I have no desire to spend that time doing corpse runs or earning back lost gear/exp.
Fear of death and corpse running is half the fun! Sure you might not have time for it, but I'd rather be scared than not care, and do my best to avoid death. With greater risk and penalties, the greater outcome should you succeed in something dangerous.
I've never had any fear of death in a game. There was always the challenge of not dying in the first place. Therefore CR were never part of the fun, just an annoyance.
You have found right word, annoyance. Agree in full. I hate to die in game and will do everything possible to avoid. And I'm in pretty bad mood when happen, especially if some my stupid mistake. Even when I know I will die I never (ok, maybe once or twice :-)) just stand there ... I always try to drag with me at least one mob more.
Death penalty would add absolutely nothing but big annoyance. Has nothing to do with thrill or anything, just pure big boring annoyance.
That's the idea. Make death inconvenient such that nobody would want to die. Gamers got so watered down with their own watered down games that they forgot what death actually means. Death should be the result of a severe mistake on the part of the player - one that could have been avoided. One that will be avoided next time.
Making people think twice before trying to run past a group of mobs adds strategy and depth. It bred a different kind of playerbase; one that was patient and more focused on group activities.
I have no memories of being tense in WoW clones like AoC and LotRO. There was never any worry about dying. If it happened? Oh well just run back.
Some of my most memorable times in DAoC (both good and bad) were trying to flee from a fight after being overwhelmed, or trying to hold back a horde so my group could escape, or just barely pulling off a victory and cheering as we limped to a corner to try to heal.
Games with death penalty inspired passion and memories. Games without inspired boredom.
Step 3: Watch movie/make sandwhich leave computer for 3 minutes
Step 4: Come back to computer, loot mob. Repeat step 1.
Really? I would LOVE for you to give us a good list of what you just said.. What class did you play, what zones and what mobs did you auto attack while AFK? We'll be waiting
Monk, Paladin mostly for leveling like that. Bard required twisting so you couldn't do that, till they brought in /melody. Played for 3 years, started right after Kunark. Left just after LDON. Came back several times over the years. Never got into raids, but all the leveling zones. I played EQ as well, and longer then you did.. What you're doing is cherry picking a certain class against a very limited mob list.. Just because mobs were dark blue, NOT all dark blue mobs were the same.. Some were solable as a melee, while "most" would clean your clock..
Once the bard got melody it was easier (that wasn't till 04 though). Zones were gfay, lfay, commonlands, Ro, Oasis, IC, EW, GD, WW, OT, FM, LOIO, FoB. You name it you could level that way in. Casters of course couldn't. Lower the zone level, the easier it is to solo for most classes.. I'd like to see you take your monk or pally and SOLO the wurms in Skyfire...... NOT going to happen pal.. just saying..
But don't kid yourself. Other than later raids (after Gates of Discord so I'm told) EQ was not hard. There were only 2-3 mellee abilities per character and 8 spells that you would not all use in a fight. Abilities were on timers. There was often nothing more a melle could do other than auto attack and kick. Blue mobs were simple. Really? I solo'd the Elysian Skelly's for armor with my druid.. I can tell you right now.. there is NO WAY on this Earth you can melee solo one of them (dark blue)... You're being somewhat misleading and disingenuous implying that most "dark blue" mobs at end game were solable by melee classes..
There wasn't anything more difficult than that.
But bard twisting was kind of fun before they nerfed swarm kiting. Strapping on a pair of drums, agrroing all the giants in the FM giant castle and circle dotting them. So much fun Yeah.. and my druid and wizzies had no issues with AOE kiting as well.. Problem is, you can't do that "AFK" while watching a movie.. can you?
Step 3: Watch movie/make sandwhich leave computer for 3 minutes
Step 4: Come back to computer, loot mob. Repeat step 1.
Really? I would LOVE for you to give us a good list of what you just said.. What class did you play, what zones and what mobs did you auto attack while AFK? We'll be waiting
Monk, Paladin mostly for leveling like that. Bard required twisting so you couldn't do that, till they brought in /melody. Played for 3 years, started right after Kunark. Left just after LDON. Came back several times over the years. Never got into raids, but all the leveling zones. I played EQ as well, and longer then you did.. What you're doing is cherry picking a certain class against a very limited mob list.. Just because mobs were dark blue, NOT all dark blue mobs were the same.. Some were solable as a melee, while "most" would clean your clock..
Once the bard got melody it was easier (that wasn't till 04 though). Zones were gfay, lfay, commonlands, Ro, Oasis, IC, EW, GD, WW, OT, FM, LOIO, FoB. You name it you could level that way in. Casters of course couldn't. Lower the zone level, the easier it is to solo for most classes.. I'd like to see you take your monk or pally and SOLO the wurms in Skyfire...... NOT going to happen pal.. just saying..
But don't kid yourself. Other than later raids (after Gates of Discord so I'm told) EQ was not hard. There were only 2-3 mellee abilities per character and 8 spells that you would not all use in a fight. Abilities were on timers. There was often nothing more a melle could do other than auto attack and kick. Blue mobs were simple. Really? I solo'd the Elysian Skelly's for armor with my druid.. I can tell you right now.. there is NO WAY on this Earth you can melee solo one of them (dark blue)... You're being somewhat misleading and disingenuous implying that most "dark blue" mobs at end game were solable by melee classes..
There wasn't anything more difficult than that.
But bard twisting was kind of fun before they nerfed swarm kiting. Strapping on a pair of drums, agrroing all the giants in the FM giant castle and circle dotting them. So much fun Yeah.. and my druid and wizzies had no issues with AOE kiting as well.. Problem is, you can't do that "AFK" while watching a movie.. can you?
I didn't say all the classes could do that. You asked me to name my classes and I did. And no as far as mobs went it wasn't a very limited selection. By far the majority of the dark blue mobs could be done that way. Yes there were some zones you couldn't. Skyfire was one of them, dungeons were like that as well which was why I didn't say those. However the majority of dark blue mobs in the majority of zones could be killed just as I said.
Also I never stated nor implied you could do this at end game. In fact I stated I never raided at all, which was what end game consisted of. I also stated end game was around 60 or 65 at that time and I got to 56. I did state you could solo to end game, and you could.
In regards to kiting, please finish reading the thread. I specifically stated I did not and you could not afk fight while kiting.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Originally posted by Thresh Gotta love the folk with "I have a challenging real-life, I don't want to play challenging game" attitude Can I suggest My Little Pony Online ?
Not one single person in this thread as said or implied that.
What we have said was we don't feel there is a point to death penalties.
Challenge in the game is very different from death penalty. And IMO dp does not add to the challenge.
Challenge is what happens before and during an encounter. DP is what happens after I fail an encounter. The two are mutually exclusive.
edit - I will admit that depending on the design a penalty for dying could make the next encounter challenging, however so far in at least the games I've played that wasn't the case. It involved either a repair cost, an xp penalty debt, or just waiting for a debuff to where. Those don't add to the challenge.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
it's pointless and a time sink; there are many other features that gamers want and these ridiculous death penalties some want will never be considered unless you design your own game
Having a harsh penalty or difficult death penalty in a game does not have to be "old school". Unlike controversial open pvp, giving large experience penalties and corpse retrieval in a game is not a deal breaker for player's game styles.
The penalties add an important dimension to the game: fear of death. By providing that fear to the players the game becomes more exciting, even in the most mundane situation like killing X rats in a sewer system. With no penalty, if you get overrun by a few rats you just run back and finish the quest. With the penalty, you got real problems, including the big problem that your quest experience for killing the rats will only retrieve your lost experience rather than advance you. And, if you die twice, the whole effort nets a loss of experience. Also, how do you get your body out of there with all of those rats respawned down there?? Maybe next time you shouldn't go into those sewers alone...
Additionally, death penalties make a game last longer as it takes longer to level up that way.
MMOs have never been the same since dying became nothing more than a slight nuisance.
Originally posted by GreenishBlue it's pointless and a time sink; there are many other features that gamers want and these ridiculous death penalties some want will never be considered unless you design your own game
Ignoring the fact that you are a hardcore troller of threads (glanced over your post history and had a laugh), you obviously are not on topic here. People are talking about death penalties in a sandbox game. Those are games where every system impacts other systems. Players therefore impact the world and other players far more than in themepark games. Through your ignorance you have already agreed that a death penalty has a funcion ... a time sink. You venture forth in a world where everything is up for competition (resources, territory, economics, pve objectives, pvp objectives, etc). The act of living impacts the world and so does the act of dieing. Death is a system just like every other system in the game. It has to be as significant as living because your entire progression in the world is based on living. Your prize is rewarded by living so death must be equally important or you trivialize the competitive environment for everyone.
Within (I assume) your little mini-games in themepark mmos such as dungeon runs (instanced little play zones for the very few with no impact on the game world) you can die and merely lose some time and perhaps some money for repairs but it only impacts yourself and possibly 3 or 4 others. Even then you are penalized to avoid zerging to victory. The only risk in those games is the risk of trivializing content affecting the few.
In a sandbox the stakes are much, much higher. There absolutely must be a system of attrition with enough impact on the game to preserve the balance of risk vs reward effecting all players at once. Large scale pvp cannot simply be respawn zerg fests right after death or nothing can be won. Even in pve this is incredibly important. In fact it is the essense of the entire argument. The entire world environment IS the game. It is what you fight over, harvest resources in, explore through and what fuels the economy. Every gain you make in the game impacts the world and therefore all players in it. At it's most interactive level successes in effective gameplay (aka "living") impacts the world globally. If living is the ultimate reward that affects all then dieing must carry weight. How much weight is the point of discussion. Brushing off the topic in ritalin speak contributes nothing.
There may very well be contemporary games with harsh rewards as well but I am coming to the opinion (at least for most western players) that if you haven't played OU, EQ or AC back in the day, you have little to contribute here as you have no first hand experience on how much a significant death penatly can impact a game in beneficial ways. This isn't about selfish complaints over not personally liking death penalties. You aren't supposed to like them but you are supposed to see how they are needed in such highly interactive, world emulating games to make the game better for everyone. Narcissism is rampant in todays society but let's please try to evolve past that.
I've played several sandbox and I don't think death penalties added to the games depth or mechancis in any meaningfull way. So no it doesn't impact the other systems IMO.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Funny thread. First off, Smed did say they were making a sandbox, that means number one it will not resemble EQ1 in any shape or form. No classes, might or might not have levels, probably will have some good crafting and equipment will probably not drop off of mobs.
I enjoy a good death penalty, trouble is many do not. You can't have a strict death penalty and keep a high playerbase. So, if that is something you want, go play some of the indie games that have it.
What is with the OP, he only posted once on this board, let alone this thread?
Funny thread. First off, Smed did say they were making a sandbox, that means number one it will not resemble EQ1 in any shape or form. No classes, might or might not have levels, probably will have some good crafting and equipment will probably not drop off of mobs.
I enjoy a good death penalty, trouble is many do not. You can't have a strict death penalty and keep a high playerbase. So, if that is something you want, go play some of the indie games that have it.
What is with the OP, he only posted once on this board, let alone this thread?
His wording was "sandbox style", which to many means a hybrid.
Your speculations are just as good or bad as any others, simply because the details have not been released yet.
Originally posted by Thresh Gotta love the folk with "I have a challenging real-life, I don't want to play challenging game" attitude Can I suggest My Little Pony Online ?
Not one single person in this thread as said or implied that.
What we have said was we don't feel there is a point to death penalties.
Challenge in the game is very different from death penalty. And IMO dp does not add to the challenge.
Challenge is what happens before and during an encounter. DP is what happens after I fail an encounter. The two are mutually exclusive.
edit - I will admit that depending on the design a penalty for dying could make the next encounter challenging, however so far in at least the games I've played that wasn't the case. It involved either a repair cost, an xp penalty debt, or just waiting for a debuff to where. Those don't add to the challenge.
Couple of people did. [mod edit] Dont get me wrong I see this line of argument everywhere not just this particular forum and it is utter bullshit, have a beer a watch some "reality TV" or something instead. Having to think a little before blidnly rushing an area without estimating a risk factor(ie expected risk should roughly equal expected reward) is not entirely unreasonable.
Mutual exclusivity of two activities you bring up.... Does not make sense in this context, nor independance of two events would(although 2 activities are clearly not independent). Mathematically speaking(expected value of an engaged activity) there should an equal risk/reward factor for doing even A as compared to event B when choosing A or B. Ie event A is perhaps lower level with almost 0 chance of dying vs event B, a challenging event with higher rewards, and with higher chance of dying/incurring penalty (beyond having to press a respawn button).
Originally posted by Thresh Gotta love the folk with "I have a challenging real-life, I don't want to play challenging game" attitude Can I suggest My Little Pony Online ?
Not one single person in this thread as said or implied that.
Only way EQ Next would be worth anything is it was Vanilla EQ with updated graphics. Leave all the hardcore features of the game and delvling. Man how many people today would never get past level 20 if we had xp loss and delvling. It would be awesome to not have to deal with them at end game.
Originally posted by Thorbrand Only way EQ Next would be worth anything is it was Vanilla EQ with updated graphics. Leave all the hardcore features of the game and delvling. Man how many people today would never get past level 20 if we had xp loss and delvling. It would be awesome to not have to deal with them at end game.
Lol good old days, I guess those of us grew up back then( ie 8/16 bit consoles) can appreciate some non-triviality. Not having played original EQ I admit, but having played Diablo 2 pre-expansion Hardcore I can fully appreciate such mechanics(back when forced full-game zerging wasnt a productive tactic).
Originally posted by Thresh Gotta love the folk with "I have a challenging real-life, I don't want to play challenging game" attitude Can I suggest My Little Pony Online ?
Not one single person in this thread as said or implied that.
Originally posted by Thresh Gotta love the folk with "I have a challenging real-life, I don't want to play challenging game" attitude Can I suggest My Little Pony Online ?
Not one single person in this thread as said or implied that.
What we have said was we don't feel there is a point to death penalties.
Challenge in the game is very different from death penalty. And IMO dp does not add to the challenge.
Challenge is what happens before and during an encounter. DP is what happens after I fail an encounter. The two are mutually exclusive.
edit - I will admit that depending on the design a penalty for dying could make the next encounter challenging, however so far in at least the games I've played that wasn't the case. It involved either a repair cost, an xp penalty debt, or just waiting for a debuff to where. Those don't add to the challenge.
Couple of people did. [mod edit] Dont get me wrong I see this line of argument everywhere not just this particular forum and it is utter bullshit, have a beer a watch some "reality TV" or something instead. Having to think a little before blidnly rushing an area without estimating a risk factor(ie expected risk should roughly equal expected reward) is not entirely unreasonable.
Mutual exclusivity of two activities you bring up.... Does not make sense in this context, nor independance of two events would(although 2 activities are clearly not independent). Mathematically speaking(expected value of an engaged activity) there should an equal risk/reward factor for doing even A as compared to event B when choosing A or B. Ie event A is perhaps lower level with almost 0 chance of dying vs event B, a challenging event with higher rewards, and with higher chance of dying/incurring penalty (beyond having to press a respawn button).
Why can't B even just be more with a higher chance of dying? That alone is more risk. Incuring a penalty after you failed the attempt doesn't make the event more challenging.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Originally posted by Thresh Gotta love the folk with "I have a challenging real-life, I don't want to play challenging game" attitude Can I suggest My Little Pony Online ?
Not one single person in this thread as said or implied that.
What we have said was we don't feel there is a point to death penalties.
Challenge in the game is very different from death penalty. And IMO dp does not add to the challenge.
Challenge is what happens before and during an encounter. DP is what happens after I fail an encounter. The two are mutually exclusive.
edit - I will admit that depending on the design a penalty for dying could make the next encounter challenging, however so far in at least the games I've played that wasn't the case. It involved either a repair cost, an xp penalty debt, or just waiting for a debuff to where. Those don't add to the challenge.
Couple of people did. [mod edit] Dont get me wrong I see this line of argument everywhere not just this particular forum and it is utter bullshit, have a beer a watch some "reality TV" or something instead. Having to think a little before blidnly rushing an area without estimating a risk factor(ie expected risk should roughly equal expected reward) is not entirely unreasonable.
Mutual exclusivity of two activities you bring up.... Does not make sense in this context, nor independance of two events would(although 2 activities are clearly not independent). Mathematically speaking(expected value of an engaged activity) there should an equal risk/reward factor for doing even A as compared to event B when choosing A or B. Ie event A is perhaps lower level with almost 0 chance of dying vs event B, a challenging event with higher rewards, and with higher chance of dying/incurring penalty (beyond having to press a respawn button).
Why can't B even just be more with a higher chance of dying? That alone is more risk. Incuring a penalty after you failed the attempt doesn't make the event more challenging.
While i agree that a death penalty doesnt make an encounter more challenging i do think that death is something to be managed just like everything else in the game. Thats why im in favor of a systems approach rather than just a rule for dying.
I'd rather a game have difficult fights where my friends/guildies and I die over and over and over before finally getting it right.
If those deaths are too punishing, unless the rewards for victory outweigh the sting of those vast # of deaths, no thanks.
Even WoW got this wrong, IMO.
I remember back in the day tackling WoW heroic Raids where each death would cost me 10-15g.
A victory would net maybe 10g in cash and if I was lucky an item upgrade.
Victory gains weren't even close to the amount of in-game resources invested into that victory after dozens of deaths.
However the personal satisfaction / social jubilation in guild from a hard-fought victory did help make it worth it.
The more you balance the equation of "punishing death vs. rewarding victory" in favor of the "punishing death" part - the more you have to ramp up the "rewarding victory" part.
Simply making death sting isn't enough - you have to make something worth dying for if the death really hurts you.
I also think people greatly underestimate or perhaps don't realize from their own experiences and histories how much death can sting in a repeat-failure situation - and how rewarding a victory can be when it's a long time coming.
I think a really punishing death would only work as a mechanic if even during difficult encounters death was the exception to the norm.
But would that mean the content would have to be easier or would the systems have to be tighter and more skill based rather than RNG and RPG (stat) based?
Originally posted by Thresh Gotta love the folk with "I have a challenging real-life, I don't want to play challenging game" attitude Can I suggest My Little Pony Online ?
Not one single person in this thread as said or implied that.
What we have said was we don't feel there is a point to death penalties.
Challenge in the game is very different from death penalty. And IMO dp does not add to the challenge.
Challenge is what happens before and during an encounter. DP is what happens after I fail an encounter. The two are mutually exclusive.
edit - I will admit that depending on the design a penalty for dying could make the next encounter challenging, however so far in at least the games I've played that wasn't the case. It involved either a repair cost, an xp penalty debt, or just waiting for a debuff to where. Those don't add to the challenge.
Couple of people did. [mod edit] Dont get me wrong I see this line of argument everywhere not just this particular forum and it is utter bullshit, have a beer a watch some "reality TV" or something instead. Having to think a little before blidnly rushing an area without estimating a risk factor(ie expected risk should roughly equal expected reward) is not entirely unreasonable.
Mutual exclusivity of two activities you bring up.... Does not make sense in this context, nor independance of two events would(although 2 activities are clearly not independent). Mathematically speaking(expected value of an engaged activity) there should an equal risk/reward factor for doing even A as compared to event B when choosing A or B. Ie event A is perhaps lower level with almost 0 chance of dying vs event B, a challenging event with higher rewards, and with higher chance of dying/incurring penalty (beyond having to press a respawn button).
Why can't B even just be more with a higher chance of dying? That alone is more risk. Incuring a penalty after you failed the attempt doesn't make the event more challenging.
If the higher chance of dying presented some kind of risk(anything from running X minutes back to your corpse to actually losing some in-game currency[ie sufficient repair costs] which would in turn be equivalent to X* amount of time spent farming) that is equivalent to a given reward... It would make more sense, as opposed to current noob-friendly PvE models where you judge the difficulty of event/area by how many times you die before youre able to make some progress(ie gw2).
I'd rather a game have difficult fights where my friends/guildies and I die over and over and over before finally getting it right.
If those deaths are too punishing, unless the rewards for victory outweigh the sting of those vast # of deaths, no thanks.
Even WoW got this wrong, IMO.
I remember back in the day tackling WoW heroic Raids where each death would cost me 10-15g.
A victory would net maybe 10g in cash and if I was lucky an item upgrade.
Victory gains weren't even close to the amount of in-game resources invested into that victory after dozens of deaths.
However the personal satisfaction / social jubilation in guild from a hard-fought victory did help make it worth it.
The more you balance the equation of "punishing death vs. rewarding victory" in favor of the "punishing death" part - the more you have to ramp up the "rewarding victory" part.
Simply making death sting isn't enough - you have to make something worth dying for if the death really hurts you.
I also think people greatly underestimate or perhaps don't realize from their own experiences and histories how much death can sting in a repeat-failure situation - and how rewarding a victory can be when it's a long time coming.
I think a really punishing death would only work as a mechanic if even during difficult encounters death was the exception to the norm.
But would that mean the content would have to be easier or would the systems have to be tighter and more skill based rather than RNG and RPG (stat) based?
i dont think your getting death from the whole perspective though spock. I see it as not only a penalty, but also a form of advancement, gameplay and reward.
in my model since i reduce the penalty aspect to 1 line of 4, the penalty has already been reduced to 25% of that in a traditional game. Further to this , as i live and play (and gain exp), i can use that exp to unlock a number of abilities that modify my game towards the style i wish to play. For instance
We start at rank zero ( remember the penalty only affects this line, other game lines like class are not affected by death)
as i live i gain exp in the line that i can use to unlock abilities. Using a god system there could be something like 10 teirs or titles to get and there would be abilities that could be purchased (according to the god) in each tier.
Your playing the gameand when you get enough exp you can permanently purchase an ability with the exp, but then your exp is spent so you need more. As you build your exp you reach the next tier where you can purchase different abilities and so on until you reach the final tier.
Keep in mind though that you lose exp in this line for dying, and you also lose exp when you purchase an ability. Add to this you can only use an ability where you have sufficient exp in your bar for that rank then you have quite a challenge on your hands to get to rank 10 and get all the abilities. Remember that this line is independant of the other lines. You only lose exp in this line.
i would also put in a 25% gain over time like eve, and limit your decent from dying by 1 level. Thus if your rank 7, you can only drop to rank 6 if you keep dying but you wont get to 8 untill you earn it all back from 6 through 7 to 8. Once you reach 8 you can only go back to 7.
now its no longer a rule, but a system within a larger system of advancement. Since you can choose abilities that affect this line, there would be something here for everyone.
a modern sandbox mmo needs designed systems with depth of play. Every system should have a unique form of gameplay. Add them all up and you have a very deep game.
Im for a punishing death. Similar to the original EQ. As the sense of accomplishment you gain from surviving a brutal set of events usually supercede a death. The one thing many mmos fail to accomplish with e-z mode survival. That truly felt sense of accomplishment and achievement.
Originally posted by Thresh Gotta love the folk with "I have a challenging real-life, I don't want to play challenging game" attitude Can I suggest My Little Pony Online ?
Not one single person in this thread as said or implied that.
Comments
That's the idea. Make death inconvenient such that nobody would want to die. Gamers got so watered down with their own watered down games that they forgot what death actually means. Death should be the result of a severe mistake on the part of the player - one that could have been avoided. One that will be avoided next time.
Making people think twice before trying to run past a group of mobs adds strategy and depth. It bred a different kind of playerbase; one that was patient and more focused on group activities.
Want a nice understanding of life? Try Spirit Science: "The Human History"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8NNHmV3QPw&feature=plcp
Recognize the voice? Yep sounds like Penny Arcade's Extra Credits.
I have no memories of being tense in WoW clones like AoC and LotRO. There was never any worry about dying. If it happened? Oh well just run back.
Some of my most memorable times in DAoC (both good and bad) were trying to flee from a fight after being overwhelmed, or trying to hold back a horde so my group could escape, or just barely pulling off a victory and cheering as we limped to a corner to try to heal.
Games with death penalty inspired passion and memories. Games without inspired boredom.
I didn't say all the classes could do that. You asked me to name my classes and I did. And no as far as mobs went it wasn't a very limited selection. By far the majority of the dark blue mobs could be done that way. Yes there were some zones you couldn't. Skyfire was one of them, dungeons were like that as well which was why I didn't say those. However the majority of dark blue mobs in the majority of zones could be killed just as I said.
Also I never stated nor implied you could do this at end game. In fact I stated I never raided at all, which was what end game consisted of. I also stated end game was around 60 or 65 at that time and I got to 56. I did state you could solo to end game, and you could.
In regards to kiting, please finish reading the thread. I specifically stated I did not and you could not afk fight while kiting.
Not one single person in this thread as said or implied that.
What we have said was we don't feel there is a point to death penalties.
Challenge in the game is very different from death penalty. And IMO dp does not add to the challenge.
Challenge is what happens before and during an encounter. DP is what happens after I fail an encounter. The two are mutually exclusive.
edit - I will admit that depending on the design a penalty for dying could make the next encounter challenging, however so far in at least the games I've played that wasn't the case. It involved either a repair cost, an xp penalty debt, or just waiting for a debuff to where. Those don't add to the challenge.
I am for Everquest 1 Death Penalties!
Having a harsh penalty or difficult death penalty in a game does not have to be "old school". Unlike controversial open pvp, giving large experience penalties and corpse retrieval in a game is not a deal breaker for player's game styles.
The penalties add an important dimension to the game: fear of death. By providing that fear to the players the game becomes more exciting, even in the most mundane situation like killing X rats in a sewer system. With no penalty, if you get overrun by a few rats you just run back and finish the quest. With the penalty, you got real problems, including the big problem that your quest experience for killing the rats will only retrieve your lost experience rather than advance you. And, if you die twice, the whole effort nets a loss of experience. Also, how do you get your body out of there with all of those rats respawned down there?? Maybe next time you shouldn't go into those sewers alone...
Additionally, death penalties make a game last longer as it takes longer to level up that way.
MMOs have never been the same since dying became nothing more than a slight nuisance.
Ignoring the fact that you are a hardcore troller of threads (glanced over your post history and had a laugh), you obviously are not on topic here. People are talking about death penalties in a sandbox game. Those are games where every system impacts other systems. Players therefore impact the world and other players far more than in themepark games. Through your ignorance you have already agreed that a death penalty has a funcion ... a time sink. You venture forth in a world where everything is up for competition (resources, territory, economics, pve objectives, pvp objectives, etc). The act of living impacts the world and so does the act of dieing. Death is a system just like every other system in the game. It has to be as significant as living because your entire progression in the world is based on living. Your prize is rewarded by living so death must be equally important or you trivialize the competitive environment for everyone.
Within (I assume) your little mini-games in themepark mmos such as dungeon runs (instanced little play zones for the very few with no impact on the game world) you can die and merely lose some time and perhaps some money for repairs but it only impacts yourself and possibly 3 or 4 others. Even then you are penalized to avoid zerging to victory. The only risk in those games is the risk of trivializing content affecting the few.
In a sandbox the stakes are much, much higher. There absolutely must be a system of attrition with enough impact on the game to preserve the balance of risk vs reward effecting all players at once. Large scale pvp cannot simply be respawn zerg fests right after death or nothing can be won. Even in pve this is incredibly important. In fact it is the essense of the entire argument. The entire world environment IS the game. It is what you fight over, harvest resources in, explore through and what fuels the economy. Every gain you make in the game impacts the world and therefore all players in it. At it's most interactive level successes in effective gameplay (aka "living") impacts the world globally. If living is the ultimate reward that affects all then dieing must carry weight. How much weight is the point of discussion. Brushing off the topic in ritalin speak contributes nothing.
There may very well be contemporary games with harsh rewards as well but I am coming to the opinion (at least for most western players) that if you haven't played OU, EQ or AC back in the day, you have little to contribute here as you have no first hand experience on how much a significant death penatly can impact a game in beneficial ways. This isn't about selfish complaints over not personally liking death penalties. You aren't supposed to like them but you are supposed to see how they are needed in such highly interactive, world emulating games to make the game better for everyone. Narcissism is rampant in todays society but let's please try to evolve past that.
You stay sassy!
Funny thread. First off, Smed did say they were making a sandbox, that means number one it will not resemble EQ1 in any shape or form. No classes, might or might not have levels, probably will have some good crafting and equipment will probably not drop off of mobs.
I enjoy a good death penalty, trouble is many do not. You can't have a strict death penalty and keep a high playerbase. So, if that is something you want, go play some of the indie games that have it.
What is with the OP, he only posted once on this board, let alone this thread?
His wording was "sandbox style", which to many means a hybrid.
Your speculations are just as good or bad as any others, simply because the details have not been released yet.
Want a nice understanding of life? Try Spirit Science: "The Human History"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8NNHmV3QPw&feature=plcp
Recognize the voice? Yep sounds like Penny Arcade's Extra Credits.
Couple of people did. [mod edit] Dont get me wrong I see this line of argument everywhere not just this particular forum and it is utter bullshit, have a beer a watch some "reality TV" or something instead. Having to think a little before blidnly rushing an area without estimating a risk factor(ie expected risk should roughly equal expected reward) is not entirely unreasonable.
Mutual exclusivity of two activities you bring up.... Does not make sense in this context, nor independance of two events would(although 2 activities are clearly not independent). Mathematically speaking(expected value of an engaged activity) there should an equal risk/reward factor for doing even A as compared to event B when choosing A or B. Ie event A is perhaps lower level with almost 0 chance of dying vs event B, a challenging event with higher rewards, and with higher chance of dying/incurring penalty (beyond having to press a respawn button).
On the very first page there is such a guy.
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/5389416#5389416
If it's not broken, you are not innovating.
Lol good old days, I guess those of us grew up back then( ie 8/16 bit consoles) can appreciate some non-triviality. Not having played original EQ I admit, but having played Diablo 2 pre-expansion Hardcore I can fully appreciate such mechanics(back when forced full-game zerging wasnt a productive tactic).
Nope he didn't. He said he didn't enjoy punishing death. Nothing was said about challange.
And again you can have very challenging content without a penalty. Challenge is what happens during and before the fight. Not after your lost.
Why can't B even just be more with a higher chance of dying? That alone is more risk. Incuring a penalty after you failed the attempt doesn't make the event more challenging.
While i agree that a death penalty doesnt make an encounter more challenging i do think that death is something to be managed just like everything else in the game. Thats why im in favor of a systems approach rather than just a rule for dying.
I'd rather a game have difficult fights where my friends/guildies and I die over and over and over before finally getting it right.
If those deaths are too punishing, unless the rewards for victory outweigh the sting of those vast # of deaths, no thanks.
Even WoW got this wrong, IMO.
I remember back in the day tackling WoW heroic Raids where each death would cost me 10-15g.
A victory would net maybe 10g in cash and if I was lucky an item upgrade.
Victory gains weren't even close to the amount of in-game resources invested into that victory after dozens of deaths.
However the personal satisfaction / social jubilation in guild from a hard-fought victory did help make it worth it.
The more you balance the equation of "punishing death vs. rewarding victory" in favor of the "punishing death" part - the more you have to ramp up the "rewarding victory" part.
Simply making death sting isn't enough - you have to make something worth dying for if the death really hurts you.
I also think people greatly underestimate or perhaps don't realize from their own experiences and histories how much death can sting in a repeat-failure situation - and how rewarding a victory can be when it's a long time coming.
I think a really punishing death would only work as a mechanic if even during difficult encounters death was the exception to the norm.
But would that mean the content would have to be easier or would the systems have to be tighter and more skill based rather than RNG and RPG (stat) based?
If the higher chance of dying presented some kind of risk(anything from running X minutes back to your corpse to actually losing some in-game currency[ie sufficient repair costs] which would in turn be equivalent to X* amount of time spent farming) that is equivalent to a given reward... It would make more sense, as opposed to current noob-friendly PvE models where you judge the difficulty of event/area by how many times you die before youre able to make some progress(ie gw2).
i dont think your getting death from the whole perspective though spock. I see it as not only a penalty, but also a form of advancement, gameplay and reward.
in my model since i reduce the penalty aspect to 1 line of 4, the penalty has already been reduced to 25% of that in a traditional game. Further to this , as i live and play (and gain exp), i can use that exp to unlock a number of abilities that modify my game towards the style i wish to play. For instance
We start at rank zero ( remember the penalty only affects this line, other game lines like class are not affected by death)
as i live i gain exp in the line that i can use to unlock abilities. Using a god system there could be something like 10 teirs or titles to get and there would be abilities that could be purchased (according to the god) in each tier.
Your playing the gameand when you get enough exp you can permanently purchase an ability with the exp, but then your exp is spent so you need more. As you build your exp you reach the next tier where you can purchase different abilities and so on until you reach the final tier.
Keep in mind though that you lose exp in this line for dying, and you also lose exp when you purchase an ability. Add to this you can only use an ability where you have sufficient exp in your bar for that rank then you have quite a challenge on your hands to get to rank 10 and get all the abilities. Remember that this line is independant of the other lines. You only lose exp in this line.
i would also put in a 25% gain over time like eve, and limit your decent from dying by 1 level. Thus if your rank 7, you can only drop to rank 6 if you keep dying but you wont get to 8 untill you earn it all back from 6 through 7 to 8. Once you reach 8 you can only go back to 7.
now its no longer a rule, but a system within a larger system of advancement. Since you can choose abilities that affect this line, there would be something here for everyone.
a modern sandbox mmo needs designed systems with depth of play. Every system should have a unique form of gameplay. Add them all up and you have a very deep game.
A challenge games takes time to play aswell and this guy clearly don't have the time for it.
If it's not broken, you are not innovating.