Little girls cry. Boys think about what thay can get away with. Woman think about fillings. Men do what needs to be done.
33 year old Male from London So that make you one of those new age men, that is intouch with your fillings, based on your age, I would say yes. How is that island doing after WWII. Do you still live there, and don't thay have any online sites that talk about MMOs? No you just thought you'd check us old flat foots out. In this county men drink coffee not tea. And that statment about death got this country through WWII and if I remeber correctly your country also.
I am British and I found this pretty offensive. Why would you advertise your ignorance and small minded views on a public forum?
Little girls cry. Boys think about what thay can get away with. Woman think about fillings. Men do what needs to be done.
33 year old Male from London So that make you one of those new age men, that is intouch with your fillings, based on your age, I would say yes. How is that island doing after WWII. Do you still live there, and don't thay have any online sites that talk about MMOs? No you just thought you'd check us old flat foots out. In this county men drink coffee not tea. And that statment about death got this country through WWII and if I remeber correctly your country also.
Cute, I am getting flamed by someone who bothered to checkout my profile but apparently was t0o lazy to realize that I am from Canada (London, Ontario) .
On the other hand these comments about WWII are just plain ignorant and insulting. How dare you insult the memory of all those who died in that war with your drivel.
My apologies to England, at least thay did something. What was it your country did again? O thats right, your country let american boys run from the war, I almost forgot. O and it is nice to shop over here isn't it. Don't forget the name of this content, it is North America.....
Think about.
retRA-11B Lead me, follow me, or get out of my way. - General George Patton Jr
Little girls cry. Boys think about what thay can get away with. Woman think about fillings. Men do what needs to be done.
33 year old Male from London So that make you one of those new age men, that is intouch with your fillings, based on your age, I would say yes. How is that island doing after WWII. Do you still live there, and don't thay have any online sites that talk about MMOs? No you just thought you'd check us old flat foots out. In this county men drink coffee not tea. And that statment about death got this country through WWII and if I remeber correctly your country also.
Cute, I am getting flamed by someone who bothered to checkout my profile but apparently was t0o lazy to realize that I am from Canada (London, Ontario) .
On the other hand these comments about WWII are just plain ignorant and insulting. How dare you insult the memory of all those who died in that war with your drivel.
My apologies to England, at least thay did something. What was it your country did again? O thats right, your country let american boys run from the war, I almost forgot. O and it is nice to shop over here isn't it. Don't forget the name of this content, it is North America.....
Think about.
I'm not getting into a petty, small minded flame war with you over race. If you feel the need to attack Britain, go ahead, however is the forum of an MMO website really the place for it?
It would also help your cause if you could use the English language properly.
Little girls cry. Boys think about what thay can get away with. Woman think about fillings. Men do what needs to be done.
33 year old Male from London So that make you one of those new age men, that is intouch with your fillings, based on your age, I would say yes. How is that island doing after WWII. Do you still live there, and don't thay have any online sites that talk about MMOs? No you just thought you'd check us old flat foots out. In this county men drink coffee not tea. And that statment about death got this country through WWII and if I remeber correctly your country also.
Woman think about dentists? Who knew....
Please stop speaking for those of us in North America who don't condone the kind of drivel you are spewing.
Pencilrick (the OP), I completely agree with you. Without a severe death penalty (that affects everyone, and isn't just self imposed), PvE MMO's are extremely boring, for some of us. I understand that many people don't agree - I think they feel threatened by people like you and I who want to take them out of their comfort zone, and who like games played at a whole different level that is apparently beyond their ability to understand.
Guild Wars has a harch DP. yet its PvE isnt anywere close to being as fun as WoW's End game?
Death penalty is one of the factors that makes a game hard. I like hard games but others don't.
Difficulty is how probable failure is.
Penalty is what happens if you fail.
Penalty doesn't make games harder, it makes them more painful. A game where enemies die in 3 attacks and you take 100 hits to be killed is easy*. It's still going to be easy if the death penalty permanently deletes your character.
The likelihood of failure has not increased, only the consequences.
I like hard games, but Penalty doesn't accomplish that. Making success/failure a result of tougher player decisions makes games harder.
(*this isn't enough details to call the game easy, but for the sake of discussion we're assuming combat is always 1v1 fights with rest in between.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Death penalty is one of the factors that makes a game hard. I like hard games but others don't.
Difficulty is how probable failure is.
Penalty is what happens if you fail.
Penalty doesn't make games harder, it makes them more painful. A game where enemies die in 3 attacks and you take 100 hits to be killed is easy*. It's still going to be easy if the death penalty permanently deletes your character.
The likelihood of failure has not increased, only the consequences.
I like hard games, but Penalty doesn't accomplish that. Making success/failure a result of tougher player decisions makes games harder.
(*this isn't enough details to call the game easy, but for the sake of discussion we're assuming combat is always 1v1 fights with rest in between.)
Exactly.
We don't need games with more penalties to keep players in fear of their simple failures, we need more challenging puzzles that make the players think.
Fun is learning, and you don't learn through punishment, you learn through trial and error. You just need to tell the player when they were wrong, not how incredibly terrible their wrongness was.
The cost of error should be very minimal, because the more costly the penalty for failure and the more challenging the puzzle, the more likely it is that the player will resort to a strategy guide. When a player reaches for a strategy guide, you have failed as a game designer.
Optimally, a game should have no right or wrong. Moral choices entering the equation prove for more difficulty as the results are just results, not punishment.
Few times in MMOs have I been excited as when I had someting to lose. It is a truely an exhilarating feeling. However, in these instances it wasn't all or nothing, so to speak. In other words, the penalty for failure wasn't overbearing. It's risk vs reward, also known as challenge.
A problem a lot of people have on this forum is this. "Lets apply this feature to my favorite or ideal perfect dream game, and see if it fits." Obviously, this will work about... never. This isn't the reader's fault though, its the poster's fault. If you are going to suggest a feature, you must also describe it's implementation. Designing a game is like painting a picture, you don't paint the whole thing, then figure out how the light will work. Everything must be integrated in unison. A game is no different.
If your game takes a year to gain a level, and each death removes a level, most people won't like that. Thats an example of a bad death penalty. If it took a day or two to level, not such a big deal.
So many people cringe when they hear "full PvP loot", they think about the time spent gaining a certain item, just to lose it. If a system isn't so dependent on gear, its less of a problem. Its all relative
"Look down at me and you see a fool, Look up at me and you see a God, Look straight at me and you see yourself." - Charles Manson
Few times in MMOs have I been excited as when I had someting to lose. It is a truely an exhilarating feeling. However, in these instances it wasn't all or nothing, so to speak. In other words, the penalty for failure wasn't overbearing. It's risk vs reward, also known as challenge. A problem a lot of people have on this forum is this. "Lets apply this feature to my favorite or ideal perfect dream game, and see if it fits." Obviously, this will work about... never. This isn't the reader's fault though, its the poster's fault. If you are going to suggest a feature, you must also describe it's implementation.
Designing a game is like painting a picture, you don't paint the whole thing, then figure out how the light will work. Everything must be integrated in unison. A game is no different. If your game takes a year to gain a level, and each death removes a level, most people won't like that. Thats an example of a bad death penalty. If it took a day or two to level, not such a big deal. So many people cringe when they hear "full PvP loot", they think about the time spent gaining a certain item, just to lose it. If a system isn't so dependent on gear, its less of a problem. Its all relative
I play chess and card game regularly, no gambling. Its always tremendous fun, even though losing a game does not cost anything.
The fun is in the playing, not in the outcome. If you need an outcome to shape the gaming pleasure, you are not playing a game, you are chasing a carrot via the game mechanism.
Originally posted by lisubab Originally posted by Mr.Hyde LOL Someone shot me,because I'd like to fill like I just had a $ 100.00 night in J..... hoe house.
Death separates boys from men. A boy will run from death, a man will stand upto it and spit it in the eye. Are you a boy or a man?
If you commit suicide the moment your avatar dies, you are a "man", stupid man. If you reloads the game and plays again after a death penalty, you are a "man", pretentious man. If you think a game defines a man from a boy, you are a "man", with no idea what a man really is.
This...
I'm not sure how much most of you friggin idiot gamers really get from this. But it means that you are a "boy" if you cannot realize a game from life...and a "man" can realize the difference....
"This may hurt a little, but it's something you'll get used to. Relax....."
Originally posted by Gestankfaust This... I'm not sure how much most of you friggin idiot gamers really get from this. But it means that you are a "boy" if you cannot realize a game from life...and a "man" can realize the difference....
No, both boys and men knows that. Morons don't know it and people with real mental illness.
But it has nothing to do with death penalty. If there is too little death penalty the game gets too easy and you don't care if you die at all. If the penalty gets too severe you get too careful and avoid any danger. A good game is between those extremes.
But death penalty is just a small aspect of a game, it is neverless important.
It's really about coupling Risk and Reward. One without the other is not as substantial.
Your reward from playing a game is the electronic pixel called loot? So after playing tennis for 2 hours, you do not feel rewarded unless someone prints a paper saying "pencilrick played tennis for 2 hours and is doing fine"?
I do not. I log on to play if I enjoy the process, whether I live or die, gain loot or lost repair gold. Once I log out, I forget it completely. Risk or whatever is just part of the whole package called gameplay. A game need not be fun even if there are risk elements, a game can be very fun without any risks, or rewards for that matter. Its the total package called gameplay (very personal and subjective) which dffers to each person, and for different person, risks and rewards are given different importance.
Originally posted by Loke666 Originally posted by GestankfaustThis... I'm not sure how much most of you friggin idiot gamers really get from this. But it means that you are a "boy" if you cannot realize a game from life...and a "man" can realize the difference....
No, both boys and men knows that. Morons don't know it and people with real mental illness.
But it has nothing to do with death penalty. If there is too little death penalty the game gets too easy and you don't care if you die at all. If the penalty gets too severe you get too careful and avoid any danger. A good game is between those extremes. But death penalty is just a small aspect of a game, it is neverless important.
no...they don't moron...read the news
The fact is...you people brought this above and beyond reality.
"This may hurt a little, but it's something you'll get used to. Relax....."
I played a game before called Rohan Online, Obviously a PVE game. There was no death penalty or maybe just a little death penalty on this game so it means when you get stronger you can bully lower levels without any hesitation on losing your items when you get killed whenever your name is pink or red (color used if your character PK'ed characters consecutively.).
The result of that, a lot of newcomers say goodbye to the game in a few days after starting because there was no death penalty for it. Eventhough you try your best to ask a high level character for help the bully won't stop because he has nothing to lose.
Give me the excitement I felt while playing EQ with its death penalty and I'll be happy. I realize I'm in a catagory with a minority here but I think EQ had the best death penalty. If I died it cost me real life time to get my corpse back which made me more than just a little careful or nervous when exploring. The only issue I had with it was when I was playing on Dial Up when we first moved to our new house because there wasn't any broadband in the area yet and I wasn't about to shell out over $600.00 for a satelite connection.
Anyways, there is my opinion.
/begins to imagine old EQ with new graphics and new servers
IMO, Death Penalty is needed in a PVE game. I played a game before called Rohan Online, Obviously a PVE game. There was no death penalty or maybe just a little death penalty on this game so it means when you get stronger you can bully lower levels without any hesitation on losing your items when you get killed whenever your name is pink or red (color used if your character PK'ed characters consecutively.). The result of that, a lot of newcomers say goodbye to the game in a few days after starting because there was no death penalty for it. Eventhough you try your best to ask a high level character for help the bully won't stop because he has nothing to lose.
A lot of newcomers say goodbye to games when they got PKed in a PVE game? A game allowing ffa pvp is usually not called a pve game.
Few times in MMOs have I been excited as when I had someting to lose. It is a truely an exhilarating feeling. However, in these instances it wasn't all or nothing, so to speak. In other words, the penalty for failure wasn't overbearing. It's risk vs reward, also known as challenge. A problem a lot of people have on this forum is this. "Lets apply this feature to my favorite or ideal perfect dream game, and see if it fits." Obviously, this will work about... never. This isn't the reader's fault though, its the poster's fault. If you are going to suggest a feature, you must also describe it's implementation.
Designing a game is like painting a picture, you don't paint the whole thing, then figure out how the light will work. Everything must be integrated in unison. A game is no different. If your game takes a year to gain a level, and each death removes a level, most people won't like that. Thats an example of a bad death penalty. If it took a day or two to level, not such a big deal. So many people cringe when they hear "full PvP loot", they think about the time spent gaining a certain item, just to lose it. If a system isn't so dependent on gear, its less of a problem. Its all relative
I play chess and card game regularly, no gambling. Its always tremendous fun, even though losing a game does not cost anything.
The fun is in the playing, not in the outcome. If you need an outcome to shape the gaming pleasure, you are not playing a game, you are chasing a carrot via the game mechanism.
I never said the only reason to participate was for the outcome. I don't NEED a reward or consequence for losing or winning, it just adds another level to the game.
Here is an example: I play Rugby, and the only thing you risk each game is a shot at a state or national championship. I play it because it is such a great sport and it's a lot of fun, however, the chance at a championship title takes it past "fun", and onto another level. I feel that through risks and rewards in gameplay, more depth can be achieved.
From a design perspective, consequences open options for more dynamic gameplay. A game with a strong economy will greatly benefit from some sort of loss in combat such as equipment deterioration or full loot:
in a matter of time, combatants will new need equipment, which is made by crafters. Crafters need resources, and the best ones are in areas that are scarce and contested over. Crafters employ fighters to gain control of these high-demand areas, creating a cycle that creates a perpetual bond between all players of the community. There is much stronger gameplay as the community is integrated to a higher level, than in one where combat is only about "fun" and has no consequences good or bad.
It's harder to integrate this into PvE, but it can benefit from risk/reward type systems that have death penalty. by making the benefits of defeating an enemy something more than just completing one-dimensional content (complete quest, get loot, repeat).
Lets say you can chose to take on one of two different enemies, one is standard in difficulty, the other is much harder. However, the rewards are better for the one that's harder; without a death penalty of some sort, whats the point of the easier one? Another example would be optional enemies you could chose to engage, which could be quite hard but give some sort of benefit by doing so. Maybe the "timer before the bomb blows up" is increased, or those enemies occupy a bridge which is more direct to the objective. A low death penalty time-sink (corpse run, respawn, etc), makes the whole rest of the level obsolete to some degree, because the most effective way is to take the shortcut, and since the consequence for failure is minimal, the only dissuading element is time, which is quite boring.
TL:DR version: Without Risk, you cannot truely have Reward, and therefore have less options.
"Look down at me and you see a fool, Look up at me and you see a God, Look straight at me and you see yourself." - Charles Manson
Boton the Rubgy example is exactly what good PVE should be:
If you lose you lose nothing.
If you win you gain access to the championship.
If you win there, you get the trophy.
There is no strong penalty at stake here. It's a very light "penalty" of having to start over from scratch for your next attempt. That's exactly what I'd call good PVE design: You can try again as many times as you want but it's the difficulty of the task which gives it the weight.
Also consider the fact that if you take a mediocre rugby team and let them play the top team a hundred games in a row, retrying as often and as quickly as they want, the mediocre team still isn't going to win the trophy. They're simply not skilled enough to beat the challenge, and making the penalty for failure lighter won't changed that.
If the mediocre team lucks out and wins one, they have 1 trophy. Congrats. The other team has earned 99 trophies.
Although we're talking PVE. So really the Top Team is the enemy AI, and we're comparing Mediocre Team's 1 trophy with the many trophies other teams are getting (by not being mediocre.)
So yeah, Risk vs. Reward. Risk being the time cost (not a harsh cost) to attempt content.
Because I assure you Rugby would be a lot less popular and fun if the losing team was required to have their legs broken (thus incurring the same sort of harsh monetary and recovery time cost that certain players seem to want from MMORPGs.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
If I had my legs broken every time I lost a match in Rugby, would I play? Fuck no. Would I risk that if perhaps, our team could win 10 million dollars? Its possible, and the beauty of a virtual game is there isn't really much at stake. At the end of the day you can log off, and all you may have lost is some time.
Death penalties such as item loss will NOT work
Increasing the Risk without increasing Reward is a bad idea. If you just apply a big penalty to a current game, you won't get something fun. It won't be fun because the game isn't designed that way. It's not all about what you risk, its also what you can gain.
Designing a game is like painting a picture, you have to create harmony. You don't paint the whole thing before you figure out how the light will work in the picture, and just like a game, you can't tack on features that werent incorporated in the design.
Increased risk, allows increased reward, which in turn allows more options, enhancing game depth.
in games with traditional RPG treadmill systems. These systems where "progession" is so important, are not designed in ways loss can be incorporated. The game would have to be drastically different.
Its also why I'm not a fan of the "iron sword +5 damage, iron sword with jewel +10000 damage" systems. These systems instantly remove elements that could be in the game, such as penalties.
If every sword is an iron sword, all of a sudden, losing an iron sword isn't that big of a deal.
"Look down at me and you see a fool, Look up at me and you see a God, Look straight at me and you see yourself." - Charles Manson
Comments
I am British and I found this pretty offensive. Why would you advertise your ignorance and small minded views on a public forum?
http://www.recycleyourgames.co.uk - Recycle Your Games and Consoles. Help the Environment and Charity!
Cute, I am getting flamed by someone who bothered to checkout my profile but apparently was t0o lazy to realize that I am from Canada (London, Ontario)
.
On the other hand these comments about WWII are just plain ignorant and insulting. How dare you insult the memory of all those who died in that war with your drivel.
My apologies to England, at least thay did something. What was it your country did again? O thats right, your country let american boys run from the war, I almost forgot. O and it is nice to shop over here isn't it. Don't forget the name of this content, it is North America.....
Think about.
retRA-11B
Lead me, follow me, or get out of my way.
- General George Patton Jr
Cute, I am getting flamed by someone who bothered to checkout my profile but apparently was t0o lazy to realize that I am from Canada (London, Ontario)
.
On the other hand these comments about WWII are just plain ignorant and insulting. How dare you insult the memory of all those who died in that war with your drivel.
My apologies to England, at least thay did something. What was it your country did again? O thats right, your country let american boys run from the war, I almost forgot. O and it is nice to shop over here isn't it. Don't forget the name of this content, it is North America.....
Think about.
I'm not getting into a petty, small minded flame war with you over race. If you feel the need to attack Britain, go ahead, however is the forum of an MMO website really the place for it?
It would also help your cause if you could use the English language properly.
http://www.recycleyourgames.co.uk - Recycle Your Games and Consoles. Help the Environment and Charity!
Woman think about dentists? Who knew....
Please stop speaking for those of us in North America who don't condone the kind of drivel you are spewing.
Guild Wars has a harch DP. yet its PvE isnt anywere close to being as fun as WoW's End game?
Difficulty is how probable failure is.
Penalty is what happens if you fail.
Penalty doesn't make games harder, it makes them more painful. A game where enemies die in 3 attacks and you take 100 hits to be killed is easy*. It's still going to be easy if the death penalty permanently deletes your character.
The likelihood of failure has not increased, only the consequences.
I like hard games, but Penalty doesn't accomplish that. Making success/failure a result of tougher player decisions makes games harder.
(*this isn't enough details to call the game easy, but for the sake of discussion we're assuming combat is always 1v1 fights with rest in between.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Difficulty is how probable failure is.
Penalty is what happens if you fail.
Penalty doesn't make games harder, it makes them more painful. A game where enemies die in 3 attacks and you take 100 hits to be killed is easy*. It's still going to be easy if the death penalty permanently deletes your character.
The likelihood of failure has not increased, only the consequences.
I like hard games, but Penalty doesn't accomplish that. Making success/failure a result of tougher player decisions makes games harder.
(*this isn't enough details to call the game easy, but for the sake of discussion we're assuming combat is always 1v1 fights with rest in between.)
Exactly.
We don't need games with more penalties to keep players in fear of their simple failures, we need more challenging puzzles that make the players think.
Fun is learning, and you don't learn through punishment, you learn through trial and error. You just need to tell the player when they were wrong, not how incredibly terrible their wrongness was.
The cost of error should be very minimal, because the more costly the penalty for failure and the more challenging the puzzle, the more likely it is that the player will resort to a strategy guide. When a player reaches for a strategy guide, you have failed as a game designer.
Optimally, a game should have no right or wrong. Moral choices entering the equation prove for more difficulty as the results are just results, not punishment.
Few times in MMOs have I been excited as when I had someting to lose. It is a truely an exhilarating feeling. However, in these instances it wasn't all or nothing, so to speak. In other words, the penalty for failure wasn't overbearing. It's risk vs reward, also known as challenge.
A problem a lot of people have on this forum is this. "Lets apply this feature to my favorite or ideal perfect dream game, and see if it fits." Obviously, this will work about... never. This isn't the reader's fault though, its the poster's fault. If you are going to suggest a feature, you must also describe it's implementation.
Designing a game is like painting a picture, you don't paint the whole thing, then figure out how the light will work. Everything must be integrated in unison. A game is no different.
If your game takes a year to gain a level, and each death removes a level, most people won't like that. Thats an example of a bad death penalty. If it took a day or two to level, not such a big deal.
So many people cringe when they hear "full PvP loot", they think about the time spent gaining a certain item, just to lose it. If a system isn't so dependent on gear, its less of a problem. Its all relative
"Look down at me and you see a fool, Look up at me and you see a God, Look straight at me and you see yourself." - Charles Manson
If you commit suicide the moment your avatar dies, you are a "man", stupid man.
If you reloads the game and plays again after a death penalty, you are a "man", pretentious man.
If you think a game defines a man from a boy, you are a "man", with no idea what a man really is.
I play chess and card game regularly, no gambling. Its always tremendous fun, even though losing a game does not cost anything.
The fun is in the playing, not in the outcome. If you need an outcome to shape the gaming pleasure, you are not playing a game, you are chasing a carrot via the game mechanism.
If you commit suicide the moment your avatar dies, you are a "man", stupid man.
If you reloads the game and plays again after a death penalty, you are a "man", pretentious man.
If you think a game defines a man from a boy, you are a "man", with no idea what a man really is.
This...
I'm not sure how much most of you friggin idiot gamers really get from this. But it means that you are a "boy" if you cannot realize a game from life...and a "man" can realize the difference....
"This may hurt a little, but it's something you'll get used to. Relax....."
It's really about coupling Risk and Reward. One without the other is not as substantial.
No, both boys and men knows that. Morons don't know it and people with real mental illness.
But it has nothing to do with death penalty. If there is too little death penalty the game gets too easy and you don't care if you die at all. If the penalty gets too severe you get too careful and avoid any danger. A good game is between those extremes.
But death penalty is just a small aspect of a game, it is neverless important.
Your reward from playing a game is the electronic pixel called loot? So after playing tennis for 2 hours, you do not feel rewarded unless someone prints a paper saying "pencilrick played tennis for 2 hours and is doing fine"?
I do not. I log on to play if I enjoy the process, whether I live or die, gain loot or lost repair gold. Once I log out, I forget it completely. Risk or whatever is just part of the whole package called gameplay. A game need not be fun even if there are risk elements, a game can be very fun without any risks, or rewards for that matter. Its the total package called gameplay (very personal and subjective) which dffers to each person, and for different person, risks and rewards are given different importance.
But it has nothing to do with death penalty. If there is too little death penalty the game gets too easy and you don't care if you die at all. If the penalty gets too severe you get too careful and avoid any danger. A good game is between those extremes.
But death penalty is just a small aspect of a game, it is neverless important.
no...they don't moron...read the news
The fact is...you people brought this above and beyond reality.
"This may hurt a little, but it's something you'll get used to. Relax....."
Yay! more nerdrage. It's not a real thread until somebody drops the 'M' word
IMO, Death Penalty is needed in a PVE game.
I played a game before called Rohan Online, Obviously a PVE game. There was no death penalty or maybe just a little death penalty on this game so it means when you get stronger you can bully lower levels without any hesitation on losing your items when you get killed whenever your name is pink or red (color used if your character PK'ed characters consecutively.).
The result of that, a lot of newcomers say goodbye to the game in a few days after starting because there was no death penalty for it. Eventhough you try your best to ask a high level character for help the bully won't stop because he has nothing to lose.
Give me the excitement I felt while playing EQ with its death penalty and I'll be happy. I realize I'm in a catagory with a minority here but I think EQ had the best death penalty. If I died it cost me real life time to get my corpse back which made me more than just a little careful or nervous when exploring. The only issue I had with it was when I was playing on Dial Up when we first moved to our new house because there wasn't any broadband in the area yet and I wasn't about to shell out over $600.00 for a satelite connection.
Anyways, there is my opinion.
/begins to imagine old EQ with new graphics and new servers
Yay! more nerdrage. It's not a real thread until somebody drops the 'M' word
oh wow...hey look everyone....
Mr. No One speaks...and he must be right cause he wrote what he wrote...
The "M" word applies to you as well now. Don't open your epeen mouth unless you have something to say.
M'kay little "e"toon?
"This may hurt a little, but it's something you'll get used to. Relax....."
A lot of newcomers say goodbye to games when they got PKed in a PVE game? A game allowing ffa pvp is usually not called a pve game.
Yay! more nerdrage. It's not a real thread until somebody drops the 'M' word
oh wow...hey look everyone....
Mr. No One speaks...and he must be right cause he wrote what he wrote...
The "M" word applies to you as well now. Don't open your epeen mouth unless you have something to say.
M'kay little "e"toon?
That's right!! let it all out man. Get it out of your system
Now repeat after me 'Goos Fraba' 'Goooooos Fraaabaaa'...
I play chess and card game regularly, no gambling. Its always tremendous fun, even though losing a game does not cost anything.
The fun is in the playing, not in the outcome. If you need an outcome to shape the gaming pleasure, you are not playing a game, you are chasing a carrot via the game mechanism.
I never said the only reason to participate was for the outcome. I don't NEED a reward or consequence for losing or winning, it just adds another level to the game.
Here is an example: I play Rugby, and the only thing you risk each game is a shot at a state or national championship. I play it because it is such a great sport and it's a lot of fun, however, the chance at a championship title takes it past "fun", and onto another level. I feel that through risks and rewards in gameplay, more depth can be achieved.
From a design perspective, consequences open options for more dynamic gameplay. A game with a strong economy will greatly benefit from some sort of loss in combat such as equipment deterioration or full loot:
in a matter of time, combatants will new need equipment, which is made by crafters. Crafters need resources, and the best ones are in areas that are scarce and contested over. Crafters employ fighters to gain control of these high-demand areas, creating a cycle that creates a perpetual bond between all players of the community. There is much stronger gameplay as the community is integrated to a higher level, than in one where combat is only about "fun" and has no consequences good or bad.
It's harder to integrate this into PvE, but it can benefit from risk/reward type systems that have death penalty. by making the benefits of defeating an enemy something more than just completing one-dimensional content (complete quest, get loot, repeat).
Lets say you can chose to take on one of two different enemies, one is standard in difficulty, the other is much harder. However, the rewards are better for the one that's harder; without a death penalty of some sort, whats the point of the easier one? Another example would be optional enemies you could chose to engage, which could be quite hard but give some sort of benefit by doing so. Maybe the "timer before the bomb blows up" is increased, or those enemies occupy a bridge which is more direct to the objective. A low death penalty time-sink (corpse run, respawn, etc), makes the whole rest of the level obsolete to some degree, because the most effective way is to take the shortcut, and since the consequence for failure is minimal, the only dissuading element is time, which is quite boring.
TL:DR version: Without Risk, you cannot truely have Reward, and therefore have less options.
"Look down at me and you see a fool, Look up at me and you see a God, Look straight at me and you see yourself." - Charles Manson
I want you to erase your data everytime you die. Then come back and tell me how stail DP is in Dragon Age
>:^(
Its fun like Crap
Boton the Rubgy example is exactly what good PVE should be:
There is no strong penalty at stake here. It's a very light "penalty" of having to start over from scratch for your next attempt. That's exactly what I'd call good PVE design: You can try again as many times as you want but it's the difficulty of the task which gives it the weight.
Also consider the fact that if you take a mediocre rugby team and let them play the top team a hundred games in a row, retrying as often and as quickly as they want, the mediocre team still isn't going to win the trophy. They're simply not skilled enough to beat the challenge, and making the penalty for failure lighter won't changed that.
If the mediocre team lucks out and wins one, they have 1 trophy. Congrats. The other team has earned 99 trophies.
Although we're talking PVE. So really the Top Team is the enemy AI, and we're comparing Mediocre Team's 1 trophy with the many trophies other teams are getting (by not being mediocre.)
So yeah, Risk vs. Reward. Risk being the time cost (not a harsh cost) to attempt content.
Because I assure you Rugby would be a lot less popular and fun if the losing team was required to have their legs broken (thus incurring the same sort of harsh monetary and recovery time cost that certain players seem to want from MMORPGs.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
If I had my legs broken every time I lost a match in Rugby, would I play? Fuck no. Would I risk that if perhaps, our team could win 10 million dollars? Its possible, and the beauty of a virtual game is there isn't really much at stake. At the end of the day you can log off, and all you may have lost is some time.
Death penalties such as item loss will NOT work
Increasing the Risk without increasing Reward is a bad idea. If you just apply a big penalty to a current game, you won't get something fun. It won't be fun because the game isn't designed that way. It's not all about what you risk, its also what you can gain.
Designing a game is like painting a picture, you have to create harmony. You don't paint the whole thing before you figure out how the light will work in the picture, and just like a game, you can't tack on features that werent incorporated in the design.
Increased risk, allows increased reward, which in turn allows more options, enhancing game depth.
in games with traditional RPG treadmill systems. These systems where "progession" is so important, are not designed in ways loss can be incorporated. The game would have to be drastically different.
Its also why I'm not a fan of the "iron sword +5 damage, iron sword with jewel +10000 damage" systems. These systems instantly remove elements that could be in the game, such as penalties.
If every sword is an iron sword, all of a sudden, losing an iron sword isn't that big of a deal.
"Look down at me and you see a fool, Look up at me and you see a God, Look straight at me and you see yourself." - Charles Manson