Not going to argue strawmen. I'd rather just agree to disagree.
Actually,sorry, I wasn't trying to make a strawman, but I think we can make a serious discussion out of this! (Since I have nothing better to do other than finishing painting/sanding walls, and that feels like work right now)
Upon going back and reviewing your original statement, you said that people might find other things to be more important to them, like time (The most common death penalty, really), resources (Which in an MMORPG usually equates to time anyway) and reputation.
So I'm curious about this. Which MMORPG uses reputation as a form of death penalty? I suppose it would work on some sort of PvP side, having a ranking system... is that what you mean?
So far as time/resources, I think most people would rather lose time/resources than money.
I'm under the impression that if you asked most people if they would rather lose time (Say, in the form of lost experience/gold penalty) or real life money, most people would rather pick the first.
Though, upon deeper examination, it might be because they'd rather not think of their own time as being equivalent to money, and if you CAN pay for your losses in money, then it might feel like a P2W type situation. People generally don't want to associate what they earn in game (Through time and effort) to be directly translatable to money and vice versa. Though sometimes it is (Any form of RMT that gives in game advantages.)
(Feel free to NOT respond to this if you don't want to talk about something that is, in fact, pretty meaningless and just being used to avoid real work.)
Difficulty = how much skill is required to avoid failure.
Penalty = what happens if you fail.
Therefore death penalty doesn't make games harder. It just makes them more painful or inconvenient.
The two factors aren't as seperate as you like to make out. To take an extreme example, suppose that World Of Axelhilt has a boss monster that is extremely difficult to kill, it has great AI, it's sneaky and unpredictable, it uses allies, crowd-control abilities and so on and so forth. Defeating this guy without dying is a major challenge to a group of players, and he's a major selling point for the game
However, the death penalty in World of Axelhilt is negligable, so rather than figure out some clever strategies and working on our group co-ordination and execution, we'll just keep leroying into it, chipping away at it 1 hp at a time until it dies. What should be an awesome gameplay challenge becomes a straightfoward grind.
Yes, in the most literally extreme case of absolutely zero death penalty that's true.
But I'm assuming a very obvious minimum death penalty because no game has ever been made with absolutely zero death penalty (otherwise it wouldn't be considered death because you wouldn't notice any difference.)
So would you come back instantly, at full health and mana, to retry the boss once your group wipes? Absolutely. But the boss is at 100% hp again, and you're not gonna beat it until you play skillfully.
Some people would call that zero death penalty. It sort of is, but really it's exactly as much penalty as is absolutely required by the game mechanics and no more (in other words, it's the perfect death penalty.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I don't think that a harsher death penalty necessarily makes an encounter more challenging. However, I do think that a harsh death penalty can shape the overall game experience that better supports the world's design as envisioned by the developers, and certainly can color your willingness to commit your character to dangerous situations.
An example: EvE and STO are trying to give two totally different types of experiences. To support those designs, losing a ship in each game has a very different impact on a player, and therefore on the economy and the universe.
The "challenges" are as different as the games are designed to be.
Difficulty = how much skill is required to avoid failure.
Penalty = what happens if you fail.
Therefore death penalty doesn't make games harder. It just makes them more painful or inconvenient.
I wouldn't say more painful/inconvenient, rather that it sets or throttles the ratio of risk to reward. So penalty definitely contributes to how enticed to engage in the particular contest of skill, strength, etc a person is.
Sure penalty relates to how willing players are to keep playing a game. But that's not difficulty.
And you get the exact same willingness to play (and willingness to become skilled) by hiding great rewards behind great challenges. Required skill isn't exactly "risk", but it certainly provides a more rewarding and welcoming ratio throttle (especially since Time Spent Playing is the opportunity cost being risked -- if a player spends an hour failing to beat the tough dragon then, DP or not, he has risked one hour of playtime and lost.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Harsh death penalty just takes your player base and cuts it by like 75%. The vast majority of players out there are not skilled enough to deal with such a thing and they are necessary to actually make a profit. Now hard gameplay can easily be included in a game and in such a way so these people are never abused by it
Both, although neither are being implemented in most MMOs today. We wouldn't want to make the game too hard and frustrate and confound the majority of MMO players these days now would we?
"Censorship is never over for those who have experienced it. It is a brand on the imagination that affects the individual who has suffered it, forever." - Noam Chomsky
Harsh death penalty just takes your player base and cuts it by like 75%. The vast majority of players out there are not skilled enough to deal with such a thing and they are necessary to actually make a profit. Now hard gameplay can easily be included in a game and in such a way so these people are never abused by it
As mentioned many times in this thread, there's nothing "skilled" about a harsh death penalty.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Harsh death penalty just takes your player base and cuts it by like 75%. The vast majority of players out there are not skilled enough to deal with such a thing and they are necessary to actually make a profit. Now hard gameplay can easily be included in a game and in such a way so these people are never abused by it
As mentioned many times in this thread, there's nothing "skilled" about a harsh death penalty.
First off I don't care what's been mentioned many times in some thread, I am here to add my view. Second I don't know what your angle is here, but players with skill will avoid a death penalty more often than players with a lack of skill. Therefor skill is a factor. Anything else is just someone trying to troll me
A death penalty can itself encompass a separate challenge. That's perhaps where some of the confusion I see on this thread seems to be coming from. If a player dies and they're forced to retrieve their corpse, the time they must spend to get back to the corpse and the possible loss of progression ecompass the penalty, but if they're stripped of items and forced to recover the corpse while "naked" - facing the possibility of death or combat while unarmed - then the event acts as a combination of challenge in addition to penalty.
Some players specifically enjoyed the separate challenge that came with some corpse recoveries. Admittedly I enjoyed it in EQ as well, so I can understand the fun they had, but it's generally not a good idea. As people have already pointed out, a penalty is meant to punish failure and creating a separate challenge from it - one that itself may be failed - can rapidly compound the issue for some players to an extreme level.
Besides, its better to make a challenge optional so players can weigh the advantages of success against the possibility of failure before choosing to continue. A challenge created as the result of a death penalty is mandatory and serves no purpose besides creating a challenge that some players will enjoy and others won't. There are other ways to introduce the same challenge without forcing every player to master it.
The morning sun has vanquished the horrible night.
Difficulty = how much skill is required to avoid failure.
Penalty = what happens if you fail.
Therefore death penalty doesn't make games harder. It just makes them more painful or inconvenient.
The two factors aren't as seperate as you like to make out. To take an extreme example, suppose that World Of Axelhilt has a boss monster that is extremely difficult to kill, it has great AI, it's sneaky and unpredictable, it uses allies, crowd-control abilities and so on and so forth. Defeating this guy without dying is a major challenge to a group of players, and he's a major selling point for the game
However, the death penalty in World of Axelhilt is negligable, so rather than figure out some clever strategies and working on our group co-ordination and execution, we'll just keep leroying into it, chipping away at it 1 hp at a time until it dies. What should be an awesome gameplay challenge becomes a straightfoward grind.
Yes, in the most literally extreme case of absolutely zero death penalty that's true.
But I'm assuming a very obvious minimum death penalty because no game has ever been made with absolutely zero death penalty (otherwise it wouldn't be considered death because you wouldn't notice any difference.)
So would you come back instantly, at full health and mana, to retry the boss once your group wipes? Absolutely. But the boss is at 100% hp again, and you're not gonna beat it until you play skillfully.
Some people would call that zero death penalty. It sort of is, but really it's exactly as much penalty as is absolutely required by the game mechanics and no more (in other words, it's the perfect death penalty.
So the boss regens to 100% mana/health if one guy in the group dies? That sounds pretty frustrating.
EDIT: So the "death penalty" is if someone else dies? Yeah no, I'm not so keen on that.
Harsh death penalty just takes your player base and cuts it by like 75%. The vast majority of players out there are not skilled enough to deal with such a thing and they are necessary to actually make a profit. Now hard gameplay can easily be included in a game and in such a way so these people are never abused by it
As mentioned many times in this thread, there's nothing "skilled" about a harsh death penalty.
First off I don't care what's been mentioned many times in some thread, I am here to add my view. Second I don't know what your angle is here, but players with skill will avoid a death penalty more often than players with a lack of skill. Therefor skill is a factor. Anything else is just someone trying to troll me
His angle is that he is a real life game developer that has a serious commitment to theme park style games. I agree with you, though. When players are faced with a harsher death penalty, they tend to play with much more concentration. They are simply using more of their brain to avoid loss. It's just Human nature to do your best not to lose something that has value. When it comes to PvP, this truth rings even louder.
My take on this is that people seem to have a tough time coming to terms with the fact that some styles of games are more challenging than others. Especially when they are enjoy a style of game that some consider "easier". Frankly, I don't know why anyone would give a shit, but there it is.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
Yeah harsh death penalty has not much to do with skill in my mind. To me, it's more of an atmospshere sort of thing and a matter of personal taste as to whether or not you like things that way. There's no right or wrong about it.
The most severe penalty I ever dealt with was in EQ1. Remember that pit near the necro city? That thing "radiated" evil. I was scared. I'd unconsciously keep my toon close to the wall always aware of the fact that if I were to fall in there...
These days in more modern games players are more likely to gleefully just jump right in there because who really gives a crap if you die?
I never quite felt that kind of tension and excitement in an MMO again. Sometimes you'd say to yourself "ain't NO WAY I'm going in there yet!". But later on, when you did, it was tremendous sense of accomplishment.
Personally I loved it, but I acknowledge I'm in the minority and is probably why I no longer play MMOs much. I'm not the mainstream.
You are assuming that I want the game I play to be challenging in the first place.
Challenge in games is not "omg super hard I have to think real hard"
Sometimes challenge is enough difficulty so that you enjoy the game.
Do you think mario will be fun if you have perma star? Maybe for 5 minutes. Do you think that tekken will be fun if enemies dont fight back?
o.o Would you play those games?
For all practical purpose I do. I rarely play MMOs in a way where the monsters have a sporting chance and my favourite mechanic tends to be fishing. I want texture, not danger.
The only game that I have played that had a harsh death penalty was Lineage 2. From that experience I have a couple of comments.
The harsh penalties made me run away from people/mobs a hell of a lot more. This wasn't running away for 10-20 seconds kinda deal, this was running sometimes in excess of 10 minutes until finally the person gave up. The way I figured it was I'd rather run for 10+ minutes then have to grind for an hour + to get the xp I lost back.
- This is not "skill" it's just stupid mechanics.
- This was the main reason I hated Aion in whatever that open pvp flying zone was called. People would literally fly away for 10 mins trying to get away or chasing someone just to avoid a death penalty.
For me anyways the only skilful game i've played for pvp was WoW arenas (I quit before rated bgs).
- There were no death penalties but they put players on a level playing field where it was based lonely on skill/strategy.
To sum it up I think harsh death penalties just turns everyone into a wuss and 90% of the time people will avoid fights
- this is a pvp perspective as I could care less about pve.
Yeah harsh death penalty has not much to do with skill in my mind.
You honestly believe a good group or solo'er would wipe as often as a bad group or soloer?
Not exactly. My comments had to do with game atmosphere, not the rate in which death is incurred.
Point is, what you say is mostly true in any game. But not every game has the atmosphere that I am speaking of. So, it is the actual difference in the penalty that creates atmosphere in my opinion.
Death is death. How often this may occur comparitively because of skill is meaningless to me IF the discussion is "does the penalty make the game more challenging"? It does not. Game systems make the game more challenging. Death is the result of failing to meet that challenge.
Without a reasonable death penalty, there is no reasonable reward. For those who have never played a game with a strong death penalty, you just wouldn't understand. There's nothing fun about having everything handed to you without any reasonable risk involved.
MMOs used to produce a sense of danger and caution but the new generation of MMOs are hollow and shallow. Anyone who remembers the heart-pumping action of PvP in UO can attest to that.
"Censorship is never over for those who have experienced it. It is a brand on the imagination that affects the individual who has suffered it, forever." - Noam Chomsky
Originally posted by Zekiah Risk vs. Reward Without a reasonable death penalty, there is no reasonable reward. For those who have never played a game with a strong death penalty, you just wouldn't understand. There's nothing fun about having everything handed to you without any reasonable risk involved. MMOs used to produce a sense of danger and caution but the new generation of MMOs are hollow and shallow. Anyone who remembers the heart-pumping action of PvP in UO can attest to that.
I dont agree and I play Darkfall.
There is a huge difference in the risk of putting all my chips on the blackjack table and me working very hard and a program that when done leaves me with a great sense of accomplishment.
One represent pure risk which your high level of skill has nothing to do with really while the other is prooving you have skill to yourself
Would you disagree with that?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Harsh death penalty just takes your player base and cuts it by like 75%. The vast majority of players out there are not skilled enough to deal with such a thing and they are necessary to actually make a profit. Now hard gameplay can easily be included in a game and in such a way so these people are never abused by it
As mentioned many times in this thread, there's nothing "skilled" about a harsh death penalty.
First off I don't care what's been mentioned many times in some thread, I am here to add my view. Second I don't know what your angle is here, but players with skill will avoid a death penalty more often than players with a lack of skill. Therefor skill is a factor. Anything else is just someone trying to troll me
My "angle" is merely pointing out a logic discrepancy. Whether you're skilled or not has nothing to do with whether you can cope with a harsh death penalty, because death penalty doesn't measure how difficult a game actually is.
If you're here to discuss the topic at hand, you're here to listen as much as post. If you're not here to listen, you're not much use to the discussion tbh.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
There is a huge difference in the risk of putting all my chips on the blackjack table and me working very hard and a program that when done leaves me with a great sense of accomplishment.
One represent pure risk which your high level of skill has nothing to do with really while the other is prooving you have skill to yourself
Exactly. Effort and Skill vs. Reward is the more prevaling relationship which should exist in games. Risk can be a factor too, but most players don't find it as compelling.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
My "angle" is merely pointing out a logic discrepancy. Whether you're skilled or not has nothing to do with whether you can cope with a harsh death penalty, because death penalty doesn't measure how difficult a game actually is.
If you're here to discuss the topic at hand, you're here to listen as much as post. If you're not here to listen, you're not much use to the discussion tbh.
When you post this: "As mentioned many times in this thread, there's nothing "skilled" about a harsh death penalty", it comes across as arrogant and it seems as though your passing off what you say as fact. It's an "end of discussion" type of attitude. You may indeed be finished with this thread and believe that the point has already been made, but just a quick heads up: people are still posting and the discussion continues.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
Difficulty = how much skill is required to avoid failure.
Penalty = what happens if you fail.
Therefore death penalty doesn't make games harder. It just makes them more painful or inconvenient.
I wouldn't say more painful/inconvenient, rather that it sets or throttles the ratio of risk to reward. So penalty definitely contributes to how enticed to engage in the particular contest of skill, strength, etc a person is.
Sure penalty relates to how willing players are to keep playing a game. But that's not difficulty.
And you get the exact same willingness to play (and willingness to become skilled) by hiding great rewards behind great challenges. Required skill isn't exactly "risk", but it certainly provides a more rewarding and welcoming ratio throttle (especially since Time Spent Playing is the opportunity cost being risked -- if a player spends an hour failing to beat the tough dragon then, DP or not, he has risked one hour of playtime and lost.)
I'm not sure what you are arguing there. However, in that last sentence you equate expenditure with risk. They are not one in the same. Any amount of time or resources that one views as a warranted or expected expense for an activity isn't something they are risking as risk is the chance of loss and an assumed expense is guaranteed or expected loss.
To give an example, if one went to Vegas and brought 200 dollars a day in 'play' money that was allocated for gambling and their intent was to gamble til it's gone, then they gambled 200 a day and risked nothing. Their challenge may have been to see how long they could make the 200 last or how many heads they can turn with odd/bad bets, but in that scenario, the person isn't risking anything until he goes beyond what he allocated for that day.
If that player set aside and spent an hour trying to beat the dragon but hadn't beat it, he may have wasted his time or ill-spent his time, but he certainly wasn't risking any time as there was nothing to chance losing - the time was already spent the minute he reserved it.
Rohn's comparison of EVE and STO was a great example of how the impact on the player differs greatly between the two, offering challenge to the players through vastly different design and experience.
Zarcob also had a great point avout how offering separate challenges allows players to migrate toward content or versions of content that fits their particular risk/reward level, thus providing the player the ability to select the optimal challenge for their tastes.
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
My take on this is that people seem to have a tough time coming to terms with the fact that some styles of games are more challenging than others. Especially when they are enjoy a style of game that some consider "easier". Frankly, I don't know why anyone would give a shit, but there it is.
You don't seem to understand the terms "hard" and "easy".
Walk over a bridge. Easy, right?
Walk over a bridge with lava underneath. It's still easy. The increased risk has done nothing to change the underlying difficulty of walking over a bridge.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
My "angle" is merely pointing out a logic discrepancy. Whether you're skilled or not has nothing to do with whether you can cope with a harsh death penalty, because death penalty doesn't measure how difficult a game actually is.
If you're here to discuss the topic at hand, you're here to listen as much as post. If you're not here to listen, you're not much use to the discussion tbh.
When you post this: "As mentioned many times in this thread, there's nothing "skilled" about a harsh death penalty", it comes across as arrogant and it seems as though your passing off what you say as fact. It's an "end of discussion" type of attitude. You may indeed be finished with this thread and believe that the point has already been made, but just a quick heads up: people are still posting and the discussion continues.
if you put a gun to my head and said 'write that computer program right or I will shoot you' it will not take me better skill to get it done, I will however be less lazy but intrestingly as science has shown I actually will NOT be able to think as well with a gun to my head then if you said take your time.
no.... risk != skill
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Harsh death penalty just takes your player base and cuts it by like 75%. The vast majority of players out there are not skilled enough to deal with such a thing and they are necessary to actually make a profit. Now hard gameplay can easily be included in a game and in such a way so these people are never abused by it
As mentioned many times in this thread, there's nothing "skilled" about a harsh death penalty.
First off I don't care what's been mentioned many times in some thread, I am here to add my view. Second I don't know what your angle is here, but players with skill will avoid a death penalty more often than players with a lack of skill. Therefor skill is a factor. Anything else is just someone trying to troll me
My "angle" is merely pointing out a logic discrepancy. Whether you're skilled or not has nothing to do with whether you can cope with a harsh death penalty, because death penalty doesn't measure how difficult a game actually is.
If you're here to discuss the topic at hand, you're here to listen as much as post. If you're not here to listen, you're not much use to the discussion tbh.
It absolutely does. If you're terrible at the game and you are killed over and over and over, you can't deal with a harsh death penalty. You go backwards not forwards. People want to talk about inconvenience that's fine, that's a completely seperate issue. But to tell me that personal skill has nothing to do with a harsh death penalty is crazy.
Comments
Reputation, experience, superficial.
Yes, in the most literally extreme case of absolutely zero death penalty that's true.
But I'm assuming a very obvious minimum death penalty because no game has ever been made with absolutely zero death penalty (otherwise it wouldn't be considered death because you wouldn't notice any difference.)
So would you come back instantly, at full health and mana, to retry the boss once your group wipes? Absolutely. But the boss is at 100% hp again, and you're not gonna beat it until you play skillfully.
Some people would call that zero death penalty. It sort of is, but really it's exactly as much penalty as is absolutely required by the game mechanics and no more (in other words, it's the perfect death penalty.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I don't think that a harsher death penalty necessarily makes an encounter more challenging. However, I do think that a harsh death penalty can shape the overall game experience that better supports the world's design as envisioned by the developers, and certainly can color your willingness to commit your character to dangerous situations.
An example: EvE and STO are trying to give two totally different types of experiences. To support those designs, losing a ship in each game has a very different impact on a player, and therefore on the economy and the universe.
The "challenges" are as different as the games are designed to be.
Hell hath no fury like an MMORPG player scorned.
Sure penalty relates to how willing players are to keep playing a game. But that's not difficulty.
And you get the exact same willingness to play (and willingness to become skilled) by hiding great rewards behind great challenges. Required skill isn't exactly "risk", but it certainly provides a more rewarding and welcoming ratio throttle (especially since Time Spent Playing is the opportunity cost being risked -- if a player spends an hour failing to beat the tough dragon then, DP or not, he has risked one hour of playtime and lost.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Harsh death penalty just takes your player base and cuts it by like 75%. The vast majority of players out there are not skilled enough to deal with such a thing and they are necessary to actually make a profit. Now hard gameplay can easily be included in a game and in such a way so these people are never abused by it
Both, although neither are being implemented in most MMOs today. We wouldn't want to make the game too hard and frustrate and confound the majority of MMO players these days now would we?
"Censorship is never over for those who have experienced it. It is a brand on the imagination that affects the individual who has suffered it, forever." - Noam Chomsky
As mentioned many times in this thread, there's nothing "skilled" about a harsh death penalty.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
First off I don't care what's been mentioned many times in some thread, I am here to add my view. Second I don't know what your angle is here, but players with skill will avoid a death penalty more often than players with a lack of skill. Therefor skill is a factor. Anything else is just someone trying to troll me
A death penalty can itself encompass a separate challenge. That's perhaps where some of the confusion I see on this thread seems to be coming from. If a player dies and they're forced to retrieve their corpse, the time they must spend to get back to the corpse and the possible loss of progression ecompass the penalty, but if they're stripped of items and forced to recover the corpse while "naked" - facing the possibility of death or combat while unarmed - then the event acts as a combination of challenge in addition to penalty.
Some players specifically enjoyed the separate challenge that came with some corpse recoveries. Admittedly I enjoyed it in EQ as well, so I can understand the fun they had, but it's generally not a good idea. As people have already pointed out, a penalty is meant to punish failure and creating a separate challenge from it - one that itself may be failed - can rapidly compound the issue for some players to an extreme level.
Besides, its better to make a challenge optional so players can weigh the advantages of success against the possibility of failure before choosing to continue. A challenge created as the result of a death penalty is mandatory and serves no purpose besides creating a challenge that some players will enjoy and others won't. There are other ways to introduce the same challenge without forcing every player to master it.
The morning sun has vanquished the horrible night.
So the boss regens to 100% mana/health if one guy in the group dies? That sounds pretty frustrating.
EDIT: So the "death penalty" is if someone else dies? Yeah no, I'm not so keen on that.
Give me liberty or give me lasers
His angle is that he is a real life game developer that has a serious commitment to theme park style games. I agree with you, though. When players are faced with a harsher death penalty, they tend to play with much more concentration. They are simply using more of their brain to avoid loss. It's just Human nature to do your best not to lose something that has value. When it comes to PvP, this truth rings even louder.
My take on this is that people seem to have a tough time coming to terms with the fact that some styles of games are more challenging than others. Especially when they are enjoy a style of game that some consider "easier". Frankly, I don't know why anyone would give a shit, but there it is.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
Yeah harsh death penalty has not much to do with skill in my mind. To me, it's more of an atmospshere sort of thing and a matter of personal taste as to whether or not you like things that way. There's no right or wrong about it.
The most severe penalty I ever dealt with was in EQ1. Remember that pit near the necro city? That thing "radiated" evil.
I was scared. I'd unconsciously keep my toon close to the wall always aware of the fact that if I were to fall in there...
These days in more modern games players are more likely to gleefully just jump right in there because who really gives a crap if you die?
I never quite felt that kind of tension and excitement in an MMO again. Sometimes you'd say to yourself "ain't NO WAY I'm going in there yet!". But later on, when you did, it was tremendous sense of accomplishment.
Personally I loved it, but I acknowledge I'm in the minority and is probably why I no longer play MMOs much. I'm not the mainstream.
You honestly believe a good group or solo'er would wipe as often as a bad group or soloer?
For all practical purpose I do. I rarely play MMOs in a way where the monsters have a sporting chance and my favourite mechanic tends to be fishing. I want texture, not danger.
The only game that I have played that had a harsh death penalty was Lineage 2. From that experience I have a couple of comments.
The harsh penalties made me run away from people/mobs a hell of a lot more. This wasn't running away for 10-20 seconds kinda deal, this was running sometimes in excess of 10 minutes until finally the person gave up. The way I figured it was I'd rather run for 10+ minutes then have to grind for an hour + to get the xp I lost back.
- This is not "skill" it's just stupid mechanics.
- This was the main reason I hated Aion in whatever that open pvp flying zone was called. People would literally fly away for 10 mins trying to get away or chasing someone just to avoid a death penalty.
For me anyways the only skilful game i've played for pvp was WoW arenas (I quit before rated bgs).
- There were no death penalties but they put players on a level playing field where it was based lonely on skill/strategy.
To sum it up I think harsh death penalties just turns everyone into a wuss and 90% of the time people will avoid fights
- this is a pvp perspective as I could care less about pve.
Not exactly. My comments had to do with game atmosphere, not the rate in which death is incurred.
Point is, what you say is mostly true in any game. But not every game has the atmosphere that I am speaking of. So, it is the actual difference in the penalty that creates atmosphere in my opinion.
Death is death. How often this may occur comparitively because of skill is meaningless to me IF the discussion is "does the penalty make the game more challenging"? It does not. Game systems make the game more challenging. Death is the result of failing to meet that challenge.
Risk vs. Reward
Without a reasonable death penalty, there is no reasonable reward. For those who have never played a game with a strong death penalty, you just wouldn't understand. There's nothing fun about having everything handed to you without any reasonable risk involved.
MMOs used to produce a sense of danger and caution but the new generation of MMOs are hollow and shallow. Anyone who remembers the heart-pumping action of PvP in UO can attest to that.
"Censorship is never over for those who have experienced it. It is a brand on the imagination that affects the individual who has suffered it, forever." - Noam Chomsky
I dont agree and I play Darkfall.
There is a huge difference in the risk of putting all my chips on the blackjack table and me working very hard and a program that when done leaves me with a great sense of accomplishment.
One represent pure risk which your high level of skill has nothing to do with really while the other is prooving you have skill to yourself
Would you disagree with that?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
My "angle" is merely pointing out a logic discrepancy. Whether you're skilled or not has nothing to do with whether you can cope with a harsh death penalty, because death penalty doesn't measure how difficult a game actually is.
If you're here to discuss the topic at hand, you're here to listen as much as post. If you're not here to listen, you're not much use to the discussion tbh.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Exactly. Effort and Skill vs. Reward is the more prevaling relationship which should exist in games. Risk can be a factor too, but most players don't find it as compelling.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
When you post this: "As mentioned many times in this thread, there's nothing "skilled" about a harsh death penalty", it comes across as arrogant and it seems as though your passing off what you say as fact. It's an "end of discussion" type of attitude. You may indeed be finished with this thread and believe that the point has already been made, but just a quick heads up: people are still posting and the discussion continues.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
I'm not sure what you are arguing there. However, in that last sentence you equate expenditure with risk. They are not one in the same. Any amount of time or resources that one views as a warranted or expected expense for an activity isn't something they are risking as risk is the chance of loss and an assumed expense is guaranteed or expected loss.
To give an example, if one went to Vegas and brought 200 dollars a day in 'play' money that was allocated for gambling and their intent was to gamble til it's gone, then they gambled 200 a day and risked nothing. Their challenge may have been to see how long they could make the 200 last or how many heads they can turn with odd/bad bets, but in that scenario, the person isn't risking anything until he goes beyond what he allocated for that day.
If that player set aside and spent an hour trying to beat the dragon but hadn't beat it, he may have wasted his time or ill-spent his time, but he certainly wasn't risking any time as there was nothing to chance losing - the time was already spent the minute he reserved it.
Rohn's comparison of EVE and STO was a great example of how the impact on the player differs greatly between the two, offering challenge to the players through vastly different design and experience.
Zarcob also had a great point avout how offering separate challenges allows players to migrate toward content or versions of content that fits their particular risk/reward level, thus providing the player the ability to select the optimal challenge for their tastes.
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
You don't seem to understand the terms "hard" and "easy".
Walk over a bridge. Easy, right?
Walk over a bridge with lava underneath. It's still easy. The increased risk has done nothing to change the underlying difficulty of walking over a bridge.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
if you put a gun to my head and said 'write that computer program right or I will shoot you' it will not take me better skill to get it done, I will however be less lazy but intrestingly as science has shown I actually will NOT be able to think as well with a gun to my head then if you said take your time.
no.... risk != skill
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
It absolutely does. If you're terrible at the game and you are killed over and over and over, you can't deal with a harsh death penalty. You go backwards not forwards. People want to talk about inconvenience that's fine, that's a completely seperate issue. But to tell me that personal skill has nothing to do with a harsh death penalty is crazy.