Very Interesting Article on the Death Penalty in MMORPGs

Ancient_Exile

The Death Penalty Mechanic and Loss Aversion in MMO Design

https://www.wolfsheadonline.com/the-death-penalty-mechanic-and-loss-aversion-in-mmo-design/

Please read it.  Whether you think you hate death penalties or not.

Amathe

It is a very good article. Worth a read. 

Quizzical

The fundamental problem in a lot of games is that it's so hard to die that it scarcely matters what the death penalty is, at least short of permadeath.  If the main way to die is getting disconnected, that shouldn't carry a harsh penalty.  If you take a game scaled to be that easy and then give it a harsh death penalty, you haven't solved anything.

Ancient_Exile

Quizzical said:

The fundamental problem in a lot of games is that it's so hard to die that it scarcely matters what the death penalty is, at least short of permadeath.  If the main way to die is getting disconnected, that shouldn't carry a harsh penalty.  If you take a game scaled to be that easy and then give it a harsh death penalty, you haven't solved anything.

In which MMORPGs is it really difficult to die?  I know people have mentioned WoW in this regard.

Anyway, did you read the article?

Scorchien

I have always been a big fan of RiskvsReward and have used those exact words here many times ever the years in discussions over different games and mechainics..

   For me it s must have in a game and why my goto game for 23 years is still UO (when im done here ill be headed to Fel to skill up one of my alts .)

    Funny to me also that the writer uses EQ as an example of RiskvsReward , when i  went there at the urging from friends , coming from UO, i felt EQ was a complete carebear game with little RiskvsReward , game felt so easy ..

 Death is non-existent in near all MMOS today except UO and Eve , and even the combat itself is faceroll easy

 Helen Keller can max lvl in all newer MMOs , terribly unchallenging trivial content for the most part ..

    

  Todays games (and there soft death penalties)are a result of the soccer generation , they want to log in do as little as possible and Everyone gets a trophy ...

 

  

Quizzical

Ancient_Exile said:

Quizzical said:

The fundamental problem in a lot of games is that it's so hard to die that it scarcely matters what the death penalty is, at least short of permadeath.  If the main way to die is getting disconnected, that shouldn't carry a harsh penalty.  If you take a game scaled to be that easy and then give it a harsh death penalty, you haven't solved anything.

In which MMORPGs is it really difficult to die?  I know people have mentioned WoW in this regard.

Anyway, did you read the article?

Yeah, I read it.  It went on for a while about the importance of loss aversion, then gave several examples of people doing things in games because they hope to gain something.  That's not loss aversion.

As for where it's hard to die, that's something I've been complaining about in a lot of games that I've tried recently, and WoW is hardly the worst offender.  When I played Vindictus, I got to level 18 or so, and I don't think I ever went below 90% health.  Various people online seemed to claim that almost the whole game was like that up to just shy of the level cap, and it was some particular patch that did that.  Aura Kingdom had similar issues, and when I complained on this site, someone said that there are some occasional dungeons eventually that are harder.

Kyleran

Ancient_Exile said:

Quizzical said:

The fundamental problem in a lot of games is that it's so hard to die that it scarcely matters what the death penalty is, at least short of permadeath.  If the main way to die is getting disconnected, that shouldn't carry a harsh penalty.  If you take a game scaled to be that easy and then give it a harsh death penalty, you haven't solved anything.

In which MMORPGs is it really difficult to die?  I know people have mentioned WoW in this regard.

Anyway, did you read the article?

Did you? Since you made no comment its hard to say.

I did by the way, the authors correct to a point, but left out two points.

First he uses EQ1 circa 1998 as his shining example without considering the genre was in its infancy and gamers didn't have a lot of options.

While they may have endured this design, it doesn't necessarily equate to them enjoying them.

Game design changed in response to player preference, not because developers decided out of no where to reduce or remove death penalties. 

I remember playing Lineage 1 in 2002 where players lost experience upon death and could de-level even.

I recall one keep battle where I lost two levels (48 to 46) and I said screw it and logged off. One of my clan mates stayed in and ended up going from 48 to 42.

Experience at upper levels came very dearly in L1, I probably lost a week or so just to grind up to 48 again.

The grind from 49 to 50 was truly horrific, (5% a week for a casual player) so quite often players refused to fight once making a run at 50.

Once I moved to DAOC I was so relieved to find while there still was experience loss at death, players could not de-level.

This lead to players in the 45 to 50 range (again, with a brutal grind) refusing to take any sort of risk unless they has recently leveled.  Few at the 80% plus range would commit to a risky Jedi run in DF unless they really trusted their team mates. 

Amaranthar

Lets hold on here. 
If there's a human trait that's constantly problematic in debates such as this, it's that people want to go too far. 
Classic example is PKers wanting to PK everyone vs. PvEers wanting nothing to do with PvP, and the middle ground is nowhere in sight. 

Here, the suggestion is that the content is more difficult, and death REALLY hurts. 
That means a lot of gamers are going to die too often and lose too much. They'll end up quitting because their characters are beaten back too far. 

The middle ground is small death penalties. 
I'm all for losing gear, with the condition that gear is easily replaced. At least, gear that's just shy of top end. That uber sword can be left at home hanging above the fireplace, waiting for a guild orchestrated event where the player has lots of fellows for protection from gear loss (Resurrection). 

I'm all for the corpse run, again if gear is easily replaceable. But you still want the cost of said gear to hurt a little bit. And recovering that gear is more like a fortunate recoup of loss. 

Then, add in a little bit of skill or partial level loss. Anything here, on top of the above, will suffice. 

You don't need to go whole hog on penalty. 
What should really be avoided at all costs is dying too much. With dying once being  something that players don't want to get on that road, if they can at all avoid it. 

Ancient_Exile

Quizzical said:

Ancient_Exile said:

Quizzical said:

The fundamental problem in a lot of games is that it's so hard to die that it scarcely matters what the death penalty is, at least short of permadeath.  If the main way to die is getting disconnected, that shouldn't carry a harsh penalty.  If you take a game scaled to be that easy and then give it a harsh death penalty, you haven't solved anything.

In which MMORPGs is it really difficult to die?  I know people have mentioned WoW in this regard.

Anyway, did you read the article?

Yeah, I read it.  It went on for a while about the importance of loss aversion, then gave several examples of people doing things in games because they hope to gain something.  That's not loss aversion.

As for where it's hard to die, that's something I've been complaining about in a lot of games that I've tried recently, and WoW is hardly the worst offender.  When I played Vindictus, I got to level 18 or so, and I don't think I ever went below 90% health.  Various people online seemed to claim that almost the whole game was like that up to just shy of the level cap, and it was some particular patch that did that.  Aura Kingdom had similar issues, and when I complained on this site, someone said that there are some occasional dungeons eventually that are harder.

"...The Yin and Yang of Loss and Gain...Both loss and gain are symbiotic and complementary design principles. Both feed off of each other. Both are meaningless without the other...The Power of Loss Continued...When there is no real loss or loss has been trivialized or when victory is assured, we do not care about those things as much...Conclusion...Without the possibility of loss, how can gain be meaningful? How can anyone derive satisfaction when there is little to risk and everything to gain?...Dying in a MMORPG should be a devastating experience for the player. Without it, the thrill and elation of victory will never taste as sweet. Without serious consequences for death, there is no point of reference that serves as a contrast that makes your virtual existence meaningful..."

Yes, there are certainly some MMORPGs that are easier than others.  And pretty much all the newer games are easier than older ones.  There are also older games that have been made easier over time.

Designing an MMORPG that actually has fair PVP would be one way to bring challenge back to MMORPGs.

(Btw, you mentioned server disconnects earlier.  My characters in most games rarely ever died because of that.  And I think that if the majority of players are not suffering disconnects every day or even every week, then that should not be an issue.  Not that you were saying it was.  Just wanted to give my opinion on it.)

Ancient_Exile

Kyleran said:

Ancient_Exile said:

Quizzical said:

The fundamental problem in a lot of games is that it's so hard to die that it scarcely matters what the death penalty is, at least short of permadeath.  If the main way to die is getting disconnected, that shouldn't carry a harsh penalty.  If you take a game scaled to be that easy and then give it a harsh death penalty, you haven't solved anything.

In which MMORPGs is it really difficult to die?  I know people have mentioned WoW in this regard.

Anyway, did you read the article?

Did you? Since you made no comment its hard to say.

I did by the way, the authors correct to a point, but left out two points.

First he uses EQ1 circa 1998 as his shining example without considering the genre was in its infancy and gamers didn't have a lot of options.

While they may have endured this design, it doesn't necessarily equate to them enjoying them.

Game design changed in response to player preference, not because developers decided out of no where to reduce or remove death penalties. 

I remember playing Lineage 1 in 2002 where players lost experience upon death and could de-level even.

I recall one keep battle where I lost two levels (48 to 46) and I said screw it and logged off. One of my clan mates stayed in and ended up going from 48 to 42.

Experience at upper levels came very dearly in L1, I probably lost a week or so just to grind up to 48 again.

The grind from 49 to 50 was truly horrific, (5% a week for a casual player) so quite often players refused to fight once making a run at 50.

Once I moved to DAOC I was so relieved to find while there still was experience loss at death, players could not de-level.

This lead to players in the 45 to 50 range (again, with a brutal grind) refusing to take any sort of risk unless they has recently leveled.  Few at the 80% plus range would commit to a risky Jedi run in DF unless they really trusted their team mates. 

You make some good points.  I didn't say I agreed with everything in the article.  For example, I disagreed with the following statement:

"...Some of the best design ingredients of EQ were the following:

• traditional RPG experience based level advancement system..."

Now I'm not saying that was terrible, but I believe there are better systems of advancement and progression that can be used.  Systems that are more suited to a Massively Multi-player Online Game.  IMO, the Final Fantasy/Dragon Warrior/Everquest/World of Warcraft progression systems are far more suited for small group (Minimally Multi-player) or single-player games.

Anyway, you're probably right that being able to lose levels isn't so great.  But, then again, I would rather not use Character Levels.  I can also see how large amounts of XP debt as a Death Penalty could remove a player's desire to attempt certain content.  However, is it terrible that players won't do certain content unless they are confident enough in the ability of their party/group/team to successfully complete it?  Is being afraid for our characters to die such a terrible thing in an MMORPG? 

There could be other types of Death Penalties though.  Such as losing all the gear, items, and money in the character's possession at the time of death.  As long as decent gear was not so difficult to acquire and the character's power was not so totally gear dependent.  As is the case in 90%+ of MMORPGs. 

Mylan12

The death penalty was not that bad in EQ.  You died you went and got your corpse and lost a bit of experience.

 If you were in a group when you died then the group helped you get it back. If on a raid then you had lots of help.

 Solo well you just ask for help, was always bards or necros around willing to help.

The only exceptions which EQ should have made was if you died due to a game bug (issue) and could not recover the corpse because of that fact then a GM should recover it for you. Something on the most part EQ would not do even if they acknowledged that it was a game bug that was the issue.

Ancient_Exile

Mylan12 said:

The death penalty was not that bad in EQ.  You died you went and got your corpse and lost a bit of experience.

 If you were in a group when you died then the group helped you get it back. If on a raid then you had lots of help.

 Solo well you just ask for help, was always bards or necros around willing to help.

The only exceptions which EQ should have made was if you died due to a game bug (issue) and could not recover the corpse because of that fact then a GM should recover it for you. Something on the most part EQ would not do even if they acknowledged that it was a game bug that was the issue.

Kinda sucks that the GMs wouldn't help if problems occurred due to bugs.

In EQ2, I couldn't loot Wuoshi's head because his corpse somehow ended up in a tree that I couldn't reach.  A GM was kinda enough to give me the head.  Though I had to wait in the Emerald Halls for awhile before he got around to helping me.

Ancient_Exile

Amaranthar said:

Lets hold on here. 
If there's a human trait that's constantly problematic in debates such as this, it's that people want to go too far. 
Classic example is PKers wanting to PK everyone vs. PvEers wanting nothing to do with PvP, and the middle ground is nowhere in sight. 

Here, the suggestion is that the content is more difficult, and death REALLY hurts. 
That means a lot of gamers are going to die too often and lose too much. They'll end up quitting because their characters are beaten back too far. 

The middle ground is small death penalties. 
I'm all for losing gear, with the condition that gear is easily replaced. At least, gear that's just shy of top end. That uber sword can be left at home hanging above the fireplace, waiting for a guild orchestrated event where the player has lots of fellows for protection from gear loss (Resurrection). 

I'm all for the corpse run, again if gear is easily replaceable. But you still want the cost of said gear to hurt a little bit. And recovering that gear is more like a fortunate recoup of loss. 

Then, add in a little bit of skill or partial level loss. Anything here, on top of the above, will suffice. 

You don't need to go whole hog on penalty. 
What should really be avoided at all costs is dying too much. With dying once being  something that players don't want to get on that road, if they can at all avoid it. 

Yes, I don't agree with every detail of the article.  But the possibility of loss as well as gain makes a game world feel more real.  I don't think death should be catastrophic, but I also don't think it should be trivial.  You're right, there is a middle ground. 

I think players should be somewhat afraid for their characters to die, but not so much that they'd rather not attempt anything dangerous at all. 

And death is not the only way that characters could lose things in an MMORPG.  Nor should combat always be the principal, most efficient, and most effective way in which they can gain things.

Kyleran

Amaranthar said:

Lets hold on here. 
If there's a human trait that's constantly problematic in debates such as this, it's that people want to go too far. 
Classic example is PKers wanting to PK everyone vs. PvEers wanting nothing to do with PvP, and the middle ground is nowhere in sight. 

Here, the suggestion is that the content is more difficult, and death REALLY hurts. 
That means a lot of gamers are going to die too often and lose too much. They'll end up quitting because their characters are beaten back too far. 

The middle ground is small death penalties. 
I'm all for losing gear, with the condition that gear is easily replaced. At least, gear that's just shy of top end. That uber sword can be left at home hanging above the fireplace, waiting for a guild orchestrated event where the player has lots of fellows for protection from gear loss (Resurrection). 

I'm all for the corpse run, again if gear is easily replaceable. But you still want the cost of said gear to hurt a little bit. And recovering that gear is more like a fortunate recoup of loss. 

Then, add in a little bit of skill or partial level loss. Anything here, on top of the above, will suffice. 

You don't need to go whole hog on penalty. 
What should really be avoided at all costs is dying too much. With dying once being  something that players don't want to get on that road, if they can at all avoid it. 

Here's the thing, now we're back to the issue discussed in another recent EVE thread, how do devs find the correct balance between loss and LOSS, particularly when each player defines it differently?

As easily proven, players who suffer catastrophic LOSS tend to quit playing a game all together.

Someone mentioned in EQ1 a player getting stuck somewhere and de-leveling from 60 back to 1.  Pretty sure I'd have moved on to a new game if it happened to me.

I've seen many people rage quit in EVE for everything from large equipment loss (saw a player lose 12B ISK worth of Blue Print Originals (BPOs)), skill loss (used to be able to lose months worth of skill training especially if it was a level 5) if you didn't keep your clone up to date, but has been since removed as too many did actually quit because of it.

So in the end, how punishing should losses be especially as was also seen in the EVE threads, some folks admittedly have a low or even zero tolerance for loss?

Amaranthar

Kyleran said:

Amaranthar said:

Lets hold on here. 
If there's a human trait that's constantly problematic in debates such as this, it's that people want to go too far. 
Classic example is PKers wanting to PK everyone vs. PvEers wanting nothing to do with PvP, and the middle ground is nowhere in sight. 

Here, the suggestion is that the content is more difficult, and death REALLY hurts. 
That means a lot of gamers are going to die too often and lose too much. They'll end up quitting because their characters are beaten back too far. 

The middle ground is small death penalties. 
I'm all for losing gear, with the condition that gear is easily replaced. At least, gear that's just shy of top end. That uber sword can be left at home hanging above the fireplace, waiting for a guild orchestrated event where the player has lots of fellows for protection from gear loss (Resurrection). 

I'm all for the corpse run, again if gear is easily replaceable. But you still want the cost of said gear to hurt a little bit. And recovering that gear is more like a fortunate recoup of loss. 

Then, add in a little bit of skill or partial level loss. Anything here, on top of the above, will suffice. 

You don't need to go whole hog on penalty. 
What should really be avoided at all costs is dying too much. With dying once being  something that players don't want to get on that road, if they can at all avoid it. 

Here's the thing, now we're back to the issue discussed in another recent EVE thread, how do devs find the correct balance between loss and LOSS, particularly when each player defines it differently?

As easily proven, players who suffer catastrophic LOSS tend to quit playing a game all together.

Someone mentioned in EQ1 a player getting stuck somewhere and de-leveling from 60 back to 1.  Pretty sure I'd have moved on to a new game if it happened to me.

I've seen many people rage quit in EVE for everything from large equipment loss (saw a player lose 12B ISK worth of Blue Print Originals (BPOs)), skill loss (used to be able to lose months worth of skill training especially if it was a level 5) if you didn't keep your clone up to date, but has been since removed as too many did actually quit because of it.

So in the end, how punishing should losses be especially as was also seen in the EVE threads, some folks admittedly have a low or even zero tolerance for loss?

Yes, and that's what I'm warning about. 
But you asked a more specific question. 
The answer, in my mind, is that you can't consider what each individual thinks. You have to find the spot where most find it acceptable. And then make a great game (otherwise) to keep them there. 

Amaranthar

Ancient_Exile said:

Amaranthar said:

Lets hold on here. 
If there's a human trait that's constantly problematic in debates such as this, it's that people want to go too far. 
Classic example is PKers wanting to PK everyone vs. PvEers wanting nothing to do with PvP, and the middle ground is nowhere in sight. 

Here, the suggestion is that the content is more difficult, and death REALLY hurts. 
That means a lot of gamers are going to die too often and lose too much. They'll end up quitting because their characters are beaten back too far. 

The middle ground is small death penalties. 
I'm all for losing gear, with the condition that gear is easily replaced. At least, gear that's just shy of top end. That uber sword can be left at home hanging above the fireplace, waiting for a guild orchestrated event where the player has lots of fellows for protection from gear loss (Resurrection). 

I'm all for the corpse run, again if gear is easily replaceable. But you still want the cost of said gear to hurt a little bit. And recovering that gear is more like a fortunate recoup of loss. 

Then, add in a little bit of skill or partial level loss. Anything here, on top of the above, will suffice. 

You don't need to go whole hog on penalty. 
What should really be avoided at all costs is dying too much. With dying once being  something that players don't want to get on that road, if they can at all avoid it. 

Yes, I don't agree with every detail of the article.  But the possibility of loss as well as gain makes a game world feel more real.  I don't think death should be catastrophic, but I also don't think it should be trivial.  You're right, there is a middle ground. 

I think players should be somewhat afraid for their characters to die, but not so much that they'd rather not attempt anything dangerous at all. 

And death is not the only way that characters could lose things in an MMORPG.  Nor should combat always be the principal, most efficient, and most effective way in which they can gain things.

I wasn't directing that at you, but at the article and the author. 
I know you're trying to fell out the best sweet spot for the game you want to make, and using articles to stir the conversation. 

I totally agree with your other points. Deep game designs can offer a lot of options besides combat skills/power.But that depends a lot on what those options are. 

One idea is that a player might earn lower prices from certain NPC vendors. You died, now they don't see you as quite the hero they once did, and maybe those prices go back up. 

One of the things you've talked about is Rank in your Faction. Losing Rank, and the benefits that bestows, could be an option too. 

Wizardry

I didn't find it very interesting at all because he mostly just described what gaming was like and is like now and not really focusing on the issue with meaningful opinion.He was basically drawing up conjecture on WHY EQ did and WHY Blizzard changed it up and was it good or not for either or.

It doesn't matter if it made EQ popular or not,your opinion and thought on the matter should simply MAKE SENSE and not be influenced or changed because of what EQ or Blizzard did.

My thoughts on the matter,we should simply be in a KO'd state and not dying.In real life if you were KO'd you would be in a different state of body than if you were not  and that goes for several minutes afterwards.

I think all the games are hit n miss on the way the KO'd state is handled.OK so they are saying we died so i'll look at that design idea.I can accept it if we are said to resurrect by some means.However what have game designers done,they have us go somewhere and then enter into some kind of state.

Why are we going somewhere else in the game is the main problem i have,i don't buy the idea as making sense.The rest of the ideas do make sense,like being in a weaker state for a period of time,xp loss is a definite make sense,i mean we give xp for winning so why shouldn't we take away xp for losing.

lahnmir

Nice article. What has always bothered me about severe death penalties is that they directly hindered your enjoyment of the game, something that is not equal to loss.

The Dragon Quest games do it nicely I think. Whenever you die you are resurrected and lose 10% of your wealth, no matter if it is 10 or 10.000 gold. It hits you hard, you have to work to get it back but it does not hinder your actual gameplay with silly things like ress sickness delevelling etc. Because those are not loss at all, they are punishment.

/Cheers,
Lahnmir

cheyane

The article was well written and had me thinking about penalties and being weaned on them.

 My first experience of an MMORPG was Everquest and I have a fear of death. This fear translated for me to be very wary of death. Even when I moved on to games that had far softer penalties I was always appalled when I died. It didn't help me when I thought about games where other players could kill me. 

Since I had such an opinion of death my whole concept of death would only accept me being killed on my terms. I would decide when I may die. The penalty even it was nothing always dominated my reasons for not wanting to die. Which is a terrible outlook to have in a PvP game. I may have subconsciously always avoided these games because I could not accept that penalty being meted out by another player.

I definitely agree with the article that no game has ever managed to make me respect the world and the consequences of my actions more than Everquest. It is also the reason no other game can top it as my most immersive experience in this genre.

Aeander

I liked the death penalty in GW 1 where it was:

1) Performance-based, not economic. You'd suffer a 15% reduction to health and energy, stacking to 60%. If the whole party wipes in a failable mission, you lose. 

2) Able to be worked off. Earning xp reduces the penalty. 



Obviously, this sort of thing is more difficult to implement in a non-instanced game, because it is partly predicated on you being able to quit whatever you're doing if the penalty gets too high to deal with. Perhaps it would make sense if it were a 15% statistical reduction per death, and would wear of 1% at a time per minute without a death.

anemo

Considering how gripe-y/hateful/whatever modern gamers get over a single wipe in an auto-generated pickup group in a no loss MMORPG.  I would be constantly alternating between LOL and appalled-WTF at what those people would do with a loss that actually means something.

I mean have you seen League of Legends?   At that point players are only losing some 20 minutes for the "surrender time" to come up, and maybe an hour at most if both teams are bad.   And it has became the game that is famous for having the worst community in all of gaming.   

___________________________________

Personally I think there's a pretty good chance that the shift to wimpier death penalties is chosen more for a "social" reason than a "reward"/"scheduling" reason.

kitarad

anemo said:

Considering how gripe-y/hateful/whatever modern gamers get over a single wipe in an auto-generated pickup group in a no loss MMORPG.  I would be constantly alternating between LOL and appalled-WTF at what those people would do with a loss that actually means something.

I mean have you seen League of Legends?   At that point players are only losing some 20 minutes for the "surrender time" to come up, and maybe an hour at most if both teams are bad.   And it has became the game that is famous for having the worst community in all of gaming.   

___________________________________

Personally I think there's a pretty good chance that the shift to wimpier death penalties is chosen more for a "social" reason than a "reward"/"scheduling" reason.

This is exactly why these days people are so intolerant. They die they yell and be total arseholes. You try to do that in Everquest and you will be shunned and won't get any groups. People had patience and tolerated mistakes even when it meant hours of work went down the drain because working together was very important to playing the game. You could not do dungeons or get good experience without groups. Plus because of camping you had to wait to get into a good group and sometimes shit happens and if you get a bad reputation it means you will not get the groups you need to advance. Interdependence meant people had to control their temper and accept mistakes.

Nowadays there is so little leeway for people to show any tolerance. Games like League of Legends which I have played and been cursed out are perfect examples of how the players are completely self absorbed and only worry about their progression and nothing else and anything that interferes with that rise will be abused and made to feel absolutely horrible. They spend hours perfecting that abuse and do it without thought.

Gamers these days play games where death is a means of shouting and yelling at the instruments of their perceived hurdle to advancement. There isn't room for the type of death penalty Everquest had in most games these days and to be honest I don't think players can handle it.

Aeander

anemo said:

Considering how gripe-y/hateful/whatever modern gamers get over a single wipe in an auto-generated pickup group in a no loss MMORPG.  I would be constantly alternating between LOL and appalled-WTF at what those people would do with a loss that actually means something.

I mean have you seen League of Legends?   At that point players are only losing some 20 minutes for the "surrender time" to come up, and maybe an hour at most if both teams are bad.   And it has became the game that is famous for having the worst community in all of gaming.   

___________________________________

Personally I think there's a pretty good chance that the shift to wimpier death penalties is chosen more for a "social" reason than a "reward"/"scheduling" reason.

Honestly, you can often tell within 20-30 minutes if you'll lose in a MOBA.

Thing is, I stopped playing DotA2 because it lacks a surrender feature in a game where matches tend to go over 45 minutes, and enemy teams often intentionally drag out their victories rather than end the match. Once you lose your 2nd barracks/inhibitor in DotA, defeat is damn near inevitable, but that doesn't stop lengthy "dunking" sessions. It results in a really uneven play experience where you're either having a great time, or you're stuck in a terrible time for what seems like forever.

Iselin

How can the main hero demigod who's going to save the world die? Film over... roll the credits And what's this resurrection bit all about? Go permadeath or go home... sheesh.

Death penalties in MMOs? They are just contrived punishments to make you fear death because presumably that makes not dying feel like an accomplishment. That's great if you're playing in order to accomplish not dying, I guess. But then you get up, jump through whatever death penalty hoops they've devised and eventually get back to playing where you want to play... some accomplishment that lol.

For the rest of us who play for the journey those penalties are just annoying disruptions to what we enjoy. I'd much rather get the dying bit over with as quickly as possible so I can go back and tackle the thing I was trying to do when I died - which presumably is the thing I enjoy doing in the game - immediately.

I don't need to be punished with obnoxious time sinks. I'm not a masochist. I know I failed and what motivates me is to do it all over again until I don't fail. The quicker I get back to trying to succeed the better.

 

Kyleran

Iselin said:

How can the main hero demigod who's going to save the world die? Film over... roll the credits And what's this resurrection bit all about? Go permadeath or go home... sheesh.

Death penalties in MMOs? They are just contrived punishments to make you fear death because presumably that makes not dying feel like an accomplishment. That's great if you're playing in order to accomplish not dying, I guess. But then you get up, jump through whatever death penalty hoops they've devised and eventually get back to playing where you want to play... some accomplishment that lol.

For the rest of us who play for the journey those penalties are just annoying disruptions to what we enjoy. I'd much rather get the dying bit over with as quickly as possible so I can go back and tackle the thing I was trying to do when I died - which presumably is the thing I enjoy doing in the game - immediately.

I don't need to be punished with obnoxious time sinks. I'm not a masochist. I know I failed and what motivates me is to do it all over again until I don't fail. The quicker I get back to trying to succeed the better.

 

Exhibit A of why we can't have nice things. 

I first started playing DAOC on a blue server but found the experience unsatisfying as players didn't really try not to die in RVR.

I was chastened in fact more than once for not dying during a fight when everyone else went down.

I moved over to Mordred, the FFA PVP server and there players were a bit more interested in survival, but still I felt they threw caution to the wind too often.

Finally I found EVE where loss could be real LOSS, and it became my home.

Finally a game which was played more like a real life war, where avoiding dying while making sure the enemy did so or at least did more than your side was actually a paramount consideration.

It is acceptable to withdraw in EVE, smart even when it is obvious the battle is unwinnable. 

Why? Death penalties aren't contrived, players lose their ships or bases which represents very real amounts of time and effort, so protecting them is very much an accomplishment, moreso than any ther "contrived" player goal, at least IMO.

But then again as I often realize, we all play games for different "reasons" and to each their own.

Now, if you a developer,  how do you create a death penalty which libertarian minded Iselin, (I have a right to my fun, nothing must disturb it) carebear EQ1 players, (give us tough death penalties, err but not really too tough) or sturdier gamers (if it didnt really hurt to obtain it, what is the point) such as I will enjoy?

Theocritus

Once questing became the main focus of MMOs the PVE got easier, and death penalties pretty much went away. I blame WoW!