Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Guild Wars 2: More on Healing & Death
SBFord
Former Associate EditorMember LegendaryPosts: 33,129
Jon Peters from the Guild Wars 2 team has answered the first batch of community questions with regard to last week's blog post about the new way of looking at healing and death. The questions cover a broad range of topics from the fact that death really doesn't exist in GW2 to the lack of a dedicated healing class.
Q: Death penalties in MMO games provide incentive to players to learn their class and work better in groups. With no death penalty, won’t this lead to less incentive to learn how to play their class and group properly?
A: In most games—both single and multiplayer—the penalty for failure is to simply return to a saved position or state. The penalty, in this case, is simply time. MMOs can’t return someone to a saved position, and so they have developed many other penalties over the years to simulate this. We penalize the player by taking a small amount of money, but more importantly, by setting him back to the waypoint of his choosing.
Death penalties—even simple return to save systems—can, of course, vary in their harshness. When deciding on the degree of severity, you need to look at what you are trying to accomplish overall with the game. Is your game a hardcore simulation, meant to test the skill of the player under extreme stress? In this case, a more severe death penalty would be warranted. With Guild Wars 2, however, one of our main goals is to encourage experimentation and risk-taking on the part of the player. Because of this, we firmly believe that a milder penalty upon defeat is in order. We have found that our emphasis on risk-taking, along with this milder penalty, has resulted in a game where players try daring and heroic things, where they will go into grave situations to help out a stranger, and that overall increases the number of epic and heroic moments that the average player encounters.
We have found that this ability to experiment with your character and throw yourself into more dangerous experiences has resulted in players gaining more opportunity to really test the limits of what their characters can do. Players consequently learn how to play their professions just as quickly (if not more so) than they do in many other games.
There's a lot more to read with specific regard to PvP, support characters (can it be done?) and more so be sure to check it out on the ArenaNet blog.
Comments
Well i like this part:
"With Guild Wars 2, however, one of our main goals is to encourage experimentation and risk-taking on the part of the player. Because of this, we firmly believe that a milder penalty upon defeat is in order. We have found that our emphasis on risk-taking, along with this milder penalty, has resulted in a game where players try daring and heroic things, where they will go into grave situations to help out a stranger, and that overall increases the number of epic and heroic moments that the average player encounters."
however all i can see is a comunity of people that DONT want to learn about their classes, while few strive to get a good group of players.
Well give me the basic PK system and im happy
now: GW2 (11 80s).
Dark Souls 2.
future: Mount&Blade 2 BannerLord.
"Bro, do your even fractal?"
Recommends: Guild Wars 2, Dark Souls, Mount&Blade: Warband, Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning.
Right you see a community of a game that isn't released... Oh and if you were talking about the GW1 community, instead of "a few" I'd say "most" players would strive to learn about their class, mainly because the build you were using made the difference.
By the way there won't be a PK system.
sounds like fun
I really like the philosophies of this dev team.
I'm not trying to bash the game but something is bugging me about what he said. He talked about taking risks, right? Well, if there isn't any death penalty or such a mild penalty that it doesn't really matter, then exactly what are you risking when you do stuff? If you can't lose anything you aren't risking anything.
He mentioned people trying daring and heroic things as well. But, once again, how can an action be daring when you know you can't lose anything. Can a person really play the hero when they know, and everyone else knows, they can't be hurt.
Not having any sort of real death penalty cheapens everything. You're never going to think that another player was gutsy for taking on such-and-such or that other thing because you know there is nothing to fear from anything. You'll never feel that little tingle of fear when things are going badly and because of this your victories will never be quite so sweet either.
If it winds up working anything like GW1 the more hidden penalty will be the fact that you are returned to a res point. Generally not by where you are trying to go and therefore you lose time and progress. In addition if personal stories work like pve in GW1 then if your party wipes you are forced to start the whole thing from the beginning. These are not extreme penalties, but personally I am in favor of a lighter penalty rather than a more harsh one. I don't want to be screwed just because I had to answer the phone or get the door and died. Not saying it couldn't be a bit tougher, but I personally view death penalties as a headache and they do not enhance my enjoyment of the game.
Steam: Neph
Different people have different preferences and that's fine. My main issue was with the semantics of what he said in this statement:
" We have found that our emphasis on risk-taking, along with this milder penalty, has resulted in a game where players try daring and heroic things, where they will go into grave situations to help out a stranger, and that overall increases the number of epic and heroic moments that the average player encounters."
Considering that they are going with no-risk or at best low-risk gameplay he should have said:
" We have found that our emphasis on no-risk, along with this milder penalty, has resulted in a game where players try not so daring and unheroic things, where they will go into non-threatening situations to help out a stranger, and that overall increases the number of ordinary and unheroic moments that the average player encounters."
Heh, again I don't mean to bash the game. It's just that you can't have no-risk gameplay AND have risk taking at the same time. It has to be one way or the other but it can't be both.
There are very, very few games that actually give you a meaningful death penalty; DFO, MO, UO, and probably one or two others I haven't played (like EVE).
To me, GW2's death penalty is absolutely no different from any other non-FFA game, so I truly fail to see the issue.
if you want that tingle of real fear, have your significant other stab you with a knife every time your avatar dies. Real life wounds are hardcore!
You are still taking the risk of dying and being setback on your time. Maybe you don't see this as a risk at all? This is pretty much the same penalty present in almost every game out there that's not FFA pvp. So why not take the risk of dying by tackling that huge dragon you see all by yourself just to have some fun if it's not going to be such a big deal. I don't see your rewording of their statement making any sense at all. You state no risk, but again the risk is death and being setback on your time. The threatening situation is your character dying or facing some ridiculous odds. It's heroic because you can throw yourself into a crazy situation or come to someone's aid because you want to not because you have assessed all the odds and know it will work out in your favor or don't want to risk the death penalty. I mean it's certainly not a FFA pvp loot your foe's corpse environment, but I hardly agree with your summation.
Steam: Neph
Yes, that's true. No-risk gameplay has become the standard it seems. But that wasn't really my point.
So there is risk only if there is a harsh death penalty involved? All risk means is that there is a greater chance of failure but also a higher reward for success. There is nothing about the penalty involved of failure. A significant death penalty does not equate to risk. I'm willing to bet that in games with a harsh death penalty that the players in general will be less adventurous.
Being set back to a respawn point may or may not cost you enough time to feel like you have something at risk. It depends on how much time we're talking about. If it's like the original Guild Wars it will only be a minute or less to run back to where you were which is hardly a penalty at all. Where the gameplay in this game doesn't all take place in private instances it can't be exactly the same but, again, the question is just how much of a set back will it be?
But even then, if you don't actually lose something which you had before you died then it's not so much a penalty as an annoyance. When you face some content it's not that you are taking a risk of losing something it's more a question of how many times do you have to throw yourself at it before you beat it. In that case the thing which would discourage you from taking on something you can't handle is not the risk but rather the fact that you will eventually get bored by doing the same thing over and over again.
You said:
" It's heroic because you can throw yourself into a crazy situation or come to someone's aid because you want to not because you have assessed all the odds and know it will work out in your favor or don't want to risk the death penalty."
That's pretty much the opposite of heroic as far as these games go. Going to someone's aid when there is no risk involved isn't exactly heroic. Rushing in to help someone even though you could lose something would be much more heroic.
Jumping into a crazy, against-the-odds fight when you know you won't lose anything if you die and you can run right back in a matter of seconds is not heroic it's just an untouchable God mode character playing kamakazi style. Suicide into it over and over and over and eventually you'll beat it or get bored with it.
This Dev sounds like a politician or at least a car salesman. Spinning a weak death penalty as encouraging risk taking is silly. WoW probably has the weakest death penalty out there and all people do is keep feeding the meter. Its not heroic, heroism is beating something in the face of grave odds or danger. When there is no penalty there is no danger. I'm not a big fan of penalties and I play WoW, but spare me the spin.
What? The penalty of failure is exactly what risk is. I hate to break out the analogies but I guess I'm going to.
Person A and person B are each walking a separate tightrope. Person A is walking a tightrope 100 yards above the ground with no net to catch him if he falls. Person B is walking a rope five feet above a nice fluffy safety pad. Which of those people is taking the greater risk?
Bank A makes loans with a high probability of default but knows that the government will bail them out if they get in trouble. Bank B in a different country does the same thing but knowing that nobody will bail them out if they get into trouble. Which bank is taking the greater risk?
To me, being setback even if it's a minute of my time is a penalty. I value my time and would prefer not to waste it repeating the same actions over and over. The idea is sure you may begin the game by throwing yourself at stuff and dying over and over as you learn the mechanics, but eventually being setback over and over again, repeating the same thing over and over again, gets annoying to the point where you would desire to not to repeat the same mistakes. Sure there are those that would prefer to keep banging there head against this wall and playing the way you describe, but that is not the majority of players. Look at anyone that actually gives a crap as they play WoW. Even with that light of a death penalty they're not just ok with wiping over and over.
Yes rushing in to help someone with something to lose would be more heroic. But in general helping a stranger out in an MMO is a heroic act in my mind. Nine times out of ten in an MMO ppl you don't know just stand by and watch you die if you're in trouble. If there's something to lose by helping someone out in an online game that just gives many people one more reason not to bother. To some degree that degrades the social environment that many people desire in these games.
This is just my opinion and what I desire in games but, in the end all games are about having a good time. Generally speaking a severe death penalty is just punching a player in the face. Even Darkfall, which many consider to have a severe death penalty, is really not that severe once you've been playing for a while. "Damn my corpse got looted time to sort through the thousands of pieces of armor and weapons back in my storage box." The risk of losing a bunch of gear that can be easily replaced is not much of a risk either. A smart Eve player generally does not risk what they cannot afford to lose either. If everything is replacable then losing it is just an annoyance. So where's the risk?
Steam: Neph
Sure, it's a penalty. All of these games have some penalty even if they are extremely light.
But in my opinion the test of whether a game has enough of a penalty would be the actions of players in a situation similar to what I'll describe next.
A player walks around a corner or over a hill and sees a big, nasty monster he is certain he can't beat and it agroes on him. Does he...
A. Yell, "Oh shit" and run for his life.
or
B. Shrug and fight it anyway.
I would say that if even 10% of the players chose option B then the death penalty is too light. They should test that in beta in fact. Set up a situation like that and see how many of the players would willingly walk into certain death and it might give them a better idea if their death penalty is enough.
I can see what you are saying there.
Steam: Neph
I'm in agreement, captainnl.
It's unfortuante when players don't try to learn how skills work on their own, to expirament with builds and learn what works best in what situation for their playstyle and with other classes. What I've seen in the last few months with my return to Guild Wars has really demonstrated this.
When I go to the Temple of Ages all I see, and I do mean all I see other than a bit of trade, is line after line of PvX-based acronyms that translate to 'lf someone else to robo-play a build that they know little about, alongside these other builds that have been deemed absolutely necessary by someone else while I play a build that I know little about mechanically other than PvX said it works.' When it comes to these elite areas, yes, there are things that work better than others but it seems that people want to play things that they don't understand because PvX said it works. I say this because, without exception, when I ask what those acronyms and phrases mean (i.e. Physway) people simply tell me to check the wiki or they don't know. They can, of course, be putting me off but this just furthers my point in a slightly different direction.
All that said, we still have to see how the game plays out, both in PvE and PvP, and one thing the folks at ArenaNet are sure to be monitoring closely is how their downed-then-death and death penalty systems worked. I'm positive this is one of the things that will be further tweaked with player feedback. I don't see this becoming milder though but harsher if that is what players want. Folks who played Guild Wars 1 would do well to remember that the penalty for death was a 15% reduction in effectiveness, whereby health and energy were lowered to up to a maximum of 60%. This was at once mild and harsh, depending on the circumstances and a damn good reason to get better at playing your class and build.
(1)TL:DR must be your way of saying that thinking hurts. Then again, this may explain why it looks like you responded to the post without using your brain.
(2) It's not about community, is it? You just have nothing better to do.
This really depends on the game. The length of time I spent in FFXI over the years proved this to be patently untrue. Hell, there was even a 'Call For Help' function so you can allow claimed targets to be attacked so you could survive. No drop and no experience points were the results of using this function but it was used and not infrequently. It was also common for players to judge whether or not they could heal the player in combat and then help the player survive, functioning similar for DD classes waiting nearby and asking if the other player needed help. Folks made playing buddies this way and ArenaNet, while leaving a healthy amount of room open to solo, seems to want to bring that feeling of comradery back.
Please, allow me to restate that: ArenaNet, while leaving a healthy amount of room open to solo, seems to want to bring that feeling of comradery back.
(1)TL:DR must be your way of saying that thinking hurts. Then again, this may explain why it looks like you responded to the post without using your brain.
(2) It's not about community, is it? You just have nothing better to do.
they mean risk as in taking a chance the penalty is losing the reward is winning. for example. In warhammer I was running along and popped in a PQ area that was on the last stage with people running from the "boss". I as a tank decided to help out and try to tank the mob for them even though i was pretty sure we would lose.
I decided to take the risk anyway and help out my realmmates .... we did pretty well but lost and all died, but they thanked me for trying. had this been a game with an insane death penalty I wouldn't have even bothered i would have ran right along and laughed knowing they were going to get hit with a major penalty.
thats what they mean by "taking a risk". think outside the box like the dev team is.
This is great news. Will save me spending money on mounts when i can just suicide and pick a point to respawn at.
You haven't played guild wars. While GW2 may not work like GW1, in the original game you simply spawned at the most recent point you had passed by/activated. There's no choice involved. By the same token there are no mounts in GW1, due to the fast travel system that will also be present in GW2. Certainly they may be adding mounts, but they would not be as necessary as there is fast travel similar to Aion, WoW, etc.
Steam: Neph
No, risk depends on the degree of failure. The penalty involved from failing can contribute to that though.
"risks" are simply future issues that can be avoided or mitigated, rather than present problems that must be immediately addressed
Or risk can be defined as the product of the probability of a hazard resulting in an adverse event, times the severity of the event
I think some of you (such as Neanderthal) are kind of misunderstanding or confusing some things and the ideas behind the decisions. For one thing, as the devs have said in the past they want to make their games as fun as possible, not make them feel like a 2nd job. Adding in harsh death penalties, especially those you see in FFA PvP type games, result in you spending too much time worrying about your stuff and rebuilding after losing it rather than actually going out and having fun doing new stuff.
As for the taking risks & heroic acts... is superman ever really taking a risk when he swoops in to save someone? No, he can handle it, but it's the act of helping the person who cant handle it that makes it "heroic". I think thats what they were getting at. Superman wont sit back and think "well gee i dunno, if i go down there i might get my ass kicked or lose something of mine so im just gonna move on and go do something else".
In a similar fashion, having the low death penalty in GW2 encourages people to take more chances rather than playing it safe. When you come up against a tough enemy youve never seen before, instead of "oh no, im not even gonna attempt taking that thing on. im gonna go get a bunch of people to come back me up to make sure theres no chance i can fail" because youre so afraid to lose anything. You will instead be like "what the hell, let me see if i can take it on" and even if you do fail, you can head back and attempt it again but perhaps with a different skil/trait set, different weapons, different fighting style, etc. It's encouraging taking chances and experimenting, rather than adding in the illusion of "harsh" penalties (after all its just a game, how much risk are we really taking anyway) and inadvertently forcing people to stick to the safe route for fear of death / loss.
Hell just look at the real world. How many of us go around starting fights with lions, bears, tigers, etc? Why not? because we dont want to get killed / maimed. Now if we could all be superheroes and not worry about dying so much, how many more of us would be tempted to go piss of a bunch of deadly wild animals and have a battle royale with them? Would certainly make things more fun.
I'm going to copy/paste the specific parts I want to reply to.
1. "I think some of you (such as Neanderthal) are kind of misunderstanding or confusing some things and the ideas behind the decisions."
It might be true that I'm getting too old to understand all of this new-speak stuff. This brave new world in which "risk" doesn't mean {doing something which might get you hurt} but rather just means {doing something}. This new world in which ordinary politeness and common courtesy are now seen as heroic actions.
Let me see if I can get the hang of it with an imaginary scenerio.......
A man saw one of his co-workers drop a stack papers. He took a great risk to walk across the office and heroically assisted his co-worker in picking the papers up off the floor.
I'm I getting it now?
2. "In a similar fashion, having the low death penalty in GW2 encourages people to take more chances rather than playing it safe."
Again, my old fashioned way of thinking gets me tangled up in the semantics of this statement. In a game in which you can never lose anything aren't you always playing safe? How can you not play it safe when the game itself won't allow you to be hurt? The game won't allow you to do anything but play it safe.
3. "You will instead be like "what the hell, let me see if i can take it on" and even if you do fail, you can head back and attempt it again but perhaps with a different skil/trait set, different weapons, different fighting style, etc. It's encouraging taking chances and experimenting, rather than adding in the illusion of "harsh" penalties"
Soooo....if you fail you can run back to attempt it again and again and again. So "taking a chance" simply means throwing yourself repeatedly at content untill you figure it out?
Ok, I think I'm starting to get this. "Taking a risk" simply means {doing something} and "taking a chance" simply means {doing something repeatedly untill you learn how to beat it}.
As to the illusion of harsh death penalties; well, obviously these games are all illusion. None of it is real of course. But within the context of that illusion death penalties must mean something or we wouldn't have discussions like this.