doesn't end.  It just serves those who argue that a Death Penalty and its harshness should be determined by how the game plays.

     

    LOL, you really shot yourself in the foot for not realizing that just because apples and oranges are both fruits, it does not automatically imply that they are the same fruits. Sure in both cases you lose a life, but it one case you lose 1/3 of your total lifes, while in the other one case you lose 1/99 of your total lifes: a clear difference in death penalty. 

    If you want us to take you seriously, you cannot keep doing such mistakes.

    --------------------------------------------

     

    To the rest of the readers I have a good example from a recent mmorpg in closed beta:

     

    There is this endgame 5-man instanced dungeon in this game. For players, you can construct following highly relevant objective:

     

    A. To, on average,  reach a small interval near the number  "X " of  total exp per hour groupwise.

     

    Now,  to complete that objective, we need to take probabilities into account; because we are only interested in the average result. Sure some strategies may sometimes yield low exp compared to other strategies, but at the same time they may yield significantely higher exp on average. 

     

    Let us now regard a scenario where there is absolutely no penalty for death other than having to wait for the mob to die, before your healer can resurrect you. In this game the downtime due to the tank dying because of a mob killing him in 2 critical hits, is minimal.  Let us call this scenario A-I.

     

    In scenario A-I, to achieve the goal of A, we can accept a few tank deaths against some mobs (not against bosses though) since the downtime is minimal and there is practically no exp loss. During most runs, the tank will not die, but during a few runs he will die if someone in group isn't paying enough attention or a harder mob gets 2 lucky criticals. 

     

    Let us now regard a scenario where there is a penalty of lets say 20% exp loss; let's call this scenario A-II. Suddenly, we cannot reach the goal of A, if the tank even dies once. We must make absolutely sure that in every run the tank does not die. This means, that specially the healer and tank need to focus 100% of the times against the more difficult mobs; they cannot do things that have a decent probability of causing the death of the tank.  Suddenly, the tank has to dance around the mob, to make sure that the mob does not hit him twice on a row quickly, and thus avoiding the death by 2 lucky crits. 

     

    Now, you have to agree that it is more challanging to achieve A in scenario A-II compared to A-I. The only major game mechanic difference was the death penalty. So what is the conclusion? Well, the nature of the death penalty can affect the challenge of different objectives in mmorpgs. 

  • Loke666Loke666 Member EpicPosts: 21,441

    Originally posted by InFaVilla

    To the rest of the readers I have a good example from a recent mmorpg in closed beta:

    There is this endgame 5-man instanced dungeon in this game. For players, you can construct following highly relevant objective:

    A. To, on average,  reach a small interval near the number  "X " of  total exp per hour groupwise.

    Now,  to complete that objective, we need to take probabilities into account; because we are only interested in the average result. Sure some strategies may sometimes yield low exp compared to other strategies, but at the same time they may yield significantely higher exp on average. 

    Let us now regard a scenario where there is absolutely no penalty for death other than having to wait for the mob to die, before your healer can resurrect you. In this game the downtime due to the tank dying because of a mob killing him in 2 critical hits, is minimal.  Let us call this scenario A-I.

    In scenario A-I, to achieve the goal of A, we can accept a few tank deaths against some mobs (not against bosses though) since the downtime is minimal and there is practically no exp loss. Most runs, the tank will not die, but during a few runs he will die if someone in group isn't paying enough attention or the mob gets 2 lucky criticals. 

    Let us now regard a scenario where there is a penalty of lets say 20% exp loss; let's call this scenario A-II. Suddenly, we cannot reach the goal of A, if the tank even dies once. We must make absolutely sure that in every run the tank does not die. This means, that specially the healer and tank need to focus 100% of the times against the more difficult mobs; they cannot do things that have a decent probability of causing the death of the tank.  Suddenly, the tank has to dance around the mob, to make sure that the mob does not hit him twice on a row quickly, and thus avoiding the death by 2 lucky crits. 

    Now, you have to agree that it is more challanging to achieve A in scenario A-II compared to A-I. The only major game mechanic difference was the death penalty. So what is the conclusion? Well, the nature of the death penalty can affect the challange of different objectives in mmorpgs. 

    Yes, but in scenario C you instead raise the AI of the mobs. Maybe you remove tanking alltogether so everyone will keep an eye on the action instead of spamming their fastkeys in the same order. That is harder than both your scenarios and more fun as well. Easy stuff is still easy with a death penalty that only matters to people who suck.

  • InFaVillaInFaVilla Member Posts: 592

    Originally posted by Loke666

    Originally posted by InFaVilla

    To the rest of the readers I have a good example from a recent mmorpg in closed beta:

    There is this endgame 5-man instanced dungeon in this game. For players, you can construct following highly relevant objective:

    A. To, on average,  reach a small interval near the number  "X " of  total exp per hour groupwise.

    Now,  to complete that objective, we need to take probabilities into account; because we are only interested in the average result. Sure some strategies may sometimes yield low exp compared to other strategies, but at the same time they may yield significantely higher exp on average. 

    Let us now regard a scenario where there is absolutely no penalty for death other than having to wait for the mob to die, before your healer can resurrect you. In this game the downtime due to the tank dying because of a mob killing him in 2 critical hits, is minimal.  Let us call this scenario A-I.

    In scenario A-I, to achieve the goal of A, we can accept a few tank deaths against some mobs (not against bosses though) since the downtime is minimal and there is practically no exp loss. Most runs, the tank will not die, but during a few runs he will die if someone in group isn't paying enough attention or the mob gets 2 lucky criticals. 

    Let us now regard a scenario where there is a penalty of lets say 20% exp loss; let's call this scenario A-II. Suddenly, we cannot reach the goal of A, if the tank even dies once. We must make absolutely sure that in every run the tank does not die. This means, that specially the healer and tank need to focus 100% of the times against the more difficult mobs; they cannot do things that have a decent probability of causing the death of the tank.  Suddenly, the tank has to dance around the mob, to make sure that the mob does not hit him twice on a row quickly, and thus avoiding the death by 2 lucky crits. 

    Now, you have to agree that it is more challanging to achieve A in scenario A-II compared to A-I. The only major game mechanic difference was the death penalty. So what is the conclusion? Well, the nature of the death penalty can affect the challange of different objectives in mmorpgs. 

    Yes, but in scenario C you instead raise the AI of the mobs. Maybe you remove tanking alltogether so everyone will keep an eye on the action instead of spamming their fastkeys in the same order. That is harder than both your scenarios and more fun as well. Easy stuff is still easy with a death penalty that only matters to people who suck.

    The question is not whether or not there are other forms of raising the challenge difficulty of an objective. The question is whether or not  the death penalty can affect that challenge difficulty, and I've shown that there are relevant objectives in which it can. 

  • jpnzjpnz Member Posts: 3,529

    A big problem I see with harsh death penalty is that it can cause a downward spiral that a player might not be able to recover from. Some games embraces this and some don't.

    Funny thing is that even in games that 'embraces' this concept (e.g EVE-Online) most players (in EVE 80% of players are NOT in 0.0) still find a way to be 'safe/risk free' and stay there.

    Gdemami -
    Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.

Sign In or Register to comment.