"Punishment has nothing to do with embracing mindsets of low self esteem. Punishment when properly used promotes discipline. Discipline generates focus. Focus allows one to succeed. Success brings the thrill. There's an easily traced behavior path as an example.. Would you be so bold as to suggest the military of this nation (or any nation for that matter) is sado? Expand your view and you should realize quickly that it was very compartmentalized." Your hypocritical... People, these are games. Games are played for fun. One's opinion of fun varies from person to person. Some people like Cleveland Steamers. The majority do not. So in conclusion, if you like being shat on... fine, just stop trying to shit on everyone else and tell people they should like it.
*sigh*. I'm feeding a troll...
Your post does nothing towards discussing the OP's premise nor provides a counter-argument. It's opinion supported by opinion.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc. We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be. So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away. - MMO_Doubter
MMORPG´s are lightyear behind MMO FPS RPG death penalty real loot full loot and and and gaming.
Shooter games have full loot, yup. But how much does death sting? Not at all, in fact it happens so much, you don't even feel it.
And how many people do you see playing xlfrag as compared to, say, TF2?
MMORPGs try to add depth to the game by making your character's equipment valuable. Everything else is mostly worthless, including the player, because a bot can play the character better than an actual human being.
That's really the difference between the genres. One requires some degree of human ingenuity to achieve victory, while the other does not - and in fact would benefit everyone more if a robot was playing instead.
This is why MMORPGs are letting up on the death penalty: you shouldn't punish players for not being as good as robots.
ok answer comes here (5 point in talent tree,holy priest of kindness) i need to paste it for you it seems
"XLFrag is a new way of skill-gaming where you can play Counter Strike 1.6 against other players for real money in real time!."
I disagree with your chess analogy and many other people in this thread have pointed out problems with it as well. In an MMO when I die, I not only lose the time, but I have also impaired from progressing at the same level/rate for some period of time. Chess is not like this, most games are not like this. If I lose a chess match, I am not prevented/impaired/restricted in any way shape or form from the next match.
During the game you lose pawns, queens which limits my options during the game, but I can get the queen back... during a fight in an MMO I lose health, mana, energy... which limits my options during the fight but I can get them back. But If I lose the fight I am penalized for the next fight in some way for period of time. Most games do no impair or restrict the person in any way from another match of the game when the game is done. (sometimes I can't play with the same people as in a tournament but I can always set up another game). Yes there are many aspects of the military and any military that are sado, not all and certainly not most, however they are also training people to handle extreme and terrible situations and survive - a bit different than a game, and IMO not comparable at all, the stress levels the person MUST be able to deal with are extreme and the best way to learn to handle that level of stress is to be put in very high stress levels - a principle of specificity). Punishment can bring success, however years and years of research has shown that reward brings more. Negative reinforcement is a backwards and dwindling form of enforcement, ignoring bad behaviours, not acknowledging it in any way shape or form whatsoever (for the most part, yes there are extremes that need to be dealt) and reinforcing positive behaviour gives much better chances of success. Discipline is not generated from punishment, it is generated from repeatedly performing activities and then realizing that the activity had a positive result. Venge Sunsoar
Clearly you haven't read the thread. 1. I didn't promote a chess analogy 2. you're the first person to denounce it outside of 1 other individual- Axehilt if I recall correctly without scrolling back.
There is no penalty inside of chess- it's a reset, applied to all. The game is entirely internal. There is no meta-tactic involved. Where these sorts of tactics come into play are during 'best of 3' or tournament style play... at which point in time there is a penalty for losses. If you're defining your system (hello fluid science!) with its limits as being a single game of chess, then the metaphor breaks down unlike the OPs suggestion with poker. This also has been examined already by Axehilt.
The lessons learned in the military do not differ in the slightest with lessons that are taught on racetracks, in corporate board meetings... and the manners in which they are taught differ only in dosage- not in technique. While a more relaxed environment can promote a more treehugging approach that works, it would be nothing short of ignorant to consider that only in a military environment is punishment necessary during training because of the nature of the mission.
Punishment is key as a part of any teaching method. Ignoring problems and simply reinforcing positive attributes doesn't remove the problems from existence- it simply devalues their presence and makes them less significant. If one can embrace that 'honesty is the best policy' (yes, I realize it's cliche), then one quickly understands the value of spitting things like they are, and letting consequence be the teacher. This, of course, as part of a coherent teaching policy that has healthy doses of many methods and doesn't singularly isolate punishment- but I underline that the act of punishment is still present and a very valuable tool.
Discipline is formed from many sources, of which punishment is one. Also, it's laughable to assume someone would repeatedly perform a function only to discover whether or not it had a positive result, and then to bend back and make a blanket statement that discipline was formed. I would like to assume I know where you're going with your statement in your final paragraph, but it goes nowhere fast regardless.
Anyhow, this really derails the thread from it's OP.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc. We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be. So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away. - MMO_Doubter
I disagree with your chess analogy and many other people in this thread have pointed out problems with it as well. In an MMO when I die, I not only lose the time, but I have also impaired from progressing at the same level/rate for some period of time. Chess is not like this, most games are not like this. If I lose a chess match, I am not prevented/impaired/restricted in any way shape or form from the next match.
During the game you lose pawns, queens which limits my options during the game, but I can get the queen back... during a fight in an MMO I lose health, mana, energy... which limits my options during the fight but I can get them back. But If I lose the fight I am penalized for the next fight in some way for period of time. Most games do no impair or restrict the person in any way from another match of the game when the game is done. (sometimes I can't play with the same people as in a tournament but I can always set up another game). Yes there are many aspects of the military and any military that are sado, not all and certainly not most, however they are also training people to handle extreme and terrible situations and survive - a bit different than a game, and IMO not comparable at all, the stress levels the person MUST be able to deal with are extreme and the best way to learn to handle that level of stress is to be put in very high stress levels - a principle of specificity). Punishment can bring success, however years and years of research has shown that reward brings more. Negative reinforcement is a backwards and dwindling form of enforcement, ignoring bad behaviours, not acknowledging it in any way shape or form whatsoever (for the most part, yes there are extremes that need to be dealt) and reinforcing positive behaviour gives much better chances of success. Discipline is not generated from punishment, it is generated from repeatedly performing activities and then realizing that the activity had a positive result. Venge Sunsoar
Clearly you haven't read the thread. 1. I didn't promote a chess analogy 2. you're the first person to denounce it outside of 1 other individual- Axehilt if I recall correctly without scrolling back.
There is no penalty inside of chess- it's a reset, applied to all. The game is entirely internal. There is no meta-tactic involved. Where these sorts of tactics come into play are during 'best of 3' or tournament style play... at which point in time there is a penalty for losses. If you're defining your system (hello fluid science!) with its limits as being a single game of chess, then the metaphor breaks down unlike the OPs suggestion with poker. This also has been examined already by Axehilt.
The lessons learned in the military do not differ in the slightest with lessons that are taught on racetracks, in corporate board meetings... and the manners in which they are taught differ only in dosage- not in technique. While a more relaxed environment can promote a more treehugging approach that works, it would be nothing short of ignorant to consider that only in a military environment is punishment necessary during training because of the nature of the mission.
Punishment is key as a part of any teaching method. Ignoring problems and simply reinforcing positive attributes doesn't remove the problems from existence- it simply devalues their presence and makes them less significant. If one can embrace that 'honesty is the best policy' (yes, I realize it's cliche), then one quickly understands the value of spitting things like they are, and letting consequence be the teacher. This, of course, as part of a coherent teaching policy that has healthy doses of many methods and doesn't singularly isolate punishment- but I underline that the act of punishment is still present and a very valuable tool.
Discipline is formed from many sources, of which punishment is one. Also, it's laughable to assume someone would repeatedly perform a function only to discover whether or not it had a positive result, and then to bend back and make a blanket statement that discipline was formed. I would like to assume I know where you're going with your statement in your final paragraph, but it goes nowhere fast regardless.
Anyhow, this really derails the thread from it's OP.
I have read the whole thread and still disagree with the chess analogy. While it may have more application in a tournament style, a tournament style is hardly a major point in MMO's so the analogy is flawed even further.
The discussion is about penalties upon death - in an MMO there are penalities applied to death. In a chess match, other than not being able to advance in a tournament there is no additional penalty - case over. The two are not similar other than both are games.
And once again I disagree the lessons learned in the military differ significantly. The best way to learn about situations is to mimic that situation as closely as possible, there are stacks of evidence supporting this, and this is why military training needs to be so tough. However tough and punishment are not the same. Many many other studies have shown that punishment is a largely ineffective more of learning. While you do learn with negative reinforcement, it is far far less effective than postive reinforcement. Tree-hugging has nothing to do with it. Rewards motivate people more than fear. Positive reinforcement results in lasting behavioral modification, whereas punishment only temporarily changes behavior and presents many detrimental side effects. This has been widely known since at least skinner and probably by many long before that.
An adult would usually not repeat an action only to discover later that there was a positive result which is why most often discipline is learned in childhood. It is the parents and coaches who help instill it by guiding the child through the activity. Later when they have the black belt, the good grade or hit the home run, the realization comes that it was because of all their repeated work (practice) that gave them the result.
Venge Sunsoar
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Let us reminisce a bit about Blizzards predecessor to World of Warcraft.
I was a Diablo 2 hardcore player for 4 years. I was so use to NOT dying that when I started playing DAoC I had problems even accepting a penalty at all. I felt that when you died in the game you was suppose to be dead. I was a strong advocate of perma death.
Then one day I started thinking about long term players and the effect that the average gamer who would do silly things like jump off a cliff and die just to jump and then that player would probably NOT play anymore. Well I slowly started accepting the fact that more players would rather zerg something than plan. The role play I though was suppose to be there just did not exist. I realized that most players want to hurry up to max level to get to an endgame of raiding for leet gear and only then concerned themselves with the avatar. I started finding myself playing alone more and more because I did not want my avatar to die. So I was on the fence about this thing called perma death. I wanted it but then I didn't want it.
I went on to propose to the game developer of a certain game maybe a server dictated to those that wanted the extreme challenge. The community did not take this lightly and of course it was a lost cause.
I went on to propose maybe where one got a bonus for surviving and make a special title that upon death they lost. Of course this again was met with outrage by the ones that needed to have a kill versus death of under 10 to show who had the bigger e-peen.
After further analysis I began to realize that MMORPGs are designed in such a way that it is utterly impossible to for your avatar to NOT die. The gauntlet system to make that next level to move to the next map has been burned into the game industry for so long (since asteroids, pacman and donkey Kong) and runs so deep that it is not going to be easy to break the mold.
I was disillusioned by the MMORPG but yet loved it and loved the communities. I decided that the only way was to make my own game. I decided to eliminate leveling all together, eliminate the skill system, eliminate classes, and eliminate the gauntlet style of game play that MMORPG are suppose to have. I decided to replace the quest system with multi-path system and let the players own personality develop his avatar and make a faction system of two extreme groups and those caught between.
I decided I would make a few hard coded laws and let the community make the rest of the laws and let the community enforce those laws. If the community wanted perma death then let them make that a law. If the community decided that it was in their best interest to not have perma death then that would be law. If it got proposed then they vote on it in game and the results are implemented upon close of the poll (once a year the polls open for a week). The overall system is a player run government. They are voted into their positions and must follow the hard-coded laws least they be removed.
sadly, What I have is not a MMORPG but a virtual reality. Something probably no one wants.
To the OP - a game played as a game, is a game weather you win lose or draw.
1. - Making it more challenging in death without it being perma death will not make it challenging.
2. - Implementing Perma death in todays MMORPG is impossible due to design just like it was near impossible but for a few to make the 100 levels of pacman.
3. - No game maker is going to make it perma death and cut their own throat so a few can be challenged.
4. - If you want a Perma death game make your own MMORPG. You will change your mind.
I have read the whole thread and still disagree with the chess analogy. While it may have more application in a tournament style, a tournament style is hardly a major point in MMO's so the analogy is flawed even further. The discussion is about penalties upon death - in an MMO there are penalities applied to death. In a chess match, other than not being able to advance in a tournament there is no additional penalty - case over. The two are not similar other than both are games. And once again I disagree the lessons learned in the military differ significantly. The best way to learn about situations is to mimic that situation as closely as possible, there are stacks of evidence supporting this, and this is why military training needs to be so tough. However tough and punishment are not the same. Many many other studies have shown that punishment is a largely ineffective more of learning. While you do learn with negative reinforcement, it is far far less effective than postive reinforcement. Tree-hugging has nothing to do with it. Rewards motivate people more than fear. Positive reinforcement results in lasting behavioral modification, whereas punishment only temporarily changes behavior and presents many detrimental side effects. This has been widely known since at least skinner and probably by many long before that. An adult would usually not repeat an action only to discover later that there was a positive result which is why most often discipline is learned in childhood. It is the parents and coaches who help instill it by guiding the child through the activity. Later when they have the black belt, the good grade or hit the home run, the realization comes that it was because of all their repeated work (practice) that gave them the result.
Venge Sunsoar
You state you've read it, but still murk through the same topics that were already covered to completion. There are 2 ways of analyzing chess play: the internal game, or the meta-game. Both of these were covered and followed to logical ends. You're saying you disagree but offer nothing new to consider on the matter.
There are similarities drawn with poker and how there are both internalized stakes and meta-game stakes- which apply to MMOs moreso than chess. The whole chess analogy was thrown out because it didn't fit in either manner that it could have been considered.... so I don't understand what's being discussed here. Again, you say you've read the thread ...
You're free to disagree with military lessons learned and wether or not those lessons are taught elsewhere. I'd point you in the direction of RCR racing within the NASCAR circuit, a slew of DoD hiring agencies, professional fraternaties at 3 schools I've personally attended, and 8 years of military experience to stake full claim that the lessons are identical, and the manifestation of punishment is real, albeit different for the different cultures. The best way to learn about something is to learn both what works, as well as what doesn't work, and then why for both. It's 360 degree understanding.
There exists a common desire in corporate-level hirings to seek out talent that has explicitly failed at something- because there is an understanding failures are real and in most cases cannot be avoided. It's about how one embraces failure, learns from it, and surmounts it that is important. The medical industry of any example would be the prime specimen to consider for this thesis. You want a doctor operating on you who has never failed before, but possibly could (because every operation is unique), or a doctor who has failed in the past, learnt from it, and carries hardened experience going in? The medical field understands the importance of failure.
How is this related? Failure isn't pretty. Sometimes failure means deadly. (Not to beat a dead horse or anything, but we're talking about death penalty here). The greater the odds, the higher the stakes, the greater the satisfaction, the bigger the rush of success. Ask the Super Bowl champions what they learnt after having just won the big game.... now ask the runners-up. Which will give you a more detailed report? It is in failure that we learn to succeed. There are entirely too many real-life examples to support this claim.
Lastly, whoever said that positive reinforcement wasn't a good thing? Negative reinforcement does not mutually relate to being punishment. Both success and failure, commendation and punishment, are useful and important. To claim that one isn't needed is nothing short of pure naive. I swim a 400m IM- my butterfly is solid, my freestyle is solid, and my backstroke is solid, but my breaststroke sucks nuggets. I can't positively reinforce what I'm doing right and expect to have what I'm doing that's negative disappear. I can swim 3/4 legs of my race at world best times, but that does nothing for the 1/4 that I swim at a 12yo obese kids' pace. I need hard dedication, determination, and owning up to consequence with regards to that 1 leg of my race if I ever truly hope to improve. I understand what you're saying about how a positive outlook can garner more results, but some results can't be achieved through anything short of 'punishment'.
Anyhow, I've ranted enough and allowed myself to get caught off-topic from the OP. Apologies for the derail.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc. We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be. So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away. - MMO_Doubter
Rewards motivate people more than fear. Positive reinforcement results in lasting behavioral modification, whereas punishment only temporarily changes behavior and presents many detrimental side effects. This has been widely known since at least skinner and probably by many long before that.
Yes, and this is why I advocate death where the "penalty" is merely a temporary lack of forward progression. If you lost zero durability in a WOW death, you'd still be losing Time (from the corpse run) which will cost you progression.
You can even replace corpse runs with a fun activity and still have death be a significant enough setback (nearly every old NES game does death this way: die and go back to the start of the level and immediately continue playing the game.)
The same can be accomplished in MMORPGs with rear-weighted rewards which demand a streak of good performance. Like a dungeon where wiping resets both you and the mobs -- instead of a corpse run you're immediately combat-ready again, but you're back at the start of the dungeon (and the rewards are at the end of the dungeon.) These challenges can vary in difficulty; yeah some will be easy, but the ones with the great rewards will be a rough gauntlet of challenges where a misstep will set you back to the start of the challenge (and you can immediately restart the challenge without missing a beat...but you're still reset to be that much further from the end goal.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I don't need to have the OMG IF I DIE IM SCREWED looming over my head to enjoy a game. Just the action itself is enough to get me going and I would say the money is with lighter DPs then heavy ones.
Also on your analogy. People can have fun either way.
Hold on Snow Leopard, imma let you finish, but Windows had one of the best operating systems of all time.
If the Powerball lottery was like Lotro, nobody would win for 2 years, and then everyone in Nebraska would win on the same day. And then Nebraska would get nerfed.-pinkwood lotro fourms
AMD 4800 2.4ghz-3GB RAM 533mhz-EVGA 9500GT 512mb-320gb HD
I have read the whole thread and still disagree with the chess analogy. While it may have more application in a tournament style, a tournament style is hardly a major point in MMO's so the analogy is flawed even further. The discussion is about penalties upon death - in an MMO there are penalities applied to death. In a chess match, other than not being able to advance in a tournament there is no additional penalty - case over. The two are not similar other than both are games. And once again I disagree the lessons learned in the military differ significantly. The best way to learn about situations is to mimic that situation as closely as possible, there are stacks of evidence supporting this, and this is why military training needs to be so tough. However tough and punishment are not the same. Many many other studies have shown that punishment is a largely ineffective more of learning. While you do learn with negative reinforcement, it is far far less effective than postive reinforcement. Tree-hugging has nothing to do with it. Rewards motivate people more than fear. Positive reinforcement results in lasting behavioral modification, whereas punishment only temporarily changes behavior and presents many detrimental side effects. This has been widely known since at least skinner and probably by many long before that. An adult would usually not repeat an action only to discover later that there was a positive result which is why most often discipline is learned in childhood. It is the parents and coaches who help instill it by guiding the child through the activity. Later when they have the black belt, the good grade or hit the home run, the realization comes that it was because of all their repeated work (practice) that gave them the result.
Venge Sunsoar
There exists a common desire in corporate-level hirings to seek out talent that has explicitly failed at something- because there is an understanding failures are real and in most cases cannot be avoided. It's about how one embraces failure, learns from it, and surmounts it that is important. The medical industry of any example would be the prime specimen to consider for this thesis. You want a doctor operating on you who has never failed before, but possibly could (because every operation is unique), or a doctor who has failed in the past, learnt from it, and carries hardened experience going in? The medical field understands the importance of failure.
How is this related? Failure isn't pretty. Sometimes failure means deadly. (Not to beat a dead horse or anything, but we're talking about death penalty here). The greater the odds, the higher the stakes, the greater the satisfaction, the bigger the rush of success. Ask the Super Bowl champions what they learnt after having just won the big game.... now ask the runners-up. Which will give you a more detailed report? It is in failure that we learn to succeed. There are entirely too many real-life examples to support this claim.
Lastly, whoever said that positive reinforcement wasn't a good thing? Negative reinforcement does not mutually relate to being punishment. Both success and failure, commendation and punishment, are useful and important. To claim that one isn't needed is nothing short of pure naive. I swim a 400m IM- my butterfly is solid, my freestyle is solid, and my backstroke is solid, but my breaststroke sucks nuggets. I can't positively reinforce what I'm doing right and expect to have what I'm doing that's negative disappear. I can swim 3/4 legs of my race at world best times, but that does nothing for the 1/4 that I swim at a 12yo obese kids' pace. I need hard dedication, determination, and owning up to consequence with regards to that 1 leg of my race if I ever truly hope to improve. I understand what you're saying about how a positive outlook can garner more results, but some results can't be achieved through anything short of 'punishment'.
I agree with most of what your saying but for this section, which actually I do agree with this. Failure is probably the single best way to learn but negative reinforcement and failure are not the same things at all in any way shape or form. It what comes after the failure, the additional things that are done that determine whether something is a negative or positive reinforcement or punishment (which is a form but not the only form of negative reinforcement).
Losing the superbowl would suck, and they should look back figure out what they could have done better (if they could) however failing to win the superbowl is not negative reinforcement or punishment,. They just lost. If all the players get fired well thats a different story
Actually I don't think this is such a derail, we are discussing what penalty should be, if there should even be one beyond simply losing. And what it is that motivates people to become better, which directly ties into how people learn.
Venge Sunsoar
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
never really thought much of a death penalty but thats an interesting analogy. Although imagine if you lost a lot of money on poker many times in a row- what then for the hypothetical mmo player? (ie. he dies many times- getting this heavy death penalty)
never really thought much of a death penalty but thats an interesting analogy. Although imagine if you lost a lot of money on poker many times in a row- what then for the hypothetical mmo player? (ie. he dies many times- getting this heavy death penalty)
Both of those things have happened to me.
I've lost big playing poker. It sucks but that's just the way it goes. Knowing how bad it feels when you lose is a big part of the excitement when you take a risk. Have you ever played versions of poker with progressive pots? This means if you lose you have to put back into the pot the amount of money that was there. The winner takes the pot but the losers have to match it. So if two people lose a $10 pot it doubles to $20. If three people are in and lose, that $20 then triples to $60. And so on. The pot only clears if only one person is in and takes it with no losers to match it. That can be very nasty and extremely tense as the pot grows and grows.
I've won big pots in those types of games but I've also lost big, sometimes repeatedly. But that's what makes it thrilling. I'm sitting there looking at a $700 dollar pot, knowing that if I get in and lose..BAM, it's $700 dollars gone, poof. And if two people are in and lose that $700 is going to double to $1400 and I have to decide again if I'm going to play for it the next hand. Those sorts of games are extremely...interesting. Thrilling I would say. If no money was involved? No risk? I'd rather go out for a walk or watch TV.
Playing EQ there were a few times when I died repeatedly and lost a boatload of experience. It sucked. But it made me appreciate it that much more when when I avoided death. Knowing that death hurt and sometimes could hurt really, really badly made it that much more thrilling when I cheated death. It made those close calls mean something. Those narrow escapes. The times when I got by by the skin of my teeth as the saying goes. When I went exploring in a very nasty place it made it really mean something knowing that I'd be in for a God awful corpse run and serious experience loss if I died.
In real life there are people who do death defying stunts and people tend to be impressed by that. But if we were all indestructable would anyone care? Would there be any thrill to it? I don't think so.
Originally posted by Neanderthal In real life there are people who do death defying stunts and people tend to be impressed by that. But if we were all indestructable would anyone care? Would there be any thrill to it? I don't think so.
Well some people (like me) respect skill more than stupidity (er...risk.)
Tightrope over the grand canyon? Huge risk, moderate skill. Moderate respect from me.
Tightrope 10 feet high, on a unicycle, juggling torches, and jump-flipping between 3 tightropes? Lowish risk, extreme skill. Extreme respect from me.
Basically I'm more amused by things which are difficult than things which are risky.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Originally posted by Neanderthal In real life there are people who do death defying stunts and people tend to be impressed by that. But if we were all indestructable would anyone care? Would there be any thrill to it? I don't think so.
Well some people (like me) respect skill more than stupidity (er...risk.)
Tightrope over the grand canyon? Huge risk, moderate skill. Moderate respect from me.
Tightrope 10 feet high, on a unicycle, juggling torches, and jump-flipping between 3 tightropes? Lowish risk, extreme skill. Extreme respect from me.
Basically I'm more amused by things which are difficult than things which are risky.
Except in WOW, the unicycle is on the ground, and pulled by a rope so that there is no effort exerted on the rider's part. And it's a tricycle instead of a unicycle so the rider cannot easily fall down. And the torches are unlit so as to have no chances of burning the rider, and are taped to his hands so he cannot drop them. Low risk, low skill. Just how can anyone be impressed at all?
WOW is like a childrens birthday party where everyone gets a present so no one feels left out. One of the "children" looks sullen? No problem, here is a piece of purple armor so they are just like the next person. The dungeon too far to walk to, might take up 3 minutes of your time in travel? No problem, with Patch 3.3 and the new LFG tool the dungeon comes to you.
Heck, WOW isn't an MMO anymore, it's a retirement home or a nursery.
Heck, WOW isn't an MMO anymore, it's a retirement home or a nursery.
Nah, mate .. it's a game.
WoW doesn't lack challenge. That's a myth perpetuated by people who either don't know better, or are just trying to belittle the popular so that their internet friends think that they are cool. Sure, you can ride that unicycle with stabilisers on if you want to, but you can do the same in any game. Even the likes of EVE, which is universtally considered to be a pretty challenging game.
If you seriously think that top tier PvE and PvP in WoW is less challenging than, for example, mining in a barge in 1.0 space in EVE .. then you're just plain wrong. The challenge exists in either game. It's down to the player to decide if he or she will step up.
Playing: EVE, Final Fantasy 13, Uncharted 2, Need for Speed: Shift
Nah, mate .. it's a game. WoW doesn't lack challenge. That's a myth perpetuated by people who either don't know better, or are just trying to belittle the popular so that their internet friends think that they are cool. Sure, you can ride that unicycle with stabilisers on if you want to, but you can do the same in any game. Even the likes of EVE, which is universtally considered to be a pretty challenging game. If you seriously think that top tier PvE and PvP in WoW is less challenging than, for example, mining in a barge in 1.0 space in EVE .. then you're just plain wrong. The challenge exists in either game. It's down to the player to decide if he or she will step up.
I can honestly say I've been challenged very sparingly in WoW (due to changes in the game mechanics)- decreasingly so as time has progressed. The biggest challenges I had were in 40man content where coordination played a big role, and in Sunwell as part of WoW 2.x (not so much coordination here, but moreso 'collective solo competence'). This has nothing to do with being 'e-cool'. Current hardmodes are two things 1. a complete epeen checklist, nothing more (another arbitrary achievement yay!) 2. mostly zergfests or isolating a person/place during an encounter and making do without a singular, specific asset. But really it boils down to over-gearing, which involves no skill to begin with. (As an aside, it further reinforces the outlook of WoW being nothing short of a gear grind). Can we come up with examples where neither is the case? Sure, but 'mostly' this is the case.
I fully believe that challenge comes from balance. When either 2 people (or groups) have all common denominators, where whoever rises above their normal skill threshold wins, or when PvE content is designed so that the easiest possible combination for success is matched to what the maximum output from a person (or group) can possibly be. Again, requiring a little something extra in order to rise above and succeed.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc. We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be. So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away. - MMO_Doubter
Heck, WOW isn't an MMO anymore, it's a retirement home or a nursery.
Nah, mate .. it's a game.
WoW doesn't lack challenge. That's a myth perpetuated by people who either don't know better, or are just trying to belittle the popular so that their internet friends think that they are cool. Sure, you can ride that unicycle with stabilisers on if you want to, but you can do the same in any game. Even the likes of EVE, which is universtally considered to be a pretty challenging game.
If you seriously think that top tier PvE and PvP in WoW is less challenging than, for example, mining in a barge in 1.0 space in EVE .. then you're just plain wrong. The challenge exists in either game. It's down to the player to decide if he or she will step up.
No, it really is a retirement home. There is no challenge in a game like WoW. EQ was more challenging. Can you even wipe raids anymore in WoW? Seems like you can only wipe on boss encounters, because the game has become so pathetically easy, they just have bosses who sit there in zones waiting to be killed. No clearing raid content, because WoW players were too dumb even for that.
Yeah, compare a game without a death penalty (WoW) to a game with one (EQ). In EQ , if you wipe, you lose experience. If you wipe, the raid content might despawn and you can't get infinite retries.
And I played WoW, I was in a guild that ranked top 10 worldwide. While almost all WoW players were in their diapers and training wheels, my guild was clearing AQ40. Since then, the game has just been getting dumbed down more and more.
Top Tier PvP is challenging? What is challenging about going into a safe instance, where you don't lose exp, don't affect events on your own server. etc. You PvP with random people, it's the same as Diablo 2. Go into a room, fight random people, repeat. Real MMORPGs have PvP that is integrated with the server somehow. WoW is just a bunch of instances for lousy players who would de-level to 1 in a real MMORPG like Everquest.
The biggest challenges I had were in 40man content where coordination played a big role, and in Sunwell as part of WoW 2.x (not so much coordination here, but moreso 'collective solo competence'). This has nothing to do with being 'e-cool'. Current hardmodes are two things 1. a complete epeen checklist, nothing more (another arbitrary achievement yay!) 2. mostly zergfests or isolating a person/place during an encounter and making do without a singular, specific asset. But really it boils down to over-gearing, which involves no skill to begin with. (As an aside, it further reinforces the outlook of WoW being nothing short of a gear grind). Can we come up with examples where neither is the case? Sure, but 'mostly' this is the case. I fully believe that challenge comes from balance. When either 2 people (or groups) have all common denominators, where whoever rises above their normal skill threshold wins, or when PvE content is designed so that the easiest possible combination for success is matched to what the maximum output from a person (or group) can possibly be. Again, requiring a little something extra in order to rise above and succeed.
You and I have wildly differing memories of the vanilla WoW era, it seems. My guild was the most progressive on the server and we absolutely tore through MC and BWL. The only fights that cockblocked us were in level 60 Naxx, and that was mainly just due to the guild winding down with the approach of TBC.
By comparison, the two most difficult things that I've ever experienced in WoW were:
10 man Sartharion with 3 drakes.
The "Rapid Defense" achievement in Dragonblight.
In a 40 man raid, I was one small contributor to most battles and had very narrow individual responsibility. In my opinion, the challenge went up when the raid size went down.
Playing: EVE, Final Fantasy 13, Uncharted 2, Need for Speed: Shift
And I played WoW, I was in a guild that ranked top 10 worldwide
Ahh, now I understand your anti-WoW rantings.
It's vanilla bitterness. You were one of the crowd who used to be "cool" because raid gear was rare, extremely powerful by comparison to the next tier of available gear and was only accessible to people who played ~40 hours a week.
When the raid size, gear gaps and time investments went down, more and more people were able to get into the raiding game disproving the myth that vanilla raiders were the "most skilled" players on the server. The epeen response to that was always "It's only because they dumbed it down. Raiding was harder back in vanilla."
I had a few people in my guild feel the exact same way at the time. They stopped saying it when we were wiping repeatedly on the likes of Leotheras and Vashj while other raiding guilds were breathing down our neck progress-wise.
Other guilds comprised primarily of people who didn't raid at 60, I might add.
I was always just happy that I would be able to raid without such a heavy time investment. It never bothered me that other people (who were previously unable to raid due to time constraints) could do the same because I am fundamentally a decent person and didn't begrudge other people the chance to share the raid experience.
Playing: EVE, Final Fantasy 13, Uncharted 2, Need for Speed: Shift
You and I have wildly differing memories of the vanilla WoW era, it seems. My guild was the most progressive on the server and we absolutely tore through MC and BWL. The only fights that cockblocked us were in level 60 Naxx, and that was mainly just due to the guild winding down with the approach of TBC. By comparison, the two most difficult things that I've ever experienced in WoW were: 10 man Sartharion with 3 drakes.
The "Rapid Defense" achievement in Dragonblight. In a 40 man raid, I was one small contributor to most battles and had very narrow individual responsibility. In my opinion, the challenge went up when the raid size went down.
Our outlooks are not so different, especially considering our backgrounds (I was a world top 30 representative for the dps warrior caste inside a top 200, server-best guild).
MC was absolutely a zergfest, but a necessary one given it was WoW's first raid, and groups needed to learn fundamentals (as well as WoW's devs!). BWL's drakes were a snoozefest, but Razorgore took quite the bit of coordination with regards to kiting, healing aggro et al, some aspects of Vael tank switches as well but I digress. I would submit that AQ40 threw everyone for a loop initially, but Naxx was clearly a zone where each boss (save 1 or 2) required heavy coordination, some bosses actually, coordination was the single most important 'skill set' of the encounter (Thaddius v1.0?).
BC's Mag, HKM.... Vashj encounter required solid planning and placement, and coordination for throws, Solarian 1.0 was very coordination-intense, Hydross to some degree... RoS, Illidan flame tanking... but mainly Sunwell required the coordination of which I speak.
I couldn't concur more about Sarth3D. Sarth3D rated to me as being the only noteworthy challenge of Wrath- with regards to planning, placement, execution, coordination... for every criteria it was demanding.
In the end, it's not about being elite, it's about the challenge represented. Part of the challenge of coordination has been numbed down as size decreased, while other aspects have risen to demand more of the challenge pie. For me, however, placement and execution and all these other aspects were never things that ever proved challenging. I can't tell you how many people inside of a world 200 guild managed to fall over the 'ledge boss' in Sunwell- something as simple as this. As a result, the coordination piece was the one piece of the pie that required attention and maintence for me, and that has lessened as raid sizes have.
The age-old concept of presence significance inside of a group being dependant on group size... this would be an interesting tangent to discuss with regards to group size and balance indeed.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc. We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be. So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away. - MMO_Doubter
I don't like the idea of having harsh death penalties, if it means i have to redo some boring repetitive content just to get to the point in which i started before failing. For example, xp loss, gear loss or gold loss that is hard to replace back. To me, that isn't any fun, and as soon as i see that in a MMO i go away as fast as I can, since if a game is not fun is not worth anything for me.
Minor loss is ok with me to help me make put more effort, but I already do the best I can to overcome the challenges in games without a flying hammer looking down at me waiting for when I lose. Harsh loss at death takes away the fun of playing for me and make me leave.
For example, I would have nothing to complain about if you die in a dungeon and have to restart from the beginning, but if it takes HOURS to do that dungeon then the fun of redoing it flies away. Or for another example, if the xp you lose doesn't mean that you will have to grind for an hour to recover it it's quite fine.
I can see why some people want to lose something valious, be it xp or gear or wathever, in exchange for a loss to make the challenge more amusing. But the challenge itself is enough for me to be amused and keep my interest in doing better. Having to redo repetitive content for a long period of time at death is game-breaking for me.
You can't cater to everyone in this matter, some people like harsh penalties and others do not. Just find the game which has your ideal way of handling this and stick to it.
In trying to explain to some folks on this board the importance, in regards to immersion and risk and reward, for having a death (or failure) penalty, I think I have finally come up with an analogy: Imagine playing poker with play money. Doesn't really hurt when you lose, but doesn't really mean as much when you win. Now, imagine playing poker (small stakes) with real money. Losing sort of stings, but winning has a thrill; gets the adrenaline pumping. Such a game would draw a person in more than the former example. A penalty for failure is critical for MMO's to have immersion and for rewards to fully be appreciated.
WTF.Losing sucks,People hating losing using the same analogy.Lets pretend one friend is bad at poker and every week he loses 10 dollars in small stakes poker game.Often will he play before he quits because he realize he is just giving away his money and the game is not fun.In scenario with fake money he stay around alot longer because at end of day it is not real money.
By you some of your guys reasoning it is more fun to be held up at knife point than to watch a scary movie and get the thrill of being scared.Having hard death penalty is not key to immersion,I have played Ghost and Ghouls many times every single time the game has suck for me,Yes when i did something small in that game i did feel great but i never made it pass level one.While on the other hand i have played and beaten Super Mario bros 3 over and over.Having harsher penalty and being hard game did not help it to be a better game or more fun game.
While you guys are playing your hard death penalty game the masses will be playing easier game with lesser death penalty.It is as simple as people hate losing and more they have at stake the more they hate losing.It is not that hard to pick, play the game where somebody is steal my stuff or punish me harshly for dying or the game where i get lots of cool stuff and i keep them and i have died 20 times against this Boss but i am going to keep coming back until i beat it.
Key is making the game difficult in certain spots and quests or boss challenge enough to where you almost die.What is coolest feeling in almost every video game it is not dying it is beating a boss and being at 1% health or final beating the boss with zero life left.The biggest thrills comes from being challanged and being push to your breaking point.People seem to forget the video games came with very easy,easy,normal,hard,very hard.Most people played the game on normal or easy ask yourself why?
The best thing to happen mmo are instances guess why?
Theres only 3 games that I know of that offer the feeling of eq that you mentioned ultima online, darkfall and mortal online when it gets released. It is a diffrent feeling.
Vanguard as well.
Not having a death penalty is kind of like having sex while wearing 10 condoms. Sure your having sex, but are you really feeling anything? You sure are protected from STD's though!
Off topic; I sent you an email, did you ever get it?
On topic; A game without death penality is meaningless and boring. For me at least.
Originally posted by Neanderthal In real life there are people who do death defying stunts and people tend to be impressed by that. But if we were all indestructable would anyone care? Would there be any thrill to it? I don't think so.
Well some people (like me) respect skill more than stupidity (er...risk.)
Tightrope over the grand canyon? Huge risk, moderate skill. Moderate respect from me.
Tightrope 10 feet high, on a unicycle, juggling torches, and jump-flipping between 3 tightropes? Lowish risk, extreme skill. Extreme respect from me.
Basically I'm more amused by things which are difficult than things which are risky.
Except in WOW, the unicycle is on the ground, and pulled by a rope so that there is no effort exerted on the rider's part. And it's a tricycle instead of a unicycle so the rider cannot easily fall down. And the torches are unlit so as to have no chances of burning the rider, and are taped to his hands so he cannot drop them. Low risk, low skill. Just how can anyone be impressed at all?
WOW is like a childrens birthday party where everyone gets a present so no one feels left out. One of the "children" looks sullen? No problem, here is a piece of purple armor so they are just like the next person. The dungeon too far to walk to, might take up 3 minutes of your time in travel? No problem, with Patch 3.3 and the new LFG tool the dungeon comes to you.
Heck, WOW isn't an MMO anymore, it's a retirement home or a nursery.
Retardedly melodramatic statements aside, I agree that WOW has failed to provide a compelling spread of challenges in WOTLK (or at least it failed on that account back when I stopped playing.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Originally posted by Neanderthal In real life there are people who do death defying stunts and people tend to be impressed by that. But if we were all indestructable would anyone care? Would there be any thrill to it? I don't think so.
Well some people (like me) respect skill more than stupidity (er...risk.)
Tightrope over the grand canyon? Huge risk, moderate skill. Moderate respect from me.
Tightrope 10 feet high, on a unicycle, juggling torches, and jump-flipping between 3 tightropes? Lowish risk, extreme skill. Extreme respect from me.
Basically I'm more amused by things which are difficult than things which are risky.
Except in WOW, the unicycle is on the ground, and pulled by a rope so that there is no effort exerted on the rider's part. And it's a tricycle instead of a unicycle so the rider cannot easily fall down. And the torches are unlit so as to have no chances of burning the rider, and are taped to his hands so he cannot drop them. Low risk, low skill. Just how can anyone be impressed at all?
WOW is like a childrens birthday party where everyone gets a present so no one feels left out. One of the "children" looks sullen? No problem, here is a piece of purple armor so they are just like the next person. The dungeon too far to walk to, might take up 3 minutes of your time in travel? No problem, with Patch 3.3 and the new LFG tool the dungeon comes to you.
Heck, WOW isn't an MMO anymore, it's a retirement home or a nursery.
Retardedly melodramatic statements aside, I agree that WOW has failed to provide a compelling spread of challenges in WOTLK (or at least it failed on that account back when I stopped playing.)
The "melodramatic" statements are not too far off these days. Nowadays, in WOW, "the dungeon comes to you". You don't even have to walk to it anymore, or ask someone if they want to group.
Back in Everquest, I always said that Sony killed that game the day it released the Plane of Knowledge. Well, Blizzard has killed WOW (at least for me) with Dalaran and Patch 3.3. And I expect they will kill WOW for most everyone if they make heavy use of instancing and phasing in "Cataclysm."
Oh well, back to strategy games and FPS games for another year.
MMORPG´s are lightyear behind MMO FPS RPG death penalty real loot full loot and and and gaming.
Shooter games have full loot, yup. But how much does death sting? Not at all, in fact it happens so much, you don't even feel it.
And how many people do you see playing xlfrag as compared to, say, TF2?
MMORPGs try to add depth to the game by making your character's equipment valuable. Everything else is mostly worthless, including the player, because a bot can play the character better than an actual human being.
That's really the difference between the genres. One requires some degree of human ingenuity to achieve victory, while the other does not - and in fact would benefit everyone more if a robot was playing instead.
This is why MMORPGs are letting up on the death penalty: you shouldn't punish players for not being as good as robots.
ok answer comes here (5 point in talent tree,holy priest of kindness) i need to paste it for you it seems
"XLFrag is a new way of skill-gaming where you can play Counter Strike 1.6 against other players for real money in real time!."
im speechless but anyways,check links next time
I did check the links, however it mentioned only Counter-Strike, so I used another game that was consequently not Counter-Strike as an example. So, to reiterate: how many people play the XLFrag-enhanced Counter-Strike as opposed to the other vastly more popular games it does not support?
Also, thank you kindly for not commenting on the remainder of my post, that being the most important point I raised.
You should re-spec out of the priest, I think. Art thou too holy for logic?
Comments
*sigh*. I'm feeding a troll...
Your post does nothing towards discussing the OP's premise nor provides a counter-argument. It's opinion supported by opinion.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc.
We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be.
So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away.
- MMO_Doubter
Then Even less people would playy World PvP.
Damn, just kill the genre people.
http://www.xlfrag.com/
MMORPG´s are lightyear behind MMO FPS RPG death penalty real loot full loot and and and gaming.
Shooter games have full loot, yup. But how much does death sting? Not at all, in fact it happens so much, you don't even feel it.
And how many people do you see playing xlfrag as compared to, say, TF2?
MMORPGs try to add depth to the game by making your character's equipment valuable. Everything else is mostly worthless, including the player, because a bot can play the character better than an actual human being.
That's really the difference between the genres. One requires some degree of human ingenuity to achieve victory, while the other does not - and in fact would benefit everyone more if a robot was playing instead.
This is why MMORPGs are letting up on the death penalty: you shouldn't punish players for not being as good as robots.
ok answer comes here (5 point in talent tree,holy priest of kindness) i need to paste it for you it seems
"XLFrag is a new way of skill-gaming where you can play Counter Strike 1.6 against other players for real money in real time!."
im speechless but anyways,check links next time
Generation P
Clearly you haven't read the thread. 1. I didn't promote a chess analogy 2. you're the first person to denounce it outside of 1 other individual- Axehilt if I recall correctly without scrolling back.
There is no penalty inside of chess- it's a reset, applied to all. The game is entirely internal. There is no meta-tactic involved. Where these sorts of tactics come into play are during 'best of 3' or tournament style play... at which point in time there is a penalty for losses. If you're defining your system (hello fluid science!) with its limits as being a single game of chess, then the metaphor breaks down unlike the OPs suggestion with poker. This also has been examined already by Axehilt.
The lessons learned in the military do not differ in the slightest with lessons that are taught on racetracks, in corporate board meetings... and the manners in which they are taught differ only in dosage- not in technique. While a more relaxed environment can promote a more treehugging approach that works, it would be nothing short of ignorant to consider that only in a military environment is punishment necessary during training because of the nature of the mission.
Punishment is key as a part of any teaching method. Ignoring problems and simply reinforcing positive attributes doesn't remove the problems from existence- it simply devalues their presence and makes them less significant. If one can embrace that 'honesty is the best policy' (yes, I realize it's cliche), then one quickly understands the value of spitting things like they are, and letting consequence be the teacher. This, of course, as part of a coherent teaching policy that has healthy doses of many methods and doesn't singularly isolate punishment- but I underline that the act of punishment is still present and a very valuable tool.
Discipline is formed from many sources, of which punishment is one. Also, it's laughable to assume someone would repeatedly perform a function only to discover whether or not it had a positive result, and then to bend back and make a blanket statement that discipline was formed. I would like to assume I know where you're going with your statement in your final paragraph, but it goes nowhere fast regardless.
Anyhow, this really derails the thread from it's OP.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc.
We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be.
So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away.
- MMO_Doubter
Clearly you haven't read the thread. 1. I didn't promote a chess analogy 2. you're the first person to denounce it outside of 1 other individual- Axehilt if I recall correctly without scrolling back.
There is no penalty inside of chess- it's a reset, applied to all. The game is entirely internal. There is no meta-tactic involved. Where these sorts of tactics come into play are during 'best of 3' or tournament style play... at which point in time there is a penalty for losses. If you're defining your system (hello fluid science!) with its limits as being a single game of chess, then the metaphor breaks down unlike the OPs suggestion with poker. This also has been examined already by Axehilt.
The lessons learned in the military do not differ in the slightest with lessons that are taught on racetracks, in corporate board meetings... and the manners in which they are taught differ only in dosage- not in technique. While a more relaxed environment can promote a more treehugging approach that works, it would be nothing short of ignorant to consider that only in a military environment is punishment necessary during training because of the nature of the mission.
Punishment is key as a part of any teaching method. Ignoring problems and simply reinforcing positive attributes doesn't remove the problems from existence- it simply devalues their presence and makes them less significant. If one can embrace that 'honesty is the best policy' (yes, I realize it's cliche), then one quickly understands the value of spitting things like they are, and letting consequence be the teacher. This, of course, as part of a coherent teaching policy that has healthy doses of many methods and doesn't singularly isolate punishment- but I underline that the act of punishment is still present and a very valuable tool.
Discipline is formed from many sources, of which punishment is one. Also, it's laughable to assume someone would repeatedly perform a function only to discover whether or not it had a positive result, and then to bend back and make a blanket statement that discipline was formed. I would like to assume I know where you're going with your statement in your final paragraph, but it goes nowhere fast regardless.
Anyhow, this really derails the thread from it's OP.
I have read the whole thread and still disagree with the chess analogy. While it may have more application in a tournament style, a tournament style is hardly a major point in MMO's so the analogy is flawed even further.
The discussion is about penalties upon death - in an MMO there are penalities applied to death. In a chess match, other than not being able to advance in a tournament there is no additional penalty - case over. The two are not similar other than both are games.
And once again I disagree the lessons learned in the military differ significantly. The best way to learn about situations is to mimic that situation as closely as possible, there are stacks of evidence supporting this, and this is why military training needs to be so tough. However tough and punishment are not the same. Many many other studies have shown that punishment is a largely ineffective more of learning. While you do learn with negative reinforcement, it is far far less effective than postive reinforcement. Tree-hugging has nothing to do with it. Rewards motivate people more than fear. Positive reinforcement results in lasting behavioral modification, whereas punishment only temporarily changes behavior and presents many detrimental side effects. This has been widely known since at least skinner and probably by many long before that.
An adult would usually not repeat an action only to discover later that there was a positive result which is why most often discipline is learned in childhood. It is the parents and coaches who help instill it by guiding the child through the activity. Later when they have the black belt, the good grade or hit the home run, the realization comes that it was because of all their repeated work (practice) that gave them the result.
Venge Sunsoar
Let us reminisce a bit about Blizzards predecessor to World of Warcraft.
I was a Diablo 2 hardcore player for 4 years. I was so use to NOT dying that when I started playing DAoC I had problems even accepting a penalty at all. I felt that when you died in the game you was suppose to be dead. I was a strong advocate of perma death.
Then one day I started thinking about long term players and the effect that the average gamer who would do silly things like jump off a cliff and die just to jump and then that player would probably NOT play anymore. Well I slowly started accepting the fact that more players would rather zerg something than plan. The role play I though was suppose to be there just did not exist. I realized that most players want to hurry up to max level to get to an endgame of raiding for leet gear and only then concerned themselves with the avatar. I started finding myself playing alone more and more because I did not want my avatar to die. So I was on the fence about this thing called perma death. I wanted it but then I didn't want it.
I went on to propose to the game developer of a certain game maybe a server dictated to those that wanted the extreme challenge. The community did not take this lightly and of course it was a lost cause.
I went on to propose maybe where one got a bonus for surviving and make a special title that upon death they lost. Of course this again was met with outrage by the ones that needed to have a kill versus death of under 10 to show who had the bigger e-peen.
After further analysis I began to realize that MMORPGs are designed in such a way that it is utterly impossible to for your avatar to NOT die. The gauntlet system to make that next level to move to the next map has been burned into the game industry for so long (since asteroids, pacman and donkey Kong) and runs so deep that it is not going to be easy to break the mold.
I was disillusioned by the MMORPG but yet loved it and loved the communities. I decided that the only way was to make my own game. I decided to eliminate leveling all together, eliminate the skill system, eliminate classes, and eliminate the gauntlet style of game play that MMORPG are suppose to have. I decided to replace the quest system with multi-path system and let the players own personality develop his avatar and make a faction system of two extreme groups and those caught between.
I decided I would make a few hard coded laws and let the community make the rest of the laws and let the community enforce those laws. If the community wanted perma death then let them make that a law. If the community decided that it was in their best interest to not have perma death then that would be law. If it got proposed then they vote on it in game and the results are implemented upon close of the poll (once a year the polls open for a week). The overall system is a player run government. They are voted into their positions and must follow the hard-coded laws least they be removed.
sadly, What I have is not a MMORPG but a virtual reality. Something probably no one wants.
To the OP - a game played as a game, is a game weather you win lose or draw.
1. - Making it more challenging in death without it being perma death will not make it challenging.
2. - Implementing Perma death in todays MMORPG is impossible due to design just like it was near impossible but for a few to make the 100 levels of pacman.
3. - No game maker is going to make it perma death and cut their own throat so a few can be challenged.
4. - If you want a Perma death game make your own MMORPG. You will change your mind.
You state you've read it, but still murk through the same topics that were already covered to completion. There are 2 ways of analyzing chess play: the internal game, or the meta-game. Both of these were covered and followed to logical ends. You're saying you disagree but offer nothing new to consider on the matter.
There are similarities drawn with poker and how there are both internalized stakes and meta-game stakes- which apply to MMOs moreso than chess. The whole chess analogy was thrown out because it didn't fit in either manner that it could have been considered.... so I don't understand what's being discussed here. Again, you say you've read the thread ...
You're free to disagree with military lessons learned and wether or not those lessons are taught elsewhere. I'd point you in the direction of RCR racing within the NASCAR circuit, a slew of DoD hiring agencies, professional fraternaties at 3 schools I've personally attended, and 8 years of military experience to stake full claim that the lessons are identical, and the manifestation of punishment is real, albeit different for the different cultures. The best way to learn about something is to learn both what works, as well as what doesn't work, and then why for both. It's 360 degree understanding.
There exists a common desire in corporate-level hirings to seek out talent that has explicitly failed at something- because there is an understanding failures are real and in most cases cannot be avoided. It's about how one embraces failure, learns from it, and surmounts it that is important. The medical industry of any example would be the prime specimen to consider for this thesis. You want a doctor operating on you who has never failed before, but possibly could (because every operation is unique), or a doctor who has failed in the past, learnt from it, and carries hardened experience going in? The medical field understands the importance of failure.
How is this related? Failure isn't pretty. Sometimes failure means deadly. (Not to beat a dead horse or anything, but we're talking about death penalty here). The greater the odds, the higher the stakes, the greater the satisfaction, the bigger the rush of success. Ask the Super Bowl champions what they learnt after having just won the big game.... now ask the runners-up. Which will give you a more detailed report? It is in failure that we learn to succeed. There are entirely too many real-life examples to support this claim.
Lastly, whoever said that positive reinforcement wasn't a good thing? Negative reinforcement does not mutually relate to being punishment. Both success and failure, commendation and punishment, are useful and important. To claim that one isn't needed is nothing short of pure naive. I swim a 400m IM- my butterfly is solid, my freestyle is solid, and my backstroke is solid, but my breaststroke sucks nuggets. I can't positively reinforce what I'm doing right and expect to have what I'm doing that's negative disappear. I can swim 3/4 legs of my race at world best times, but that does nothing for the 1/4 that I swim at a 12yo obese kids' pace. I need hard dedication, determination, and owning up to consequence with regards to that 1 leg of my race if I ever truly hope to improve. I understand what you're saying about how a positive outlook can garner more results, but some results can't be achieved through anything short of 'punishment'.
Anyhow, I've ranted enough and allowed myself to get caught off-topic from the OP. Apologies for the derail.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc.
We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be.
So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away.
- MMO_Doubter
Yes, and this is why I advocate death where the "penalty" is merely a temporary lack of forward progression. If you lost zero durability in a WOW death, you'd still be losing Time (from the corpse run) which will cost you progression.
You can even replace corpse runs with a fun activity and still have death be a significant enough setback (nearly every old NES game does death this way: die and go back to the start of the level and immediately continue playing the game.)
The same can be accomplished in MMORPGs with rear-weighted rewards which demand a streak of good performance. Like a dungeon where wiping resets both you and the mobs -- instead of a corpse run you're immediately combat-ready again, but you're back at the start of the dungeon (and the rewards are at the end of the dungeon.) These challenges can vary in difficulty; yeah some will be easy, but the ones with the great rewards will be a rough gauntlet of challenges where a misstep will set you back to the start of the challenge (and you can immediately restart the challenge without missing a beat...but you're still reset to be that much further from the end goal.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I don't need to have the OMG IF I DIE IM SCREWED looming over my head to enjoy a game. Just the action itself is enough to get me going and I would say the money is with lighter DPs then heavy ones.
Also on your analogy. People can have fun either way.
Hold on Snow Leopard, imma let you finish, but Windows had one of the best operating systems of all time.
If the Powerball lottery was like Lotro, nobody would win for 2 years, and then everyone in Nebraska would win on the same day.
And then Nebraska would get nerfed.-pinkwood lotro fourms
AMD 4800 2.4ghz-3GB RAM 533mhz-EVGA 9500GT 512mb-320gb HD
There exists a common desire in corporate-level hirings to seek out talent that has explicitly failed at something- because there is an understanding failures are real and in most cases cannot be avoided. It's about how one embraces failure, learns from it, and surmounts it that is important. The medical industry of any example would be the prime specimen to consider for this thesis. You want a doctor operating on you who has never failed before, but possibly could (because every operation is unique), or a doctor who has failed in the past, learnt from it, and carries hardened experience going in? The medical field understands the importance of failure.
How is this related? Failure isn't pretty. Sometimes failure means deadly. (Not to beat a dead horse or anything, but we're talking about death penalty here). The greater the odds, the higher the stakes, the greater the satisfaction, the bigger the rush of success. Ask the Super Bowl champions what they learnt after having just won the big game.... now ask the runners-up. Which will give you a more detailed report? It is in failure that we learn to succeed. There are entirely too many real-life examples to support this claim.
Lastly, whoever said that positive reinforcement wasn't a good thing? Negative reinforcement does not mutually relate to being punishment. Both success and failure, commendation and punishment, are useful and important. To claim that one isn't needed is nothing short of pure naive. I swim a 400m IM- my butterfly is solid, my freestyle is solid, and my backstroke is solid, but my breaststroke sucks nuggets. I can't positively reinforce what I'm doing right and expect to have what I'm doing that's negative disappear. I can swim 3/4 legs of my race at world best times, but that does nothing for the 1/4 that I swim at a 12yo obese kids' pace. I need hard dedication, determination, and owning up to consequence with regards to that 1 leg of my race if I ever truly hope to improve. I understand what you're saying about how a positive outlook can garner more results, but some results can't be achieved through anything short of 'punishment'.
I agree with most of what your saying but for this section, which actually I do agree with this. Failure is probably the single best way to learn but negative reinforcement and failure are not the same things at all in any way shape or form. It what comes after the failure, the additional things that are done that determine whether something is a negative or positive reinforcement or punishment (which is a form but not the only form of negative reinforcement).
Losing the superbowl would suck, and they should look back figure out what they could have done better (if they could) however failing to win the superbowl is not negative reinforcement or punishment,. They just lost. If all the players get fired well thats a different story
Actually I don't think this is such a derail, we are discussing what penalty should be, if there should even be one beyond simply losing. And what it is that motivates people to become better, which directly ties into how people learn.
Venge Sunsoar
never really thought much of a death penalty but thats an interesting analogy. Although imagine if you lost a lot of money on poker many times in a row- what then for the hypothetical mmo player? (ie. he dies many times- getting this heavy death penalty)
Both of those things have happened to me.
I've lost big playing poker. It sucks but that's just the way it goes. Knowing how bad it feels when you lose is a big part of the excitement when you take a risk. Have you ever played versions of poker with progressive pots? This means if you lose you have to put back into the pot the amount of money that was there. The winner takes the pot but the losers have to match it. So if two people lose a $10 pot it doubles to $20. If three people are in and lose, that $20 then triples to $60. And so on. The pot only clears if only one person is in and takes it with no losers to match it. That can be very nasty and extremely tense as the pot grows and grows.
I've won big pots in those types of games but I've also lost big, sometimes repeatedly. But that's what makes it thrilling. I'm sitting there looking at a $700 dollar pot, knowing that if I get in and lose..BAM, it's $700 dollars gone, poof. And if two people are in and lose that $700 is going to double to $1400 and I have to decide again if I'm going to play for it the next hand. Those sorts of games are extremely...interesting. Thrilling I would say. If no money was involved? No risk? I'd rather go out for a walk or watch TV.
Playing EQ there were a few times when I died repeatedly and lost a boatload of experience. It sucked. But it made me appreciate it that much more when when I avoided death. Knowing that death hurt and sometimes could hurt really, really badly made it that much more thrilling when I cheated death. It made those close calls mean something. Those narrow escapes. The times when I got by by the skin of my teeth as the saying goes. When I went exploring in a very nasty place it made it really mean something knowing that I'd be in for a God awful corpse run and serious experience loss if I died.
In real life there are people who do death defying stunts and people tend to be impressed by that. But if we were all indestructable would anyone care? Would there be any thrill to it? I don't think so.
Well some people (like me) respect skill more than stupidity (er...risk.)
Tightrope over the grand canyon? Huge risk, moderate skill. Moderate respect from me.
Tightrope 10 feet high, on a unicycle, juggling torches, and jump-flipping between 3 tightropes? Lowish risk, extreme skill. Extreme respect from me.
Basically I'm more amused by things which are difficult than things which are risky.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Well some people (like me) respect skill more than stupidity (er...risk.)
Tightrope over the grand canyon? Huge risk, moderate skill. Moderate respect from me.
Tightrope 10 feet high, on a unicycle, juggling torches, and jump-flipping between 3 tightropes? Lowish risk, extreme skill. Extreme respect from me.
Basically I'm more amused by things which are difficult than things which are risky.
Except in WOW, the unicycle is on the ground, and pulled by a rope so that there is no effort exerted on the rider's part. And it's a tricycle instead of a unicycle so the rider cannot easily fall down. And the torches are unlit so as to have no chances of burning the rider, and are taped to his hands so he cannot drop them. Low risk, low skill. Just how can anyone be impressed at all?
WOW is like a childrens birthday party where everyone gets a present so no one feels left out. One of the "children" looks sullen? No problem, here is a piece of purple armor so they are just like the next person. The dungeon too far to walk to, might take up 3 minutes of your time in travel? No problem, with Patch 3.3 and the new LFG tool the dungeon comes to you.
Heck, WOW isn't an MMO anymore, it's a retirement home or a nursery.
Nah, mate .. it's a game.
WoW doesn't lack challenge. That's a myth perpetuated by people who either don't know better, or are just trying to belittle the popular so that their internet friends think that they are cool. Sure, you can ride that unicycle with stabilisers on if you want to, but you can do the same in any game. Even the likes of EVE, which is universtally considered to be a pretty challenging game.
If you seriously think that top tier PvE and PvP in WoW is less challenging than, for example, mining in a barge in 1.0 space in EVE .. then you're just plain wrong. The challenge exists in either game. It's down to the player to decide if he or she will step up.
Playing: EVE, Final Fantasy 13, Uncharted 2, Need for Speed: Shift
I can honestly say I've been challenged very sparingly in WoW (due to changes in the game mechanics)- decreasingly so as time has progressed. The biggest challenges I had were in 40man content where coordination played a big role, and in Sunwell as part of WoW 2.x (not so much coordination here, but moreso 'collective solo competence'). This has nothing to do with being 'e-cool'. Current hardmodes are two things 1. a complete epeen checklist, nothing more (another arbitrary achievement yay!) 2. mostly zergfests or isolating a person/place during an encounter and making do without a singular, specific asset. But really it boils down to over-gearing, which involves no skill to begin with. (As an aside, it further reinforces the outlook of WoW being nothing short of a gear grind). Can we come up with examples where neither is the case? Sure, but 'mostly' this is the case.
I fully believe that challenge comes from balance. When either 2 people (or groups) have all common denominators, where whoever rises above their normal skill threshold wins, or when PvE content is designed so that the easiest possible combination for success is matched to what the maximum output from a person (or group) can possibly be. Again, requiring a little something extra in order to rise above and succeed.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc.
We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be.
So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away.
- MMO_Doubter
Nah, mate .. it's a game.
WoW doesn't lack challenge. That's a myth perpetuated by people who either don't know better, or are just trying to belittle the popular so that their internet friends think that they are cool. Sure, you can ride that unicycle with stabilisers on if you want to, but you can do the same in any game. Even the likes of EVE, which is universtally considered to be a pretty challenging game.
If you seriously think that top tier PvE and PvP in WoW is less challenging than, for example, mining in a barge in 1.0 space in EVE .. then you're just plain wrong. The challenge exists in either game. It's down to the player to decide if he or she will step up.
No, it really is a retirement home. There is no challenge in a game like WoW. EQ was more challenging. Can you even wipe raids anymore in WoW? Seems like you can only wipe on boss encounters, because the game has become so pathetically easy, they just have bosses who sit there in zones waiting to be killed. No clearing raid content, because WoW players were too dumb even for that.
Yeah, compare a game without a death penalty (WoW) to a game with one (EQ). In EQ , if you wipe, you lose experience. If you wipe, the raid content might despawn and you can't get infinite retries.
And I played WoW, I was in a guild that ranked top 10 worldwide. While almost all WoW players were in their diapers and training wheels, my guild was clearing AQ40. Since then, the game has just been getting dumbed down more and more.
Top Tier PvP is challenging? What is challenging about going into a safe instance, where you don't lose exp, don't affect events on your own server. etc. You PvP with random people, it's the same as Diablo 2. Go into a room, fight random people, repeat. Real MMORPGs have PvP that is integrated with the server somehow. WoW is just a bunch of instances for lousy players who would de-level to 1 in a real MMORPG like Everquest.
Here is a real game:
You and I have wildly differing memories of the vanilla WoW era, it seems. My guild was the most progressive on the server and we absolutely tore through MC and BWL. The only fights that cockblocked us were in level 60 Naxx, and that was mainly just due to the guild winding down with the approach of TBC.
By comparison, the two most difficult things that I've ever experienced in WoW were:
10 man Sartharion with 3 drakes.
The "Rapid Defense" achievement in Dragonblight.
In a 40 man raid, I was one small contributor to most battles and had very narrow individual responsibility. In my opinion, the challenge went up when the raid size went down.
Playing: EVE, Final Fantasy 13, Uncharted 2, Need for Speed: Shift
Ahh, now I understand your anti-WoW rantings.
It's vanilla bitterness. You were one of the crowd who used to be "cool" because raid gear was rare, extremely powerful by comparison to the next tier of available gear and was only accessible to people who played ~40 hours a week.
When the raid size, gear gaps and time investments went down, more and more people were able to get into the raiding game disproving the myth that vanilla raiders were the "most skilled" players on the server. The epeen response to that was always "It's only because they dumbed it down. Raiding was harder back in vanilla."
I had a few people in my guild feel the exact same way at the time. They stopped saying it when we were wiping repeatedly on the likes of Leotheras and Vashj while other raiding guilds were breathing down our neck progress-wise.
Other guilds comprised primarily of people who didn't raid at 60, I might add.
I was always just happy that I would be able to raid without such a heavy time investment. It never bothered me that other people (who were previously unable to raid due to time constraints) could do the same because I am fundamentally a decent person and didn't begrudge other people the chance to share the raid experience.
Playing: EVE, Final Fantasy 13, Uncharted 2, Need for Speed: Shift
Our outlooks are not so different, especially considering our backgrounds (I was a world top 30 representative for the dps warrior caste inside a top 200, server-best guild).
MC was absolutely a zergfest, but a necessary one given it was WoW's first raid, and groups needed to learn fundamentals (as well as WoW's devs!). BWL's drakes were a snoozefest, but Razorgore took quite the bit of coordination with regards to kiting, healing aggro et al, some aspects of Vael tank switches as well but I digress. I would submit that AQ40 threw everyone for a loop initially, but Naxx was clearly a zone where each boss (save 1 or 2) required heavy coordination, some bosses actually, coordination was the single most important 'skill set' of the encounter (Thaddius v1.0?).
BC's Mag, HKM.... Vashj encounter required solid planning and placement, and coordination for throws, Solarian 1.0 was very coordination-intense, Hydross to some degree... RoS, Illidan flame tanking... but mainly Sunwell required the coordination of which I speak.
I couldn't concur more about Sarth3D. Sarth3D rated to me as being the only noteworthy challenge of Wrath- with regards to planning, placement, execution, coordination... for every criteria it was demanding.
In the end, it's not about being elite, it's about the challenge represented. Part of the challenge of coordination has been numbed down as size decreased, while other aspects have risen to demand more of the challenge pie. For me, however, placement and execution and all these other aspects were never things that ever proved challenging. I can't tell you how many people inside of a world 200 guild managed to fall over the 'ledge boss' in Sunwell- something as simple as this. As a result, the coordination piece was the one piece of the pie that required attention and maintence for me, and that has lessened as raid sizes have.
The age-old concept of presence significance inside of a group being dependant on group size... this would be an interesting tangent to discuss with regards to group size and balance indeed.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc.
We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be.
So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away.
- MMO_Doubter
I don't like the idea of having harsh death penalties, if it means i have to redo some boring repetitive content just to get to the point in which i started before failing. For example, xp loss, gear loss or gold loss that is hard to replace back. To me, that isn't any fun, and as soon as i see that in a MMO i go away as fast as I can, since if a game is not fun is not worth anything for me.
Minor loss is ok with me to help me make put more effort, but I already do the best I can to overcome the challenges in games without a flying hammer looking down at me waiting for when I lose. Harsh loss at death takes away the fun of playing for me and make me leave.
For example, I would have nothing to complain about if you die in a dungeon and have to restart from the beginning, but if it takes HOURS to do that dungeon then the fun of redoing it flies away. Or for another example, if the xp you lose doesn't mean that you will have to grind for an hour to recover it it's quite fine.
I can see why some people want to lose something valious, be it xp or gear or wathever, in exchange for a loss to make the challenge more amusing. But the challenge itself is enough for me to be amused and keep my interest in doing better. Having to redo repetitive content for a long period of time at death is game-breaking for me.
You can't cater to everyone in this matter, some people like harsh penalties and others do not. Just find the game which has your ideal way of handling this and stick to it.
WTF.Losing sucks,People hating losing using the same analogy.Lets pretend one friend is bad at poker and every week he loses 10 dollars in small stakes poker game.Often will he play before he quits because he realize he is just giving away his money and the game is not fun.In scenario with fake money he stay around alot longer because at end of day it is not real money.
By you some of your guys reasoning it is more fun to be held up at knife point than to watch a scary movie and get the thrill of being scared.Having hard death penalty is not key to immersion,I have played Ghost and Ghouls many times every single time the game has suck for me,Yes when i did something small in that game i did feel great but i never made it pass level one.While on the other hand i have played and beaten Super Mario bros 3 over and over.Having harsher penalty and being hard game did not help it to be a better game or more fun game.
While you guys are playing your hard death penalty game the masses will be playing easier game with lesser death penalty.It is as simple as people hate losing and more they have at stake the more they hate losing.It is not that hard to pick, play the game where somebody is steal my stuff or punish me harshly for dying or the game where i get lots of cool stuff and i keep them and i have died 20 times against this Boss but i am going to keep coming back until i beat it.
Key is making the game difficult in certain spots and quests or boss challenge enough to where you almost die.What is coolest feeling in almost every video game it is not dying it is beating a boss and being at 1% health or final beating the boss with zero life left.The biggest thrills comes from being challanged and being push to your breaking point.People seem to forget the video games came with very easy,easy,normal,hard,very hard.Most people played the game on normal or easy ask yourself why?
The best thing to happen mmo are instances guess why?
Vanguard as well.
Not having a death penalty is kind of like having sex while wearing 10 condoms. Sure your having sex, but are you really feeling anything? You sure are protected from STD's though!
Off topic; I sent you an email, did you ever get it?
On topic; A game without death penality is meaningless and boring. For me at least.
-------------------------------------
Before: developers loved games and made money.
Now: developers love money and make games.
Well some people (like me) respect skill more than stupidity (er...risk.)
Tightrope over the grand canyon? Huge risk, moderate skill. Moderate respect from me.
Tightrope 10 feet high, on a unicycle, juggling torches, and jump-flipping between 3 tightropes? Lowish risk, extreme skill. Extreme respect from me.
Basically I'm more amused by things which are difficult than things which are risky.
Except in WOW, the unicycle is on the ground, and pulled by a rope so that there is no effort exerted on the rider's part. And it's a tricycle instead of a unicycle so the rider cannot easily fall down. And the torches are unlit so as to have no chances of burning the rider, and are taped to his hands so he cannot drop them. Low risk, low skill. Just how can anyone be impressed at all?
WOW is like a childrens birthday party where everyone gets a present so no one feels left out. One of the "children" looks sullen? No problem, here is a piece of purple armor so they are just like the next person. The dungeon too far to walk to, might take up 3 minutes of your time in travel? No problem, with Patch 3.3 and the new LFG tool the dungeon comes to you.
Heck, WOW isn't an MMO anymore, it's a retirement home or a nursery.
Retardedly melodramatic statements aside, I agree that WOW has failed to provide a compelling spread of challenges in WOTLK (or at least it failed on that account back when I stopped playing.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Well some people (like me) respect skill more than stupidity (er...risk.)
Tightrope over the grand canyon? Huge risk, moderate skill. Moderate respect from me.
Tightrope 10 feet high, on a unicycle, juggling torches, and jump-flipping between 3 tightropes? Lowish risk, extreme skill. Extreme respect from me.
Basically I'm more amused by things which are difficult than things which are risky.
Except in WOW, the unicycle is on the ground, and pulled by a rope so that there is no effort exerted on the rider's part. And it's a tricycle instead of a unicycle so the rider cannot easily fall down. And the torches are unlit so as to have no chances of burning the rider, and are taped to his hands so he cannot drop them. Low risk, low skill. Just how can anyone be impressed at all?
WOW is like a childrens birthday party where everyone gets a present so no one feels left out. One of the "children" looks sullen? No problem, here is a piece of purple armor so they are just like the next person. The dungeon too far to walk to, might take up 3 minutes of your time in travel? No problem, with Patch 3.3 and the new LFG tool the dungeon comes to you.
Heck, WOW isn't an MMO anymore, it's a retirement home or a nursery.
Retardedly melodramatic statements aside, I agree that WOW has failed to provide a compelling spread of challenges in WOTLK (or at least it failed on that account back when I stopped playing.)
The "melodramatic" statements are not too far off these days. Nowadays, in WOW, "the dungeon comes to you". You don't even have to walk to it anymore, or ask someone if they want to group.
Back in Everquest, I always said that Sony killed that game the day it released the Plane of Knowledge. Well, Blizzard has killed WOW (at least for me) with Dalaran and Patch 3.3. And I expect they will kill WOW for most everyone if they make heavy use of instancing and phasing in "Cataclysm."
Oh well, back to strategy games and FPS games for another year.
Then Even less people would playy World PvP.
Damn, just kill the genre people.
http://www.xlfrag.com/
MMORPG´s are lightyear behind MMO FPS RPG death penalty real loot full loot and and and gaming.
Shooter games have full loot, yup. But how much does death sting? Not at all, in fact it happens so much, you don't even feel it.
And how many people do you see playing xlfrag as compared to, say, TF2?
MMORPGs try to add depth to the game by making your character's equipment valuable. Everything else is mostly worthless, including the player, because a bot can play the character better than an actual human being.
That's really the difference between the genres. One requires some degree of human ingenuity to achieve victory, while the other does not - and in fact would benefit everyone more if a robot was playing instead.
This is why MMORPGs are letting up on the death penalty: you shouldn't punish players for not being as good as robots.
ok answer comes here (5 point in talent tree,holy priest of kindness) i need to paste it for you it seems
"XLFrag is a new way of skill-gaming where you can play Counter Strike 1.6 against other players for real money in real time!."
im speechless but anyways,check links next time
I did check the links, however it mentioned only Counter-Strike, so I used another game that was consequently not Counter-Strike as an example. So, to reiterate: how many people play the XLFrag-enhanced Counter-Strike as opposed to the other vastly more popular games it does not support?
Also, thank you kindly for not commenting on the remainder of my post, that being the most important point I raised.
You should re-spec out of the priest, I think. Art thou too holy for logic?