A prime example is how one poster said "Taking a player out of gameplay is a bad idea!" Yet it was quite clear this does not happen. Upon wounding or death, a player picks another of his 5 roster of characters-- or if they don't want to risk, plays a weaker minion.
I'm disappointed with how over half the replies didn't even address imprisonment, and just seemed to read the title's first word, and simply closed their mind, failing to even comprehend anything beyond that first word (let alone read the OP).
Emergence, you probably want to get a better handle on player/character attachment and how people play MMOs before contending that people are just closed minded or can't comprehend your idea. You tend to do that a lot when people don't share your view, and I think that you're often shutting out a lot of valid input and good advice when you do.
The above quote is a very good example. You acknowledge that people have a 'main' and 'alts' but don't acknowledge the importance of such player-assigned positions. Locking down the main character is, for many players, a serious halt to or obstacle to gameplay - the presence or playability of alts rarely changes that.
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
A prime example is how one poster said "Taking a player out of gameplay is a bad idea!" Yet it was quite clear this does not happen. Upon wounding or death, a player picks another of his 5 roster of characters-- or if they don't want to risk, plays a weaker minion.
I'm disappointed with how over half the replies didn't even address imprisonment, and just seemed to read the title's first word, and simply closed their mind, failing to even comprehend anything beyond that first word (let alone read the OP).
Emergence, you probably want to get a better handle on player/character attachment and how people play MMOs before contending that people are just closed minded or can't comprehend your idea. You tend to do that a lot when people don't share your view, and I think that you're often shutting out a lot of valid input and good advice when you do.
The above quote is a very good example. You acknowledge that people have a 'main' and 'alts' but don't acknowledge the importance of such player-assigned positions. Locking down the main character is, for many players, a serious halt to or obstacle to gameplay - the presence or playability of alts rarely changes that.
I have no problem with people disagreeing. However, I do have a problem noticing how frequently certain people fail to read the OP or even fail to read a reply.
Right after this part you quoted for me, I said this
"To all who disagreed with reason and disagreed with the underlying mechanics, I thank you for taking the time to use your brain and read the OP. I don't care if anyone agrees or disagrees, but I mutually respect those who do more than merely sneak into a thread to poop on it."
I have absolutely no problem with people disagreeing or saying "This is stupid DESPITE [insert mechanics] BECAUSE...[opinion]". I actually thanked everyone who disagreed with an open mind.
I realize you want to be a clever poster, but you are a bit blind due to your personal bias against me. It could happen that it is actually indeed a fact many people on the internet will see the word "permadeath" and immediately close their mind, skip the OP, and reply with a repetitive opinion of "No. Never." It is actually quite clear that some people didn't read the OP, and by stating this fact it does not make it so that I "don't acknowledge the importance of...blah blah..."
I fully acknowledge people's opinions, regardless if they agree or disagree. I however refuse to acknowledge those, like you, who only skim short paragraphs and reply with a close mind. If your mind was open and you indeed read what others wrote without bias against them, you would have clearly seen my gratitude for those who disagreed with stated explanations--- because they actually read the OP and comprehended the idea, even if they hated it.
Perhaps in your attempt at being clever, you forgot the simple fact that people on the internet ARE sometimes close minded, and that it is not incorrect to say these people didn't read the OP, when they actually didn't. A true statement is a true statement. Sorry.
A prime example is how one poster said "Taking a player out of gameplay is a bad idea!" Yet it was quite clear this does not happen. Upon wounding or death, a player picks another of his 5 roster of characters-- or if they don't want to risk, plays a weaker minion.
I'm disappointed with how over half the replies didn't even address imprisonment, and just seemed to read the title's first word, and simply closed their mind, failing to even comprehend anything beyond that first word (let alone read the OP).
Emergence, you probably want to get a better handle on player/character attachment and how people play MMOs before contending that people are just closed minded or can't comprehend your idea. You tend to do that a lot when people don't share your view, and I think that you're often shutting out a lot of valid input and good advice when you do.
The above quote is a very good example. You acknowledge that people have a 'main' and 'alts' but don't acknowledge the importance of such player-assigned positions. Locking down the main character is, for many players, a serious halt to or obstacle to gameplay - the presence or playability of alts rarely changes that.
I have no problem with people disagreeing. However, I do have a problem noticing how frequently certain people fail to read the OP or even fail to read a reply.
Right after this part you quoted for me, I said this
"To all who disagreed with reason and disagreed with the underlying mechanics, I thank you for taking the time to use your brain and read the OP. I don't care if anyone agrees or disagrees, but I mutually respect those who do more than merely sneak into a thread to poop on it."
I have absolutely no problem with people disagreeing or saying "This is stupid DESPITE [insert mechanics] BECAUSE...[opinion]". I actually thanked everyone who disagreed with an open mind.
I realize you want to be a clever poster, but you are a bit blind due to your personal bias against me. It could happen that it is actually indeed a fact many people on the internet will see the word "permadeath" and immediately close their mind, skip the OP, and reply with a repetitive opinion of "No. Never." It is actually quite clear that some people didn't read the OP, and by stating this fact it does not make it so that I "don't acknowledge the importance of...blah blah..."
I fully acknowledge people's opinions, regardless if they agree or disagree. I however refuse to acknowledge those, like you, who only skim short paragraphs and reply with a close mind. If your mind was open and you indeed read what others wrote without bias against them, you would have clearly seen my gratitude for those who disagreed with stated explanations--- because they actually read the OP and comprehended the idea, even if they hated it.
Perhaps in your attempt at being clever, you forgot the simple fact that people on the internet ARE sometimes close minded, and that it is not incorrect to say these people didn't read the OP, when they actually didn't. A true statement is a true statement. Sorry.
It wasn't an attempt to be clever. I'm sorry you felt I was being closed-minded in my reply. It was simply my input based on the design you presented.
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 never play a game with any form of permadeath in it. I play games to have fun. Dying is not fun.
So by this logic, the only fun games are those which allow all players to be immortal, such as Hello Kitty Safety Bash?
Although I am only teasing you, this was my actual thought when I read your post. Making the statements "I play games to have fun, and dying is not fun." makes me actually wonder if you find ANY game to be fun. Unless you are one of those people who only enjoy CounterStrike when your aimbot is turned on. Either way, it begs to question "Why play games at all?"
This is of course a rhetorical question, as I do understand your point. I only think it's worth a challenge to say "If dying can be fun, because a game without losing is not a game at all...is it truly impossible for permadeath to be fun?"
If you might possibly be wrong in SOME way, then it's certainly possible for to be wrong in another opinion in SOME way. Perhaps developers just haven't given you a permadeath system you like, and so far the only ideas are ones you know you'd hate.
A prime example is how one poster said "Taking a player out of gameplay is a bad idea!" Yet it was quite clear this does not happen. Upon wounding or death, a player picks another of his 5 roster of characters-- or if they don't want to risk, plays a weaker minion.
I'm disappointed with how over half the replies didn't even address imprisonment, and just seemed to read the title's first word, and simply closed their mind, failing to even comprehend anything beyond that first word (let alone read the OP).
Emergence, you probably want to get a better handle on player/character attachment and how people play MMOs before contending that people are just closed minded or can't comprehend your idea. You tend to do that a lot when people don't share your view, and I think that you're often shutting out a lot of valid input and good advice when you do.
The above quote is a very good example. You acknowledge that people have a 'main' and 'alts' but don't acknowledge the importance of such player-assigned positions. Locking down the main character is, for many players, a serious halt to or obstacle to gameplay - the presence or playability of alts rarely changes that.
I have no problem with people disagreeing. However, I do have a problem noticing how frequently certain people fail to read the OP or even fail to read a reply.
Right after this part you quoted for me, I said this
"To all who disagreed with reason and disagreed with the underlying mechanics, I thank you for taking the time to use your brain and read the OP. I don't care if anyone agrees or disagrees, but I mutually respect those who do more than merely sneak into a thread to poop on it."
I have absolutely no problem with people disagreeing or saying "This is stupid DESPITE [insert mechanics] BECAUSE...[opinion]". I actually thanked everyone who disagreed with an open mind.
I realize you want to be a clever poster, but you are a bit blind due to your personal bias against me. It could happen that it is actually indeed a fact many people on the internet will see the word "permadeath" and immediately close their mind, skip the OP, and reply with a repetitive opinion of "No. Never." It is actually quite clear that some people didn't read the OP, and by stating this fact it does not make it so that I "don't acknowledge the importance of...blah blah..."
I fully acknowledge people's opinions, regardless if they agree or disagree. I however refuse to acknowledge those, like you, who only skim short paragraphs and reply with a close mind. If your mind was open and you indeed read what others wrote without bias against them, you would have clearly seen my gratitude for those who disagreed with stated explanations--- because they actually read the OP and comprehended the idea, even if they hated it.
Perhaps in your attempt at being clever, you forgot the simple fact that people on the internet ARE sometimes close minded, and that it is not incorrect to say these people didn't read the OP, when they actually didn't. A true statement is a true statement. Sorry.
It wasn't an attempt to be clever. I'm sorry you felt I was being closed-minded in my reply. It was simply my input based on the design you presented.
Um, I was almost entirely sure it was simply your input based on the REPLY I just made to other people replying to the design I presented.
In fact, if I wasn't mistaken, your entire post was directed at me personally, not my idea, and was certainly about my REPLY, not my OP. Unless I forgot I typed in the OP "Before anyone replies, anyone who disagrees is closeminded!" Pretty sure I didn't type that.
Whether or not it was an attempt to be clever? Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree
I would never play a game with any form of permadeath in it. I play games to have fun. Dying is not fun.
So by this logic, the only fun games are those which allow all players to be immortal, such as Hello Kitty Safety Bash?
Although I am only teasing you, this was my actual thought when I read your post. Making the statements "I play games to have fun, and dying is not fun." makes me actually wonder if you find ANY game to be fun. Unless you are one of those people who only enjoy CounterStrike when your aimbot is turned on. Either way, it begs to question "Why play games at all?"
This is of course a rhetorical question, as I do understand your point. I only think it's worth a challenge to say "If dying can be fun, because a game without losing is not a game at all...is it truly impossible for permadeath to be fun?"
If you might possibly be wrong in SOME way, then it's certainly possible for to be wrong in another opinion in SOME way. Perhaps developers just haven't given you a permadeath system you like, and so far the only ideas are ones you know you'd hate.
only teasing? heh. Why do people over react if someone dislikes permadeath? many also like to get kicked in the balls doesn't mean those who are not interested in it are wimps.
So yes your question 'why play games at all' makes no sense since playing games is not just abput dying permanently.
I would never play a game with any form of permadeath in it. I play games to have fun. Dying is not fun.
So by this logic, the only fun games are those which allow all players to be immortal, such as Hello Kitty Safety Bash?
Although I am only teasing you, this was my actual thought when I read your post. Making the statements "I play games to have fun, and dying is not fun." makes me actually wonder if you find ANY game to be fun. Unless you are one of those people who only enjoy CounterStrike when your aimbot is turned on. Either way, it begs to question "Why play games at all?"
This is of course a rhetorical question, as I do understand your point. I only think it's worth a challenge to say "If dying can be fun, because a game without losing is not a game at all...is it truly impossible for permadeath to be fun?"
If you might possibly be wrong in SOME way, then it's certainly possible for to be wrong in another opinion in SOME way. Perhaps developers just haven't given you a permadeath system you like, and so far the only ideas are ones you know you'd hate.
only teasing? heh. Why do people over react if someone dislikes permadeath? many also like to get kicked in the balls doesn't mean those who are not interested in it are wimps.
So yes your question 'why play games at all' makes no sense since playing games is not just abput dying permanently.
How is it overreacting when someone makes a statement such as "Dying is not fun, and I play games to have fun."?
I would argue that the poster who said dying is never fun would be the one overreact, not the person who said "Dying can be fun, so why not permadeath?"
It certainly is only teasing, because common sense dictates that he did not actually mean "Dying is not fun." and instead meant "Dying itself is not fun, although it is required to have fun."
Unless of course he truly was literal and meant it exactly as he said it, and dying is not fun, he plays games to have fun, thus he doesn't play any game that has death in it. What game can you play where no one can lose? Hello Kitty Safety Bash.
If dying itself is not fun, but dying is required to have fun... how is it overreacting to suggest to this person "Perhaps you should rethink this. If dying can create fun, then why jump to the conclusion that permadeath cannot create fun?"
Logically, if dying is a requirement for fun, then it is POSSIBLE that harsher death is a requirement for greater fun. Doesn't mean it's true, doesn't mean it's for everyone, but it does mean it's POSSIBLE, yet this person stated "Dying is not fun." which either means they're irrational and onlyplay Hello Kitty Safety Bash, or that they are wrong on this, and it is not irrational to suggest they might be wrong on permadeath, and thus should try to open their mind or reconsider.
If I cannot suggest someone to reconsider after proposing a logical, rational response-- then why is there even a forum?
I would never play a game with any form of permadeath in it. I play games to have fun. Dying is not fun.
So by this logic, the only fun games are those which allow all players to be immortal, such as Hello Kitty Safety Bash?
Although I am only teasing you, this was my actual thought when I read your post. Making the statements "I play games to have fun, and dying is not fun." makes me actually wonder if you find ANY game to be fun. Unless you are one of those people who only enjoy CounterStrike when your aimbot is turned on. Either way, it begs to question "Why play games at all?"
This is of course a rhetorical question, as I do understand your point. I only think it's worth a challenge to say "If dying can be fun, because a game without losing is not a game at all...is it truly impossible for permadeath to be fun?"
If you might possibly be wrong in SOME way, then it's certainly possible for to be wrong in another opinion in SOME way. Perhaps developers just haven't given you a permadeath system you like, and so far the only ideas are ones you know you'd hate.
only teasing? heh. Why do people over react if someone dislikes permadeath? many also like to get kicked in the balls doesn't mean those who are not interested in it are wimps.
So yes your question 'why play games at all' makes no sense since playing games is not just abput dying permanently.
How is it overreacting when someone makes a statement such as "Dying is not fun, and I play games to have fun."?
I would argue that the poster who said dying is never fun would be the one overreact, not the person who said "Dying can be fun, so why not permadeath?"
It certainly is only teasing, because common sense dictates that he did not actually mean "Dying is not fun." and instead meant "Dying itself is not fun, although it is required to have fun."
Unless of course he truly was literal and meant it exactly as he said it, and dying is not fun, he plays games to have fun, thus he doesn't play any game that has death in it.
What game can you play where no one can lose? Hello Kitty Safety Bash. That's about it...
He did not say anything about losing or penalties not being fun, just that dying itself is not fun for him. He also was referring specifically to permadeath. I think you're reading too much into Ceph's statement.
"I would never play a game with any form of permadeath in it. I play games to have fun. Dying is not fun. I don't want any long timesinks either. Dying shouldn't keep you out of the game for more than a minurte or two at most, then you're back at full strength and back to having fun." - Cephus404
His sentiment is a common one and understandably so. Restricting or eliminating access to a player's main reason to play isn't really a good direction for either the developer or the player.
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 never play a game with any form of permadeath in it. I play games to have fun. Dying is not fun.
So by this logic, the only fun games are those which allow all players to be immortal, such as Hello Kitty Safety Bash?
Although I am only teasing you, this was my actual thought when I read your post. Making the statements "I play games to have fun, and dying is not fun." makes me actually wonder if you find ANY game to be fun. Unless you are one of those people who only enjoy CounterStrike when your aimbot is turned on. Either way, it begs to question "Why play games at all?"
This is of course a rhetorical question, as I do understand your point. I only think it's worth a challenge to say "If dying can be fun, because a game without losing is not a game at all...is it truly impossible for permadeath to be fun?"
If you might possibly be wrong in SOME way, then it's certainly possible for to be wrong in another opinion in SOME way. Perhaps developers just haven't given you a permadeath system you like, and so far the only ideas are ones you know you'd hate.
only teasing? heh. Why do people over react if someone dislikes permadeath? many also like to get kicked in the balls doesn't mean those who are not interested in it are wimps.
So yes your question 'why play games at all' makes no sense since playing games is not just abput dying permanently.
How is it overreacting when someone makes a statement such as "Dying is not fun, and I play games to have fun."?
The guy you posted said he doesn't like permadeath. He wasn't talking about simple death. Please re read the quote again. So yes your response was an over reaction.
I would argue that the poster who said dying is never fun would be the one overreact, not the person who said "Dying can be fun, so why not permadeath?"
Again he was talkign about permadeath. And he didn't make any snide comments but you surely did by making reference to Hello kitty'. Which is the biggest problem with supporters of permadeath/full loot crowd. Thi is the best way to alienate people even before discussion starts.
It certainly is only teasing, because common sense dictates that he did not actually mean "Dying is not fun." and instead meant "Dying itself is not fun, although it is required to have fun."
Unless of course he truly was literal and meant it exactly as he said it, and dying is not fun, he plays games to have fun, thus he doesn't play any game that has death in it. What game can you play where no one can lose? Hello Kitty Safety Bash.
If dying itself is not fun, but dying is required to have fun... how is it overreacting to suggest to this person "Perhaps you should rethink this. If dying can create fun, then why jump to the conclusion that permadeath cannot create fun?"
Logically, if dying is a requirement for fun, then it is POSSIBLE that harsher death is a requirement for greater fun. Doesn't mean it's true, doesn't mean it's for everyone, but it does mean it's POSSIBLE, yet this person stated "Dying is not fun." which either means they're irrational and onlyplay Hello Kitty Safety Bash, or that they are wrong on this, and it is not irrational to suggest they might be wrong on permadeath, and thus should try to open their mind or reconsider.
If I cannot suggest someone to reconsider after proposing a logical, rational response-- then why is there even a forum?
I won't reply to the rest of the post because you are confusing 'simple death' with 'perma death'.
I would never play a game with any form of permadeath in it. I play games to have fun. Dying is not fun.
So by this logic, the only fun games are those which allow all players to be immortal, such as Hello Kitty Safety Bash?
Although I am only teasing you, this was my actual thought when I read your post. Making the statements "I play games to have fun, and dying is not fun." makes me actually wonder if you find ANY game to be fun. Unless you are one of those people who only enjoy CounterStrike when your aimbot is turned on. Either way, it begs to question "Why play games at all?"
This is of course a rhetorical question, as I do understand your point. I only think it's worth a challenge to say "If dying can be fun, because a game without losing is not a game at all...is it truly impossible for permadeath to be fun?"
If you might possibly be wrong in SOME way, then it's certainly possible for to be wrong in another opinion in SOME way. Perhaps developers just haven't given you a permadeath system you like, and so far the only ideas are ones you know you'd hate.
only teasing? heh. Why do people over react if someone dislikes permadeath? many also like to get kicked in the balls doesn't mean those who are not interested in it are wimps.
So yes your question 'why play games at all' makes no sense since playing games is not just abput dying permanently.
How is it overreacting when someone makes a statement such as "Dying is not fun, and I play games to have fun."?
I would argue that the poster who said dying is never fun would be the one overreact, not the person who said "Dying can be fun, so why not permadeath?"
It certainly is only teasing, because common sense dictates that he did not actually mean "Dying is not fun." and instead meant "Dying itself is not fun, although it is required to have fun."
Unless of course he truly was literal and meant it exactly as he said it, and dying is not fun, he plays games to have fun, thus he doesn't play any game that has death in it.
What game can you play where no one can lose? Hello Kitty Safety Bash. That's about it...
He did not say anything about losing or penalties not being fun, just that dying itself is not fun for him. He also was referring specifically to permadeath. I think you're reading too much into Ceph's statement.
"I would never play a game with any form of permadeath in it. I play games to have fun. Dying is not fun. I don't want any long timesinks either. Dying shouldn't keep you out of the game for more than a minurte or two at most, then you're back at full strength and back to having fun." - Cephus404
His sentiment is a common one and understandably so. Restricting or eliminating access to a player's main reason to play isn't really a good direction for either the developer or the player.
I already stated that I understood his point, and clearly explained why I made the statements I do.
I am not reading too much into his post, but fully admitting to understanding what he was saying, but saying "But think about this..."
It seems to be a common theme for you to make rash claims that I am comprehending what people say in an incorrect way. This is confusing to me as I make very clear statements that I understand, and before you even comment as to how silly some things I say are-- in that very post you are refering to, I admit to it being silly to say.
I think it's time to use the ignore feature, as I think I am falling for your bait. Why would you say to me "You are reading too much into it" when the theme of my post was that I myself admitted, in that very post, how I am reading too much into it?
It is as if I make a statement, and two posts later you tell me I am making the statement I already admitted to. So...I... agree? Sorry, but this is just silly. Ignored.
I would never play a game with any form of permadeath in it. I play games to have fun. Dying is not fun.
So by this logic, the only fun games are those which allow all players to be immortal, such as Hello Kitty Safety Bash?
Although I am only teasing you, this was my actual thought when I read your post. Making the statements "I play games to have fun, and dying is not fun." makes me actually wonder if you find ANY game to be fun. Unless you are one of those people who only enjoy CounterStrike when your aimbot is turned on. Either way, it begs to question "Why play games at all?"
This is of course a rhetorical question, as I do understand your point. I only think it's worth a challenge to say "If dying can be fun, because a game without losing is not a game at all...is it truly impossible for permadeath to be fun?"
If you might possibly be wrong in SOME way, then it's certainly possible for to be wrong in another opinion in SOME way. Perhaps developers just haven't given you a permadeath system you like, and so far the only ideas are ones you know you'd hate.
only teasing? heh. Why do people over react if someone dislikes permadeath? many also like to get kicked in the balls doesn't mean those who are not interested in it are wimps.
So yes your question 'why play games at all' makes no sense since playing games is not just abput dying permanently.
How is it overreacting when someone makes a statement such as "Dying is not fun, and I play games to have fun."?
The guy you posted said he doesn't like permadeath. He wasn't talking about simple death. Please re read the quote again. So yes your response was an over reaction.
I would argue that the poster who said dying is never fun would be the one overreact, not the person who said "Dying can be fun, so why not permadeath?"
Again he was talkign about permadeath. And he didn't make any snide comments but you surely did by making reference to Hello kitty'. Which is the biggest problem with supporters of permadeath/full loot crowd. Thi is the best way to alienate people even before discussion starts.
It certainly is only teasing, because common sense dictates that he did not actually mean "Dying is not fun." and instead meant "Dying itself is not fun, although it is required to have fun."
Unless of course he truly was literal and meant it exactly as he said it, and dying is not fun, he plays games to have fun, thus he doesn't play any game that has death in it. What game can you play where no one can lose? Hello Kitty Safety Bash.
If dying itself is not fun, but dying is required to have fun... how is it overreacting to suggest to this person "Perhaps you should rethink this. If dying can create fun, then why jump to the conclusion that permadeath cannot create fun?"
Logically, if dying is a requirement for fun, then it is POSSIBLE that harsher death is a requirement for greater fun. Doesn't mean it's true, doesn't mean it's for everyone, but it does mean it's POSSIBLE, yet this person stated "Dying is not fun." which either means they're irrational and onlyplay Hello Kitty Safety Bash, or that they are wrong on this, and it is not irrational to suggest they might be wrong on permadeath, and thus should try to open their mind or reconsider.
If I cannot suggest someone to reconsider after proposing a logical, rational response-- then why is there even a forum?
I won't reply to the rest of the post because you are confusing 'simple death' with 'perma death'.
He clearly stated "Dying is not fun" and not "Permadeath is not fun." or "Permanently dying is not fun."
If it was his intention to say Permadeath is not fun, it is not my fault I understood the words he spoke as...the words he spoke. If you communicate to me "Dying is not fun" when permadeath is constantly used, I am to assume you are saying dying is not fun (which it ISNT). If he wanted to talk about permadeath, he would say "Permadeath is not fun. I play games to have fun."
Everyone would agree with him in saying "Dying is not fun" and "Simple death is not fun" because that is a true statement. Dying isn't fun.
Whether or not he meant permadeath or simple death is up to interpretation. If anyone is confused, it is because he failed to define what "dying" was. No one is at fault then.
Just like how you consider Hello Kitty Safety Bash to be a snide remark. You are interpreting emotionless, cold hard text to mean whatever you want. You are attributing your own perspective of what it meant, in the same way I interpreted what he said to be simple death, not permadeath.
If you want to attribute Hello Kitty as a snide remark, whcih is an overeaction to what he meant as permadeath, I am fully allowed to make the simple statement that my remark was not snide, but fun-loving, I was not overreacting but was playful, and that he meant simple death. Only he can speak for himself, and perhaps I am wrong and he didn't mean simple death. My attempt to persuade him is still valid and rational, so I still do not see how I am overreacting. You believe replying is overreacting?
Or perhaps you believe that posting a playful, fun-loving remark that I thought was humorous in its own regard (Safety Bash? That's hilarious!) is overreacting because you attach negative energy to it. Yet I am the one who stated it, and also stated clearly that it was all in jest and fun. Since I am the originator of that statement, I am the one who can tell you if I was purposefully being snide, or if I was being playful. It was the latter, so you are wrong. Whether or not I am wrong or you are in relation to the definition of "dying" is entirely up to him.
Why you think you speak for others and that your perspective equates to reality, in an internet world of emotionless text which can easily be misinterpreted, especially with lack of clarification, is beyond me. However, you are not without guilt, because I repeatedly told you I was not being snide, but playful. You are purposefully denying the correct interpretation of that statement, and believing you are more correct in interpretation than the person who ORIGINATED the statement.
Next time I open my mouth, I will be sure to ask you if the tone in which I spoke is what I intended, because apparently YOU decide my tone, not me-- even after multiple attempts to explain my statement's tone. And yes, your attributation of the "snide" emotion is accurate in this last paragraph, even if you were wrong before
Apparently some people didn't even bother reading the OP, and just saw the word "permadeath" and posted "Doesn't work." I didn't create this thread to be a copy of every other permadeath thread which simply says "Permadeath? Yes!" to receive the typical "Permadeath? No."
That's their input. It's also the way many of not most will respond to the idea in a game. The genre is flooded and you get about five minuites to capture someone's imagination. If the concept isn't attractive as a sound byte it's DOA no matter how good it is. People don't want to be bothered with not being able to play their main. Some people don't even like making alts. Forced repeating content isn't popular even at an accelerated pace. That's why XP loss, corpse runs, full loot, and even moderately harsh death penalties are falling by the wayside. There are many examples of failed "hard core" games to draw from. In a medium the requires many players to be enjoyable much less profitable turning your back on a majority of the playerbase is a bad idea. Given two unpalatable choices people choose neither.
Please list the games which have failed because of harsh death penalties. I have never heard of any, and I have been an avid MMORPGer for over 13 years. Please be realistic in your list, and explain the ACTUAL reason it most likely "failed". Also, don't consider multi-million dollar profit margin games like Darkfall or Everquest 1 to be failures. If a game makes a profit and has enough people playing to play with others, it's a success. I will give an example of harsh penalties which HAVE succeeded.
Everquest's progression servers were a success-- so much so, they had to open a second server to handle the influx of players. Granted there is the fact it is an old game, BUT the pull of the game is that "the game with the harsher penalty and challenge is opening a fresh server" which is valid and IMO, a successful implementation of harsher penalties and gameplay.
I honestly don't know what you're talking about that there are failed permadeath or failed harsh penalty MMORPG's out there. All I see are games which fail for bigger, more obvious reasons. I mean, can we agree to be realistic? You really think Haven & Hearth is not a huge success because of permadeath? You don't think that instead, it's because of the lack of user-friendly gameplay, the total abandonment of new players without a tutorial, the horrid graphics, or the fact I quit after 2 hours because I didn't even know what I was suppose to do and no one was around me?
I don't see any game with harsh death penalties which failed because of their harsh death penalties. I only see games which failed for a thousand OTHER reasons, having nothing to do with dying, and often having little to do with game mechanics themselves.
In fact, the ONLY game I know of which has any level of success entirely dependant on its harsher gameplay, is Everquest 1 progression servers, and Darkfall-- both of which made a profit, and IMO for such an old game and such a niche game, are BOTH successes. Heck, Darkfall is resetting the servers-- a potentially great move to usher in even more players. I myself would gladly rejoin Darkfall, because the reason I left was because the AFK Macroers were too far ahead of me, and I dont want to play a game which takes me 1 month of work just to play. However, I loved that game's PvE, FFA PvP, gameplay, and A.I.
He clearly stated "Dying is not fun" and not "Permadeath is not fun." or "Permanently dying is not fun."
If it was his intention to say Permadeath is not fun, it is not my fault I understood the words he spoke as...the words he spoke. If you communicate to me "Dying is not fun" when permadeath is constantly used, I am to assume you are saying dying is not fun (which it ISNT). If he wanted to talk about permadeath, he would say "Permadeath is not fun. I play games to have fun."
Everyone would agree with him in saying "Dying is not fun" and "Simple death is not fun" because that is a true statement. Dying isn't fun.
Originally posted by Cephus404
I would never play a game with any form of permadeath in it. I play games to have fun. Dying is not fun.
Are we still going to argue about it? you can dissect and over analyze it all you want but it is not some mystery that he was talking about 'permadeath' not just a simple death. And i don't need to understand the tone of your post because when people take jabs at others for just stating their opinion, like you did, it is quite obvious.
I'm disappointed with how over half the replies didn't even address imprisonment, [ snip ]
Imprisonment, convelescence and ressurrection sickness and other sorts of time-based barriers to rejoin a fight tend to depend heavily on how many alt accounts a player has. A person with one character is stopped cold, while a person with 6 characters x 4 accounts can swap around without even noticing the "penalty". So it tends to punish differences in playstyle more than defeat.
Your original post actually has two topics of discussion: (1) allowing players more control over the resources they put at risk (you phrased it as main hero vs stable of minor characters, but abstractly you could compare it to Eve when you can choose to buy a capital ship or a fleet of smaller ships) and (2) what sorts of setback to use (permadeath, imprisonment, etc) which add up to a discussion of what resources a player should be able to put at risk in a fight. Here you need to be careful to avoid pushing players out the game they want to play (PvP battles in this case) into games they don't want to play (character development, farming).
Not interested in either. They both waste my time with non-gameplay and unnecessary timesinks.
I play games to be entertained. Non-gameplay and unneeded timesinks aren't entertainment.
What's the difference between necessary and unnecessary timesinks?
(I don't disagree with timesinks feeling like a pointless obstacle, but I find it interesting that you felt a need to qualify the word timesink and am curious in reading more about what sorts of timesinks you think make good features of a game - it feels like that would be a useful point to focus the discussion on)
Necessary timesink: Your party wipes and you immediately restart at the beginning (or realistically: the last checkpoint) at full health/buffs, and can instantly try to make it through again.
Unnecessary timesink: Your party wipes and it takes 10 minutes to run back and rebuff.
One punishes mistakes with non-gameplay. One punishes mistakes with more gameplay.
Player imprisonment sounds like a lot of non-gameplay, so it's unnecessary. Conversely if imprisonment was a compelling event (equal gameplay fun/depth to restarting a dungeon and fighting through) then that would be an acceptable timesink.
Empty or very repetitive gameplay utterly fails to entertain players, and games exist to entertain.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Not interested in either. They both waste my time with non-gameplay and unnecessary timesinks.
I play games to be entertained. Non-gameplay and unneeded timesinks aren't entertainment.[/quote
What's the difference between necessary and unnecessary timesinks?
(I don't disagree with timesinks feeling like a pointless obstacle, but I find it interesting that you felt a need to qualify the word timesink and am curious in reading more about what sorts of timesinks you think make good features of a game - it feels like that would be a useful point to focus the discussion on)
Necessary timesink: Your party wipes and you immediately restart at the beginning (or realistically: the last checkpoint) at full health/buffs, and can instantly try to make it through again.
Unnecessary timesink: Your party wipes and it takes 10 minutes to run back and rebuff.
One punishes mistakes with non-gameplay. One punishes mistakes with more gameplay.
Player imprisonment sounds like a lot of non-gameplay, so it's unnecessary. Conversely if imprisonment was a compelling event (equal gameplay fun/depth to restarting a dungeon and fighting through) then that would be an acceptable timesink.
Empty or very repetitive gameplay utterly fails to entertain players, and games exist to entertain.
Some players are entertained by more than just progression and combat.
If you don't know of the many examples of games that have been far less successful because of harsh penalties you need to do some more homework. I'm not going to delve into the minutia of what is and isn't a failure and why. Just follow the market trends and what's driving them. Neither Darkfall nor Everquest classic servers are currently widely accepted or particularly profitable. Warhammer online and Conan online are both bigger despite having been initally very flawed and having no death penalty to speak of.
Wow, you used some pretty poor examples. I suppose both of Cryptic's games fit on your list for the most soulless games ever made. Light death penalties have a lot to do with that, in my opinion.
I'm disappointed with how over half the replies didn't even address imprisonment.
This may seem commpletly hypocritical, but arbitrary punishments such as imprisonment or stat loss just don't jive with me. I consider corpse runs and XP loss as socially motivating, but imprisonment and stat loss seem very un-socially motivating.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
I would never play a game with any form of permadeath in it. I play games to have fun. Dying is not fun.
So by this logic, the only fun games are those which allow all players to be immortal, such as Hello Kitty Safety Bash?
Although I am only teasing you, this was my actual thought when I read your post. Making the statements "I play games to have fun, and dying is not fun." makes me actually wonder if you find ANY game to be fun. Unless you are one of those people who only enjoy CounterStrike when your aimbot is turned on. Either way, it begs to question "Why play games at all?"
This is of course a rhetorical question, as I do understand your point. I only think it's worth a challenge to say "If dying can be fun, because a game without losing is not a game at all...is it truly impossible for permadeath to be fun?"
If you might possibly be wrong in SOME way, then it's certainly possible for to be wrong in another opinion in SOME way. Perhaps developers just haven't given you a permadeath system you like, and so far the only ideas are ones you know you'd hate.
MMOs are about progression. If you die, you lose a little experience, you damage your gear or weapons, but that's it. You go back to progressing, having learned a lesson from the inconvenience of death. If you die and lose it all and have to start all over again, where is the fun in that? Grinding back dozens of levels? Why ever take any risks if you stand to lose it all to a bad random number generation?
It's like playing Halo. If you die, you go back to your last save point. Then you can try again. If you had to start the game over again every time you failed, nobody would ever play the game.
Hint: There's a third option but the OP doesn't want you to know about it.
Currently Watching: TSW. << Very Eager for a Beta invite. Have experience with Beta Testing. Not personally a big fan of raiding or current pve endgame mmo philosophy. Nothing wrong with it, I just sort of burnt out on it. Hardcore raider in wow from Launch to.. about 7 months ago. Currently Playing: Champions Online.
Most of those games gave you multiple lives and, most importantly, those games weren't based around progression.
Try again.
Have you played Ancient Domains of Mystery? It's a roguelike game... a more complex varient of nethack with a *very* long progression curve (I've only made it to the level cap on one character once) and oops-you're-dead permadeath situations all the way up to the final battle.
Permadeath is simply the extreme end of the continuum of setbacks that a player can face. It's not everyone's cup of tea, but I think it's a topic that's definitely worth batting around on a forum from time to time to see what ideas pop up.
DDO has permadeath guilds -- voluntary, of course. In pen & pencil RPGs death of characters has always happened. I can't imagine most MMOs having permadeath unless the characters are close to being premade. Anything a player is invested in -- with time, grinding for gear, a lot of characterization -- will make it more difficult for a player to let go of a character and play permadeath. Plus there are issues of disconnects, server lags, etc. Also deaths in a group where it is perceived to be one person's fault. These type of issues could be a nightmare.
Voluntary permadeath is pretty much the only kind of PD that would work in an MMO. If a player wants to play with permadeath rules, they're perfectly free to delete their characters and start completely over as soon as they die. No passing on money, gear, or items on to alts, no take-backs, nothing. You die, and you delete your character. Voila! Instant permadeath.
Any game that institutes permadeath would have to do it on a separate server from the rest of the game population, with the explicit warning that it doesn't matter what kills you -- a rat, a dragon, a lag spike, a disconnect, a player training mobs over you, etc. -- you will NOT be revived by the GM's if you die and that any appeals will be ignored. That's the only way it could work in a mainstream MMO. Make it a separate server, but don't impose it on the wider audience as a whole.
Necessary timesink: Your party wipes and you immediately restart at the beginning (or realistically: the last checkpoint) at full health/buffs, and can instantly try to make it through again.
Unnecessary timesink: Your party wipes and it takes 10 minutes to run back and rebuff.
One punishes mistakes with non-gameplay. One punishes mistakes with more gameplay.
Player imprisonment sounds like a lot of non-gameplay, so it's unnecessary. Conversely if imprisonment was a compelling event (equal gameplay fun/depth to restarting a dungeon and fighting through) then that would be an acceptable timesink.
Empty or very repetitive gameplay utterly fails to entertain players, and games exist to entertain.
Some players are entertained by more than just progression and combat.
Who said anything about progression and combat? I'm talking about gameplay.
AFK-rotting in a dungeon is non-gameplay. Running back for 10 minutes is virtually non-gameplay. Games live or die on providing entertainment, and that means either interactive elements or theatric elements at every step. Big periods of dull non-interaction are a recipe for a boring, unappealing game.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Here's the deal, you cannot simply shoehorn permadeath INTO an mmo design.
If you create a game where when a toon dies, it does so permanently, then you need to create this to be an INTEGRAL part of the game.
MMOs are 100% about goals and progression. This means you have to take this into account when you make the game. If the toons that die are gone forever, then you need to look at progression being tied to something OTHER than the toons themselves.
If you want toon progression, make toon progression SHORT (say 8 hours of gameplay to max a toon) and then create another type of progression besides that which is tied to the player not the toon. This could be family heirlooms, family prestige, "karma", or something else.
But the key is that its got to be integral to the game, not just slapped on as "something cool".
Here's the deal, you cannot simply shoehorn permadeath INTO an mmo design.
If you create a game where when a toon dies, it does so permanently, then you need to create this to be an INTEGRAL part of the game.
MMOs are 100% about goals and progression. This means you have to take this into account when you make the game. If the toons that die are gone forever, then you need to look at progression being tied to something OTHER than the toons themselves.
If you want toon progression, make toon progression SHORT (say 8 hours of gameplay to max a toon) and then create another type of progression besides that which is tied to the player not the toon. This could be family heirlooms, family prestige, "karma", or something else.
But the key is that its got to be integral to the game, not just slapped on as "something cool".
Very good point. In a situation where the player's characters are building a village, and the character's advancement improved the efficiency and options in village building, permadeath ends the character but the city and its achievements still persist. A short character progression system, like what Robert suggests above, would work well in a situation such as that.
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
Comments
Emergence, you probably want to get a better handle on player/character attachment and how people play MMOs before contending that people are just closed minded or can't comprehend your idea. You tend to do that a lot when people don't share your view, and I think that you're often shutting out a lot of valid input and good advice when you do.
The above quote is a very good example. You acknowledge that people have a 'main' and 'alts' but don't acknowledge the importance of such player-assigned positions. Locking down the main character is, for many players, a serious halt to or obstacle to gameplay - the presence or playability of alts rarely changes that.
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 have no problem with people disagreeing. However, I do have a problem noticing how frequently certain people fail to read the OP or even fail to read a reply.
Right after this part you quoted for me, I said this
"To all who disagreed with reason and disagreed with the underlying mechanics, I thank you for taking the time to use your brain and read the OP. I don't care if anyone agrees or disagrees, but I mutually respect those who do more than merely sneak into a thread to poop on it."
I have absolutely no problem with people disagreeing or saying "This is stupid DESPITE [insert mechanics] BECAUSE...[opinion]". I actually thanked everyone who disagreed with an open mind.
I realize you want to be a clever poster, but you are a bit blind due to your personal bias against me. It could happen that it is actually indeed a fact many people on the internet will see the word "permadeath" and immediately close their mind, skip the OP, and reply with a repetitive opinion of "No. Never." It is actually quite clear that some people didn't read the OP, and by stating this fact it does not make it so that I "don't acknowledge the importance of...blah blah..."
I fully acknowledge people's opinions, regardless if they agree or disagree. I however refuse to acknowledge those, like you, who only skim short paragraphs and reply with a close mind. If your mind was open and you indeed read what others wrote without bias against them, you would have clearly seen my gratitude for those who disagreed with stated explanations--- because they actually read the OP and comprehended the idea, even if they hated it.
Perhaps in your attempt at being clever, you forgot the simple fact that people on the internet ARE sometimes close minded, and that it is not incorrect to say these people didn't read the OP, when they actually didn't. A true statement is a true statement. Sorry.
It wasn't an attempt to be clever. I'm sorry you felt I was being closed-minded in my reply. It was simply my input based on the design you presented.
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
So by this logic, the only fun games are those which allow all players to be immortal, such as Hello Kitty Safety Bash?
Although I am only teasing you, this was my actual thought when I read your post. Making the statements "I play games to have fun, and dying is not fun." makes me actually wonder if you find ANY game to be fun. Unless you are one of those people who only enjoy CounterStrike when your aimbot is turned on. Either way, it begs to question "Why play games at all?"
This is of course a rhetorical question, as I do understand your point. I only think it's worth a challenge to say "If dying can be fun, because a game without losing is not a game at all...is it truly impossible for permadeath to be fun?"
If you might possibly be wrong in SOME way, then it's certainly possible for to be wrong in another opinion in SOME way. Perhaps developers just haven't given you a permadeath system you like, and so far the only ideas are ones you know you'd hate.
Um, I was almost entirely sure it was simply your input based on the REPLY I just made to other people replying to the design I presented.
In fact, if I wasn't mistaken, your entire post was directed at me personally, not my idea, and was certainly about my REPLY, not my OP. Unless I forgot I typed in the OP "Before anyone replies, anyone who disagrees is closeminded!" Pretty sure I didn't type that.
Whether or not it was an attempt to be clever? Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree
only teasing? heh. Why do people over react if someone dislikes permadeath? many also like to get kicked in the balls doesn't mean those who are not interested in it are wimps.
So yes your question 'why play games at all' makes no sense since playing games is not just abput dying permanently.
How is it overreacting when someone makes a statement such as "Dying is not fun, and I play games to have fun."?
I would argue that the poster who said dying is never fun would be the one overreact, not the person who said "Dying can be fun, so why not permadeath?"
It certainly is only teasing, because common sense dictates that he did not actually mean "Dying is not fun." and instead meant "Dying itself is not fun, although it is required to have fun."
Unless of course he truly was literal and meant it exactly as he said it, and dying is not fun, he plays games to have fun, thus he doesn't play any game that has death in it. What game can you play where no one can lose? Hello Kitty Safety Bash.
If dying itself is not fun, but dying is required to have fun... how is it overreacting to suggest to this person "Perhaps you should rethink this. If dying can create fun, then why jump to the conclusion that permadeath cannot create fun?"
Logically, if dying is a requirement for fun, then it is POSSIBLE that harsher death is a requirement for greater fun. Doesn't mean it's true, doesn't mean it's for everyone, but it does mean it's POSSIBLE, yet this person stated "Dying is not fun." which either means they're irrational and onlyplay Hello Kitty Safety Bash, or that they are wrong on this, and it is not irrational to suggest they might be wrong on permadeath, and thus should try to open their mind or reconsider.
If I cannot suggest someone to reconsider after proposing a logical, rational response-- then why is there even a forum?
He did not say anything about losing or penalties not being fun, just that dying itself is not fun for him. He also was referring specifically to permadeath. I think you're reading too much into Ceph's statement.
"I would never play a game with any form of permadeath in it. I play games to have fun. Dying is not fun. I don't want any long timesinks either. Dying shouldn't keep you out of the game for more than a minurte or two at most, then you're back at full strength and back to having fun." - Cephus404
His sentiment is a common one and understandably so. Restricting or eliminating access to a player's main reason to play isn't really a good direction for either the developer or the player.
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 won't reply to the rest of the post because you are confusing 'simple death' with 'perma death'.
I already stated that I understood his point, and clearly explained why I made the statements I do.
I am not reading too much into his post, but fully admitting to understanding what he was saying, but saying "But think about this..."
It seems to be a common theme for you to make rash claims that I am comprehending what people say in an incorrect way. This is confusing to me as I make very clear statements that I understand, and before you even comment as to how silly some things I say are-- in that very post you are refering to, I admit to it being silly to say.
I think it's time to use the ignore feature, as I think I am falling for your bait. Why would you say to me "You are reading too much into it" when the theme of my post was that I myself admitted, in that very post, how I am reading too much into it?
It is as if I make a statement, and two posts later you tell me I am making the statement I already admitted to. So...I... agree? Sorry, but this is just silly. Ignored.
He clearly stated "Dying is not fun" and not "Permadeath is not fun." or "Permanently dying is not fun."
If it was his intention to say Permadeath is not fun, it is not my fault I understood the words he spoke as...the words he spoke. If you communicate to me "Dying is not fun" when permadeath is constantly used, I am to assume you are saying dying is not fun (which it ISNT). If he wanted to talk about permadeath, he would say "Permadeath is not fun. I play games to have fun."
Everyone would agree with him in saying "Dying is not fun" and "Simple death is not fun" because that is a true statement. Dying isn't fun.
Whether or not he meant permadeath or simple death is up to interpretation. If anyone is confused, it is because he failed to define what "dying" was. No one is at fault then.
Just like how you consider Hello Kitty Safety Bash to be a snide remark. You are interpreting emotionless, cold hard text to mean whatever you want. You are attributing your own perspective of what it meant, in the same way I interpreted what he said to be simple death, not permadeath.
If you want to attribute Hello Kitty as a snide remark, whcih is an overeaction to what he meant as permadeath, I am fully allowed to make the simple statement that my remark was not snide, but fun-loving, I was not overreacting but was playful, and that he meant simple death. Only he can speak for himself, and perhaps I am wrong and he didn't mean simple death. My attempt to persuade him is still valid and rational, so I still do not see how I am overreacting. You believe replying is overreacting?
Or perhaps you believe that posting a playful, fun-loving remark that I thought was humorous in its own regard (Safety Bash? That's hilarious!) is overreacting because you attach negative energy to it. Yet I am the one who stated it, and also stated clearly that it was all in jest and fun. Since I am the originator of that statement, I am the one who can tell you if I was purposefully being snide, or if I was being playful. It was the latter, so you are wrong. Whether or not I am wrong or you are in relation to the definition of "dying" is entirely up to him.
Why you think you speak for others and that your perspective equates to reality, in an internet world of emotionless text which can easily be misinterpreted, especially with lack of clarification, is beyond me. However, you are not without guilt, because I repeatedly told you I was not being snide, but playful. You are purposefully denying the correct interpretation of that statement, and believing you are more correct in interpretation than the person who ORIGINATED the statement.
Next time I open my mouth, I will be sure to ask you if the tone in which I spoke is what I intended, because apparently YOU decide my tone, not me-- even after multiple attempts to explain my statement's tone. And yes, your attributation of the "snide" emotion is accurate in this last paragraph, even if you were wrong before
Please list the games which have failed because of harsh death penalties. I have never heard of any, and I have been an avid MMORPGer for over 13 years. Please be realistic in your list, and explain the ACTUAL reason it most likely "failed". Also, don't consider multi-million dollar profit margin games like Darkfall or Everquest 1 to be failures. If a game makes a profit and has enough people playing to play with others, it's a success. I will give an example of harsh penalties which HAVE succeeded.
Everquest's progression servers were a success-- so much so, they had to open a second server to handle the influx of players. Granted there is the fact it is an old game, BUT the pull of the game is that "the game with the harsher penalty and challenge is opening a fresh server" which is valid and IMO, a successful implementation of harsher penalties and gameplay.
I honestly don't know what you're talking about that there are failed permadeath or failed harsh penalty MMORPG's out there. All I see are games which fail for bigger, more obvious reasons. I mean, can we agree to be realistic? You really think Haven & Hearth is not a huge success because of permadeath? You don't think that instead, it's because of the lack of user-friendly gameplay, the total abandonment of new players without a tutorial, the horrid graphics, or the fact I quit after 2 hours because I didn't even know what I was suppose to do and no one was around me?
I don't see any game with harsh death penalties which failed because of their harsh death penalties. I only see games which failed for a thousand OTHER reasons, having nothing to do with dying, and often having little to do with game mechanics themselves.
In fact, the ONLY game I know of which has any level of success entirely dependant on its harsher gameplay, is Everquest 1 progression servers, and Darkfall-- both of which made a profit, and IMO for such an old game and such a niche game, are BOTH successes. Heck, Darkfall is resetting the servers-- a potentially great move to usher in even more players. I myself would gladly rejoin Darkfall, because the reason I left was because the AFK Macroers were too far ahead of me, and I dont want to play a game which takes me 1 month of work just to play. However, I loved that game's PvE, FFA PvP, gameplay, and A.I.
Imprisonment, convelescence and ressurrection sickness and other sorts of time-based barriers to rejoin a fight tend to depend heavily on how many alt accounts a player has. A person with one character is stopped cold, while a person with 6 characters x 4 accounts can swap around without even noticing the "penalty". So it tends to punish differences in playstyle more than defeat.
Your original post actually has two topics of discussion: (1) allowing players more control over the resources they put at risk (you phrased it as main hero vs stable of minor characters, but abstractly you could compare it to Eve when you can choose to buy a capital ship or a fleet of smaller ships) and (2) what sorts of setback to use (permadeath, imprisonment, etc) which add up to a discussion of what resources a player should be able to put at risk in a fight. Here you need to be careful to avoid pushing players out the game they want to play (PvP battles in this case) into games they don't want to play (character development, farming).
Necessary timesink: Your party wipes and you immediately restart at the beginning (or realistically: the last checkpoint) at full health/buffs, and can instantly try to make it through again.
Unnecessary timesink: Your party wipes and it takes 10 minutes to run back and rebuff.
One punishes mistakes with non-gameplay. One punishes mistakes with more gameplay.
Player imprisonment sounds like a lot of non-gameplay, so it's unnecessary. Conversely if imprisonment was a compelling event (equal gameplay fun/depth to restarting a dungeon and fighting through) then that would be an acceptable timesink.
Empty or very repetitive gameplay utterly fails to entertain players, and games exist to entertain.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Some players are entertained by more than just progression and combat.
Wow, you used some pretty poor examples. I suppose both of Cryptic's games fit on your list for the most soulless games ever made. Light death penalties have a lot to do with that, in my opinion.
This may seem commpletly hypocritical, but arbitrary punishments such as imprisonment or stat loss just don't jive with me. I consider corpse runs and XP loss as socially motivating, but imprisonment and stat loss seem very un-socially motivating.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
MMOs are about progression. If you die, you lose a little experience, you damage your gear or weapons, but that's it. You go back to progressing, having learned a lesson from the inconvenience of death. If you die and lose it all and have to start all over again, where is the fun in that? Grinding back dozens of levels? Why ever take any risks if you stand to lose it all to a bad random number generation?
It's like playing Halo. If you die, you go back to your last save point. Then you can try again. If you had to start the game over again every time you failed, nobody would ever play the game.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
I have a lot of old empty rolls of quarters that would disagree with you.
Not to mention a copy of Ancient Domains of Mystery (ADOM) that still gets fired up from time to time.
Obvious Straw Man is Obvious.
Hint: There's a third option but the OP doesn't want you to know about it.
Currently Watching: TSW. << Very Eager for a Beta invite. Have experience with Beta Testing.
Not personally a big fan of raiding or current pve endgame mmo philosophy. Nothing wrong with it, I just sort of burnt out on it.
Hardcore raider in wow from Launch to.. about 7 months ago.
Currently Playing: Champions Online.
Most of those games gave you multiple lives and, most importantly, those games weren't based around progression.
Try again.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
Have you played Ancient Domains of Mystery? It's a roguelike game... a more complex varient of nethack with a *very* long progression curve (I've only made it to the level cap on one character once) and oops-you're-dead permadeath situations all the way up to the final battle.
Permadeath is simply the extreme end of the continuum of setbacks that a player can face. It's not everyone's cup of tea, but I think it's a topic that's definitely worth batting around on a forum from time to time to see what ideas pop up.
Voluntary permadeath is pretty much the only kind of PD that would work in an MMO. If a player wants to play with permadeath rules, they're perfectly free to delete their characters and start completely over as soon as they die. No passing on money, gear, or items on to alts, no take-backs, nothing. You die, and you delete your character. Voila! Instant permadeath.
Any game that institutes permadeath would have to do it on a separate server from the rest of the game population, with the explicit warning that it doesn't matter what kills you -- a rat, a dragon, a lag spike, a disconnect, a player training mobs over you, etc. -- you will NOT be revived by the GM's if you die and that any appeals will be ignored. That's the only way it could work in a mainstream MMO. Make it a separate server, but don't impose it on the wider audience as a whole.
Who said anything about progression and combat? I'm talking about gameplay.
AFK-rotting in a dungeon is non-gameplay. Running back for 10 minutes is virtually non-gameplay. Games live or die on providing entertainment, and that means either interactive elements or theatric elements at every step. Big periods of dull non-interaction are a recipe for a boring, unappealing game.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Here's the deal, you cannot simply shoehorn permadeath INTO an mmo design.
If you create a game where when a toon dies, it does so permanently, then you need to create this to be an INTEGRAL part of the game.
MMOs are 100% about goals and progression. This means you have to take this into account when you make the game. If the toons that die are gone forever, then you need to look at progression being tied to something OTHER than the toons themselves.
If you want toon progression, make toon progression SHORT (say 8 hours of gameplay to max a toon) and then create another type of progression besides that which is tied to the player not the toon. This could be family heirlooms, family prestige, "karma", or something else.
But the key is that its got to be integral to the game, not just slapped on as "something cool".
So long, and thanks for all the fish!
Very good point. In a situation where the player's characters are building a village, and the character's advancement improved the efficiency and options in village building, permadeath ends the character but the city and its achievements still persist. A short character progression system, like what Robert suggests above, would work well in a situation such as that.
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