This would suck for a game like WoW where endgame encounters are designed with the expectation that players with die repeatedly trying to learn and gear up...
Also for encounters where some players are guaranteed to die as part of the encounter design... lol death touch.
Probably the worst idea I've ever heard. If you want to quickly kill the multiplayer aspect of an MMO, incorporate this idea. It would turn the game into a single player solo game, as no one would want to take the chance on grouping. Once the solo content is exhausted....bye bye player base.
And people would listen to healers more when they say mana break or brb toilet.
So maybe its a good idea, it will take time to get used to though. But if they make it the right way It might be a evolution in gaming.
That got a laugh! I play healers all the time. I knew one who used to say "I'm sitting down to drink and I'm not getting up until I'm finished". People would still pull (and die). She was dead serious.
Ken Fisher - Semi retired old fart Network Administrator, now working in Network Security. I don't Forum PVP. If you feel I've attacked you, it was probably by accident. When I don't understand, I ask. Such is not intended as criticism.
$1 per ressurection sounds fair. Your own lame fault for dying.
And what happens when Mom charges back the fees you've built up on her credit card?
A non-trivial problem, believe it or not. It happened quite often in the GEnie/Compuserve era (hourly rates) when Junior would wrack up hundreds of hours playing games, at six to twelve bucks per hour, and Mom would be presented with a bill in the thousands of dollars.
The companies often did not get paid; there's a reason hourly sub fees disappeared.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
$1 per ressurection sounds fair. Your own lame fault for dying.
And what happens when Mom charges back the fees you've built up on her credit card?
A non-trivial problem, believe it or not. It happened quite often in the GEnie/Compuserve era (hourly rates) when Junior would wrack up hundreds of hours playing games, at six to twelve bucks per hour, and Mom would be presented with a bill in the thousands of dollars.
The companies often did not get paid; there's a reason hourly sub fees disappeared.
Even cash shop games have that problem. Some require a faxed in contract just to buy currency depending on how it's paid for.
I side with the consumer on this one. I'd rather see the consumer protected even if it means lost revenue from virtual items.
Ken Fisher - Semi retired old fart Network Administrator, now working in Network Security. I don't Forum PVP. If you feel I've attacked you, it was probably by accident. When I don't understand, I ask. Such is not intended as criticism.
I cant remember, who yea i do now. In LOTRO there is an acheviment award for getting to level 30 without dieing. Im not sure if there is any other things like that in wow or any other games but its doable, just not in raids or something where you can die easily or dungeons for that matter.
There would be alot of young kids chewing into there college tuition. Just think, giving up all there money for a mmorpg, the irony...
Yeah, though in LOTRO you didn't get only 1 title, but a couple of them without dying every couple of levels until level 20.
Not sure exactly at which level you got the first 2 titles, but I think you got a title if you didn't die at level 5-10-14-17-20.
I side with the consumer on this one. I'd rather see the consumer protected even if it means lost revenue from virtual items.
Me too. The impossibility of collecting those death fees--well, just one more reason this idea is dead in the water.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
$1 per ressurection sounds fair. Your own lame fault for dying.
And what happens when Mom charges back the fees you've built up on her credit card?
A non-trivial problem, believe it or not. It happened quite often in the GEnie/Compuserve era (hourly rates) when Junior would wrack up hundreds of hours playing games, at six to twelve bucks per hour, and Mom would be presented with a bill in the thousands of dollars.
The companies often did not get paid; there's a reason hourly sub fees disappeared.
This is an excellent argument against this idea.
Put another way. This idea seeks to punish the person paying for the game when the player dies. It assumes that the player is the person paying for the game.
But what if the person paying for the game is not the player? I know I would never pay for a game where my bill could increase astronomically if the player kept dying.
Scratch the monthly fee. Scratch the cash shops. It's time to load that account with 1UPs!
Can you imagine the change of behavior?
What would you say to the moron who trained a bunch of add-on mobs during the raid?
What would you say to the tank who refuses to hold aggro?
What would you say to the healer who went afk?
What would you say about the "Lost Connection" deaths?
What would you say to player who ganked you from the bushes?
What would you say to the player who opened the exploding chest?
IMAGINE
Hum....very good idea my child, very good idea indeed. I will discuss this idea with my council of merry men and see what the consensus is. Your idea has promise my son, it really does. Well done my boy, well done indeed.
I remember when this was the standard p2p system, only in my day it was a quarter not a dollar and a quarter bought you usually 3 lives. oh inflation.
"Never met a pack of humans that were any different. Look at the idiots that get elected every couple of years. You really consider those guys more mature than us? The only difference between us and them is, when they gank some noobs and take their stuff, the noobs actually die." - Madimorga
I remember when this was the standard p2p system, only in my day it was a quarter not a dollar and a quarter bought you usually 3 lives. oh inflation.
Oh but all those arcade memories were worth every quarter.
By the way....I think this is a bad idea for only one reason. You take peoples' money you cause a LOT of fighting. This sort of fighting could leak over into RL. You hit people in their pocketbook by being the douchecanoe that accidentally pulled the wrong room in the dungeon and SOMEONE is going to go crazy enough to possibly want you dead after the 5th time "it's an accident"....yeah right. That is going to piss SOMEONE off.
You guys forget that a lot of the people you play these games with are fucking crazy. I mean....for REAL crazy....certifiable crazy.
$1 per ressurection sounds fair. Your own lame fault for dying.
And what happens when Mom charges back the fees you've built up on her credit card?
A non-trivial problem, believe it or not. It happened quite often in the GEnie/Compuserve era (hourly rates) when Junior would wrack up hundreds of hours playing games, at six to twelve bucks per hour, and Mom would be presented with a bill in the thousands of dollars.
The companies often did not get paid; there's a reason hourly sub fees disappeared.
This is an excellent argument against this idea.
Put another way. This idea seeks to punish the person paying for the game when the player dies. It assumes that the player is the person paying for the game.
But what if the person paying for the game is not the player? I know I would never pay for a game where my bill could increase astronomically if the player kept dying.
Nobody in their right mind would have a payment system similar to a bar tab anymore because consumers got wise to it a decade ago. They got away with it for quite some time, then the class action lawsuits came over 'junior' screwing up. Someone would be bound to try it, if only to get that inital burst of revenue at launch, before they change it and say it was influenced by popular demand. Dirty, dirty business tactics - but can anyone blame someone trying to make money? I'd ponzi scheme my own neighbors if the outlook was good enough.
Now, the biggest gripe with this so far is that it would totally limit the hostile interactions in a game because of the *extreme* fear of death - BUT - doesn't that seem like something you can play on with the right environment in the first place?
I've been penning a concept lately where I want to allow the open FFAPvP freedom of gunning anyone down, but have enough extreme consequences to limit this kind of interaction to bouts of pure hatred, not boredom. People are going to have it coming, and likely from ending too many lives themselves. A good game that actually exists where I can see this working would be Face of Mankind, to limit the random violence that turns all noobs around and back out the door. The wars can still go on with clones, etc, but murder outside of a war declaration would come with extreme political implications (as the game would already have it) and be dealt a fierce punishment - which ironically - would not be a wardec, because kills wouldnt hurt the target as much. There would have to be some marking system, like there already is for crimes and permadeath, but a faster and more 'imminent' process.
Writer / Musician / Game Designer
Now Playing: Skyrim, Wurm Online, Tropico 4 Waiting On: GW2, TSW, Archeage, The Rapture
You guys forget that a lot of the people you play these games with are fucking crazy. I mean....for REAL crazy....certifiable crazy.
It's absolutely true, but one of those scenarios where everyone has to suffer because a handful of people will take certain stimulus online and then reach for a hatchet. To protect the children we need to shut down all online gaming, chat rooms, instant messaging, etc. That label on the MMO box that says "online interaction is not rated" needs to be taken off and replaced with a D rating, for deadly.
Writer / Musician / Game Designer
Now Playing: Skyrim, Wurm Online, Tropico 4 Waiting On: GW2, TSW, Archeage, The Rapture
You guys forget that a lot of the people you play these games with are fucking crazy. I mean....for REAL crazy....certifiable crazy.
It's absolutely true, but one of those scenarios where everyone has to suffer because a handful of people will take certain stimulus online and then reach for a hatchet. To protect the children we need to shut down all online gaming, chat rooms, instant messaging, etc. That label on the MMO box that says "online interaction is not rated" needs to be taken off and replaced with a D rating, for deadly.
Well...let's not do that and just say we did. I like my "deadly" games.
Originally posted by Creslin321 Hmmmm...so if a game is developed with this system, it means that the developers get paid whenever someone dies. The developers also design the game world and can basically determine how frequently people are going to die on average based on how they design it. I wonder what this system is going to encourage developers to do... Paying when you die is essentially gambling, and the developer is the house. Number one rule of any casino my friends. The house always wins .
The Allods developers or publishers did this and they did not win. It very nearly killed the game.
I think you're right though...even in a game where that type of death mechanic would make sense, giving the developer monetary incentive to kill your character repeatedly probably isn't a good idea.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
This would bring party play and even roleplaying back in. This is how things used to be in Ultima Online. You'd go out with friends because you were afraid of PKs and not because you actually needed their help.
"Only in quiet waters do things mirror themselves undistorted. Only in a quiet mind is adequate perception of the world." Hans Margolius
Hmmmm...so if a game is developed with this system, it means that the developers get paid whenever someone dies.
The developers also design the game world and can basically determine how frequently people are going to die on average based on how they design it.
I wonder what this system is going to encourage developers to do...
Paying when you die is essentially gambling, and the developer is the house.
Number one rule of any casino my friends. The house always wins .
The Allods developers or publishers did this and they did not win. It very nearly killed the game.
I think you're right though...even in a game where that type of death mechanic would make sense, giving the developer monetary incentive to kill your character repeatedly probably isn't a good idea.
Well I suppose a more correct statement would be:
The house always wins, or the house goes out of business.
Very refreshing. Having only read OP's post, I am assuming the threads general reactions.
Yes, this could be exploited, every new idea can be exploited. You can't improve an idea if you don't have something wrong with it.
I think a better thing to do would be to reward the player with lives for accomplishing certain things. Not like, each quest grants a life, but say.. you've just survived a situation that you were likely to die in, a really hard task to overcome, and you are rewarded with a life. You can also buy lives with real money. You could have a subscription, that rewards you with benefits, including a steady rate of lives. Maybe lives could be traded (like an orb of life or something) via auction house.
This would be an amazing feature if developers were honest.
All in all, it's really the same, you're paying to play the game. Unless you're God, and can not die.
If you play the game very cautiously and hardly ever die, you will likely keep playing because the game is cheap for you, but you will not be profitable to the company.
On the other hand, if you play the game poorly and die a lot, you are profitable to the company, but will likely quit as the game is frustrating you, costing you too much, and you realize you could get a better deal from a regular sub game.
It essentially comes down to:
You are either not dying and thus paying less than a subscription
OR
You are dying a lot and will quit to pay a subscription game that is cheaper to you
Would hate to start on any day other than Day 1 if there is any sort of open PK involved lol.
I'd most definetly just ragequit after paying my first $1, only to get immediately killed again by the same high lvl griefer and need to cough another $1 up just for it to happen again >.< That would get old fast.
Without PK though, it wouldn't make a difference to me at all, since it's pretty hard to die in PvE situations. Which just reminds me, given the sorry state of what "challenge" majority of MMO's offer, any company using such a model would likely go under pretty fast.
They would really need to offer something completely out of the norm than what's out there now game-wise, but with that risky payment model i'm not so sure any company would get enough backing to actually make something that isn't just another paint-by-numbers MMO, not to mention most people paying and playing seem to hate to try anything new..
Comments
This would suck for a game like WoW where endgame encounters are designed with the expectation that players with die repeatedly trying to learn and gear up...
Also for encounters where some players are guaranteed to die as part of the encounter design... lol death touch.
Probably the worst idea I've ever heard. If you want to quickly kill the multiplayer aspect of an MMO, incorporate this idea. It would turn the game into a single player solo game, as no one would want to take the chance on grouping. Once the solo content is exhausted....bye bye player base.
That got a laugh! I play healers all the time. I knew one who used to say "I'm sitting down to drink and I'm not getting up until I'm finished". People would still pull (and die). She was dead serious.
And what happens when Mom charges back the fees you've built up on her credit card?
A non-trivial problem, believe it or not. It happened quite often in the GEnie/Compuserve era (hourly rates) when Junior would wrack up hundreds of hours playing games, at six to twelve bucks per hour, and Mom would be presented with a bill in the thousands of dollars.
The companies often did not get paid; there's a reason hourly sub fees disappeared.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
Even cash shop games have that problem. Some require a faxed in contract just to buy currency depending on how it's paid for.
I side with the consumer on this one. I'd rather see the consumer protected even if it means lost revenue from virtual items.
Yeah, though in LOTRO you didn't get only 1 title, but a couple of them without dying every couple of levels until level 20.
Not sure exactly at which level you got the first 2 titles, but I think you got a title if you didn't die at level 5-10-14-17-20.
Me too. The impossibility of collecting those death fees--well, just one more reason this idea is dead in the water.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
This is an excellent argument against this idea.
Put another way. This idea seeks to punish the person paying for the game when the player dies. It assumes that the player is the person paying for the game.
But what if the person paying for the game is not the player? I know I would never pay for a game where my bill could increase astronomically if the player kept dying.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
The result would be a game where players are afraid to take any risk at all.
Sounds cool on paper, but I think the actual execution of this would lead to a really boring game.
i imagine the company that did this would be shut down shortly after the first month.
If you could earn real money by running some challenging content, it might be interesting :P
Hum....very good idea my child, very good idea indeed. I will discuss this idea with my council of merry men and see what the consensus is. Your idea has promise my son, it really does. Well done my boy, well done indeed.
King Carebear
I remember when this was the standard p2p system, only in my day it was a quarter not a dollar and a quarter bought you usually 3 lives. oh inflation.
"Never met a pack of humans that were any different. Look at the idiots that get elected every couple of years. You really consider those guys more mature than us? The only difference between us and them is, when they gank some noobs and take their stuff, the noobs actually die." - Madimorga
Oh but all those arcade memories were worth every quarter.
By the way....I think this is a bad idea for only one reason. You take peoples' money you cause a LOT of fighting. This sort of fighting could leak over into RL. You hit people in their pocketbook by being the douchecanoe that accidentally pulled the wrong room in the dungeon and SOMEONE is going to go crazy enough to possibly want you dead after the 5th time "it's an accident"....yeah right. That is going to piss SOMEONE off.
You guys forget that a lot of the people you play these games with are fucking crazy. I mean....for REAL crazy....certifiable crazy.
President of The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club
Nobody in their right mind would have a payment system similar to a bar tab anymore because consumers got wise to it a decade ago. They got away with it for quite some time, then the class action lawsuits came over 'junior' screwing up. Someone would be bound to try it, if only to get that inital burst of revenue at launch, before they change it and say it was influenced by popular demand. Dirty, dirty business tactics - but can anyone blame someone trying to make money? I'd ponzi scheme my own neighbors if the outlook was good enough.
Now, the biggest gripe with this so far is that it would totally limit the hostile interactions in a game because of the *extreme* fear of death - BUT - doesn't that seem like something you can play on with the right environment in the first place?
I've been penning a concept lately where I want to allow the open FFAPvP freedom of gunning anyone down, but have enough extreme consequences to limit this kind of interaction to bouts of pure hatred, not boredom. People are going to have it coming, and likely from ending too many lives themselves. A good game that actually exists where I can see this working would be Face of Mankind, to limit the random violence that turns all noobs around and back out the door. The wars can still go on with clones, etc, but murder outside of a war declaration would come with extreme political implications (as the game would already have it) and be dealt a fierce punishment - which ironically - would not be a wardec, because kills wouldnt hurt the target as much. There would have to be some marking system, like there already is for crimes and permadeath, but a faster and more 'imminent' process.
Writer / Musician / Game Designer
Now Playing: Skyrim, Wurm Online, Tropico 4
Waiting On: GW2, TSW, Archeage, The Rapture
It's absolutely true, but one of those scenarios where everyone has to suffer because a handful of people will take certain stimulus online and then reach for a hatchet. To protect the children we need to shut down all online gaming, chat rooms, instant messaging, etc. That label on the MMO box that says "online interaction is not rated" needs to be taken off and replaced with a D rating, for deadly.
Writer / Musician / Game Designer
Now Playing: Skyrim, Wurm Online, Tropico 4
Waiting On: GW2, TSW, Archeage, The Rapture
Hmmmm...so if a game is developed with this system, it means that the developers get paid whenever someone dies.
The developers also design the game world and can basically determine how frequently people are going to die on average based on how they design it.
I wonder what this system is going to encourage developers to do...
Paying when you die is essentially gambling, and the developer is the house.
Number one rule of any casino my friends. The house always wins
.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
Well...let's not do that and just say we did. I like my "deadly" games.
President of The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club
that just sounds like a bad community
Philosophy of MMO Game Design
The Allods developers or publishers did this and they did not win. It very nearly killed the game.
I think you're right though...even in a game where that type of death mechanic would make sense, giving the developer monetary incentive to kill your character repeatedly probably isn't a good idea.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
This would bring party play and even roleplaying back in. This is how things used to be in Ultima Online. You'd go out with friends because you were afraid of PKs and not because you actually needed their help.
"Only in quiet waters do things mirror themselves undistorted.
Only in a quiet mind is adequate perception of the world."
Hans Margolius
Well I suppose a more correct statement would be:
The house always wins, or the house goes out of business.
lol
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
Very refreshing.
Having only read OP's post, I am assuming the threads general reactions.
Yes, this could be exploited, every new idea can be exploited. You can't improve an idea if you don't have something wrong with it.
I think a better thing to do would be to reward the player with lives for accomplishing certain things. Not like, each quest grants a life, but say.. you've just survived a situation that you were likely to die in, a really hard task to overcome, and you are rewarded with a life. You can also buy lives with real money. You could have a subscription, that rewards you with benefits, including a steady rate of lives. Maybe lives could be traded (like an orb of life or something) via auction house.
This would be an amazing feature if developers were honest.
All in all, it's really the same, you're paying to play the game. Unless you're God, and can not die.
Here's another argument against this system:
If you play the game very cautiously and hardly ever die, you will likely keep playing because the game is cheap for you, but you will not be profitable to the company.
On the other hand, if you play the game poorly and die a lot, you are profitable to the company, but will likely quit as the game is frustrating you, costing you too much, and you realize you could get a better deal from a regular sub game.
It essentially comes down to:
You are either not dying and thus paying less than a subscription
OR
You are dying a lot and will quit to pay a subscription game that is cheaper to you
Either way, the company loses.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
Would hate to start on any day other than Day 1 if there is any sort of open PK involved lol.
I'd most definetly just ragequit after paying my first $1, only to get immediately killed again by the same high lvl griefer and need to cough another $1 up just for it to happen again >.< That would get old fast.
Without PK though, it wouldn't make a difference to me at all, since it's pretty hard to die in PvE situations. Which just reminds me, given the sorry state of what "challenge" majority of MMO's offer, any company using such a model would likely go under pretty fast.
They would really need to offer something completely out of the norm than what's out there now game-wise, but with that risky payment model i'm not so sure any company would get enough backing to actually make something that isn't just another paint-by-numbers MMO, not to mention most people paying and playing seem to hate to try anything new..