That's why everyone's personal bias won't allow them to look at the concept fairly
It is kinda hard not to have a personal bias in case like this. I mean either we can try to remember how we liked it in older games or we can guess. Of course many people tend to forget the bad aspects after a few years and just remember what was fun.
What will happen when you die in a MMO is not exactly logical and it shouldn't feel good of course but it shouldn't just be annoying either.
Most pen and paper RPGs have perma death, the only one I can think of that doesn't (D&D and copies of it like Pathfinder) takes a level and sometimes a point of con permanently. That works perfectly for pen and paper but sadly not for computer games where a single disconnect would kill your character for good. It is however fun in those games because it makes them really exiting.
Then we have the things we so far seen in MMOs like:
Corpse runs. Go to your body (often naked) to retrieve your stuff. Bad things with this is that sometimes in games like EQ you died so you couldn't retrieve it (in lava was not uncommon) and it was often a rather large time sink.
Losing gear: Still popular in some PvP game. It actually worked best in Lineage where you sometimes randomly dropped stuff and if noone picked it up the next passing monster woul and add it to his loot. Other games let people plunder everything and in some cases it can just dissapear. The problem with this is of course that it adds grinding and that raid players who spent months getting their stuff quit rather easily.
Losing XP: Another silly timesink, you have to regrind some XP.
Debuff: Everytime you die you get a debuff, on a timer, until you click your gravestone or until you gets into next town. Actually make the game harder temporarily.
Gear breaks: Usually your gear gets in worse and worse shape to break. Most games use this as a money sink for you to repair it but it can actually be used as a rather nasty penalty if the game wont allow repairing.
The problem with all death penaties is that they often either gets annoying or forces you to grind crap everytime you die. I played a lot of MMOs and most of the death penalties are just minor annoyance. Lineage thing where you randomly sometimes (about one time in 4 or 5) lost an item is still the most fun, both because it made you nervous about dying and that you sometimes could get something really cool from a trashmmob because a wiping party lost it.
The main question we have to ask ourself is; Do you prefer an easy game with harsh death penaly or a really hard with no? I know that is taking things to the extremes but no death penalty will ever make a game more interesting than a smart AI and dangerous mobs.
I understand what you're saying, but the topic of the thread wasn't "Is a harsh death penalty a good or bad thing", it was is this a challenge. That's how i approached the discussion, i checked any personal bias at the door.
I think your thinking about this in the wrong way....
A death penalty is the consequence that makes the game play more challenging or difficult. A death penalty is what causes you to think twice before attempting a kill, or doing anything else in the game. It makes you think out the scenarios, pay attention better to your surroundings, be more aware of what your opponet is doing....and FINALLY.....LEARN FROM YOUR MISTAKES
I'm not going to go over the myriad posts that have already spoken to the wrongness of "penalty=challenge". If you weren't ambitious enough to read theirs, why would you read mine?
But let's assume, which I don't, that the highlighted is correct. Wouldn't that mean that a harsher death penalty make content LESS difficult? After all, it's easier to defeat something if, "you think twice about it", "think about the scenario", and "pay attention to your surroundings", since your likelihood of survival would be much higher due to your now constant vigilance...
No. because the premise doesn't stand on its own. Edit: The intensity of Death Penalties do not effect the actual challenge or difficulty of any encounter, dungeon, or raid.
Also, I need to take issue with your WOW example. The automatic grouping system had more effects on the overall way players act and treat eachother than just removing some fustrating part of grouping. Automatic grouping means players drop group at the first sign of conflict within the group instead of learning a lesson or two from using conflict resolution skills to fix the problem. Automatic grouping across servers (in the name of reducing grouping time...or fustration as you put it) created a situation where players treat other group members with disrespect and refer to eachother by their class instead of their name because the chances of ever playing with that same person again is nill to none.
Actually, if you risk losing a level and a half and/or all your gear, you'll be LESS LIKELY to stick around and try to make a dysfunctional group work than if you have a lighter penalty. I think you're mistaking your own argument against auto-groups for one supporting harsh DP's. It has quite the opposite point to make, really.
As that old saying goes, nothing worth doing is ever easy. Many times there are implicit benefits and lessons to be learned from doing things that take time, patience, and some elbow grease. I understand what your getting at in your argument....but its a FINE line between removing things that are difficult for the sake of difficult and things that are difficult for a reason.
And as the old wise saying goes: "Dyin's easy. It's livin' that's the hard part."
Rob you and Axehilt have some good arguments, and present them well. I have no doubt the majority of what you speak is true. I can only hope you've seen some of the truths in the arguments that do not coincide with your own viewpoints.
Thanks, Pale! I understand the want of players to feel a bigger rush than can be had with alot of MMO's. For some people, it's challenge; for others, risk gets the blood pumping, and for still others, both. It would be good to see all players accomodated in some way.
I remember Tabula Rasa, at the very end, implemented a system where you could put an item of rarity on the line, which would give a bonus to XP that varied based on the level of rarity. If you died, you lost that item.
I thought it was a good idea. You didn't have to participate, but those who wanted that additional element of risk could do it and get rewarded for it. With SWToR talking about med droids and insurance and what-not, I wonder if there isn't a similar thing that could be put in place, there.
Originally posted by Scrogdog Well, I certainly can't agree with you for one simple reason; it is clear that people do things that they shouldn't in game in a low DP situation because they have no fear of dying! I've seen this countless times and for me it breaks immersion. The example I gave recently would be "the pit" near the Erudite city in EQ1. You didn't want to fall in there below a certain level. You would need major high level help to get out. The fear that radiated from the pit was palpable. Contrast that with most of today's games. In a modern version of the same situation people would gleefully jump right in just to see what's down there BECAUSE they had no fear of the consequences of thier actions. If you are incapable of feeling this kind of fear except in the limited situations that you describe, well, I guess we'll never connect on this issue and I'd also have to observe that in my opinion your missing out on a boat load of fun!
Of the two options, being afraid of the pit or being able to jump down there to see what's going on, being able to jump down there sounds like more fun. Especially since it's not my skill that prevents me from seeing the bottom of the pit but the amount of time I spend playing the game. The pit has become something that goads me into playing (and paying) longer rather than something I'd enjoy seeing. It's not that much different than raid lockout timers or other artificial road blocks to playing the game.
I'm sure that there are many players that agree with you, in fact I'd go so far to say that this is exactly the prevailing attitude in the MMO community overall. From my point of view, if I'm going to play a role playing game, then certainly role play is a big part of the experience for me. There's a reason that in a fantasy novel that all the characters are damn scared of the big bad ol' dragon and rightly so! Why would you NOT want to be scared of the big bad dragon? Why would you NOT want to be scared of entering his lair? Your attitude is as much a mystery to me as I'm sure mine is to you. There's no right or wrong about it, just a matter of personal style. Doesn't not being scared of entering the dragon's lair more or less cheapen the experience? Don't you want that elevated sense of accomplishment by FINALLY being able to enter with a reasonable chance of victory?
Your opinion isn't a mystery to me. I can understand it without necessarily agreeing with it. However, I don't necessarily even disagree with your opinion. What I disagree with is the idea that just adding a harsh death penalty will make a game (any game) better. If the harsh death penalty is designed into the game from the start (as in Wizardry or Salem) then it makes sense and adds to the game play because it's a core part of the game.
If you just tack a harsh death penalty on to a game like WoW or Rift, you're not improving the game because the harsh death penalty is counter to the game's overall feel and play style. There are so many other factors in the game's play style that are as important or more important to focus on. That's my actual opinion about death penalties in games.
OR/ALSO
People lamenting the lack of harsh death penalties are really lamenting the lack of games where a harsh death penalty makes sense.
FINALLY I would find the 'fear factor' of a harsh death penalty more palatable if mmorpg depended more on skill, rather than the accumulated amount of time spent playing the game. You can't improve your skill in taking down a dragon, but you can play longer to have the dice roll in your favor more often. It's just how mmorpg are written.
In games like Silent Hill, where the 'fear factor' is in the environment, a harsh death penalty makes more sense to me, because I can get better at killing monsters or I can just use my innate skill and play the game better. It doesn't depend on the accumulated hours I've played (and payed).
I guess that really comes down to the death penalty needs to make sense for the game. Hello Kitty Adventure Island would not benefit from a harsh death penalty whereas Hellgate Global might benefit from a harsh death penalty. << I pulled that example out of my arse since I haven't played that game yet.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
An upcoming game where the death penalty really does add to the challenge is Wizardry Online.
So I want everybody who wants a big challenge and thinks they're into death penalties, to go play it!
I'll meet you there.
Permadeath really does add a type of challenge, because the challenge becomes how long can you go before you lose it all. It's like gambling.
I don't find most 'lesser' forms of harsh death penalty to be all that harsh, really.
Losing xp? Dropping a weapon or two? That's easily made up with just a bit of time sunk back into what you were doing.
Permadeath works well with something like a Roguelike, where the game can be challenging from the very beginning, so that death leads to more challenge, rather than to a period of reduced challenge (Most MMOs where you have to grind back up to where you were, on easier content)
Dying is failure when you are trying to complete a quest and getting killed by a MOB sets you back.
Dying is not failure when you are trying to get back to town and jumping off a cliff saves you a 5 minute walk.
I don't think it's abnormal for players to "manipulate" the death mechanic of MMORPGs for personal gain...in fact I think it's pretty typical.
Sure, but death-as-a-teleport indicates poor Fast Travel Design. Games must be designed holistically, and when you design a good (light) death penalty you must also ensure it is never superior to your fast travel options.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
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.
I would find the 'fear factor' of a harsh death penalty more palatable if mmorpg depended more on skill, rather than the accumulated amount of time spent playing the game. You can't improve your skill in taking down a dragon, but you can play longer to have the dice roll in your favor more often. It's just how mmorpg are written.
In games like Silent Hill, where the 'fear factor' is in the environment, a harsh death penalty makes more sense to me, because I can get better at killing monsters or I can just use my innate skill and play the game better. It doesn't depend on the accumulated hours I've played (and payed).
I disagree with this. The "skill", whether you use twitch aiming or not is irrelevant when it comes to a fear factor, IMO.
A harsh death penalty will make yuo more aware of your environment, more likely to plan ahead, less likely to just run all over the place willy nilly.
Why? Becaues of the consequences.
Hmmm. I've never been there before. I'll think I'll run over there and check it out. Oh, got killed. Whatever, no xp loss, no stat loss, no item loss, hit teleport button, run off somewhere else.
But if there's a stiff death penalty, I"m going to be more cautious, and if I turn a corner and see Mobs I can't take, I'm going to slow down and reevaluate what I'm going to do.
Twitch or no twitch, I don't think that part matters.
There are downsides to harsh death penalty.
it's bad for grouping.
You don't want to group with someone if they might cause a party wipe, and there is a harsh death penalty.
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.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
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.
There is a skill component and a challenge to being naked getting your corpse back. You can't present any arguement that disproves this fact. Because you see it as an annoyance is irrelevant, it has nothing to do with the greater concept. That is the fact that remains.
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.
...I can't force them to accept superior logic, I can only present it to them...
Whoa.
I'd be banned if I responded to this. So, I'll leave it that
"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
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.
There is a skill component and a challenge to being naked getting your corpse back. You can't present any arguement that disproves this fact. Because you see it as an annoyance is irrelevant, it has nothing to do with the greater concept. That is the fact that remains.
If you read my post, I already accounted for this. Being naked and trying to get a corpse back is pretty clearly not as fun as an MMORPG's normal gameplay.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
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.
There is a skill component and a challenge to being naked getting your corpse back. You can't present any arguement that disproves this fact. Because you see it as an annoyance is irrelevant, it has nothing to do with the greater concept. That is the fact that remains.
If you read my post, I already accounted for this. Being naked and trying to get a corpse back is pretty clearly not as fun as an MMORPG's normal gameplay.
I've already accounted for this, whether someone thinks it's fun or not is irrelevant and has nothing to do with the greater concept of skill and challenge associated with a death penalty
Originally posted by Ihmotepp Originally posted by lizardbones
FINALLY I would find the 'fear factor' of a harsh death penalty more palatable if mmorpg depended more on skill, rather than the accumulated amount of time spent playing the game. You can't improve your skill in taking down a dragon, but you can play longer to have the dice roll in your favor more often. It's just how mmorpg are written.
In games like Silent Hill, where the 'fear factor' is in the environment, a harsh death penalty makes more sense to me, because I can get better at killing monsters or I can just use my innate skill and play the game better. It doesn't depend on the accumulated hours I've played (and payed).
I disagree with this. The "skill", whether you use twitch aiming or not is irrelevant when it comes to a fear factor, IMO. A harsh death penalty will make yuo more aware of your environment, more likely to plan ahead, less likely to just run all over the place willy nilly. Why? Becaues of the consequences. Hmmm. I've never been there before. I'll think I'll run over there and check it out. Oh, got killed. Whatever, no xp loss, no stat loss, no item loss, hit teleport button, run off somewhere else. But if there's a stiff death penalty, I"m going to be more cautious, and if I turn a corner and see Mobs I can't take, I'm going to slow down and reevaluate what I'm going to do. Twitch or no twitch, I don't think that part matters. There are downsides to harsh death penalty. it's bad for grouping. You don't want to group with someone if they might cause a party wipe, and there is a harsh death penalty.
Concerning Twitch vs RPG combat styles I should have put 'arbitrary' in there somewhere...I should have stayed away from the 'fear factor' bit. Most games aren't made to have a real 'fear factor'. Having a harsh death penalty where my death is largely dependent upon the power level of my character (which is dependent upon the amount of time I play the game) and not my trained reflexes makes it seem arbitrary. I didn't fail, my character's dice rolls failed. This isn't 100% the case, but if the dice aren't weighted heavily enough in your favor, you can do everything right and you will still fail (die).
But really, a death penalty just needs to make sense in the context of the game. A harsh death penalty in Hello Kitty would not make sense at all. In WoW, a bit of a death penalty makes sense, but you're kind of supposed to go running amok and feeling powerful, so it shouldn't be too harsh. In a game like Silent Hill, the death penalty is harsher than in a game like WoW, because you're supposed to feel nervous, like you should listen at every corner to make sure something isn't lurking in the fog. It's all about context. You can't just toss a harsh death penalty into any game and have it magically be a better game.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
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?
You certainly could delete your character if you are into tough penalties.
Why don't you do that? Is that too much of a challenge?
Why don't you self-impose your own penalty? If you need that to feel something about gameplay you could. And it doesn't matter what others do.
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?"
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.
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.
Can you fail "kill 8 rats"? Not technically, but if you never collect enough to turn in, then yes, you've failed. You get no quest XP, no reward.
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.
In LotRO, all the instance quests are failable. Some of the quests that aren't instances are also failable. In all cases, you have to get the quest, again.
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.
So, failure in MMO's is exactly the same as failure in every other PC game made that has a save function, except you have no real "load" function.
Don't play any Wizardry, Ultima or Bard's Tale CRPGs. It might be a rude awakening.
Far as consequences go, again, they're the same as any single player game; you have to start over. though you also have a DP, which isn't in 1 player 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.
So I don't see how MMO's have less means of failure or lack of consequences than any PC game made in the last 20 years. Save for that one... was it Alan Wake, where there was no save, and the story went on based on your success/failure?
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?
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
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?
You certainly could delete your character if you are into tough penalties.
Why don't you do that? Is that too much of a challenge?
Why don't you self-impose your own penalty? If you need that to feel something about gameplay you could. And it doesn't matter what others do.
I could pretend that I am an astronaut having many adventures on another planet. But that would be stupid, know what I mean?
"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
Community isn't formed by DP. It's formed by a lot of people getting together for a challenging part of the game, or people helping others attaining their goals, or, as in real life, a bunch of people with similar interests getting together to have fun doing something they like. A challenging quest isn't going to be affected by DP. it will be affected by how a group of people try the quest until they come together with the right task to overcome it.
Also, I would argue that DP causes some people to not take risks for the group in situations where their sacrifice might help the group as a whole succeed.
Community isn't formed by DP. It's formed by a lot of people getting together for a challenging part of the game, or people helping others attaining their goals, or, as in real life, a bunch of people with similar interests getting together to have fun doing something they like. A challenging quest isn't going to be affected by DP. it will be affected by how a group of people try the quest until they come together with the right task to overcome it.
Also, I would argue that DP causes some people to not take risks for the group in situations where their sacrifice might help the group as a whole succeed.
"Hey, folks! Let's start a business! I know it'll be tough, but the good news is, if we fail, we'll be broke and penniless forever!"
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.
I personally play when my character dies they get deleted. It makes it tough to find others that play this way since there are no servers dictated to perma-death so I basically play alone.
Back in D2 it was not a problem since the hardcore servers were separated from the normal servers. D2 played a LOT different than a MMO though since it had many ways NOT to die. When EQ had a perma-death server there were still a number of problems with the game (bugs, laggy servers and so on) so it failed and since it failed they write it up as no MMO with perma-death will work. It kind of became the gospel of the development of MMOs. For those that really want the end all challenge, it is non existent.
IMHO - Adding anything other than a perma-death is not going to make a game anymore challenging so what is currently in use is the best way to do it. What developers need to do though is give some areas optional DP and challenge so those that want the challenge and DP can find others that play with the same mindset.
Comments
It is kinda hard not to have a personal bias in case like this. I mean either we can try to remember how we liked it in older games or we can guess. Of course many people tend to forget the bad aspects after a few years and just remember what was fun.
What will happen when you die in a MMO is not exactly logical and it shouldn't feel good of course but it shouldn't just be annoying either.
Most pen and paper RPGs have perma death, the only one I can think of that doesn't (D&D and copies of it like Pathfinder) takes a level and sometimes a point of con permanently. That works perfectly for pen and paper but sadly not for computer games where a single disconnect would kill your character for good. It is however fun in those games because it makes them really exiting.
Then we have the things we so far seen in MMOs like:
Corpse runs. Go to your body (often naked) to retrieve your stuff. Bad things with this is that sometimes in games like EQ you died so you couldn't retrieve it (in lava was not uncommon) and it was often a rather large time sink.
Losing gear: Still popular in some PvP game. It actually worked best in Lineage where you sometimes randomly dropped stuff and if noone picked it up the next passing monster woul and add it to his loot. Other games let people plunder everything and in some cases it can just dissapear. The problem with this is of course that it adds grinding and that raid players who spent months getting their stuff quit rather easily.
Losing XP: Another silly timesink, you have to regrind some XP.
Debuff: Everytime you die you get a debuff, on a timer, until you click your gravestone or until you gets into next town. Actually make the game harder temporarily.
Gear breaks: Usually your gear gets in worse and worse shape to break. Most games use this as a money sink for you to repair it but it can actually be used as a rather nasty penalty if the game wont allow repairing.
The problem with all death penaties is that they often either gets annoying or forces you to grind crap everytime you die. I played a lot of MMOs and most of the death penalties are just minor annoyance. Lineage thing where you randomly sometimes (about one time in 4 or 5) lost an item is still the most fun, both because it made you nervous about dying and that you sometimes could get something really cool from a trashmmob because a wiping party lost it.
The main question we have to ask ourself is; Do you prefer an easy game with harsh death penaly or a really hard with no? I know that is taking things to the extremes but no death penalty will ever make a game more interesting than a smart AI and dangerous mobs.
I understand what you're saying, but the topic of the thread wasn't "Is a harsh death penalty a good or bad thing", it was is this a challenge. That's how i approached the discussion, i checked any personal bias at the door.
Your opinion isn't a mystery to me. I can understand it without necessarily agreeing with it. However, I don't necessarily even disagree with your opinion. What I disagree with is the idea that just adding a harsh death penalty will make a game (any game) better. If the harsh death penalty is designed into the game from the start (as in Wizardry or Salem) then it makes sense and adds to the game play because it's a core part of the game.
If you just tack a harsh death penalty on to a game like WoW or Rift, you're not improving the game because the harsh death penalty is counter to the game's overall feel and play style. There are so many other factors in the game's play style that are as important or more important to focus on. That's my actual opinion about death penalties in games.
OR/ALSO
People lamenting the lack of harsh death penalties are really lamenting the lack of games where a harsh death penalty makes sense.
FINALLY
I would find the 'fear factor' of a harsh death penalty more palatable if mmorpg depended more on skill, rather than the accumulated amount of time spent playing the game. You can't improve your skill in taking down a dragon, but you can play longer to have the dice roll in your favor more often. It's just how mmorpg are written.
In games like Silent Hill, where the 'fear factor' is in the environment, a harsh death penalty makes more sense to me, because I can get better at killing monsters or I can just use my innate skill and play the game better. It doesn't depend on the accumulated hours I've played (and payed).
I guess that really comes down to the death penalty needs to make sense for the game. Hello Kitty Adventure Island would not benefit from a harsh death penalty whereas Hellgate Global might benefit from a harsh death penalty. << I pulled that example out of my arse since I haven't played that game yet.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I think harder gameplay makes the challenge.
Guild Wars 2's 50 minutes game play video:
http://n4g.com/news/592585/guild-wars-2-50-minutes-of-pure-gameplay
Everything We Know about GW2:
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/287180/page/1
An upcoming game where the death penalty really does add to the challenge is Wizardry Online.
So I want everybody who wants a big challenge and thinks they're into death penalties, to go play it!
I'll meet you there.
Permadeath really does add a type of challenge, because the challenge becomes how long can you go before you lose it all. It's like gambling.
I don't find most 'lesser' forms of harsh death penalty to be all that harsh, really.
Losing xp? Dropping a weapon or two? That's easily made up with just a bit of time sunk back into what you were doing.
Permadeath works well with something like a Roguelike, where the game can be challenging from the very beginning, so that death leads to more challenge, rather than to a period of reduced challenge (Most MMOs where you have to grind back up to where you were, on easier content)
Sure, but death-as-a-teleport indicates poor Fast Travel Design. Games must be designed holistically, and when you design a good (light) death penalty you must also ensure it is never superior to your fast travel options.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
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.
I disagree with this. The "skill", whether you use twitch aiming or not is irrelevant when it comes to a fear factor, IMO.
A harsh death penalty will make yuo more aware of your environment, more likely to plan ahead, less likely to just run all over the place willy nilly.
Why? Becaues of the consequences.
Hmmm. I've never been there before. I'll think I'll run over there and check it out. Oh, got killed. Whatever, no xp loss, no stat loss, no item loss, hit teleport button, run off somewhere else.
But if there's a stiff death penalty, I"m going to be more cautious, and if I turn a corner and see Mobs I can't take, I'm going to slow down and reevaluate what I'm going to do.
Twitch or no twitch, I don't think that part matters.
There are downsides to harsh death penalty.
it's bad for grouping.
You don't want to group with someone if they might cause a party wipe, and there is a harsh death penalty.
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.
"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 skill component and a challenge to being naked getting your corpse back. You can't present any arguement that disproves this fact. Because you see it as an annoyance is irrelevant, it has nothing to do with the greater concept. That is the fact that remains.
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.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
Whoa.
I'd be banned if I responded to this. So, I'll leave it that
"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
If you read my post, I already accounted for this. Being naked and trying to get a corpse back is pretty clearly not as fun as an MMORPG's normal gameplay.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I've already accounted for this, whether someone thinks it's fun or not is irrelevant and has nothing to do with the greater concept of skill and challenge associated with a death penalty
FINALLY
I would find the 'fear factor' of a harsh death penalty more palatable if mmorpg depended more on skill, rather than the accumulated amount of time spent playing the game. You can't improve your skill in taking down a dragon, but you can play longer to have the dice roll in your favor more often. It's just how mmorpg are written.
In games like Silent Hill, where the 'fear factor' is in the environment, a harsh death penalty makes more sense to me, because I can get better at killing monsters or I can just use my innate skill and play the game better. It doesn't depend on the accumulated hours I've played (and payed).
I disagree with this. The "skill", whether you use twitch aiming or not is irrelevant when it comes to a fear factor, IMO.
A harsh death penalty will make yuo more aware of your environment, more likely to plan ahead, less likely to just run all over the place willy nilly.
Why? Becaues of the consequences.
Hmmm. I've never been there before. I'll think I'll run over there and check it out. Oh, got killed. Whatever, no xp loss, no stat loss, no item loss, hit teleport button, run off somewhere else.
But if there's a stiff death penalty, I"m going to be more cautious, and if I turn a corner and see Mobs I can't take, I'm going to slow down and reevaluate what I'm going to do.
Twitch or no twitch, I don't think that part matters.
There are downsides to harsh death penalty.
it's bad for grouping.
You don't want to group with someone if they might cause a party wipe, and there is a harsh death penalty.
Concerning Twitch vs RPG combat styles
I should have put 'arbitrary' in there somewhere...I should have stayed away from the 'fear factor' bit. Most games aren't made to have a real 'fear factor'. Having a harsh death penalty where my death is largely dependent upon the power level of my character (which is dependent upon the amount of time I play the game) and not my trained reflexes makes it seem arbitrary. I didn't fail, my character's dice rolls failed. This isn't 100% the case, but if the dice aren't weighted heavily enough in your favor, you can do everything right and you will still fail (die).
But really, a death penalty just needs to make sense in the context of the game. A harsh death penalty in Hello Kitty would not make sense at all. In WoW, a bit of a death penalty makes sense, but you're kind of supposed to go running amok and feeling powerful, so it shouldn't be too harsh. In a game like Silent Hill, the death penalty is harsher than in a game like WoW, because you're supposed to feel nervous, like you should listen at every corner to make sure something isn't lurking in the fog. It's all about context. You can't just toss a harsh death penalty into any game and have it magically be a better game.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
You certainly could delete your character if you are into tough penalties.
Why don't you do that? Is that too much of a challenge?
Why don't you self-impose your own penalty? If you need that to feel something about gameplay you could. And it doesn't matter what others do.
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?"
Instead of self imposing something, we can go with the slightly more interesting choice of having the game shaped around it.
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.
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 could pretend that I am an astronaut having many adventures on another planet. But that would be stupid, know what I mean?
"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
Community isn't formed by DP. It's formed by a lot of people getting together for a challenging part of the game, or people helping others attaining their goals, or, as in real life, a bunch of people with similar interests getting together to have fun doing something they like. A challenging quest isn't going to be affected by DP. it will be affected by how a group of people try the quest until they come together with the right task to overcome it.
Also, I would argue that DP causes some people to not take risks for the group in situations where their sacrifice might help the group as a whole succeed.
Bushido Blade.
"Hey, folks! Let's start a business! I know it'll be tough, but the good news is, if we fail, we'll be broke and penniless forever!"
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.
I personally play when my character dies they get deleted. It makes it tough to find others that play this way since there are no servers dictated to perma-death so I basically play alone.
Back in D2 it was not a problem since the hardcore servers were separated from the normal servers. D2 played a LOT different than a MMO though since it had many ways NOT to die. When EQ had a perma-death server there were still a number of problems with the game (bugs, laggy servers and so on) so it failed and since it failed they write it up as no MMO with perma-death will work. It kind of became the gospel of the development of MMOs. For those that really want the end all challenge, it is non existent.
IMHO - Adding anything other than a perma-death is not going to make a game anymore challenging so what is currently in use is the best way to do it. What developers need to do though is give some areas optional DP and challenge so those that want the challenge and DP can find others that play with the same mindset.
If you are interested in making a MMO maybe visit my page to get a free open source engine.