I have a perfect solution for you "hardcore" players in this thread. Not only will you be able to enjoy the type of death penalty you would like, but those that don't want harsh death penalties will be able to enjoy their time as well! It's a perfect solution!
[lotsof blabla about deleting your stuff]
If you claim, why on earth would I do this to myself? You are kind of contradicting yourself. You want a harsh death penalty, but you aren't willing to put in the time to punish yourself first. How can you expect us to take you seriously when you aren't willing to go the extra step and try to simulate the effects of a harsh DP.
say we fight one v one. and if i die i "drop all my gear and loot on the floor and delete my character" because im a hardcore player and you have no death penalty so if you die, you just respawn.
i come into this battle risking everything as you come into this battle risking nothing
if i win i get nothing while risking everything
if you win you get everything while risking nothing
your argument fails on the terms of not balancing risk versus reward
on the other hand if everyone comes into battle risking everything then they have a chance to gain everything as well.
so your argument is invalid because being hardcore is increasing the risk versus the rewards. not just being stupid and deleting your shit... that just makes you a masochist.
Originally posted by Vryheid Just imagine for a second if "death penalties" were introduced in non-MMO games. What would happen to a Diamond level Starcraft 2 player that lost in an online match?
If you don't want a penalty for losing in SC2 you play Custom Game 1v1's. When you lose in a ranked SC2 game your record and and your rank are affected. There IS a penalty. The whole ranking system would crumble if it didn't have penalties. It would cease to be a ranking system.
That is NOT a penalty as the OP is describing. By "penalty" he means something that cripples your ability to play for a fixed amount of time, not just a simple deduction in ranking points. Obviously players in Starcraft want to keep their ranking, but there is nothing stopping them from quickly working their way back up if they win the next few matches. A "death penalty" would make it temporarily impossible to battle effectively at all.
Just imagine for a second if "death penalties" were introduced in non-MMO games. What would happen to a Diamond level Starcraft 2 player that lost in an online match?
If you don't want a penalty for losing in SC2 you play Custom Game 1v1's.
When you lose in a ranked SC2 game your record and and your rank are affected. There IS a penalty. The whole ranking system would crumble if it didn't have penalties. It would cease to be a ranking system.
That is NOT a penalty as the OP is describing. By "penalty" he means something that cripples your ability to play for a fixed amount of time, not just a simple deduction in ranking points. Obviously players in Starcraft want to keep their ranking, but there is nothing stopping them from quickly working their way back up if they win the next few matches. A "death penalty" would make it temporarily impossible to battle effectively at all.
not really, a death penalty is not to make someone not be able to play effectively at all.
a death penalty is balancing the risks you take according to the reward you gain
The problem with a perceived harsh death penalty is that for most people it is a deterrent to trying new things in the game or to even playing the game itself. By "perceived harsh death penalty" I mean something that overtly punishes you for dying, such as loss of XP or even dropping the armor you were wearing so that someone else could possibly take it.
The death penalties that do not overtly punish you for dying (the boss resets to 100% health, your armor gradually degrades, you have to pay a spirit healer to heal your 'soul' back to full, etc.) are acceptable by most people. I think it is the gradual nature of the penalties and the fact that they seem to make sense...your armor is going to degrade if you keep dying...the boss is going to reset himself (or herself) back to their 100% state as quickly as they can, etc.
Some people find that the harsh death penalties make their game time better...game developers have found that harsh death penalties mean they don't sell as many games. Which of these two viewpoints do you think is going to win out in the end? The one that makes more money and allows more game development.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I'm not entirely sure what you are going on about. When you say gaining skill, are you talking about character skills in a skill-based game or are you speaking of personal skill, such as hand-eye coordination/"muscle-memory" reactions for your class? Also, which MMOs don't have repetitive gameplay- do you not have to keep rolling through kill after kill or quest after quest to advance? And regarding the last line- the game suddenly turns bad once you no longer feel challenged? So up to that moment the game is fine?
I certainly noted the sarcasm as you were laying it on thick, but you missed actually making a point.
Sorry, I didn't realize I'd have to spell it out for people in excruciatingly slow, mind-numbing, child level detail, but I'm always willing to cater to my audience!
I'll use your post to point out some problems with the MMO genre, and their audience. No offense intended, of course.
1. Of course when I'm talking about gaining skill I'm talking about gaining actual player skill. The idea that somebody could think of gaining character skill as 'meaningful progress and fun' is a good sign of a problem with the genre, right there. Spending large amounts of time to 'improve' your character, and then being proud of the extra boosts in bigger numbers is pretty silly.
Somebody who plays an FPS, or a fighting game, or an RTS... a platformer, a puzzle game, even a sports game is gaining some actual skills. They're improving their reflexes, their ability to respond to situations, puzzle solving and other things. In an MMO, way too much of what you're improving is 'time wasted gaining bigger numbers'. The characters aren't defeating the next monster because the player is SO much better at playing, they're defeating bigger monsters because the numbers on their armor, or spaceship, or whatever is higher. It's giving people the idea that they're spending their time in a useful fashion, rather than a poorly disguised grind.
If you play Starcraft for 500 hours, you're theoretically getting damn good at Starcraft, improving your reflexes. If Starcraft was an MMO, those 500 hours would be spent doing the same simple, very repetitive tasks that you've already mastered, while you're slowly eked out rewards of new units and abilities for those units.
The idea that you could POSSIBLY even think I meant character skills outlines this horrible deep flaw in MMOs, their treadmill nature.
2. All MMOs have horribly repetitive gameplay. That doesn't mean that horribly repetitive, treadmill like grinding gameplay is a good thing. That's like me complaining about all the bad problems with politics, and saying I would prefer something new, and you saying that corruption is an inherent part of politics, so there is no reason not to elect the most corrupt people out there. Also, just because I think there's a lot of problem with politicians and the political system, doesn't mean I'm an anarchist and I think the government should disappear. MMOs have good points. Amazingly fresh gameplay is not one of them. Yes. When a game is challenging, or delivering fun in some way (Playing a game with my friends, no matter how crappy the game is, is one way to add fun, for example. Delivering some good story can be fun as well.), I'm enjoying it, the moment it stops delivering the challenge or fun in some form =I AM NO LONGER ENJOYING IT=. The idea that I should be enjoying a game from sheer MOMENTUM is bullshit. This is another problem with MMOs. 'Well, it was fun before, and it'll be fun in the future, so I should put up with 5 hours of not-fun'. Really? REALLY? That's poor game design. MMOs get away with it only because they're one of the few things that can deliver this particular brand of gaming experience, but that doesn't mean it's a good thing, it means it's an evil we put up with.
Putting up with something (Repetitive gameplay) doesn't mean it's good, no matter how much you try to convince me that because I put up with something I should be enjoying it. Having it extremely prolific doesn't mean it's good either. Those are horrible arguments. Please don't ever use them again.
3. You missed the point, so here it is again. MMOs are horribly flawed. Every moment I play it, I'm suffering through the game already just to play with my friends, maybe get a little bit of lore, and hope that I can eke out enough enjoyment from what is usually flawed gameplay systems.
Death penalty is a horrifying penalty because the whole basis behind the penalty is 'forcing you to replay our game, but in a less fun fashion'. MMOs. LESS FUN. As if they weren't unfun enough!
Death penalty, item decay, corpse runs... they're all punishments that have no meaning other than to make you repeat the game without gaining skills.
THIS IS POOR DESIGN.
Replaying something is one thing, but making me replay it + more of what I've already done and gotten over?
POOR DESIGN.
4. Please don't make me simplify my explanation anymore, it'll ruin my stellar impression of the kinds of people who have convinced themselves that treadmill gameplay and 'improvement' through bigger numbers is the apex of game design, and the most beautiful thing such a game can do is to base every game design decision around making people play these wonderful games even more.
Meowhead, you deliver your argument very well here. I have one question for you: If MMO's didn't have such terribly flawed gameplay, would a death penalty like xp loss be fine?
The problem, as I see it, is that people do not want to replay old content because the gameplay is terrible throughout the game (whether or not they realize it). The only enjoyment found in an MMO is through the progression, because the gameplay is absolutely horrid. So no one wants to participate in anything that doesn't involve constant progression. That is why people hate death penalties, because it hinders their ability to be constantly progressing, the only fun in the game.
If the gameplay was actually fun to begin with, would people be fine with replaying content? The reason for replaying it would be to have the player learn to master their skills more. I don't see a problem with penalties for failing in non-MMO's and I think that's because they generally have better gameplay. For example, dying in Counter-Strike is not only bad for your team but it also has the penalty of having to wait until the next round to respawn and you lose all your guns, having to rebuy them. In a match, the wait time is around 90 seconds. In a public game, the wait time is usually even longer (3 minutes or so). Yet, Counter-Strike is one of the most popular FPS games of all time because despite those penalties, the gameplay is extremely fun. Get what I'm saying?
_________________________________ "Fixed it. Because that wall of text attacked me, killed me and looted my body..." -George "sniperg" Light
We get that you don't like death penalties and that you have mastered the art of sarcasm. Try reading the OP again to find out what this thread is about and then see if you can post anything constructive.
Yeah, my constructive advice was...
Admit that most of these penalities are total bullshit timewasters (Most penalties are based around time wasting), and that unless it's MEANINGFUL, it's just a way for the game maker to have you play their game longer, padding out gameplay time and justifying their subscription fees that they want from the customers.
I am fine with death penalties, but it should be things like perma-death.
That's a good punishment. That's a real penalty.
EVE is on the right track. Haven't played Darkfall, but it sort of sounds like they have a good idea too.
Both extremes are fine with me, the middle is just dinking around pretending like they're punishing you, and instead hiding the fact that they can't create good content and things that require real skill to gradually master (You can beat your head against most MMOs until you reach max level, and beat any end level content in these games. That's part of the time wasting, to slow down people who are winning through sheer repetition). Too much improvement through time, rather than actually improving as a player)
Don't pretend you're punishing the players, and let them keep on playing...
... or beat the heck out of them until they're crying and wishing they had picked a game more suited to their poor skills.
That's my constructive advice.
Obviously people can't read what I've been saying. I like death penalties. i LOVE death penalties. Real ones.
(Oh, as a side note, I will accept 'losing weapons and armor in a strongly player-run crafting heavy economy', because this death penalty has a good point to it. It creates a healthy economy, and creates gold sinks and increases the reasons to craft. That's fine. That's death penalty based around improving the game experience, not around wasting time)
Back in the day when i started playing EQ in 99' It was very apparent then, the xp loss and corpse runs were created as time sinks to get you to pay a subscription longer. The more time it would take for you to reach your personal goals the longer you would pay and play. Yes we get it, it really isn't a revalation you are bringing here
However it had a side effect of you caring about the character you played, the gear you earned and the levels. There was prestige in being a high level because it wasn't something you achieved within a week. Now we can argue all day how spending more time doing things doesn't consititute as a challenge or has anything to do with difficulty but the fact is. You didn't want to die. Sure you can tell yourself in a game like WoW that dying matters, that you want to avoid it but does it really?. You have nothing to lose.
Death penalties in itself is a niche mechanic most of us know this. It's not for everybody. The harsher the penalty the more niche it becomes (perma death). Less of a penalty and you move towards casual and mainstream. Again no relavation there either.
There really isn't a better or worse system in regards to a death penalty system other than what YOU prefer and for your own reasons. Just because It's a timesink doesn't mean that there isn't a plus side to it for some of us. Same as perma death is for the more extreme types
Meaningful is not really what this is about. It's about the value you feel about your character and the degree of the percieved danger
The problem with a perceived harsh death penalty is that for most people it is a deterrent to trying new things in the game...
This way of thinking is fallacious.
Even in games that have existed with harsh death penalties, this has not been the case. People will find ways to "practice" those new things regardless of the penalty. For example, in Ultima Online, people would "spar" eachother to try out new things for PvP. Whoever lost would drop all their gear, but their partner would not take it because they were both only playing for practice. They could practice whatever they wanted without as much risk. They would then go out into the real PvP world and try their newly found strategies for real. If someone wanted to practice using a specific ability in PvE, he could go find a monster he could easily defeat and practice using his ability.
A harsh death penalty does not prevent people from "practicing." Anyone that actually takes the time to play a game with a harsh death penalty (and understand it, rather than throwing a tantrum) knows this.
_________________________________ "Fixed it. Because that wall of text attacked me, killed me and looted my body..." -George "sniperg" Light
I'm not entirely sure what you are going on about. When you say gaining skill, are you talking about character skills in a skill-based game or are you speaking of personal skill, such as hand-eye coordination/"muscle-memory" reactions for your class? Also, which MMOs don't have repetitive gameplay- do you not have to keep rolling through kill after kill or quest after quest to advance? And regarding the last line- the game suddenly turns bad once you no longer feel challenged? So up to that moment the game is fine?
I certainly noted the sarcasm as you were laying it on thick, but you missed actually making a point.
Sorry, I didn't realize I'd have to spell it out for people in excruciatingly slow, mind-numbing, child level detail, but I'm always willing to cater to my audience!
I'll use your post to point out some problems with the MMO genre, and their audience. No offense intended, of course.
1. Of course when I'm talking about gaining skill I'm talking about gaining actual player skill. The idea that somebody could think of gaining character skill as 'meaningful progress and fun' is a good sign of a problem with the genre, right there. Spending large amounts of time to 'improve' your character, and then being proud of the extra boosts in bigger numbers is pretty silly.
Somebody who plays an FPS, or a fighting game, or an RTS... a platformer, a puzzle game, even a sports game is gaining some actual skills. They're improving their reflexes, their ability to respond to situations, puzzle solving and other things. In an MMO, way too much of what you're improving is 'time wasted gaining bigger numbers'. The characters aren't defeating the next monster because the player is SO much better at playing, they're defeating bigger monsters because the numbers on their armor, or spaceship, or whatever is higher. It's giving people the idea that they're spending their time in a useful fashion, rather than a poorly disguised grind.
If you play Starcraft for 500 hours, you're theoretically getting damn good at Starcraft, improving your reflexes. If Starcraft was an MMO, those 500 hours would be spent doing the same simple, very repetitive tasks that you've already mastered, while you're slowly eked out rewards of new units and abilities for those units.
The idea that you could POSSIBLY even think I meant character skills outlines this horrible deep flaw in MMOs, their treadmill nature.
2. All MMOs have horribly repetitive gameplay. That doesn't mean that horribly repetitive, treadmill like grinding gameplay is a good thing. That's like me complaining about all the bad problems with politics, and saying I would prefer something new, and you saying that corruption is an inherent part of politics, so there is no reason not to elect the most corrupt people out there. Also, just because I think there's a lot of problem with politicians and the political system, doesn't mean I'm an anarchist and I think the government should disappear. MMOs have good points. Amazingly fresh gameplay is not one of them. Yes. When a game is challenging, or delivering fun in some way (Playing a game with my friends, no matter how crappy the game is, is one way to add fun, for example. Delivering some good story can be fun as well.), I'm enjoying it, the moment it stops delivering the challenge or fun in some form =I AM NO LONGER ENJOYING IT=. The idea that I should be enjoying a game from sheer MOMENTUM is bullshit. This is another problem with MMOs. 'Well, it was fun before, and it'll be fun in the future, so I should put up with 5 hours of not-fun'. Really? REALLY? That's poor game design. MMOs get away with it only because they're one of the few things that can deliver this particular brand of gaming experience, but that doesn't mean it's a good thing, it means it's an evil we put up with.
Putting up with something (Repetitive gameplay) doesn't mean it's good, no matter how much you try to convince me that because I put up with something I should be enjoying it. Having it extremely prolific doesn't mean it's good either. Those are horrible arguments. Please don't ever use them again.
3. You missed the point, so here it is again. MMOs are horribly flawed. Every moment I play it, I'm suffering through the game already just to play with my friends, maybe get a little bit of lore, and hope that I can eke out enough enjoyment from what is usually flawed gameplay systems.
Death penalty is a horrifying penalty because the whole basis behind the penalty is 'forcing you to replay our game, but in a less fun fashion'. MMOs. LESS FUN. As if they weren't unfun enough!
Death penalty, item decay, corpse runs... they're all punishments that have no meaning other than to make you repeat the game without gaining skills.
THIS IS POOR DESIGN.
Replaying something is one thing, but making me replay it + more of what I've already done and gotten over?
POOR DESIGN.
4. Please don't make me simplify my explanation anymore, it'll ruin my stellar impression of the kinds of people who have convinced themselves that treadmill gameplay and 'improvement' through bigger numbers is the apex of game design, and the most beautiful thing such a game can do is to base every game design decision around making people play these wonderful games even more.
For typing this much, you say very, very little. In my post I suggested nothing, only asked questions so I apologize if I provoked you into that hugely ignorant tirade I just had the misfortune to read.
1. If you're expecting video games to offer you RL skills it may be time to unplug yourself from the Matrix, Neo.
2. It sounds like you really have no idea what you want, and you sound like a very fickle gamer, where something may be fun one moment and the exact same thing may not be fun the next moment. Developers can't offer gameplay based on your moods.
3. If you're "suffering" through games then it really just backs up that either your priorities are highly askew, you may have some type of emotional problem (please get help), or perhaps MMOs just aren't the proper genre of game for you. Reading your post it seems like maybe a FPS or something on Xbox live may have the gameplay you seek, as their communities sound very much to be at the same intelligence and maturity level.
4. Please don't simplify your explanation, because it seems when you simplify, you just write more in widely varying directions that don't entirely form a coherent response.
I'm a little stunned at this. Someone in this day and age actually WANTS an experience penalty on death? I can just imagine this message being sent to a high level player after dying in a guild raid:
"Congratulations! Your team managed to finish the epic dungeon and beat the end boss! BUT, because you got picked off just before reaching the exit, we're going to have to dock you 5 percent of your experience points. Sorry that you're no longer able to equip any of your top level gear, but you can at least have fun grinding for the next two hours before you can start enjoying the game again."
Death penalties are an archaic and widely despised game mechanic to begin with, but if we're going to include them we might as well have something like equipment degradation on death which can at least be mitigated to some extent. Experience penalties are absolutely awful.
I couldn't agree more! Having no death penalty is one of many reasons I'm looking forward to Guild Wars 2. The only penalty to your deaths should be only the failure to accomplish what wanted to. Why adding exp loss?
Please don't simplify your explanation, because it seems when you simplify, you just write more in widely varying directions that don't entirely form a coherent response.
His points are actually layed out very well and his opinion is clear.
You just have bad reading comprehension.
_________________________________ "Fixed it. Because that wall of text attacked me, killed me and looted my body..." -George "sniperg" Light
Please don't simplify your explanation, because it seems when you simplify, you just write more in widely varying directions that don't entirely form a coherent response.
His points are actually layed out very well and his opinion is clear.
You just have bad reading comprehension.
Thank you for your concise response. It was very meaningful and inspired- really helped this thread to evolve.
Please don't simplify your explanation, because it seems when you simplify, you just write more in widely varying directions that don't entirely form a coherent response.
His points are actually layed out very well and his opinion is clear.
You just have bad reading comprehension.
Thank you for your concise response. It was very meaningful and inspired- really helped this thread to evolve.
Well, hopefully my reply inspired you to reread the post you criticized until you get it. You sound like a massive tool though, so you probably won't.
_________________________________ "Fixed it. Because that wall of text attacked me, killed me and looted my body..." -George "sniperg" Light
Yes, I reread it and it just sounds like he has the attention span of a chihuahua and needs quick successions of stimuli to be entertained. Boo hoo. Still sounds like MMOs aren't the best genre for the type of gameplay he values. Any more ad hominem attcks then- especially those that not only have nothing to do with the discussion, but have nothing to do with gaming at all, internet tough guy?
Yes, I reread it and it just sounds like he has the attention span of a chihuahua and needs quick successions of stimuli to be entertained. Boo hoo. Still sounds like MMOs aren't the best genre for the type of gameplay he values. Any more ad hominem attcks then- especially those that not only have nothing to do with the discussion, but have nothing to do with gaming at all, internet tough guy?
There was no ad hominem attacks made towards you. You should probably find out what that actually means.
I think you're just attacking his character because you didn't agree with his argument from the offset and you can't come up with a good counter-argument. There's no point to arguing in that kind of scenario. You're basically too stubborn to admit when your opponent has a good point.
I don't even agree completely with his point. I just don't find myself above it like you do.
_________________________________ "Fixed it. Because that wall of text attacked me, killed me and looted my body..." -George "sniperg" Light
Originally posted by kaydinv Originally posted by lizardbones The problem with a perceived harsh death penalty is that for most people it is a deterrent to trying new things in the game...
This way of thinking is fallacious. Even in games that have existed with harsh death penalties, this has not been the case. People will find ways to "practice" those new things regardless of the penalty. For example, in Ultima Online, people would "spar" eachother to try out new things for PvP. Whoever lost would drop all their gear, but their partner would not take it because they were both only playing for practice. They could practice whatever they wanted without as much risk. They would then go out into the real PvP world and try their newly found strategies for real. If someone wanted to practice using a specific ability in PvE, he could go find a monster he could easily defeat and practice using his ability. A harsh death penalty does not prevent people from "practicing." Anyone that actually takes the time to play a game with a harsh death penalty (and understand it, rather than throwing a tantrum) knows this.
It's not fallacious. If most people wanted a harsh death penalty, they would say so in surveys...the things game companies hand out before spending millions on developing a game. Do you seriously think game companies received the input, "We want harsher death penalties." and then didn't do it? It would be trivial to implement and trivial to tweak.
It's is an assumption on my part that people will become discouraged in trying new things in a game because of harsh death penalties, but it's not an assumption that most people would stop playing games with harsh death penalties. Most people do not like them. Therefore most games that target a large audience do not and will not have them.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
The problem with a perceived harsh death penalty is that for most people it is a deterrent to trying new things in the game...
This way of thinking is fallacious.
Even in games that have existed with harsh death penalties, this has not been the case. People will find ways to "practice" those new things regardless of the penalty. For example, in Ultima Online, people would "spar" eachother to try out new things for PvP. Whoever lost would drop all their gear, but their partner would not take it because they were both only playing for practice. They could practice whatever they wanted without as much risk. They would then go out into the real PvP world and try their newly found strategies for real. If someone wanted to practice using a specific ability in PvE, he could go find a monster he could easily defeat and practice using his ability.
A harsh death penalty does not prevent people from "practicing." Anyone that actually takes the time to play a game with a harsh death penalty (and understand it, rather than throwing a tantrum) knows this.
It's not fallacious. If most people wanted a harsh death penalty, they would say so in surveys...the things game companies hand out before spending millions on developing a game. Do you seriously think game companies received the input, "We want harsher death penalties." and then didn't do it? It would be trivial to implement and trivial to tweak.
It's is an assumption on my part that people will become discouraged in trying new things in a game because of harsh death penalties, but it's not an assumption that most people would stop playing games with harsh death penalties. Most people do not like them. Therefore most games that target a large audience do not and will not have them.
It IS an assumption that most people would stop playing games with harsh death penalties. Most people haven't even played MMORPG's with harsh death penalties. I bet more people protest harsh death penalties that have actually experienced them.
How accurate would a survey with answers based on ignorance and inexperience be?
How about this: There have been many popular non-MMO games that featured harsh penalties for failure (relative to their own genres) such as Counter-Strike, Ultima Online was kneck and kneck with EQ1 back in the early days of MMORPG's (UO had much harsher penalties for death) and EVE online, which features one of the potentially most unforgiving death penalties ever in an MMORPG is one of the most popular MMORPG's today.
_________________________________ "Fixed it. Because that wall of text attacked me, killed me and looted my body..." -George "sniperg" Light
The problem with a perceived harsh death penalty is that for most people it is a deterrent to trying new things in the game...
This way of thinking is fallacious.
Even in games that have existed with harsh death penalties, this has not been the case. People will find ways to "practice" those new things regardless of the penalty. For example, in Ultima Online, people would "spar" eachother to try out new things for PvP. Whoever lost would drop all their gear, but their partner would not take it because they were both only playing for practice. They could practice whatever they wanted without as much risk. They would then go out into the real PvP world and try their newly found strategies for real. If someone wanted to practice using a specific ability in PvE, he could go find a monster he could easily defeat and practice using his ability.
A harsh death penalty does not prevent people from "practicing." Anyone that actually takes the time to play a game with a harsh death penalty (and understand it, rather than throwing a tantrum) knows this.
It's not fallacious. If most people wanted a harsh death penalty, they would say so in surveys...the things game companies hand out before spending millions on developing a game. Do you seriously think game companies received the input, "We want harsher death penalties." and then didn't do it? It would be trivial to implement and trivial to tweak.
It's is an assumption on my part that people will become discouraged in trying new things in a game because of harsh death penalties, but it's not an assumption that most people would stop playing games with harsh death penalties. Most people do not like them. Therefore most games that target a large audience do not and will not have them.
It IS an assumption that most people would stop playing games with harsh death penalties. Most people haven't even played MMORPG's with harsh death penalties. I bet more people protest harsh death penalties that have actually experienced them.
How accurate would a survey with answers based on ignorance and inexperience be?
How about this: There have been many popular non-MMO games that featured harsh penalties for failure (relative to their own genres) such as Counter-Strike, Ultima Online was kneck and kneck with EQ1 back in the early days of MMORPG's (UO had much harsher penalties for death) and EVE online, which features one of the potentially most unforgiving death penalties ever in an MMORPG is one of the most popular MMORPG's today.
I think EVE speaks to a different type of player. Besides the fact that it's one fo the few "sandbox" games and is one of the even fewer sci-fi games.
The people who would play eve are the people who would "play eve". The average player would not touch eve with a ten foot poll.
What other non-mmo games have a death penalty? I don't know counter strike so I'll take your word for it. Ultima Online is an MMO (and that begs the question as to whether or not the death penalty i that game has changed over time) EQ 1 is an mmo and EVE is as well.
so what other "non-mmo" game has harsh death penalties. I do see less harsh death penalties with the newere mmos'. I've seen player complain over death penalties that I thought were cake, like Aion's death penalty.
I don't see any actual evidence that the average player wants harsh death penalties. I have seen anecdotal evidence that player don't want them as there has been a lot of complaining over the years about harsh death penalties.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
I wasn't trying to make the point that the "average player wants harsh death penalties." I was simply making the point that there have been many popular games that featured "harsh death penalties" so it isn't as big of an issue as people would have you believe. Some people claim that for a game to be commercially successful it cannot have harsh death penalties because "nobody wants them," but that is clearly inaccurate as demonstrated by the examples given.
To be positively successful, a game only needs to be legitimately compelling. We need tension or eye-candy or a connection with other players (and/or other things) to truly enjoy a game. As long as a death penalty isn't unfair within the context of the game, it will achieve that feeling of tension during a battle and teach us to play smart so that we may have connections with other players when we party with them.
Only people that are egotistical or miss the entire point of playing games would be against some kind of risk for the rewards they seek. Real gamers understand the fact that without risk there is no reward. Only epeen morons take pride in the "rewards" they gathered that required no challenge and no risk.
_________________________________ "Fixed it. Because that wall of text attacked me, killed me and looted my body..." -George "sniperg" Light
For typing this much, you say very, very little. In my post I suggested nothing, only asked questions so I apologize if I provoked you into that hugely ignorant tirade I just had the misfortune to read.
1. If you're expecting video games to offer you RL skills it may be time to unplug yourself from the Matrix, Neo.
2. It sounds like you really have no idea what you want, and you sound like a very fickle gamer, where something may be fun one moment and the exact same thing may not be fun the next moment. Developers can't offer gameplay based on your moods.
3. If you're "suffering" through games then it really just backs up that either your priorities are highly askew, you may have some type of emotional problem (please get help), or perhaps MMOs just aren't the proper genre of game for you. Reading your post it seems like maybe a FPS or something on Xbox live may have the gameplay you seek, as their communities sound very much to be at the same intelligence and maturity level.
4. Please don't simplify your explanation, because it seems when you simplify, you just write more in widely varying directions that don't entirely form a coherent response.
Oh, I can keep it short and condescending, if you'd prefer, I just thought I'd try to actually educate you. My mistake.
1. Actually, believe it or not, games can be used to keep the mind limber. I'm not suggesting that playing chess will let you say... drive a car better, but the mind is like anything else, and can be exercised. Pushups don't directly relate to any sort of physical exertion you're likely to do RL (Let me help you move this couch by doing pushups!), but they do improve your physical strength. I enjoy competitive games of all types, from board games to card games to computer games, anything where I can pit myself against other people. That is the fun part of improving skills.
2. I know exactly what the heck I want, I demand it in my games, and I consider a failure to deliver amusement to be failure. It's called having an opinion. I'm hardly insane for knowing what I want, and asking for it. Isn't that how the customer relationship works? I at least had the good grace to merely suggest that you had poor taste, rather than saying you don't even know what you want.
3. If you don't think MMOs are flawed and can be improved, then I really don't know what to tell you. You're really that sure they're the ultimate in game design? I do play FPSs... and RTSs, puzzle games, board games, card games, and all sorts of games. Including MMOs. Part of why I realize MMO design needs work. Less things designed to artificially drag out the experience in PvE.
4. Well, I tried to have a more concise reply, but I couldn't help trying to stay informative. Not that I think any of this will get across! I guess my replies should have been 1. Smarter than you 2. Better opinions than you. 3. You like crap 4. Hahaha.
I did enjoy the 'You must play XBox Live!' repartee though. Very clever.
reward: sovereignty of a whole system in 0.0 (meaning you control what comes in and out and the laws within your system, you have also rights to ALL resources from the moons, planets and asteroids, the possibility to put down your own station outpost.
risk
first you need to claim your system by removing it from enemy party. you are risking billions worth of ships, implants modules, not to mention the capital ship support. not only you are risking your assets but also your whole alliance's assets.
say you succeed and the system belongs to your alliance, you now have to spend more billions upon billions of isk to build proper defences (such as control towers protecting your Territorial Control Unit) you also have to place down moon harvestors, planets command centers, system upgrades, you are putting all that at RISK to keep your system because at anytime the alliance you stole that system from may be comming back with its own capital fleet and can and WILL wipe ALL your assets down to nothing without thinking twice.
the greater the reward! the greater the risk
(also a bit off topic that is why low sec is not populated at all, no one wants to go there because there is not enough reward to compensate loosing your ship)
most games out there fail because of that or the other extreme. either the risk is to great for the reward (like EvE low sec) or its simply to boring because there is no risk for the reward, basicaly you can't loose.
The lack of death penalty thing to me is a bit more than annoying, I had more than one time while playing lotro when I simply said "damn you kids today." Becuase they wanted to die to get out of a dungeon quicker. I started out on EQ and my ex roommate and normal backup in most mmo's came from asherons call, both of us are avid enemies of the die out policy. We remember the death penalties, and we hate how people who learned to play without them just giggle at a terrible pull. Which has often led me, who almost always plays a warrior class, to have to pull because the classes that are supposed to do it seem to be over populated by people who don't know how to.
It is through the fear of a consiquence that we temper our actions to acheive success.
The lack of death penalty thing to me is a bit more than annoying, I had more than one time while playing lotro when I simply said "damn you kids today." Becuase they wanted to die to get out of a dungeon quicker. I started out on EQ and my ex roommate and normal backup in most mmo's came from asherons call, both of us are avid enemies of the die out policy. We remember the death penalties, and we hate how people who learned to play without them just giggle at a terrible pull. Which has often led me, who almost always plays a warrior class, to have to pull because the classes that are supposed to do it seem to be over populated by people who don't know how to.
It is through the fear of a consiquence that we temper our actions to acheive success.
Meowhead, you deliver your argument very well here. I have one question for you: If MMO's didn't have such terribly flawed gameplay, would a death penalty like xp loss be fine?
The problem, as I see it, is that people do not want to replay old content because the gameplay is terrible throughout the game (whether or not they realize it). The only enjoyment found in an MMO is through the progression, because the gameplay is absolutely horrid. So no one wants to participate in anything that doesn't involve constant progression. That is why people hate death penalties, because it hinders their ability to be constantly progressing, the only fun in the game.
If the gameplay was actually fun to begin with, would people be fine with replaying content? The reason for replaying it would be to have the player learn to master their skills more. I don't see a problem with penalties for failing in non-MMO's and I think that's because they generally have better gameplay. For example, dying in Counter-Strike is not only bad for your team but it also has the penalty of having to wait until the next round to respawn and you lose all your guns, having to rebuy them. In a match, the wait time is around 90 seconds. In a public game, the wait time is usually even longer (3 minutes or so). Yet, Counter-Strike is one of the most popular FPS games of all time because despite those penalties, the gameplay is extremely fun. Get what I'm saying?
It would probably be a lot less annoying, yes. I actually have a lot less time than I used to back in the days where I would play 3, 4 MMOs at once. When my gaming time is limited, it emphasizes the flaw where MMOs are artificially trying to extend the gaming experience.
Actually, if the reason why people failed was 'It was too difficult for your skill level', and it actually required an improvement in skill to beat, then death penalties like xp loss would become pointless. You'd be practicing on older content just to hone your skills to the point where you can pass the new stuff.
Now that I think on it, maybe part of what annoys me about xp loss as a death penalty is that it disproprotionately punishes those who have things to do. A basement dwelling jobless college dropout can blow off even the most arduous of xp loss death penalties, because what else does he have to do? He can die 10, 20 times and be less personally inconvenienced than I am.
One thing that has not been mentioned yet with xp loss for deaths is you can RESURRECT OR GO ON A CORPSE RUN OF SOME KIND AND OBTAIN THE XP BACK. You don't have to spend your time grinding that xp back again. You will get a good portion of that xp back when you do as such. You're going to waste your time anyways when you die. It's just how you waste it.
"My time is valuable and I hate when I die," is the common phrase around here. Have you ever thought that you're wasting your time when you play the game? What do you get out of playing an mmo? Personal satisfication of whatever aspect you get out it. We all could be spending time with our girlfriends, family, friends instead of playing mmos. But yet we don't. We waste time on them because of enjoyment and its a great hobby. There are other things important than playing an mmo. So if your time is that valuable, maybe you shouldn't be playing in the genre. This genre is for long term players that you have to invest your time in. This is just another way of thinking that I am not sure anyone yet has considered.
They probably try to ignore it, to be honest. Also, especially as we've seen with NCsoft it doesn't seem like MMOs are being developed for longevity anymore, it seems more about the quick cash grab- hype, pre-orders, collector's editions, and early on lifetime subs.
Thank you for responding to this pierth. I wrote it in blue so more people can read it. Mmo's are "supposed" to be design for longevity gameplay. Instant gratification is very boring and unchallenging. I wish people would see this post here. People here just want to complain. They don't understand game design.
... how about some kind of debuff that reduces xp gain for a period of time...
Thank you. I was actually discussing this with one of my good friends. He also mentioned a de-buff. Maybe the de-buff will stack every time you die. I think item degradation is a realistic mechanic that is use. But that shouldn't be soley determined as a death penalty.
However, how long should a death de-buff last? What should it affect? Stats? Run speed? Should the de-buff be somewhat harsh when you first obtain it? Also, does everytime you die does the de-buff duration increase? If you're in a group and you've wiped, and the de-buff lasts 5 mins players will just wait it out. More time wasted. Time will always be wasted in any death penalty design. It's just how you waste your time.
I would steer clear of a debuff that reduces stats or character performance. At best it will force players to wait out the debuff, at worst it can lead to further deaths since it is easy to underestimate how much such a debuff affects your characters power. The last thing you want is a death penalty that causes further deaths!
I was talking about a debuff which directly affects the rate at which future xp is gained. To illustrate with an example:
- Under the xp loss method a character loses 1,000 xp when he dies.
- Under the debuff method the character loses no xp but only gains 75% of the next 4,000 xp.
In both cases the xp penalty is 1,000 but it is presented in a very different way. Also, if a character has not worked it's xp penalty off by the end of the evening the debuff most likely expires overnight so the player has a fresh start the next day.
Ebonfly you bring a good concept to the table. I have never even considered that before. Hindering character performance would be a bad idea like you stated above. But hindering the rate you gain xp for a duration doesn't seem that bad. With a little tweaking and testing I think that could be a good system. You may agree, but game swith a stricter death penalty you'd find more wise players, from my experience anyways.
Like I said before I think there needs to be a somewhat strict death penalty but doens't hinder a lot of time wasted nor character performance. But when we play mmos, we are wasting time anyways. I don't see why people doesn't see that aspect of this whole thing.
Whats your opinion on death being repeated by a character? Should that xp de-buff stack? Would there be a cap? Would you consider the de-buff of experience gained to a certian interval like you posted above? Or simply for a certain duration?
Comments
say we fight one v one. and if i die i "drop all my gear and loot on the floor and delete my character" because im a hardcore player and you have no death penalty so if you die, you just respawn.
i come into this battle risking everything as you come into this battle risking nothing
if i win i get nothing while risking everything
if you win you get everything while risking nothing
your argument fails on the terms of not balancing risk versus reward
on the other hand if everyone comes into battle risking everything then they have a chance to gain everything as well.
so your argument is invalid because being hardcore is increasing the risk versus the rewards. not just being stupid and deleting your shit... that just makes you a masochist.
That is NOT a penalty as the OP is describing. By "penalty" he means something that cripples your ability to play for a fixed amount of time, not just a simple deduction in ranking points. Obviously players in Starcraft want to keep their ranking, but there is nothing stopping them from quickly working their way back up if they win the next few matches. A "death penalty" would make it temporarily impossible to battle effectively at all.
not really, a death penalty is not to make someone not be able to play effectively at all.
a death penalty is balancing the risks you take according to the reward you gain
The problem with a perceived harsh death penalty is that for most people it is a deterrent to trying new things in the game or to even playing the game itself. By "perceived harsh death penalty" I mean something that overtly punishes you for dying, such as loss of XP or even dropping the armor you were wearing so that someone else could possibly take it.
The death penalties that do not overtly punish you for dying (the boss resets to 100% health, your armor gradually degrades, you have to pay a spirit healer to heal your 'soul' back to full, etc.) are acceptable by most people. I think it is the gradual nature of the penalties and the fact that they seem to make sense...your armor is going to degrade if you keep dying...the boss is going to reset himself (or herself) back to their 100% state as quickly as they can, etc.
Some people find that the harsh death penalties make their game time better...game developers have found that harsh death penalties mean they don't sell as many games. Which of these two viewpoints do you think is going to win out in the end? The one that makes more money and allows more game development.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Meowhead, you deliver your argument very well here. I have one question for you: If MMO's didn't have such terribly flawed gameplay, would a death penalty like xp loss be fine?
The problem, as I see it, is that people do not want to replay old content because the gameplay is terrible throughout the game (whether or not they realize it). The only enjoyment found in an MMO is through the progression, because the gameplay is absolutely horrid. So no one wants to participate in anything that doesn't involve constant progression. That is why people hate death penalties, because it hinders their ability to be constantly progressing, the only fun in the game.
If the gameplay was actually fun to begin with, would people be fine with replaying content? The reason for replaying it would be to have the player learn to master their skills more. I don't see a problem with penalties for failing in non-MMO's and I think that's because they generally have better gameplay. For example, dying in Counter-Strike is not only bad for your team but it also has the penalty of having to wait until the next round to respawn and you lose all your guns, having to rebuy them. In a match, the wait time is around 90 seconds. In a public game, the wait time is usually even longer (3 minutes or so). Yet, Counter-Strike is one of the most popular FPS games of all time because despite those penalties, the gameplay is extremely fun. Get what I'm saying?
_________________________________
"Fixed it. Because that wall of text attacked me, killed me and looted my body..."
-George "sniperg" Light
Back in the day when i started playing EQ in 99' It was very apparent then, the xp loss and corpse runs were created as time sinks to get you to pay a subscription longer. The more time it would take for you to reach your personal goals the longer you would pay and play. Yes we get it, it really isn't a revalation you are bringing here
However it had a side effect of you caring about the character you played, the gear you earned and the levels. There was prestige in being a high level because it wasn't something you achieved within a week. Now we can argue all day how spending more time doing things doesn't consititute as a challenge or has anything to do with difficulty but the fact is. You didn't want to die. Sure you can tell yourself in a game like WoW that dying matters, that you want to avoid it but does it really?. You have nothing to lose.
Death penalties in itself is a niche mechanic most of us know this. It's not for everybody. The harsher the penalty the more niche it becomes (perma death). Less of a penalty and you move towards casual and mainstream. Again no relavation there either.
There really isn't a better or worse system in regards to a death penalty system other than what YOU prefer and for your own reasons. Just because It's a timesink doesn't mean that there isn't a plus side to it for some of us. Same as perma death is for the more extreme types
Meaningful is not really what this is about. It's about the value you feel about your character and the degree of the percieved danger
This way of thinking is fallacious.
Even in games that have existed with harsh death penalties, this has not been the case. People will find ways to "practice" those new things regardless of the penalty. For example, in Ultima Online, people would "spar" eachother to try out new things for PvP. Whoever lost would drop all their gear, but their partner would not take it because they were both only playing for practice. They could practice whatever they wanted without as much risk. They would then go out into the real PvP world and try their newly found strategies for real. If someone wanted to practice using a specific ability in PvE, he could go find a monster he could easily defeat and practice using his ability.
A harsh death penalty does not prevent people from "practicing." Anyone that actually takes the time to play a game with a harsh death penalty (and understand it, rather than throwing a tantrum) knows this.
_________________________________
"Fixed it. Because that wall of text attacked me, killed me and looted my body..."
-George "sniperg" Light
For typing this much, you say very, very little. In my post I suggested nothing, only asked questions so I apologize if I provoked you into that hugely ignorant tirade I just had the misfortune to read.
1. If you're expecting video games to offer you RL skills it may be time to unplug yourself from the Matrix, Neo.
2. It sounds like you really have no idea what you want, and you sound like a very fickle gamer, where something may be fun one moment and the exact same thing may not be fun the next moment. Developers can't offer gameplay based on your moods.
3. If you're "suffering" through games then it really just backs up that either your priorities are highly askew, you may have some type of emotional problem (please get help), or perhaps MMOs just aren't the proper genre of game for you. Reading your post it seems like maybe a FPS or something on Xbox live may have the gameplay you seek, as their communities sound very much to be at the same intelligence and maturity level.
4. Please don't simplify your explanation, because it seems when you simplify, you just write more in widely varying directions that don't entirely form a coherent response.
I couldn't agree more! Having no death penalty is one of many reasons I'm looking forward to Guild Wars 2. The only penalty to your deaths should be only the failure to accomplish what wanted to. Why adding exp loss?
Guild Wars 2 Youtube Croatian Maniacs
My Guild Wars titles
His points are actually layed out very well and his opinion is clear.
You just have bad reading comprehension.
_________________________________
"Fixed it. Because that wall of text attacked me, killed me and looted my body..."
-George "sniperg" Light
Thank you for your concise response. It was very meaningful and inspired- really helped this thread to evolve.
Well, hopefully my reply inspired you to reread the post you criticized until you get it. You sound like a massive tool though, so you probably won't.
_________________________________
"Fixed it. Because that wall of text attacked me, killed me and looted my body..."
-George "sniperg" Light
Yes, I reread it and it just sounds like he has the attention span of a chihuahua and needs quick successions of stimuli to be entertained. Boo hoo. Still sounds like MMOs aren't the best genre for the type of gameplay he values. Any more ad hominem attcks then- especially those that not only have nothing to do with the discussion, but have nothing to do with gaming at all, internet tough guy?
There was no ad hominem attacks made towards you. You should probably find out what that actually means.
I think you're just attacking his character because you didn't agree with his argument from the offset and you can't come up with a good counter-argument. There's no point to arguing in that kind of scenario. You're basically too stubborn to admit when your opponent has a good point.
I don't even agree completely with his point. I just don't find myself above it like you do.
_________________________________
"Fixed it. Because that wall of text attacked me, killed me and looted my body..."
-George "sniperg" Light
Even in games that have existed with harsh death penalties, this has not been the case. People will find ways to "practice" those new things regardless of the penalty. For example, in Ultima Online, people would "spar" eachother to try out new things for PvP. Whoever lost would drop all their gear, but their partner would not take it because they were both only playing for practice. They could practice whatever they wanted without as much risk. They would then go out into the real PvP world and try their newly found strategies for real. If someone wanted to practice using a specific ability in PvE, he could go find a monster he could easily defeat and practice using his ability.
A harsh death penalty does not prevent people from "practicing." Anyone that actually takes the time to play a game with a harsh death penalty (and understand it, rather than throwing a tantrum) knows this.
It's not fallacious. If most people wanted a harsh death penalty, they would say so in surveys...the things game companies hand out before spending millions on developing a game. Do you seriously think game companies received the input, "We want harsher death penalties." and then didn't do it? It would be trivial to implement and trivial to tweak.
It's is an assumption on my part that people will become discouraged in trying new things in a game because of harsh death penalties, but it's not an assumption that most people would stop playing games with harsh death penalties. Most people do not like them. Therefore most games that target a large audience do not and will not have them.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
It IS an assumption that most people would stop playing games with harsh death penalties. Most people haven't even played MMORPG's with harsh death penalties. I bet more people protest harsh death penalties that have actually experienced them.
How accurate would a survey with answers based on ignorance and inexperience be?
How about this: There have been many popular non-MMO games that featured harsh penalties for failure (relative to their own genres) such as Counter-Strike, Ultima Online was kneck and kneck with EQ1 back in the early days of MMORPG's (UO had much harsher penalties for death) and EVE online, which features one of the potentially most unforgiving death penalties ever in an MMORPG is one of the most popular MMORPG's today.
_________________________________
"Fixed it. Because that wall of text attacked me, killed me and looted my body..."
-George "sniperg" Light
I think EVE speaks to a different type of player. Besides the fact that it's one fo the few "sandbox" games and is one of the even fewer sci-fi games.
The people who would play eve are the people who would "play eve". The average player would not touch eve with a ten foot poll.
What other non-mmo games have a death penalty? I don't know counter strike so I'll take your word for it. Ultima Online is an MMO (and that begs the question as to whether or not the death penalty i that game has changed over time) EQ 1 is an mmo and EVE is as well.
so what other "non-mmo" game has harsh death penalties. I do see less harsh death penalties with the newere mmos'. I've seen player complain over death penalties that I thought were cake, like Aion's death penalty.
I don't see any actual evidence that the average player wants harsh death penalties. I have seen anecdotal evidence that player don't want them as there has been a lot of complaining over the years about harsh death penalties.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
I wasn't trying to make the point that the "average player wants harsh death penalties." I was simply making the point that there have been many popular games that featured "harsh death penalties" so it isn't as big of an issue as people would have you believe. Some people claim that for a game to be commercially successful it cannot have harsh death penalties because "nobody wants them," but that is clearly inaccurate as demonstrated by the examples given.
To be positively successful, a game only needs to be legitimately compelling. We need tension or eye-candy or a connection with other players (and/or other things) to truly enjoy a game. As long as a death penalty isn't unfair within the context of the game, it will achieve that feeling of tension during a battle and teach us to play smart so that we may have connections with other players when we party with them.
Only people that are egotistical or miss the entire point of playing games would be against some kind of risk for the rewards they seek. Real gamers understand the fact that without risk there is no reward. Only epeen morons take pride in the "rewards" they gathered that required no challenge and no risk.
_________________________________
"Fixed it. Because that wall of text attacked me, killed me and looted my body..."
-George "sniperg" Light
Oh, I can keep it short and condescending, if you'd prefer, I just thought I'd try to actually educate you. My mistake.
1. Actually, believe it or not, games can be used to keep the mind limber. I'm not suggesting that playing chess will let you say... drive a car better, but the mind is like anything else, and can be exercised. Pushups don't directly relate to any sort of physical exertion you're likely to do RL (Let me help you move this couch by doing pushups!), but they do improve your physical strength. I enjoy competitive games of all types, from board games to card games to computer games, anything where I can pit myself against other people. That is the fun part of improving skills.
2. I know exactly what the heck I want, I demand it in my games, and I consider a failure to deliver amusement to be failure. It's called having an opinion. I'm hardly insane for knowing what I want, and asking for it. Isn't that how the customer relationship works? I at least had the good grace to merely suggest that you had poor taste, rather than saying you don't even know what you want.
3. If you don't think MMOs are flawed and can be improved, then I really don't know what to tell you. You're really that sure they're the ultimate in game design? I do play FPSs... and RTSs, puzzle games, board games, card games, and all sorts of games. Including MMOs. Part of why I realize MMO design needs work. Less things designed to artificially drag out the experience in PvE.
4. Well, I tried to have a more concise reply, but I couldn't help trying to stay informative. Not that I think any of this will get across! I guess my replies should have been 1. Smarter than you 2. Better opinions than you. 3. You like crap 4. Hahaha.
I did enjoy the 'You must play XBox Live!' repartee though. Very clever.
the key is to balance the risk versus reward
in EVE
reward: sovereignty of a whole system in 0.0 (meaning you control what comes in and out and the laws within your system, you have also rights to ALL resources from the moons, planets and asteroids, the possibility to put down your own station outpost.
risk
first you need to claim your system by removing it from enemy party. you are risking billions worth of ships, implants modules, not to mention the capital ship support. not only you are risking your assets but also your whole alliance's assets.
say you succeed and the system belongs to your alliance, you now have to spend more billions upon billions of isk to build proper defences (such as control towers protecting your Territorial Control Unit) you also have to place down moon harvestors, planets command centers, system upgrades, you are putting all that at RISK to keep your system because at anytime the alliance you stole that system from may be comming back with its own capital fleet and can and WILL wipe ALL your assets down to nothing without thinking twice.
the greater the reward! the greater the risk
(also a bit off topic that is why low sec is not populated at all, no one wants to go there because there is not enough reward to compensate loosing your ship)
most games out there fail because of that or the other extreme. either the risk is to great for the reward (like EvE low sec) or its simply to boring because there is no risk for the reward, basicaly you can't loose.
The lack of death penalty thing to me is a bit more than annoying, I had more than one time while playing lotro when I simply said "damn you kids today." Becuase they wanted to die to get out of a dungeon quicker. I started out on EQ and my ex roommate and normal backup in most mmo's came from asherons call, both of us are avid enemies of the die out policy. We remember the death penalties, and we hate how people who learned to play without them just giggle at a terrible pull. Which has often led me, who almost always plays a warrior class, to have to pull because the classes that are supposed to do it seem to be over populated by people who don't know how to.
It is through the fear of a consiquence that we temper our actions to acheive success.
YOU WIN
totally agree!
It would probably be a lot less annoying, yes. I actually have a lot less time than I used to back in the days where I would play 3, 4 MMOs at once. When my gaming time is limited, it emphasizes the flaw where MMOs are artificially trying to extend the gaming experience.
Actually, if the reason why people failed was 'It was too difficult for your skill level', and it actually required an improvement in skill to beat, then death penalties like xp loss would become pointless. You'd be practicing on older content just to hone your skills to the point where you can pass the new stuff.
Now that I think on it, maybe part of what annoys me about xp loss as a death penalty is that it disproprotionately punishes those who have things to do. A basement dwelling jobless college dropout can blow off even the most arduous of xp loss death penalties, because what else does he have to do? He can die 10, 20 times and be less personally inconvenienced than I am.
Thank you for responding to this pierth. I wrote it in blue so more people can read it. Mmo's are "supposed" to be design for longevity gameplay. Instant gratification is very boring and unchallenging. I wish people would see this post here. People here just want to complain. They don't understand game design.
Ebonfly you bring a good concept to the table. I have never even considered that before. Hindering character performance would be a bad idea like you stated above. But hindering the rate you gain xp for a duration doesn't seem that bad. With a little tweaking and testing I think that could be a good system. You may agree, but game swith a stricter death penalty you'd find more wise players, from my experience anyways.
Like I said before I think there needs to be a somewhat strict death penalty but doens't hinder a lot of time wasted nor character performance. But when we play mmos, we are wasting time anyways. I don't see why people doesn't see that aspect of this whole thing.
Whats your opinion on death being repeated by a character? Should that xp de-buff stack? Would there be a cap? Would you consider the de-buff of experience gained to a certian interval like you posted above? Or simply for a certain duration?