Very Interesting Article on the Death Penalty in MMORPGs

ChildoftheShadows

Kyleran said:

This comes from the same place that racism, nationalism, tribalism, or facism originate from, that dark place which says the bad things in this world are caused by people "not like us."

So game companies removed death penalties in games for the hell of it or because certain people complained about it?

Ancient_Exile

Wizardry said:

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.

Right.  Did my character just get killed/knocked out/incapacitated/made to hover at death's door or did my character get atomized.  Can my character still get resurrected or did my character's soul get destroyed as well?  Just how many hit points does my character's soul have anyway?

If we assume that our characters are actually dying most of the time when they get defeated, just who is it that is resurrecting them and why?  A deity?  Or a specific deity whom an individual character worships/serves?  Okay, but why does my character get an unlimited number of resurrections?  Why is my character receiving such a great amount of favor from his chosen deity?  Shouldn't my character maybe need to do something in return for this glorious blessing on occasion? 

What if a player character needs to maintain at least some positive favor/reputation with a deity of the player's choice or else the character needs to spend some time in a sort of purgatory before the character can be resurrected?  The length of time and number of duties/quests or w/e to be performed based on how far into the negative the character's favor has sunk with the character's principal deity?

Anyway, just getting knocked out can make sense.  But then again, why would Mobs choose to just knock us out when they could finish us off?  Perhaps some less violent Mobs might simply choose to knock us out, but most Mobs in an MMORPG probably wouldn't have be naturally inclined to do so.

That being said, I do think it would be cool if we could have the option to knock out PCs, NPCs, or Mobs or capture them instead of always being forced to kill them.  I also think Mobs should choose to flee much more often.  It makes little sense for the last goblin to keep fighting to the death after I've already killed the other five in his group.

We should also have different ways we can choose to interact with potentially hostile NPCs and Mobs:  Intimidate/Threaten, Negotiate/Bargain, Bribe, Trick/Mislead, Surrender, Play Dead, etc.

Ancient_Exile

ChildoftheShadows said:

Ancient_Exile said:

tzervo said:

Ancient_Exile said:

In accordance with my vow, I have read the article which you graciously chose to share with the rest of the class.  I found it to be interesting, intriguing, enlightening, and entertaining all wrapped up and rolled into one.

I'm glad you enjoyed it

Just a clarification: I mostly agree with this blogpost but I also have a couple of disagreements:

This is crucial: death penalty isn’t a problem to low-skill players as long as they are self-aware and have a grindy alternative path of progression...
...Please realize the catch: by removing death penalty, neither the skilled, nor the casual/social players got help. The entitled punks did, the group that you really don’t want in any group game. By removing death penalty, the devs invited the most toxic people: those who look down on fellow players based on oversized ego and blame and curse them for their own frequent failures..."

He is equating the casual player that chooses the no-death-penalty with low skill. Sometimes people just do not want the extra stress, or the extra mental load. They just want a more relaxed experience, or they want to find other, less stressful ways to challenge themselves within these games. This is fine. But usually these people are equally self-aware and adjust their expectations accordingly.

No-death-penalty games are just a better fit for this playstyle. Death penalties do drive the idiots away because it exposes them, but no-death-penalty games does not only help the idiots, it also more fitting for those that look for a less stressful experience. And that does not in principle mean less challenging (though it often does).

I do smirk when he bashes the baddies though xD

I believe I am safe in saying that enough MMORPGs now exist which cater to casuals or those who desire a more relaxing and less stressful experience. 

However, even an MMORPG that is generally more tense and stressful can accommodate those who desire a more relaxing and less stressful experience.  For example, there can be viable non-combat roles with a path to progression which would rarely expose players to serious risk of harm or danger of death. 

But only for a very specific type of player. Those that enjoy being full time [insert non combat role here].

That's true.  But there are lots of people that like video games which have no combat in them at all.  People that might try MMORPGs if they knew they didn't have to participate in combat or could avoid it the majority of the time.

Ancient_Exile

tzervo said:

Kyleran said:

Both of the linked blogs in these threads make a mistake I think by trying to pin the "blame" for the removal of death penalties on a group of players they identify and  label as punks, baddies what have you.

Really no different than other threads decrying the decline of the genre due to catering to casuals, entrance of millennials, P2W warriors, or any other group they can find to slag on.

This comes from the same place that racism, nationalism, tribalism, or facism originate from, that dark place which says the bad things in this world are caused by people "not like us."

Truth is the rise and decline of the genre can be probably tied to a multitude of factors throughout the last 25 years, but I can't see laying the "blame" on any particular group of players, especially when said labeling is largely made up in the minds of the accusers and have no agreed upon or factual basis.

I mean seriously, you've done it yourself, what exactly is a "baddie?"

What I take away from the first bits is that he attributes the reduction in quality of MMOs to inclusion and trivialization of content. He is a bit blunt and uses broad strokes but I agree with the gist.

I do not agree that the genre is in total decline, it mostly broadened. There are still great games out there covering lots of tastes and lots of fun to be had. I have no issue with casuals or mobile players or millenials or p2w. This should be clear from my previous posts above.

The "baddies" I refer to and I laugh when they crash are those who think they are awesome and better than everyone and try something and when they fail they do not do any introspection but blame it on their team, the game, p2w, their network, their government, or the position of the stars.

I'm not finding many (as I'm in hardly finding any/not really finding any) great games myself.

ChildoftheShadows

Ancient_Exile said:

ChildoftheShadows said:

Ancient_Exile said:

tzervo said:

Ancient_Exile said:

In accordance with my vow, I have read the article which you graciously chose to share with the rest of the class.  I found it to be interesting, intriguing, enlightening, and entertaining all wrapped up and rolled into one.

I'm glad you enjoyed it

Just a clarification: I mostly agree with this blogpost but I also have a couple of disagreements:

This is crucial: death penalty isn’t a problem to low-skill players as long as they are self-aware and have a grindy alternative path of progression...
...Please realize the catch: by removing death penalty, neither the skilled, nor the casual/social players got help. The entitled punks did, the group that you really don’t want in any group game. By removing death penalty, the devs invited the most toxic people: those who look down on fellow players based on oversized ego and blame and curse them for their own frequent failures..."

He is equating the casual player that chooses the no-death-penalty with low skill. Sometimes people just do not want the extra stress, or the extra mental load. They just want a more relaxed experience, or they want to find other, less stressful ways to challenge themselves within these games. This is fine. But usually these people are equally self-aware and adjust their expectations accordingly.

No-death-penalty games are just a better fit for this playstyle. Death penalties do drive the idiots away because it exposes them, but no-death-penalty games does not only help the idiots, it also more fitting for those that look for a less stressful experience. And that does not in principle mean less challenging (though it often does).

I do smirk when he bashes the baddies though xD

I believe I am safe in saying that enough MMORPGs now exist which cater to casuals or those who desire a more relaxing and less stressful experience. 

However, even an MMORPG that is generally more tense and stressful can accommodate those who desire a more relaxing and less stressful experience.  For example, there can be viable non-combat roles with a path to progression which would rarely expose players to serious risk of harm or danger of death. 

But only for a very specific type of player. Those that enjoy being full time [insert non combat role here].

That's true.  But there are lots of people that like video games which have no combat in them at all.  People that might try MMORPGs if they knew they didn't have to participate in combat or could avoid it the majority of the time.

I'm pointing out that you are saying these players that don't want the penalties would play the more hard core game if they would change their preferred play style. The ones typically complaining about death penalties are not necessarily crafters. Just because they don't like losing xp or gear doesn't mean they don't want to fight mobs. 

Just 2 different discussions I think.

Ancient_Exile

ChildoftheShadows said:

Ancient_Exile said:

ChildoftheShadows said:

Ancient_Exile said:

tzervo said:

Ancient_Exile said:

In accordance with my vow, I have read the article which you graciously chose to share with the rest of the class.  I found it to be interesting, intriguing, enlightening, and entertaining all wrapped up and rolled into one.

I'm glad you enjoyed it

Just a clarification: I mostly agree with this blogpost but I also have a couple of disagreements:

This is crucial: death penalty isn’t a problem to low-skill players as long as they are self-aware and have a grindy alternative path of progression...
...Please realize the catch: by removing death penalty, neither the skilled, nor the casual/social players got help. The entitled punks did, the group that you really don’t want in any group game. By removing death penalty, the devs invited the most toxic people: those who look down on fellow players based on oversized ego and blame and curse them for their own frequent failures..."

He is equating the casual player that chooses the no-death-penalty with low skill. Sometimes people just do not want the extra stress, or the extra mental load. They just want a more relaxed experience, or they want to find other, less stressful ways to challenge themselves within these games. This is fine. But usually these people are equally self-aware and adjust their expectations accordingly.

No-death-penalty games are just a better fit for this playstyle. Death penalties do drive the idiots away because it exposes them, but no-death-penalty games does not only help the idiots, it also more fitting for those that look for a less stressful experience. And that does not in principle mean less challenging (though it often does).

I do smirk when he bashes the baddies though xD

I believe I am safe in saying that enough MMORPGs now exist which cater to casuals or those who desire a more relaxing and less stressful experience. 

However, even an MMORPG that is generally more tense and stressful can accommodate those who desire a more relaxing and less stressful experience.  For example, there can be viable non-combat roles with a path to progression which would rarely expose players to serious risk of harm or danger of death. 

But only for a very specific type of player. Those that enjoy being full time [insert non combat role here].

That's true.  But there are lots of people that like video games which have no combat in them at all.  People that might try MMORPGs if they knew they didn't have to participate in combat or could avoid it the majority of the time.

I'm pointing out that you are saying these players that don't want the penalties would play the more hard core game if they would change their preferred play style. The ones typically complaining about death penalties are not necessarily crafters. Just because they don't like losing xp or gear doesn't mean they don't want to fight mobs. 

Just 2 different discussions I think.

I understand what you're saying.  Still, the people who don't like losing XP or gear have plenty of games to choose from which they should find more than agreeable.  Making a game which does include a harsher death penalty won't harm them in the least. 

ChildoftheShadows

Ancient_Exile said:

ChildoftheShadows said:

Ancient_Exile said:

ChildoftheShadows said:

Ancient_Exile said:

tzervo said:

Ancient_Exile said:

In accordance with my vow, I have read the article which you graciously chose to share with the rest of the class.  I found it to be interesting, intriguing, enlightening, and entertaining all wrapped up and rolled into one.

I'm glad you enjoyed it

Just a clarification: I mostly agree with this blogpost but I also have a couple of disagreements:

This is crucial: death penalty isn’t a problem to low-skill players as long as they are self-aware and have a grindy alternative path of progression...
...Please realize the catch: by removing death penalty, neither the skilled, nor the casual/social players got help. The entitled punks did, the group that you really don’t want in any group game. By removing death penalty, the devs invited the most toxic people: those who look down on fellow players based on oversized ego and blame and curse them for their own frequent failures..."

He is equating the casual player that chooses the no-death-penalty with low skill. Sometimes people just do not want the extra stress, or the extra mental load. They just want a more relaxed experience, or they want to find other, less stressful ways to challenge themselves within these games. This is fine. But usually these people are equally self-aware and adjust their expectations accordingly.

No-death-penalty games are just a better fit for this playstyle. Death penalties do drive the idiots away because it exposes them, but no-death-penalty games does not only help the idiots, it also more fitting for those that look for a less stressful experience. And that does not in principle mean less challenging (though it often does).

I do smirk when he bashes the baddies though xD

I believe I am safe in saying that enough MMORPGs now exist which cater to casuals or those who desire a more relaxing and less stressful experience. 

However, even an MMORPG that is generally more tense and stressful can accommodate those who desire a more relaxing and less stressful experience.  For example, there can be viable non-combat roles with a path to progression which would rarely expose players to serious risk of harm or danger of death. 

But only for a very specific type of player. Those that enjoy being full time [insert non combat role here].

That's true.  But there are lots of people that like video games which have no combat in them at all.  People that might try MMORPGs if they knew they didn't have to participate in combat or could avoid it the majority of the time.

I'm pointing out that you are saying these players that don't want the penalties would play the more hard core game if they would change their preferred play style. The ones typically complaining about death penalties are not necessarily crafters. Just because they don't like losing xp or gear doesn't mean they don't want to fight mobs. 

Just 2 different discussions I think.

I understand what you're saying.  Still, the people who don't like losing XP or gear have plenty of games to choose from which they should find more than agreeable.  Making a game which does include a harsher death penalty won't harm them in the least. 

Certainly, just like making a full loot open world pvp game wont affect a pve player either. Well it shouldn't, but for some reason they still like to enter discussion for those games and complain :P

Ancient_Exile

ChildoftheShadows said:

Ancient_Exile said:

ChildoftheShadows said:

Ancient_Exile said:

ChildoftheShadows said:

Ancient_Exile said:

tzervo said:

Ancient_Exile said:

In accordance with my vow, I have read the article which you graciously chose to share with the rest of the class.  I found it to be interesting, intriguing, enlightening, and entertaining all wrapped up and rolled into one.

I'm glad you enjoyed it

Just a clarification: I mostly agree with this blogpost but I also have a couple of disagreements:

This is crucial: death penalty isn’t a problem to low-skill players as long as they are self-aware and have a grindy alternative path of progression...
...Please realize the catch: by removing death penalty, neither the skilled, nor the casual/social players got help. The entitled punks did, the group that you really don’t want in any group game. By removing death penalty, the devs invited the most toxic people: those who look down on fellow players based on oversized ego and blame and curse them for their own frequent failures..."

He is equating the casual player that chooses the no-death-penalty with low skill. Sometimes people just do not want the extra stress, or the extra mental load. They just want a more relaxed experience, or they want to find other, less stressful ways to challenge themselves within these games. This is fine. But usually these people are equally self-aware and adjust their expectations accordingly.

No-death-penalty games are just a better fit for this playstyle. Death penalties do drive the idiots away because it exposes them, but no-death-penalty games does not only help the idiots, it also more fitting for those that look for a less stressful experience. And that does not in principle mean less challenging (though it often does).

I do smirk when he bashes the baddies though xD

I believe I am safe in saying that enough MMORPGs now exist which cater to casuals or those who desire a more relaxing and less stressful experience. 

However, even an MMORPG that is generally more tense and stressful can accommodate those who desire a more relaxing and less stressful experience.  For example, there can be viable non-combat roles with a path to progression which would rarely expose players to serious risk of harm or danger of death. 

But only for a very specific type of player. Those that enjoy being full time [insert non combat role here].

That's true.  But there are lots of people that like video games which have no combat in them at all.  People that might try MMORPGs if they knew they didn't have to participate in combat or could avoid it the majority of the time.

I'm pointing out that you are saying these players that don't want the penalties would play the more hard core game if they would change their preferred play style. The ones typically complaining about death penalties are not necessarily crafters. Just because they don't like losing xp or gear doesn't mean they don't want to fight mobs. 

Just 2 different discussions I think.

I understand what you're saying.  Still, the people who don't like losing XP or gear have plenty of games to choose from which they should find more than agreeable.  Making a game which does include a harsher death penalty won't harm them in the least. 

Certainly, just like making a full loot open world pvp game wont affect a pve player either. Well it shouldn't, but for some reason they still like to enter discussion for those games and complain :P

Well, they're more likely to complain if efforts are being made to allow PVE players to enjoy those games as well.  Without them necessarily being forced to participate in the PVP at all times.  They claim it's not possible.  (Though, I suppose, there are some PVP advocates that agree with them on that score.)  And maybe some PVE players secretly don't want a game to exist that has well-designed OWPVP and PVE.

Iselin

Sounds like the concept of easy with no death penalty, easy with death penalty, hard with no death penalty and hard with death penalty is a much more difficult concept to understand than I ever imagined

Ancient_Exile

Kyleran said:

tzervo said:

Ancient_Exile said:

In accordance with my vow, I have read the article which you graciously chose to share with the rest of the class.  I found it to be interesting, intriguing, enlightening, and entertaining all wrapped up and rolled into one.

I'm glad you enjoyed it

Just a clarification: I mostly agree with this blogpost but I also have a couple of disagreements:

This is crucial: death penalty isn’t a problem to low-skill players as long as they are self-aware and have a grindy alternative path of progression...
...Please realize the catch: by removing death penalty, neither the skilled, nor the casual/social players got help. The entitled punks did, the group that you really don’t want in any group game. By removing death penalty, the devs invited the most toxic people: those who look down on fellow players based on oversized ego and blame and curse them for their own frequent failures..."

He is equating the casual player that chooses the no-death-penalty with low skill. Sometimes people just do not want the extra stress, or the extra mental load. They just want a more relaxed experience, or they want to find other, less stressful ways to challenge themselves within these games. This is fine. But usually these people are equally self-aware and adjust their expectations accordingly.

No-death-penalty games are just a better fit for this playstyle. Death penalties do drive the idiots away because it exposes them, but no-death-penalty games does not only help the idiots, it also more fitting for those that look for a less stressful experience. And that does not in principle mean less challenging (though it often does).
W
I do smirk when he bashes the baddies though xD

Both of the linked blogs in these threads make a mistake I think by trying to pin the "blame" for the removal of death penalties on a group of players they identify and  label as punks, baddies what have you.

Really no different than other threads decrying the decline of the genre due to catering to casuals, entrance of millennials, P2W warriors, or any other group they can find to slag on.

This comes from the same place that racism, nationalism, tribalism, or facism originate from, that dark place which says the bad things in this world are caused by people "not like us."

Truth is the rise and decline of the genre can be probably tied to a multitude of factors throughout the last 25 years, but I can't see laying the "blame" on any particular group of players, especially when said labeling is largely made up in the minds of the accusers and have no agreed upon or factual basis.

I mean seriously, you've done it yourself, what exactly is a "baddie?"

Ancient_Exile

tzervo said:

Iselin said:

Sounds like the concept of easy with no death penalty, easy with death penalty, hard with no death penalty and hard with death penalty is a much more difficult concept to understand than I ever imagined

"Different strokes for different folks". It does get spicy when you try to interpret which folks like what and for which reasons 

Sovrath

Iselin said:

Sounds like the concept of easy with no death penalty, easy with death penalty, hard with no death penalty and hard with death penalty is a much more difficult concept to understand than I ever imagined

That's because you aren't speaking about "the same thing."

People who talk about difficulty often do so by how much skill something requires.

I've used this example before but "climbing mount Washington" isn't difficult. You put one foot in front of the other. Not hard.

But not everyone is in shape to do it. What does that mean then? It means there is another axis to that difficulty. Call it endurance, perseverance, tenacity or "pick your poison" adding road blocks to any endeavor creates a "difficulty" but a difficulty that is not measured in skill.

So unless you and others are are on board and talking apples to apples of course you are going to think it a difficult concept to imagine.

I'll add as an example, the difficulty setting in Morrowind. Does it make the opponents fight better, better AI, use more and varying skills?

No, it makes it so they do more damage and you do less damage. Oh sure, it makes it more difficult but it doesn't affect "skill."

Ancient_Exile

Iselin said:

Sounds like the concept of easy with no death penalty, easy with death penalty, hard with no death penalty and hard with death penalty is a much more difficult concept to understand than I ever imagined

Iselin

tzervo said:

Iselin said:

Sounds like the concept of easy with no death penalty, easy with death penalty, hard with no death penalty and hard with death penalty is a much more difficult concept to understand than I ever imagined

"Different strokes for different folks". It does get spicy when you try to interpret which folks like what and for which reasons 

Yeah but I'd think anyone who plays games would have ay least experienced all of those variations and everything in between the extremes at one time or another.

Heck I can experience all of those in any one single player game that has difficulty options and an optional permadeath mode... as in virtually every single ARPG.

Even an MMO like ESO that has trivial death penalties and where 95% of the content is very easy also has some challenging PvE content like the veteran version of their solo raid, Maelstrom Arena, all their other raids, world bosses as long as they don't get zerged, etc.

Removal of harsh death penalties to me is part of the same design thinking that gives you easy and plentiful fast travel, Those are independent of easy vs. hard encounters, just convenience.

I get that making everything too convenient does harm to things such as the need for interdependence and results in games where you play near others much more than with others. But I also don't throw all conveniences into the same basket and declare them all equally bad or harmful to socialization potential.

For example, crafters have been marginalized in a lot of MMOs thanks to loot pinatas with the best gear, the self sufficient nature of the current crafting design and infinitely self repairable gear. To me modern MMO gearing is a much more harmful convenience than trivial death penalties.

Crafting in modern MMOs and how it affects them is much more deserving of an essay and long discussion, IMO.

Iselin

Sovrath said:

Iselin said:

Sounds like the concept of easy with no death penalty, easy with death penalty, hard with no death penalty and hard with death penalty is a much more difficult concept to understand than I ever imagined

That's because you aren't speaking about "the same thing."

People who talk about difficulty often do so by how much skill something requires.

I've used this example before but "climbing mount Washington" isn't difficult. You put one foot in front of the other. Not hard.

But not everyone is in shape to do it. What does that mean then? It means there is another axis to that difficulty. Call it endurance, perseverance, tenacity or "pick your poison" adding road blocks to any endeavor creates a "difficulty" but a difficulty that is not measured in skill.

So unless you and others are are on board and talking apples to apples of course you are going to think it a difficult concept to imagine.

I'll add as an example, the difficulty setting in Morrowind. Does it make the opponents fight better, better AI, use more and varying skills?

No, it makes it so they do more damage and you do less damage. Oh sure, it makes it more difficult but it doesn't affect "skill."

Encounters in a game without difficulty settings have their own intrinsic value on a difficulty scale. What you're talking about is extraneous factors that can make completing the encounter a bigger chore and there is no end to what could affect that.

RPG fighting games have easy encounters or hard encounters. You might consider how convenient or inconvenient it is to actually arrive at the encounter and how many things can make you go back to the beginning and travel there all over again a difficulty axis - I don't. It's a convenience or inconvenience axis, Something separate.

Expanding the meaning of what is hard or what is easy by lumping in every conceivable extraneous thing into it just dilutes the meaning. And it is also infinite and can go into what HW you use, whether you have visual or hearing impediments, and anything else you can think of.


PS: Mountaineers do rank mountains on a difficulty scale by assuming all other extraneous factors are equal

Ancient_Exile

Iselin said:

tzervo said:

Iselin said:

Sounds like the concept of easy with no death penalty, easy with death penalty, hard with no death penalty and hard with death penalty is a much more difficult concept to understand than I ever imagined

"Different strokes for different folks". It does get spicy when you try to interpret which folks like what and for which reasons 

Yeah but I'd think anyone who plays games would have ay least experienced all of those variations and everything in between the extremes at one time or another.

Heck I can experience all of those in any one single player game that has difficulty options and an optional permadeath mode... as in virtually every single ARPG.

Even an MMO like ESO that has trivial death penalties and where 95% of the content is very easy also has some challenging PvE content like the veteran version of their solo raid, Maelstrom Arena, all their other raids, world bosses as long as they don't get zerged, etc.

Removal of harsh death penalties to me is part of the same design thinking that gives you easy and plentiful fast travel, Those are independent of easy vs. hard encounters, just convenience.

I get that making everything too convenient does harm to things such as the need for interdependence and results in games where you play near others much more than with others. But I also don't throw all conveniences into the same basket and declare them all equally bad or harmful to socialization potential.

For example, crafters have been marginalized in a lot of MMOs thanks to loot pinatas with the best gear, the self sufficient nature of the current crafting design and infinitely self repairable gear. To me modern MMO gearing is a much more harmful convenience than trivial death penalties.

Crafting in modern MMOs and how it affects them is much more deserving of an essay and long discussion, IMO.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/16/opinion/sunday/tyranny-convenience.html

"...Convenience seems to make our decisions for us, trumping what we like to imagine are our true preferences. (I prefer to brew my coffee, but Starbucks instant is so convenient I hardly ever do what I “prefer.”) Easy is better, easiest is best..."

Sovrath

Iselin said:

Encounters in a game without difficulty settings have their own intrinsic value on a difficulty scale. What you're talking about is extraneous factors that can make completing the encounter a bigger chore and there is no end to what could affect that.

RPG fighting games have easy encounters or hard encounters. You might consider how convenient or inconvenient it is to actually arrive at the encounter and how many things can make you go back to the beginning and travel there all over again a difficulty axis - I don't. It's a convenience or inconvenience axis, Something separate.

Expanding the meaning of what is hard or what is easy by lumping in every conceivable extraneous thing into it just dilutes the meaning. And it is also infinite and can go into what HW you use, whether you have visual or hearing impediments, and anything else you can think of.


PS: Mountaineers do rank mountains on a difficulty scale by assuming all other extraneous factors are equal

So what you are basically doing is defining difficulty on your terms and won't accept anything else.

Which goes back to exactly what I just said. Unless you are sure you are talking about the "exact same thing" you will then encounter difficulty in the conversation.

to that point, there were people who would say that leveling in Lineage 2 was "difficult." Of course it was time consuming and required endurance as well as tenacity. That wasn't an extraneous component. That was a part of of the game play.

Getting back to the article. I find corpse runs to be a farrrrr worse death penalty than severe xp loss. Another type of death penalty is what Turbine does in Lord of the Rings Online where you get a debuff. Of course that debuff keeps you from playing.

Or at least when when things were a bit more difficult. I'd rather have xp loss than sitting around waiting for a debuff to wear off.

Iselin

Sovrath said:

Iselin said:

Sovrath said:

Iselin said:

Sounds like the concept of easy with no death penalty, easy with death penalty, hard with no death penalty and hard with death penalty is a much more difficult concept to understand than I ever imagined

That's because you aren't speaking about "the same thing."

People who talk about difficulty often do so by how much skill something requires.

I've used this example before but "climbing mount Washington" isn't difficult. You put one foot in front of the other. Not hard.

But not everyone is in shape to do it. What does that mean then? It means there is another axis to that difficulty. Call it endurance, perseverance, tenacity or "pick your poison" adding road blocks to any endeavor creates a "difficulty" but a difficulty that is not measured in skill.

So unless you and others are are on board and talking apples to apples of course you are going to think it a difficult concept to imagine.

I'll add as an example, the difficulty setting in Morrowind. Does it make the opponents fight better, better AI, use more and varying skills?

No, it makes it so they do more damage and you do less damage. Oh sure, it makes it more difficult but it doesn't affect "skill."

Encounters in a game without difficulty settings have their own intrinsic value on a difficulty scale. What you're talking about is extraneous factors that can make completing the encounter a bigger chore and there is no end to what could affect that.

RPG fighting games have easy encounters or hard encounters. You might consider how convenient or inconvenient it is to actually arrive at the encounter and how many things can make you go back to the beginning and travel there all over again a difficulty axis - I don't. It's a convenience or inconvenience axis, Something separate.

Expanding the meaning of what is hard or what is easy by lumping in every conceivable extraneous thing into it just dilutes the meaning. And it is also infinite and can go into what HW you use, whether you have visual or hearing impediments, and anything else you can think of.


PS: Mountaineers do rank mountains on a difficulty scale by assuming all other extraneous factors are equal

So what you are basically doing is defining difficulty on your terms and won't accept anything else.

Which goes back to exactly what I just said. Unless you are sure you are talking about the "exact same thing" you will then encounter difficulty in the conversation.

to that point, there were people who would say that leveling in Lineage 2 was "difficult." Of course it was time consuming and required endurance as well as tenacity. That wasn't an extraneous component. That was a part of of the game play.

No. What I'm doing is trying to stomp down the fallacy that death penalty = hard and no death penalty = easy.

Have you actually read how many times in this thread people have jumped to that conclusion?

Yes, a game as whole can be thought of as easy or hard but so can be pieces of it. I've very deliberately talked about the difficulty of specific encounters, i.e. fights, in games being unrelated to death penalties.

Just how the SAC mountaneering scale gives Mount Washington a specific rating without concerning itself with your physical fitness or lack thereof. They even give it different ratings for different climbs and trails.

Ancient_Exile

tzervo said:

Ancient_Exile said:

I'm not finding many (as I'm in hardly finding any/not really finding any) great games myself.

It is hard to recommend anything without knowing your tastes. If you really like loss on your death sandwich, EVE, Albion, Naval Action, Screeps, One Hour One Life and Foxhole (though in the two last ones the consequences are more "communal") are fun games. Note that the three first ones are mostly EVE, EVE light with swords and EVE light with ships. None is perfect but all good or at least interesting games.

Then again, I also consider GW2 a great game and sunk thousands of hours there so who am I to judge :P

But I kinda feel that you and those that ask for these mechanics want a more EQ-sty kind of game, you are out of luck there :P

I think I'll try Albion.  Downloading it now.

Sovrath

Iselin said:

Sovrath said:

Iselin said:

Sovrath said:

Iselin said:

Sounds like the concept of easy with no death penalty, easy with death penalty, hard with no death penalty and hard with death penalty is a much more difficult concept to understand than I ever imagined

That's because you aren't speaking about "the same thing."

People who talk about difficulty often do so by how much skill something requires.

I've used this example before but "climbing mount Washington" isn't difficult. You put one foot in front of the other. Not hard.

But not everyone is in shape to do it. What does that mean then? It means there is another axis to that difficulty. Call it endurance, perseverance, tenacity or "pick your poison" adding road blocks to any endeavor creates a "difficulty" but a difficulty that is not measured in skill.

So unless you and others are are on board and talking apples to apples of course you are going to think it a difficult concept to imagine.

I'll add as an example, the difficulty setting in Morrowind. Does it make the opponents fight better, better AI, use more and varying skills?

No, it makes it so they do more damage and you do less damage. Oh sure, it makes it more difficult but it doesn't affect "skill."

Encounters in a game without difficulty settings have their own intrinsic value on a difficulty scale. What you're talking about is extraneous factors that can make completing the encounter a bigger chore and there is no end to what could affect that.

RPG fighting games have easy encounters or hard encounters. You might consider how convenient or inconvenient it is to actually arrive at the encounter and how many things can make you go back to the beginning and travel there all over again a difficulty axis - I don't. It's a convenience or inconvenience axis, Something separate.

Expanding the meaning of what is hard or what is easy by lumping in every conceivable extraneous thing into it just dilutes the meaning. And it is also infinite and can go into what HW you use, whether you have visual or hearing impediments, and anything else you can think of.


PS: Mountaineers do rank mountains on a difficulty scale by assuming all other extraneous factors are equal

So what you are basically doing is defining difficulty on your terms and won't accept anything else.

Which goes back to exactly what I just said. Unless you are sure you are talking about the "exact same thing" you will then encounter difficulty in the conversation.

to that point, there were people who would say that leveling in Lineage 2 was "difficult." Of course it was time consuming and required endurance as well as tenacity. That wasn't an extraneous component. That was a part of of the game play.

No. What I'm doing is trying to stomp down the fallacy that death penalty = hard and no death penalty = easy.

Have you actually read how many times in this thread people have jumped to that conclusion?

Yes, a game as whole can be thought of as easy or hard but so can be pieces of it. I've very deliberately talked about the difficulty of specific encounters, i.e. fights, in games being unrelated to death penalties.

Just how the SAC mountaneering scale gives Mount Washington a specific rating without concerning itself with your physical fitness or lack thereof. They even give it different ratings for different climbs and trails.

But again, if a person finds that a death penalty adds "difficulty" of some sort then it's "hard."

You are saying that regardless of death penalty it's the content that's hard or easy. Great!

But perhaps a person doesn't think the content is "hard" then add a death penalty and suddenlty it's Hard based on what they find hard.

An example would be "Dark Souls." Most people find this game hard. Except for the one individuial on this site who insisits that Dark Souls is not Hard.

I'm sure other have said the same thing.

So is it hard or not? Now add some significant death penalty. Will the person think that new death penalty makes progress hard?

Maybe, depends on what it is.

A death penalty won't make the content harder or easier but it will make progress "harder" and that's what people are speaking to.

xpsync

EQ had it i know but i never "really" played EQ, EQ2 however... look the f out.

A simple Corpse run was how i met the players i clicked with and we ruled EQ2 for many years to come.

Need help? Yep! - the rest is history.

There was so much downtime but it never felt like "downtime" not even sure that was term of any kind back then, maybe in wow.

The writing was on the wall i guess, but we never saw it as we were having to much fun taking down the hardest content the mmorpg industry ever had, and forever will ever have.

I feel so f'ing bad for peepe today that will never get to have that true mmorpg feeling, the pinnacle of it all, group synergy, thinking on your feet, microsecond split decisions, knowing what your team members are going to do before they even know themselves, close knit, well oiled machine, dead silence on comm's most of the time because every one knew their class inside out and everyone else's class inside out as well, no need to talk, you know, they know, you're all working as one. Literally!!! The pinnacle feeling of gaming, gone forever.

I mean today's games MDI+, i love watching the competition, it's great esport and yeah it's tough, but Mythic +15 is a cake walk when you're rocking Mythic +17, +17 is when you're +19, i'm sure peeps understand the point there, bottom line you need skill'z not saying that you don't, but it's not close to what we were doing back then, there was literally ZERO margin for error, and i'm sure a huge portion of people would thinking, meh "i'm sure" haha, ZERO f'ups, a f'up turned to WIPE, minor flubs, or a slight hesitation required god like knowledge of elite level skills to recover from, i mean i can't describe it, the only way to truly understand would have been to live it, which peeps can't anymore.

OK today when peeps do a raid in wow, that feeling, and it lasts maybe up to 10 minutes, back then, first thing, amplify that feeling a thousand times, you'd be on a cloud for f'ing days on end if not up to a week, not a few minutes, risk vs reward.

We never put it all together until EQ2 was effectively unrecognizable, a shell, an empty husk of probably the best mmorpg to have ever existed. A complete dumpster fire, thanks to "easy" "convenience" "qq'ers" "whiners".

I mean reading one day "Great news!!!" get this "due to overwhelming demand from the playerbase, we are removing corpse runs." WTF HUH??? player demand? overwhelming??? Not one word ever, on the server, guild chat, and never a word on official forums, even EQ2 flames... absolutely NOTHING!!! Wow doesn't have it, that's why wow is so popular - lmao cause you know that's what they are thinking.

Absurdity is what it was and i used to hate wow for that, but it wasn't wow's fault exactly, it was for all the lemming companies whom followed, look at swtor, look at eq2 today, even retail is practically sick of itself judging by the shakeup coming in shadowlands and why they launched classic which was the dumb'd down mmorpg which started it all, and chit is so bad that it is now a decent option for mmorpg players. WOW!!!

Ancient_Exile

Iselin said:

Sovrath said:

Iselin said:

Sovrath said:

Iselin said:

Sounds like the concept of easy with no death penalty, easy with death penalty, hard with no death penalty and hard with death penalty is a much more difficult concept to understand than I ever imagined

That's because you aren't speaking about "the same thing."

People who talk about difficulty often do so by how much skill something requires.

I've used this example before but "climbing mount Washington" isn't difficult. You put one foot in front of the other. Not hard.

But not everyone is in shape to do it. What does that mean then? It means there is another axis to that difficulty. Call it endurance, perseverance, tenacity or "pick your poison" adding road blocks to any endeavor creates a "difficulty" but a difficulty that is not measured in skill.

So unless you and others are are on board and talking apples to apples of course you are going to think it a difficult concept to imagine.

I'll add as an example, the difficulty setting in Morrowind. Does it make the opponents fight better, better AI, use more and varying skills?

No, it makes it so they do more damage and you do less damage. Oh sure, it makes it more difficult but it doesn't affect "skill."

Encounters in a game without difficulty settings have their own intrinsic value on a difficulty scale. What you're talking about is extraneous factors that can make completing the encounter a bigger chore and there is no end to what could affect that.

RPG fighting games have easy encounters or hard encounters. You might consider how convenient or inconvenient it is to actually arrive at the encounter and how many things can make you go back to the beginning and travel there all over again a difficulty axis - I don't. It's a convenience or inconvenience axis, Something separate.

Expanding the meaning of what is hard or what is easy by lumping in every conceivable extraneous thing into it just dilutes the meaning. And it is also infinite and can go into what HW you use, whether you have visual or hearing impediments, and anything else you can think of.


PS: Mountaineers do rank mountains on a difficulty scale by assuming all other extraneous factors are equal

So what you are basically doing is defining difficulty on your terms and won't accept anything else.

Which goes back to exactly what I just said. Unless you are sure you are talking about the "exact same thing" you will then encounter difficulty in the conversation.

to that point, there were people who would say that leveling in Lineage 2 was "difficult." Of course it was time consuming and required endurance as well as tenacity. That wasn't an extraneous component. That was a part of of the game play.

No. What I'm doing is trying to stomp down the fallacy that death penalty = hard and no death penalty = easy.

Have you actually read how many times in this thread people have jumped to that conclusion?

Yes, a game as whole can be thought of as easy or hard but so can be pieces of it. I've very deliberately talked about the difficulty of specific encounters, i.e. fights, in games being unrelated to death penalties.

Just how the SAC mountaneering scale gives Mount Washington a specific rating without concerning itself with your physical fitness or lack thereof. They even give it different ratings for different climbs and trails.

So the fact that I could die several times in a dungeon in certain MMORPGs without having to A) Replace lost gear or B ) Repair damaged gear or C) Recover lost XP/Pay XP debt doesn't make that game easier?

Ancient_Exile

xpsync said:

EQ had it i know but i never "really" played EQ, EQ2 however... look the f out.

A simple Corpse run was how i met the players i clicked with and we ruled EQ2 for many years to come.

Need help? Yep! - the rest is history.

There was so much downtime but it never felt like "downtime" not even sure that was term of any kind back then, maybe in wow.

The writing was on the wall i guess, but we never saw it as we were having to much fun taking down the hardest content the mmorpg industry ever had, and forever will ever have.

I feel so f'ing bad for peepe today that will never get to have that true mmorpg feeling, the pinnacle of it all, group synergy, thinking on your feet, microsecond split decisions, knowing what your team members are going to do before they even know themselves, close knit, well oiled machine, dead silence on comm's most of the time because every one knew their class inside out and everyone else's class inside out as well, no need to talk, you know, they know, you're all working as one. Literally!!! The pinnacle feeling of gaming, gone forever.

I mean today's games MDI+, i love watching the competition, it's great esport and yeah it's tough, but Mythic +15 is a cake walk when you're rocking Mythic +17, +17 is when you're +19, i'm sure peeps understand the point there, bottom line you need skill'z not saying that you don't, but it's not close to what we were doing back then, there was literally ZERO margin for error, and i'm sure a huge portion of people would thinking, meh "i'm sure" haha, ZERO f'ups, a f'up turned to WIPE, minor flubs, or a slight hesitation required god like knowledge of elite level skills to recover from, i mean i can't describe it, the only way to truly understand would have been to live it, which peeps can't anymore.

OK today when peeps do a raid in wow, that feeling, and it lasts maybe up to 10 minutes, back then, first thing, amplify that feeling a thousand times, you'd be on a cloud for f'ing days on end if not up to a week, not a few minutes, risk vs reward.

We never put it all together until EQ2 was effectively unrecognizable, a shell, an empty husk of probably the best mmorpg to have ever existed. A complete dumpster fire, thanks to "easy" "convenience" "qq'ers" "whiners".

I mean reading one day "Great news!!!" get this "due to overwhelming demand from the playerbase, we are removing corpse runs." WTF HUH??? player demand? overwhelming??? Not one word ever, on the server, guild chat, and never a word on official forums, even EQ2 flames... absolutely NOTHING!!! Wow doesn't have it, that's why wow is so popular - lmao cause you know that's what they are thinking.

Absurdity is what it was and i used to hate wow for that, but it wasn't wow's fault exactly, it was for all the lemming companies whom followed, look at swtor, look at eq2 today, even retail is practically sick of itself judging by the shakeup coming in shadowlands and why they launched classic which was the dumb'd down mmorpg which started it all, and chit is so bad that it is now a decent option for mmorpg players. WOW!!!

Let us not be so overcome by mourning the glory of what once was that we fail to fight for the even greater glory that may yet be.

And don't forget to blame stupid people.

Amathe

The naked corpse run is kind of a myth. If you soulbound next to a bank, and stored back up gear there, you never had to run back naked. You just would need to make the run with your second best stuff. Better to catch a rez of course, but sometimes those aren't available.

Sovrath

Amathe said:

The naked corpse run is kind of a myth. If you soulbound next to a bank, and stored back up gear there, you never had to run back naked. You just would need to make the run with your second best stuff. Better to catch a rez of course, but sometimes those aren't available.

Actually, I'm going to say "not entirely."

In lineage 2 it was possible to drop gear on death. 

I remember once trying to make my way to Antharas' cave (this was before they made a port spot right outside it.) and while fighting some sort of skeleton thing I ended up aggroing (can't believe that's a word - or maybe it isn't) some others that were out of frame and I was killed. Dropped my robes.

If you know anythign about mages in Lineage 2, robes determine casting speed (as well as level of spell) so without robes my high level attacks were painnnnfulllyyyyy slow.

Since these items are expensive I tried to run back and get them. I got right up to the spot and was attacked by a spawn. my casting was too slow and I dropped my boots as well. 

Ended up buying cheap lower grade items, running back and both items were gone.


Another time I died and dropped my gloves and I sent out a distress call to my guildies who ran to where I was so they could rez me and give me back my gloves.

Ahhh good times.