sounds like WoW achievements to me. Lets stick with the topic of challenge of harder gameplay and harsh death penalty. Of course if you want to make a thread about it i would certainly participate
Roguelike games are very fun and have a fairly large following. Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup a great up-to-date example.
The death penalty there is PERMANENT death. No saves. Start over.
VERY VERY fun and of course this death penalty makes it more challenging. If you were able to reload and keep going pretty much anybody could beat it. As it stands now most cannot.
Roguelikes prove that even the harshest of death penalties can work, if the game is interesting enough and diverse enough to warrant many many play-throughs...
A fair point and this is where some of us might be tripping over some concepts here.
It IS more challenging to complete the run. However, the difficulty of the combat is unchanged.
Difficulty of combat may be theoretically unchanged, but due to the nature of this harsh death penalty the typical player would have much higher skills/tactics than in the no penalty game. When there is no death penalty, you tend to solve a lot of problems by just repeatedly throwing yourself at it, perhaps bringing more firepower with you and just muscle through it.
In a harsh death penalty game, you develop many more survival tacticts that are completely unnecessary in a no death penalty game. You also tend to run away more and have a strategy for doing so. You develop stategies for dealing with more situations.
So the combat is fundamentally different. Some probably don't like that extra adrenaline of facing a possible death in a high penalty game, just like some don't like PVP or other game mechanic. But to me a game without death penalty is very lifeless and artificial.
Oh I agree completely. As I said earlier, I never quite had the same sense of danger in any MMO as I did in EQ. It was fun.
I can see your point above but I didn't really feel that harsh penalty made the game overall more difficult. Certainly naked corpse runs could be very challenging and sometimes difficult. But even if you took corpse runs out, by today's standards people would flip if they got de-leveled.
Not so much a factor of are there enough people who will tolerate being de-leveled but one of developers who can see the potential of how much more money they could make by not having it in the game.
That's why this is very much a theoretical vrs reality discussion
Not so much a factor of are there enough people who will tolerate being de-leveled but one of developers who can see the potential of how much more money they could make by not having it in the game.
That's why this is very much a theoretical vrs reality discussion
I think the market might be a little more varied than you think. More old friends of mine have comepletely abandonded MMOs than still play. That's because we have nothing but clones upon clones upon clones. It makes sense to say, then, that the majority of posters here are those that remain and enjoy clone wars.
That's just the problem with the industry. It all cookie cutter now, few want to take a chance. They only want the path to the the WoW pot o' gold at the end of the rainbow.
If there were different games, some old school and some not, for example, I think the industry might be a little more healthy.
After all, we all enjoy different movies and books and most genres are readily available. Not so in the world of MMOs. Seemingly only one taste is catered to and I think it's a darn shame.
I say UO mode, if you die your gear is up for grabs. Dying and running to a rezzer is nothing, the challenge is if your awesome gear is on your corpse and you have to get back to it before the mobs or someone snags it.
Death is nothing to us, since when we are, Death has not come, and when death has come, we are not.
Not so much a factor of are there enough people who will tolerate being de-leveled but one of developers who can see the potential of how much more money they could make by not having it in the game.
That's why this is very much a theoretical vrs reality discussion
I think the market might be a little more varied than you think. More old friends of mine have comepletely abandonded MMOs than still play. That's because we have nothing but clones upon clones upon clones. It makes sense to say, then, that the majority of posters here are those that remain and enjoy clone wars.
That's just the problem with the industry. It all cookie cutter now, few want to take a chance. They only want the path to the the WoW pot o' gold at the end of the rainbow.
If there were different games, some old school and some not, for example, I think the industry might be a little more healthy.
After all, we all enjoy different movies and books and most genres are readily available. Not so in the world of MMOs. Seemingly only one taste is catered to and I think it's a darn shame.
I agree with you, but you have 99% of these developers who are not independently wealthy. Who are forced to go to publishers and beg them for money for their idea and the publisher says to them: "So let me get this straight, you're going to have a harsh death penalty in your game and that's going to prevent you from having a subscriber base the size of WoW?"
Said poor developer winds up getting no money heh.
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.
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 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
I would say a mix of Actually Challenging Combats mixed with a Slight Penality if dead does indeed Push some(most?) people to React better and try "harder".
Easy example is Vindictus. Some of the Bosses are Challenging fights, making you want to better yourself and the penality of death is to restart The Mission if failed....
Pretty Basic concept you'll say yes, But it works wonder, as I fight a boss i want to outbest its Mechanics and win, and also Dieing means starting over, wich Usually tend to place me on a More or less "A" Game type of play.
As for other MMOs, as long as the death penality / Difficulty of the game follows its "theme" id say people will adapt and Learn to enjoy them.
Death Penality , unless drasticly Harsh , usually is but a minor setback in the games we play.
Difficulty and Complexity of the AI (for PVE games) Or Balance of PVP is what truely would be the bigger factor...
If everything is too easy, there is no challenge.... it makes you ask..."why do i bother? this isnt even challenging me"
Pvp balance would be mostly for people who enjoy a class, being "punished" by being Sub-par In PVP encounters determined by what they play rather than their lack of skills.
I think part of the problem with this thread is that two different propositions are being discussed as if they were the same.
(#1) Is a death penalty a substitute for "challenging gameplay"?
(#2) Can a death penalty add "challenge" to gameplay?
Now I think that pretty much everyone here would get behind a firm "no" to question #1, but the OP seems to be using that consensus to slip in a "no" to #2 as well, when it's actually a very different proposition. When the two questions are disambiguated, I think rather more people will answer "yes" to #2 than to #1.
Obviously I am in the "no to #1, yes to #2" camp. To me these answers seem so obvious as to be almost tautological. Equally obviously, Axelhilt would probably answer "no" to both questions and he would feel that his answers were so obvious. And I suspect that it is this has led him to conflate them.
I think part of the problem with this thread is that two different propositions are being discussed as if they were the same.
(#1) Is a death penalty a substitute for "challenging gameplay"?
(#2) Can a death penalty add "challenge" to gameplay?
Now I think that pretty much everyone here would get behind a firm "no" to question #1, but the OP seems to be using that consensus to slip in a "no" to #2 as well, when it's actually a very different proposition. When the two questions are disambiguated, I think rather more people will answer "yes" to #2 than to #1.
Obviously I am in the "no to #1, yes to #2" camp. To me these answers seem so obvious as to be almost tautological. Equally obviously, Axelhilt would probably answer "no" to both questions and he would feel that his answers were so obvious. And I suspect that it is this has led him to conflate them.
... but #2 doesn't mean a positive answer to (#3) DOES a death penalty necessarily add "challenge" to gameplay.
Specific types of death penalty can, but that doesn't mean that death penalties (Even really harsh ones) automatically do.
It also doesn't mean (#4) Do you need a death penalty for challenging gameplay.
You can add a death penalty to gameplay at any level of challenge, from the easiest games to the hardest.
You could slap a death penalty on Tic Tac Toe, but that wouldn't make it any harder.
Specific examples of poor execution dont invalidate a concept, they only prove that the concept can be poorly executed. A game where character death leads to the publisher hiring a ninja to kill your family clearly has a bad character death penalty; that does not prove that character death penalties are inherently bad.
All we're looking at there is the other end of the spectrum from my "World of Axelhilt" example, which demonstrates that zero character death penalty can be just as bad for gameplay as infinite CDP.
As with most things, the question doesn't have a definite "yes/no" answer. Instead we have a continuous scale between zero and permadeath, with many dimensional variables (item loss, stat loss, xp loss, status loss), with a different optimal point for each individual person.
In short, where the CDP is appropriate to the style of the game, is cleanly and thoughtfully implemented (ie: issues like spawn camping are addressed) and so on, it can add to the game. It's OK for some games to have a very low CDP and others to have a very high one. As Loktofeit said, the optimum situation is to let the player have the ability to choose his own CDP. Then the basement-dwelling adrenaline junkies can have their fix, and the crybaby carebears can minimise their worries.
Specific examples of poor execution dont invalidate a concept, they only prove that the concept can be poorly executed. A game where character death leads to the publisher hiring a ninja to kill your family clearly has a bad character death penalty; that does not prove that character death penalties are inherently bad.
All we're looking at there is the other end of the spectrum from my "World of Axelhilt" example, which demonstrates that zero character death penalty can be just as bad for gameplay as infinite CDP.
As with most things, the question doesn't have a definite "yes/no" answer. Instead we have a continuous scale between zero and permadeath, with many dimensional variables (item loss, stat loss, xp loss, status loss), with a different optimal point for each individual person.
In short, where the CDP is appropriate to the style of the game, is cleanly and thoughtfully implemented (ie: issues like spawn camping are addressed) and so on, it can add to the game. It's OK for some games to have a very low CDP and others to have a very high one. As Loktofeit said, the optimum situation is to let the player have the ability to choose his own CDP. Then the basement-dwelling adrenaline junkies can have their fix, and the crybaby carebears can minimise their worries.
I never said that character death penalties are inherently bad (I'm the only person who posted since you, so I'm assuming you're responding to me somehow?), just that they are not inherently good. Nor are they inherently challenging.
Just like any other part of the game, they're best when used appropriately.
Also, I can't think of any MMO that has =0= death penalty, at the level you're suggesting. Maybe I'm just not familiar with them, but usually the penalty for failure at a minimum is 'you try again but possibly from the start'. Since dungeons have respawn timers and bosses usually heal themselves when out of combat.
Also, I don't think that not wanting a heavy death penalty makes somebody a 'crybaby carebear', no more than wanting a heavy death penalty makes somebody a basement-dwelling 40 year old living with Mom.
Also, many (Or even most) things considered a 'heavy death penalty' are simply penalties of time. Which can be especially annoying when deaths might not necessarily be your fault (Technical problems, or deaths caused by other people), and when you're short on time.
In short, where the CDP is appropriate to the style of the game, is cleanly and thoughtfully implemented (ie: issues like spawn camping are addressed) and so on, it can add to the game.
Just like any other part of the game, they're best when used appropriately.
It seems like we are all in agreement here, no?
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
Yes, I really wasn't actually arguing with him (At least on that point), I was trying to point out that my point of view wasn't too far off what he said.
Though I think I disagree with Malcanis (At least, from my understanding of what he's saying) in that I think that challenge can be created completely independently of death penalty, up to any arbitrary level you want, and that most kinds of death penalty (Not all, mind you) can be added to a game of any level of difficulty without actually adding any real difficulty.
Though I suppose that also varies from person to person, and how they take things in their games. Most death penalties don't impress me or scare me, they just annoy me at most. I'm not sure I'd agree that 'annoyance levels' = 'challenge'.
I think part of the problem with this thread is that two different propositions are being discussed as if they were the same.
(#1) Is a death penalty a substitute for "challenging gameplay"?
(#2) Can a death penalty add "challenge" to gameplay?
Now I think that pretty much everyone here would get behind a firm "no" to question #1, but the OP seems to be using that consensus to slip in a "no" to #2 as well, when it's actually a very different proposition. When the two questions are disambiguated, I think rather more people will answer "yes" to #2 than to #1.
Obviously I am in the "no to #1, yes to #2" camp. To me these answers seem so obvious as to be almost tautological. Equally obviously, Axelhilt would probably answer "no" to both questions and he would feel that his answers were so obvious. And I suspect that it is this has led him to conflate them.
My distinction was made in post #2: Challenge is how much skill a game requires.
Death penalty isn't challenge, it's inconvenience.
You can perform better at a challenge with more skill; with an inconvenience, you can't.
Because games live or die based on whether they offer players interesting decisions, interesting challenges are absolutely critical to a game. Interesting challenges create interesting decisions.
Inconveniences will be part of the game rules by nature of creating those challenges, but inconveniences aren't sought for inconvenience sake -- only as much inconvenience as is absolutely required to make a game interesting is desirable; and no more.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I think part of the problem with this thread is that two different propositions are being discussed as if they were the same.
(#1) Is a death penalty a substitute for "challenging gameplay"?
(#2) Can a death penalty add "challenge" to gameplay?
Now I think that pretty much everyone here would get behind a firm "no" to question #1, but the OP seems to be using that consensus to slip in a "no" to #2 as well, when it's actually a very different proposition. When the two questions are disambiguated, I think rather more people will answer "yes" to #2 than to #1.
Obviously I am in the "no to #1, yes to #2" camp. To me these answers seem so obvious as to be almost tautological. Equally obviously, Axelhilt would probably answer "no" to both questions and he would feel that his answers were so obvious. And I suspect that it is this has led him to conflate them.
My distinction was made in post #2: Challenge is how much skill a game requires.
Death penalty isn't challenge, it's inconvenience.
You can perform better at a challenge with more skill; with an inconvenience, you can't.
Because games live or die based on whether they offer players interesting decisions, interesting challenges are absolutely critical to a game. Interesting challenges create interesting decisions.
Inconveniences will be part of the game rules by nature of creating those challenges, but inconveniences aren't sought for inconvenience sake -- only as much inconvenience as is absolutely required to make a game interesting is desirable; and no more.
How can you say avoiding the inconvenience of a death penalty does not take skill? Players use social grace (taking a team, or the right team, instead of going alone or with just anyone), suvrivial instincts (plotting escape routes and knowing when to run), and game experience (knowing what places and monsters to avoid in every situation) specifically to avoid a harsh death penalty. Those are skills in my opinion. Skills that become obsolete with light death penalties.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
Originally posted by Axehilt Originally posted by Malcanis I think part of the problem with this thread is that two different propositions are being discussed as if they were the same. (#1) Is a death penalty a substitute for "challenging gameplay"? (#2) Can a death penalty add "challenge" to gameplay? Now I think that pretty much everyone here would get behind a firm "no" to question #1, but the OP seems to be using that consensus to slip in a "no" to #2 as well, when it's actually a very different proposition. When the two questions are disambiguated, I think rather more people will answer "yes" to #2 than to #1. Obviously I am in the "no to #1, yes to #2" camp. To me these answers seem so obvious as to be almost tautological. Equally obviously, Axelhilt would probably answer "no" to both questions and he would feel that his answers were so obvious. And I suspect that it is this has led him to conflate them.
My distinction was made in post #2: Challenge is how much skill a game requires. Death penalty isn't challenge, it's inconvenience. You can perform better at a challenge with more skill; with an inconvenience, you can't. Because games live or die based on whether they offer players interesting decisions, interesting challenges are absolutely critical to a game. Interesting challenges create interesting decisions. Inconveniences will be part of the game rules by nature of creating those challenges, but inconveniences aren't sought for inconvenience sake -- only as much inconvenience as is absolutely required to make a game interesting is desirable; and no more.
I keep coming around to the same conclusion when the discussion of death penalties come up. It can be summed up as, "The people who seek harsh death penalties for the games they play do not seek harsh death penalties to improve game play, but to exclude other players from playing the game by punishing them for perceived mistakes." I could be wrong, but that's always the impression I get.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
How can you say avoiding the inconvenience of a death penalty does not take skill? Players use social grace (taking a team, or the right team, instead of going alone or with just anyone), suvrivial instincts (plotting escape routes and knowing when to run), and game experience (knowing what places and monsters to avoid in every situation) specifically to avoid a harsh death penalty. Those are skills in my opinion. Skills that become obsolete with light death penalties.
Before dying, skill matters. That's challenge.
After dying, you're dead. You're suffering the penalty and there's nothing you can do to avoid the penalty. That's inconvenience.
You just listed factors which are skills used to beat the challenge -- none of them matter if you die. In a game with tough bosses and light DP, all of the factors you list would be just as important because they all take place before dying.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I think part of the problem with this thread is that two different propositions are being discussed as if they were the same.
(#1) Is a death penalty a substitute for "challenging gameplay"?
(#2) Can a death penalty add "challenge" to gameplay?
Now I think that pretty much everyone here would get behind a firm "no" to question #1, but the OP seems to be using that consensus to slip in a "no" to #2 as well, when it's actually a very different proposition. When the two questions are disambiguated, I think rather more people will answer "yes" to #2 than to #1.
Obviously I am in the "no to #1, yes to #2" camp. To me these answers seem so obvious as to be almost tautological. Equally obviously, Axelhilt would probably answer "no" to both questions and he would feel that his answers were so obvious. And I suspect that it is this has led him to conflate them.
My distinction was made in post #2: Challenge is how much skill a game requires.
Death penalty isn't challenge, it's inconvenience.
You can perform better at a challenge with more skill; with an inconvenience, you can't.
Because games live or die based on whether they offer players interesting decisions, interesting challenges are absolutely critical to a game. Interesting challenges create interesting decisions.
Inconveniences will be part of the game rules by nature of creating those challenges, but inconveniences aren't sought for inconvenience sake -- only as much inconvenience as is absolutely required to make a game interesting is desirable; and no more.
I keep coming around to the same conclusion when the discussion of death penalties come up. It can be summed up as, "The people who seek harsh death penalties for the games they play do not seek harsh death penalties to improve game play, but to exclude other players from playing the game by punishing them for perceived mistakes." I could be wrong, but that's always the impression I get.
This is the impression I get as well. They have the option to self-impose a penalty as creative as needed for their penalty needs. If they balk at that, then they are really about penaltys for those other players.
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
How can you say avoiding the inconvenience of a death penalty does not take skill? Players use social grace (taking a team, or the right team, instead of going alone or with just anyone), suvrivial instincts (plotting escape routes and knowing when to run), and game experience (knowing what places and monsters to avoid in every situation) specifically to avoid a harsh death penalty. Those are skills in my opinion. Skills that become obsolete with light death penalties.
Before dying, skill matters. That's challenge.
After dying, you're dead. You're suffering the penalty and there's nothing you can do to avoid the penalty. That's inconvenience.
You just listed factors which are skills used to beat the challenge -- none of them matter if you die. In a game with tough bosses and light DP, all of the factors you list would be just as important because they all take place before dying.
That sounds like an oxymoron to me. Why would I care (as much) if I died with a light death penalty? The last time I planned an escape route in WoW was Molten Core. I used to kill myself intentionally in WAR and AoC just to get where I was going faster. With a light death penalty there is no incentive to stay alive. Harsh death penalties are a direct challenge to that. I'm not saying you are wrong. Obviously the majority of online RPG players agree with you. I'm just trying to get you to see the other side of the coin. You lose more than just inconvenience with lighter death penalties.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
Death penalty is a huge factor in making a game hard, but MMOs have long ago strayed from any kind of penalty that has any effect, stat minus for a short time, damage to your gear, and money sinks are completly useless death penaltys, you really might aswell not have any, they just dont wanna get stuck with the stigma of not having a DP, but at the same time not have one any dislikes.
If your gear accualy was destroyed when its durability hit 0, that would make it useful, aswell as promoting crafting in whatever game its in.
Xp penaltys are atleast a step in the right direction, either losing xp on death, or having an xp debt, either way works decent.
With almost all MMOs sticking with the dumbass Soulbound equipment idea, dropping your own gear upon death isnt feasiable, not to mention most people would be cry babys about it, but I'd like to see us going back to dropping gold when you die, or dropping an item from your inventory.
That being said, Games have decided to go the easier route and stick with instant death mechanics instead to try to make things harder, since they have no death penalty thats effective, they just make boss fights and encounters have situations where your character just gets ace'd if not done correctly, and while it hinders the fight itself, it has no reall effect on the character that died, and magical ressurection is just a given in games today.
If you made a game that had a decent Death Penalty, they would have to make fights more challenging with less or no instant kill mechanics which is alot harder on the dev's, it would make fights in general longer, creatures would have to have more mechanics then 3 to 5 like is standard now, and you would have to limit the amount of rezzing and potion use that is available.
Unfortunatly the majority plays for "convience" and "fun" instead of challenges and adventure like we used to experience, patience and civility have gone out the window along with difficulty.
I think part of the problem with this thread is that two different propositions are being discussed as if they were the same.
(#1) Is a death penalty a substitute for "challenging gameplay"?
(#2) Can a death penalty add "challenge" to gameplay?
Now I think that pretty much everyone here would get behind a firm "no" to question #1, but the OP seems to be using that consensus to slip in a "no" to #2 as well, when it's actually a very different proposition. When the two questions are disambiguated, I think rather more people will answer "yes" to #2 than to #1.
Obviously I am in the "no to #1, yes to #2" camp. To me these answers seem so obvious as to be almost tautological. Equally obviously, Axelhilt would probably answer "no" to both questions and he would feel that his answers were so obvious. And I suspect that it is this has led him to conflate them.
My distinction was made in post #2: Challenge is how much skill a game requires.
Death penalty isn't challenge, it's inconvenience.
You can perform better at a challenge with more skill; with an inconvenience, you can't.
Because games live or die based on whether they offer players interesting decisions, interesting challenges are absolutely critical to a game. Interesting challenges create interesting decisions.
Inconveniences will be part of the game rules by nature of creating those challenges, but inconveniences aren't sought for inconvenience sake -- only as much inconvenience as is absolutely required to make a game interesting is desirable; and no more.
I keep coming around to the same conclusion when the discussion of death penalties come up. It can be summed up as, "The people who seek harsh death penalties for the games they play do not seek harsh death penalties to improve game play, but to exclude other players from playing the game by punishing them for perceived mistakes." I could be wrong, but that's always the impression I get.
This is the impression I get as well. They have the option to self-impose a penalty as creative as needed for their penalty needs. If they balk at that, then they are really about penaltys for those other players.
Interesting point. When was the last time you heard somone say, "Damn it we died. I have to delete my character now"? How would you react to someone who played that way?
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
Comments
sounds like WoW achievements to me. Lets stick with the topic of challenge of harder gameplay and harsh death penalty. Of course if you want to make a thread about it i would certainly participate
Oh I agree completely. As I said earlier, I never quite had the same sense of danger in any MMO as I did in EQ. It was fun.
I can see your point above but I didn't really feel that harsh penalty made the game overall more difficult. Certainly naked corpse runs could be very challenging and sometimes difficult. But even if you took corpse runs out, by today's standards people would flip if they got de-leveled.
Not so much a factor of are there enough people who will tolerate being de-leveled but one of developers who can see the potential of how much more money they could make by not having it in the game.
That's why this is very much a theoretical vrs reality discussion
I think the market might be a little more varied than you think. More old friends of mine have comepletely abandonded MMOs than still play. That's because we have nothing but clones upon clones upon clones. It makes sense to say, then, that the majority of posters here are those that remain and enjoy clone wars.
That's just the problem with the industry. It all cookie cutter now, few want to take a chance. They only want the path to the the WoW pot o' gold at the end of the rainbow.
If there were different games, some old school and some not, for example, I think the industry might be a little more healthy.
After all, we all enjoy different movies and books and most genres are readily available. Not so in the world of MMOs. Seemingly only one taste is catered to and I think it's a darn shame.
I say UO mode, if you die your gear is up for grabs. Dying and running to a rezzer is nothing, the challenge is if your awesome gear is on your corpse and you have to get back to it before the mobs or someone snags it.
Death is nothing to us, since when we are, Death has not come, and when death has come, we are not.
I agree with you, but you have 99% of these developers who are not independently wealthy. Who are forced to go to publishers and beg them for money for their idea and the publisher says to them: "So let me get this straight, you're going to have a harsh death penalty in your game and that's going to prevent you from having a subscriber base the size of WoW?"
Said poor developer winds up getting no money heh.
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.
If you are interested in making a MMO maybe visit my page to get a free open source engine.
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 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
The OP's argument is the same... as a harder death sentence, is "harder"..!
"No they are not charity. That is where the whales come in. (I play for free. Whales pays.) Devs get a business. That is how it works."
-Nariusseldon
I would say a mix of Actually Challenging Combats mixed with a Slight Penality if dead does indeed Push some(most?) people to React better and try "harder".
Easy example is Vindictus. Some of the Bosses are Challenging fights, making you want to better yourself and the penality of death is to restart The Mission if failed....
Pretty Basic concept you'll say yes, But it works wonder, as I fight a boss i want to outbest its Mechanics and win, and also Dieing means starting over, wich Usually tend to place me on a More or less "A" Game type of play.
As for other MMOs, as long as the death penality / Difficulty of the game follows its "theme" id say people will adapt and Learn to enjoy them.
Death Penality , unless drasticly Harsh , usually is but a minor setback in the games we play.
Difficulty and Complexity of the AI (for PVE games) Or Balance of PVP is what truely would be the bigger factor...
If everything is too easy, there is no challenge.... it makes you ask..."why do i bother? this isnt even challenging me"
Pvp balance would be mostly for people who enjoy a class, being "punished" by being Sub-par In PVP encounters determined by what they play rather than their lack of skills.
That was pretty much my 2 cents x)
Have a good Day !
I think part of the problem with this thread is that two different propositions are being discussed as if they were the same.
(#1) Is a death penalty a substitute for "challenging gameplay"?
(#2) Can a death penalty add "challenge" to gameplay?
Now I think that pretty much everyone here would get behind a firm "no" to question #1, but the OP seems to be using that consensus to slip in a "no" to #2 as well, when it's actually a very different proposition. When the two questions are disambiguated, I think rather more people will answer "yes" to #2 than to #1.
Obviously I am in the "no to #1, yes to #2" camp. To me these answers seem so obvious as to be almost tautological. Equally obviously, Axelhilt would probably answer "no" to both questions and he would feel that his answers were so obvious. And I suspect that it is this has led him to conflate them.
Give me liberty or give me lasers
... but #2 doesn't mean a positive answer to (#3) DOES a death penalty necessarily add "challenge" to gameplay.
Specific types of death penalty can, but that doesn't mean that death penalties (Even really harsh ones) automatically do.
It also doesn't mean (#4) Do you need a death penalty for challenging gameplay.
You can add a death penalty to gameplay at any level of challenge, from the easiest games to the hardest.
You could slap a death penalty on Tic Tac Toe, but that wouldn't make it any harder.
Specific examples of poor execution dont invalidate a concept, they only prove that the concept can be poorly executed. A game where character death leads to the publisher hiring a ninja to kill your family clearly has a bad character death penalty; that does not prove that character death penalties are inherently bad.
All we're looking at there is the other end of the spectrum from my "World of Axelhilt" example, which demonstrates that zero character death penalty can be just as bad for gameplay as infinite CDP.
As with most things, the question doesn't have a definite "yes/no" answer. Instead we have a continuous scale between zero and permadeath, with many dimensional variables (item loss, stat loss, xp loss, status loss), with a different optimal point for each individual person.
In short, where the CDP is appropriate to the style of the game, is cleanly and thoughtfully implemented (ie: issues like spawn camping are addressed) and so on, it can add to the game. It's OK for some games to have a very low CDP and others to have a very high one. As Loktofeit said, the optimum situation is to let the player have the ability to choose his own CDP. Then the basement-dwelling adrenaline junkies can have their fix, and the crybaby carebears can minimise their worries.
Give me liberty or give me lasers
I never said that character death penalties are inherently bad (I'm the only person who posted since you, so I'm assuming you're responding to me somehow?), just that they are not inherently good. Nor are they inherently challenging.
Just like any other part of the game, they're best when used appropriately.
Also, I can't think of any MMO that has =0= death penalty, at the level you're suggesting. Maybe I'm just not familiar with them, but usually the penalty for failure at a minimum is 'you try again but possibly from the start'. Since dungeons have respawn timers and bosses usually heal themselves when out of combat.
Also, I don't think that not wanting a heavy death penalty makes somebody a 'crybaby carebear', no more than wanting a heavy death penalty makes somebody a basement-dwelling 40 year old living with Mom.
Also, many (Or even most) things considered a 'heavy death penalty' are simply penalties of time. Which can be especially annoying when deaths might not necessarily be your fault (Technical problems, or deaths caused by other people), and when you're short on time.
It seems like we are all in agreement here, no?
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
Yes, I really wasn't actually arguing with him (At least on that point), I was trying to point out that my point of view wasn't too far off what he said.
Though I think I disagree with Malcanis (At least, from my understanding of what he's saying) in that I think that challenge can be created completely independently of death penalty, up to any arbitrary level you want, and that most kinds of death penalty (Not all, mind you) can be added to a game of any level of difficulty without actually adding any real difficulty.
Though I suppose that also varies from person to person, and how they take things in their games. Most death penalties don't impress me or scare me, they just annoy me at most. I'm not sure I'd agree that 'annoyance levels' = 'challenge'.
My distinction was made in post #2: Challenge is how much skill a game requires.
Death penalty isn't challenge, it's inconvenience.
You can perform better at a challenge with more skill; with an inconvenience, you can't.
Because games live or die based on whether they offer players interesting decisions, interesting challenges are absolutely critical to a game. Interesting challenges create interesting decisions.
Inconveniences will be part of the game rules by nature of creating those challenges, but inconveniences aren't sought for inconvenience sake -- only as much inconvenience as is absolutely required to make a game interesting is desirable; and no more.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
How can you say avoiding the inconvenience of a death penalty does not take skill? Players use social grace (taking a team, or the right team, instead of going alone or with just anyone), suvrivial instincts (plotting escape routes and knowing when to run), and game experience (knowing what places and monsters to avoid in every situation) specifically to avoid a harsh death penalty. Those are skills in my opinion. Skills that become obsolete with light death penalties.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
Death penalty isn't challenge, it's inconvenience.
You can perform better at a challenge with more skill; with an inconvenience, you can't.
Because games live or die based on whether they offer players interesting decisions, interesting challenges are absolutely critical to a game. Interesting challenges create interesting decisions.
Inconveniences will be part of the game rules by nature of creating those challenges, but inconveniences aren't sought for inconvenience sake -- only as much inconvenience as is absolutely required to make a game interesting is desirable; and no more.
I keep coming around to the same conclusion when the discussion of death penalties come up. It can be summed up as, "The people who seek harsh death penalties for the games they play do not seek harsh death penalties to improve game play, but to exclude other players from playing the game by punishing them for perceived mistakes." I could be wrong, but that's always the impression I get.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Before dying, skill matters. That's challenge.
After dying, you're dead. You're suffering the penalty and there's nothing you can do to avoid the penalty. That's inconvenience.
You just listed factors which are skills used to beat the challenge -- none of them matter if you die. In a game with tough bosses and light DP, all of the factors you list would be just as important because they all take place before dying.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
This is the impression I get as well. They have the option to self-impose a penalty as creative as needed for their penalty needs. If they balk at that, then they are really about penaltys for those other players.
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
challenge and harsh death penalty goes hand n hand
That sounds like an oxymoron to me. Why would I care (as much) if I died with a light death penalty? The last time I planned an escape route in WoW was Molten Core. I used to kill myself intentionally in WAR and AoC just to get where I was going faster. With a light death penalty there is no incentive to stay alive. Harsh death penalties are a direct challenge to that. I'm not saying you are wrong. Obviously the majority of online RPG players agree with you. I'm just trying to get you to see the other side of the coin. You lose more than just inconvenience with lighter death penalties.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
Death penalty is a huge factor in making a game hard, but MMOs have long ago strayed from any kind of penalty that has any effect, stat minus for a short time, damage to your gear, and money sinks are completly useless death penaltys, you really might aswell not have any, they just dont wanna get stuck with the stigma of not having a DP, but at the same time not have one any dislikes.
If your gear accualy was destroyed when its durability hit 0, that would make it useful, aswell as promoting crafting in whatever game its in.
Xp penaltys are atleast a step in the right direction, either losing xp on death, or having an xp debt, either way works decent.
With almost all MMOs sticking with the dumbass Soulbound equipment idea, dropping your own gear upon death isnt feasiable, not to mention most people would be cry babys about it, but I'd like to see us going back to dropping gold when you die, or dropping an item from your inventory.
That being said, Games have decided to go the easier route and stick with instant death mechanics instead to try to make things harder, since they have no death penalty thats effective, they just make boss fights and encounters have situations where your character just gets ace'd if not done correctly, and while it hinders the fight itself, it has no reall effect on the character that died, and magical ressurection is just a given in games today.
If you made a game that had a decent Death Penalty, they would have to make fights more challenging with less or no instant kill mechanics which is alot harder on the dev's, it would make fights in general longer, creatures would have to have more mechanics then 3 to 5 like is standard now, and you would have to limit the amount of rezzing and potion use that is available.
Unfortunatly the majority plays for "convience" and "fun" instead of challenges and adventure like we used to experience, patience and civility have gone out the window along with difficulty.
Mess with the best, Die like the rest
Interesting point. When was the last time you heard somone say, "Damn it we died. I have to delete my character now"? How would you react to someone who played that way?
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.