Well, I certainly can't agree with you for one simple reason; it is clear that people do things that they shouldn't in game in a low DP situation because they have no fear of dying! I've seen this countless times and for me it breaks immersion.
The example I gave recently would be "the pit" near the Erudite city in EQ1. You didn't want to fall in there below a certain level. You would need major high level help to get out. The fear that radiated from the pit was palpable.
Contrast that with most of today's games. In a modern version of the same situation people would gleefully jump right in just to see what's down there BECAUSE they had no fear of the consequences of thier actions.
If you are incapable of feeling this kind of fear except in the limited situations that you describe, well, I guess we'll never connect on this issue and I'd also have to observe that in my opinion your missing out on a boat load of fun!
Not having read the entire 18 pages, I'll just put out my opinion.
Harsher death penalties tend to increase dissatisfaction with a game. You work hard and die, just to lose everything you built up. Recall EQ, dying and losing xp and dropping a level? Harsh.
Now harder gameplay is okay in my opinion. There is more of a sense of satisfaction when you complete a hard quest than when you have it handed to you on a plate.
I'll take harder gameplay over harsh death penalties any day.
Is it that players despise losing so bad, they have to make it more comfortable?
I think it's more that losing is a foreign concept in MMOs. I mean, how many missions/quests in MMOs can you actually fail? And of the ones that you can actually fail, how many have any consequence for failure? Most MMOs are designed to aid you in your leveling to cap, while most other types of games are designed to constantly prevent you from reaching the cap and although some may be on personal quests to 'win' an MMO, it's rare if at all that you will find an MMO that will let you lose at it.
Many Facebook games and persistent browser games are either similar in design to MMOs or are simply toys, where loss is often not only absent but an impossibility.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I think that Death Penalty and Difficulty are inextricably related. A harsh death penalty can be a tool to add higher difficulty, but if the death penalty is too harsh, it becomes ridiculous.
For example, consider this...
Imagine a very "difficult "side-scroller game where there is no death penalty, when you die, you literally reappear right where you just were, with full health again. So no matter how "difficult" the game is, you can succeed by just bowling through with no regard for caution because dying doesn't cost you anything. I would say that this actually lowered the difficulty of the game. In fact, you could really consider this game a bit of a grind as the need for player skill is basically removed from the game due to dying having no consequence. You could probably just keep hitting fire, forward, and occasionally jump and win eventually.
Now imagine that same game with a mega harsh death penalt.y You die, you start from the beginning. In this case, completing the game has become much more difficult. There is ZERO room for error, you die, you start over. Probably extremely rewarding if you ever complete the game, but so frustrating very few ever will. This is going too far with the death penalty.
So my point is that there needs to be a happy medium. A place where the death penalty is inconvenient enough for the player so that they want to avoid death, and thus are forced to play intelligently; but not so severe that players will be so frustrated by the loss they incur from dying that they quit.
In most modern MMORPGs for example, the death penalty is laughable. You typically get transported a 3 minute walk back and have to pay a minimal fee via repairs. Death is even used as a form of travel in most games because it's a quick way back to town. IMO, this is too light. The death penalty should incur at least some kind of loss to make it undesirable for players to die.
I think full loot is a bit severe, as was the exp loss you experienced in EQ (you could lose hours of work from one death). But maybe more moderate exp loss/debt (CoH) or more severe monetary costs for death (DAoC).
I think that Death Penalty and Difficulty are inextricably related. A harsh death penalty can be a tool to add higher difficulty, but if the death penalty is too harsh, it becomes ridiculous.
For example, consider this...
Imagine a very "difficult "side-scroller game where there is no death penalty, when you die, you literally reappear right where you just were, with full health again. So no matter how "difficult" the game is, you can succeed by just bowling through with no regard for caution because dying doesn't cost you anything. I would say that this actually lowered the difficulty of the game. In fact, you could really consider this game a bit of a grind as the need for player skill is basically removed from the game due to dying having no consequence. You could probably just keep hitting fire, forward, and occasionally jump and win eventually.
Now imagine that same game with a mega harsh death penalt.y You die, you start from the beginning. In this case, completing the game has become much more difficult. There is ZERO room for error, you die, you start over. Probably extremely rewarding if you ever complete the game, but so frustrating very few ever will. This is going too far with the death penalty.
So my point is that there needs to be a happy medium. A place where the death penalty is inconvenient enough for the player so that they want to avoid death, and thus are forced to play intelligently; but not so severe that players will be so frustrated by the loss they incur from dying that they quit.
In most modern MMORPGs for example, the death penalty is laughable. You typically get transported a 3 minute walk back and have to pay a minimal fee via repairs. Death is even used as a form of travel in most games because it's a quick way back to town. IMO, this is too light. The death penalty should incur at least some kind of loss to make it undesirable for players to die.
I think full loot is a bit severe, as was the exp loss you experienced in EQ (you could lose hours of work from one death). But maybe more moderate exp loss/debt (CoH) or more severe monetary costs for death (DAoC).
Very well said, Creslin. The degree of potential loss dictates to a certain extent how one plays and the challenge of the content. I'd add, as I suggested earlier, that objective/task-based rewards would also impact challenge, as one will be more likely to try to evade the traps and hit the right triggers if they knew there was a bonus for doing so.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Is it that players despise losing so bad, they have to make it more comfortable?
That could certainly be a part of it. Many of the people gaming these days were raised in a time when dodgeball wasn't even allowed in gym class. The idea being that the children who spent more time losing than winning were taking a big self-esteem hit. For a time, competition was viewed as unhealthy and almost unnecessary. A scary time that I'm glad I wasn't growing up in.
It has made for a generation that is overly emotional and "soft". This is how things have progressed in my neck of the woods, anyways.
I refer to them as generation Emo.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
How can you say avoiding the inconvenience of a death penalty does not take skill? Players use social grace (taking a team, or the right team, instead of going alone or with just anyone), suvrivial instincts (plotting escape routes and knowing when to run), and game experience (knowing what places and monsters to avoid in every situation) specifically to avoid a harsh death penalty. Those are skills in my opinion. Skills that become obsolete with light death penalties.
Before dying, skill matters. That's challenge.
After dying, you're dead. You're suffering the penalty and there's nothing you can do to avoid the penalty. That's inconvenience.
You just listed factors which are skills used to beat the challenge -- none of them matter if you die. In a game with tough bosses and light DP, all of the factors you list would be just as important because they all take place before dying.
That sounds like an oxymoron to me. Why would I care (as much) if I died with a light death penalty? The last time I planned an escape route in WoW was Molten Core. I used to kill myself intentionally in WAR and AoC just to get where I was going faster. With a light death penalty there is no incentive to stay alive. Harsh death penalties are a direct challenge to that. I'm not saying you are wrong. Obviously the majority of online RPG players agree with you. I'm just trying to get you to see the other side of the coin. You lose more than just inconvenience with lighter death penalties.
So you're saying that in games with light death penalty you just let yourself die constantly?
You're not a normal player if that's the case. Most players understand that dying is failure to advance and wasted time, and strive to get the reward that comes with beating the encounter. No reward comes from failing the encounter.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Everything you wrote makes sense except for the first line. Are you saying that social grace, survival instincts, and game experience do not factor in when considering whether or not a player dies? When you say, "It takes no more skill to avoid the inconvenience of a harsh death penalty than it does an easy one," The only way I can agree with you is under the circumstance that the player chooses not to play the game at all.
No, I'm saying that Social Grace, survival instincts, and game experience are not effected by the severity of a death penalty.
Not only are those aspects affected by the severeity of the consequences of one's actions, they are often dictated by them.
I believe those aspects are determined long before a death penalty is experienced. A person already is who they are, socially. If a person is a douche who kill-steals, ninja-loots, or is just somebody who's a bit of a loner, that person isn't going to become Mr. Social to avoid a harsh DP. They'll either wait til' they're higher level to take one those challenges, or quit.
Folk only carry the social grace they brought with them, they use the survival instincts they planned to use based on the game's rule system, and their game experience is only what it is at the time of the encounter. Matter of fact, harsh DP's would hinder skill and player experience growth as they're forced to go back to easier challenges to grind back the loss.
I suppose we could go back to this old, tired back and forth:
"Wanna talk about 'survival instincts'? Here's the biggest one: avoid danger. If something has even a decent chance of killing you, avoid it."
Thus, Harsh DP kills challenge.
You have an admirable faith in the humanity of human beings.
That aside, I think the biggest issue here is that we are looking at death penalty as the only penalty for failure. We could also broaden that further to incorporate the rewards of success and even proficient success.
Basically, the return of the task - and of the actions taken within the task - will affect the challenge of the task.
I'm not sure I'm seeing the equation, there. The level of challenge is generally static. The actions you do or can take determine whether that challenge can be overcome. And the return/reward is part of the equation a player considers on whether they'll do it. However, if you impose a harsh death penalty, a player will also take that into consideration. Again, regarding WHETHER THEY WILL DO IT, not, how cautious they'll be if they do. If there's a challenge... a significant chance that they can die, then they will act in the way they know best to preserve their life.
A level 5 going through a level 5 quest has a challenging experience before him. If the penalty for failure is one that he wants to avoid, it can dictate how cautiously he proceeds through, how he tinteracts with others around him and even what objectives he chooses to complete when he is there.
As I said before, if a game is challenging... if a game is made as such that a player is truly in danger of dying if they aren't cautious, then they will be as cautious as they can be. the only exception is if we're talking about a static instanced dungeon where a player has been through it a dozen times and knows when and where caution is required. Or, finally, if they just don't give a crap about the game and/or whether they win or lose. But in all those cases, again, a harsh DP will not effect the situation.
The penalty for failure affected the challenge of the task. If he goes to that level 5 dungeon as a level 20 or even as a twinked out and super-buffed level 5, the challenge has been lowered. He does not have to walk around the spike trap as it is no longer a threat. He does not have to fear the acid pools as his regen surpasses their DoT. He does not have to fear the flood rooms as the mobs can no longer harm him. Death, the penalty for failure and ineptitude, is no longer present.
The dungeon is now less challenging and the only thing that has really changed is the chance of failure/death.
Which again, makes my point; that players will seek less challenging situations if you impose a higher death penalty. And it will be a less enjoyable experience than if they just took the thing on at their level. Which a person would actually do if their is a significant but not debilitatiing death penalty. That's the whole point. All harsh DP's do is discourage people from taking a challenge.
Originally posted by Scrogdog Well, I certainly can't agree with you for one simple reason; it is clear that people do things that they shouldn't in game in a low DP situation because they have no fear of dying! I've seen this countless times and for me it breaks immersion. The example I gave recently would be "the pit" near the Erudite city in EQ1. You didn't want to fall in there below a certain level. You would need major high level help to get out. The fear that radiated from the pit was palpable. Contrast that with most of today's games. In a modern version of the same situation people would gleefully jump right in just to see what's down there BECAUSE they had no fear of the consequences of thier actions. If you are incapable of feeling this kind of fear except in the limited situations that you describe, well, I guess we'll never connect on this issue and I'd also have to observe that in my opinion your missing out on a boat load of fun!
Of the two options, being afraid of the pit or being able to jump down there to see what's going on, being able to jump down there sounds like more fun. Especially since it's not my skill that prevents me from seeing the bottom of the pit but the amount of time I spend playing the game. The pit has become something that goads me into playing (and paying) longer rather than something I'd enjoy seeing. It's not that much different than raid lockout timers or other artificial road blocks to playing the game.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
How can you say avoiding the inconvenience of a death penalty does not take skill? Players use social grace (taking a team, or the right team, instead of going alone or with just anyone), suvrivial instincts (plotting escape routes and knowing when to run), and game experience (knowing what places and monsters to avoid in every situation) specifically to avoid a harsh death penalty. Those are skills in my opinion. Skills that become obsolete with light death penalties.
Before dying, skill matters. That's challenge.
After dying, you're dead. You're suffering the penalty and there's nothing you can do to avoid the penalty. That's inconvenience.
You just listed factors which are skills used to beat the challenge -- none of them matter if you die. In a game with tough bosses and light DP, all of the factors you list would be just as important because they all take place before dying.
That sounds like an oxymoron to me. Why would I care (as much) if I died with a light death penalty? The last time I planned an escape route in WoW was Molten Core. I used to kill myself intentionally in WAR and AoC just to get where I was going faster. With a light death penalty there is no incentive to stay alive. Harsh death penalties are a direct challenge to that. I'm not saying you are wrong. Obviously the majority of online RPG players agree with you. I'm just trying to get you to see the other side of the coin. You lose more than just inconvenience with lighter death penalties.
So you're saying that in games with light death penalty you just let yourself die constantly?
You're not a normal player if that's the case. Most players understand that dying is failure to advance and wasted time, and strive to get the reward that comes with beating the encounter. No reward comes from failing the encounter.
I think it's all a matter of perspective.
Dying is failure when you are trying to complete a quest and getting killed by a MOB sets you back.
Dying is not failure when you are trying to get back to town and jumping off a cliff saves you a 5 minute walk.
I don't think it's abnormal for players to "manipulate" the death mechanic of MMORPGs for personal gain...in fact I think it's pretty typical.
How can you say avoiding the inconvenience of a death penalty does not take skill? Players use social grace (taking a team, or the right team, instead of going alone or with just anyone), suvrivial instincts (plotting escape routes and knowing when to run), and game experience (knowing what places and monsters to avoid in every situation) specifically to avoid a harsh death penalty. Those are skills in my opinion. Skills that become obsolete with light death penalties.
Before dying, skill matters. That's challenge.
After dying, you're dead. You're suffering the penalty and there's nothing you can do to avoid the penalty. That's inconvenience.
You just listed factors which are skills used to beat the challenge -- none of them matter if you die. In a game with tough bosses and light DP, all of the factors you list would be just as important because they all take place before dying.
That sounds like an oxymoron to me. Why would I care (as much) if I died with a light death penalty? The last time I planned an escape route in WoW was Molten Core. I used to kill myself intentionally in WAR and AoC just to get where I was going faster. With a light death penalty there is no incentive to stay alive. Harsh death penalties are a direct challenge to that. I'm not saying you are wrong. Obviously the majority of online RPG players agree with you. I'm just trying to get you to see the other side of the coin. You lose more than just inconvenience with lighter death penalties.
So you're saying that in games with light death penalty you just let yourself die constantly?
You're not a normal player if that's the case. Most players understand that dying is failure to advance and wasted time, and strive to get the reward that comes with beating the encounter. No reward comes from failing the encounter.
It goes back to what I said in my original post. Psychologically, if we're invested in a game, LOSING MATTERS. But for some people, it doesn't seem the case. Either they're not really into the game and are more motivated by the gambling aspect of their psyche, or something.
I remember when SWG Trials of Obi Wan came out and you could kill yourself in the lava and get cloned back to the station. SWG had removed the DP altogether since the musician heals were no longer in place(NGE). I still couldn't bring myself to do it.
Your character is supposed to matter to you. That's the point of playing an RPG, IMO.
Well, I certainly can't agree with you for one simple reason; it is clear that people do things that they shouldn't in game in a low DP situation because they have no fear of dying! I've seen this countless times and for me it breaks immersion.
The example I gave recently would be "the pit" near the Erudite city in EQ1. You didn't want to fall in there below a certain level. You would need major high level help to get out. The fear that radiated from the pit was palpable.
Contrast that with most of today's games. In a modern version of the same situation people would gleefully jump right in just to see what's down there BECAUSE they had no fear of the consequences of thier actions.
If you are incapable of feeling this kind of fear except in the limited situations that you describe, well, I guess we'll never connect on this issue and I'd also have to observe that in my opinion your missing out on a boat load of fun!
Of the two options, being afraid of the pit or being able to jump down there to see what's going on, being able to jump down there sounds like more fun. Especially since it's not my skill that prevents me from seeing the bottom of the pit but the amount of time I spend playing the game. The pit has become something that goads me into playing (and paying) longer rather than something I'd enjoy seeing. It's not that much different than raid lockout timers or other artificial road blocks to playing the game.
I'm sure that there are many players that agree with you, in fact I'd go so far to say that this is exactly the prevailing attitude in the MMO community overall.
From my point of view, if I'm going to play a role playing game, then certainly role play is a big part of the experience for me. There's a reason that in a fantasy novel that all the characters are damn scared of the big bad ol' dragon and rightly so! Why would you NOT want to be scared of the big bad dragon? Why would you NOT want to be scared of entering his lair?
Your attitude is as much a mystery to me as I'm sure mine is to you. There's no right or wrong about it, just a matter of personal style.
Doesn't not being scared of entering the dragon's lair more or less cheapen the experience? Don't you want that elevated sense of accomplishment by FINALLY being able to enter with a reasonable chance of victory?
Is it that players despise losing so bad, they have to make it more comfortable?
I think it's more that losing is a foreign concept in MMOs. I mean, how many missions/quests in MMOs can you actually fail? And of the ones that you can actually fail, how many have any consequence for failure? Most MMOs are designed to aid you in your leveling to cap, while most other types of games are designed to constantly prevent you from reaching the cap and although some may be on personal quests to 'win' an MMO, it's rare if at all that you will find an MMO that will let you lose at it.
Can you fail "kill 8 rats"? Not technically, but if you never collect enough to turn in, then yes, you've failed. You get no quest XP, no reward.
In LotRO, all the instance quests are failable. Some of the quests that aren't instances are also failable. In all cases, you have to get the quest, again. So, failure in MMO's is exactly the same as failure in every other PC game made that has a save function, except you have no real "load" function.
Far as consequences go, again, they're the same as any single player game; you have to start over. though you also have a DP, which isn't in 1 player games.
So I don't see how MMO's have less means of failure or lack of consequences than any PC game made in the last 20 years. Save for that one... was it Alan Wake, where there was no save, and the story went on based on your success/failure?
How can you say avoiding the inconvenience of a death penalty does not take skill? Players use social grace (taking a team, or the right team, instead of going alone or with just anyone), suvrivial instincts (plotting escape routes and knowing when to run), and game experience (knowing what places and monsters to avoid in every situation) specifically to avoid a harsh death penalty. Those are skills in my opinion. Skills that become obsolete with light death penalties.
Before dying, skill matters. That's challenge.
After dying, you're dead. You're suffering the penalty and there's nothing you can do to avoid the penalty. That's inconvenience.
You just listed factors which are skills used to beat the challenge -- none of them matter if you die. In a game with tough bosses and light DP, all of the factors you list would be just as important because they all take place before dying.
That sounds like an oxymoron to me. Why would I care (as much) if I died with a light death penalty? The last time I planned an escape route in WoW was Molten Core. I used to kill myself intentionally in WAR and AoC just to get where I was going faster. With a light death penalty there is no incentive to stay alive. Harsh death penalties are a direct challenge to that. I'm not saying you are wrong. Obviously the majority of online RPG players agree with you. I'm just trying to get you to see the other side of the coin. You lose more than just inconvenience with lighter death penalties.
So you're saying that in games with light death penalty you just let yourself die constantly?
You're not a normal player if that's the case. Most players understand that dying is failure to advance and wasted time, and strive to get the reward that comes with beating the encounter. No reward comes from failing the encounter.
Lokto already confirmed my suspicion when he said that losing is a foreign concept in todays Online RPGs. But, to answer your question, yes, I let myself die. I don't feel any need or reason not to. And of course I get bored of the game in two weeks as I see everyone around me doing the exact same thing. For me, no reward comes from completing the encounter if it's just a matter of losing a dozen gold pieces for dying. Items are not a motivating force for me.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
How can you say avoiding the inconvenience of a death penalty does not take skill? Players use social grace (taking a team, or the right team, instead of going alone or with just anyone), suvrivial instincts (plotting escape routes and knowing when to run), and game experience (knowing what places and monsters to avoid in every situation) specifically to avoid a harsh death penalty. Those are skills in my opinion. Skills that become obsolete with light death penalties.
Before dying, skill matters. That's challenge.
After dying, you're dead. You're suffering the penalty and there's nothing you can do to avoid the penalty. That's inconvenience.
You just listed factors which are skills used to beat the challenge -- none of them matter if you die. In a game with tough bosses and light DP, all of the factors you list would be just as important because they all take place before dying.
I think it's great you find a death penalty an inconvenience, however your logic fails to recognize the other side of the coin. The other side loves having to deal with the challenge of the death penalty after they have died. It's not an inconvenience to them, it's a challenge, and a challenge that they want. If you have to recover your corpse naked that's a challenge and a challenge that takes skill. Skill and challenge to deal with it, skill and challenge to avoid it.
There's no challenge to the majority of death penalties. It's just penalty.
And when there is challenge to death penalty, typically it's a much less interesting game than the core gameplay (struggling to get your corpse back is a less interesting activity than the other gameplay of an MMORPG.)
I want challenge, and lots of it. I want strong skill gates which challenge my skill. But I don't want my time to be wasted, and the overwhelming majority of gamers feel the same way (regarding wasted time; they vary a bit regarding exactly how much challenge they want.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
How can you say avoiding the inconvenience of a death penalty does not take skill? Players use social grace (taking a team, or the right team, instead of going alone or with just anyone), suvrivial instincts (plotting escape routes and knowing when to run), and game experience (knowing what places and monsters to avoid in every situation) specifically to avoid a harsh death penalty. Those are skills in my opinion. Skills that become obsolete with light death penalties.
Before dying, skill matters. That's challenge.
After dying, you're dead. You're suffering the penalty and there's nothing you can do to avoid the penalty. That's inconvenience.
You just listed factors which are skills used to beat the challenge -- none of them matter if you die. In a game with tough bosses and light DP, all of the factors you list would be just as important because they all take place before dying.
I think it's great you find a death penalty an inconvenience, however your logic fails to recognize the other side of the coin. The other side loves having to deal with the challenge of the death penalty after they have died. It's not an inconvenience to them, it's a challenge, and a challenge that they want. If you have to recover your corpse naked that's a challenge and a challenge that takes skill. Skill and challenge to deal with it, skill and challenge to avoid it.
There's no challenge to the majority of death penalties. It's just penalty.
And when there is challenge to death penalty, typically it's a much less interesting game than the core gameplay (struggling to get your corpse back is a less interesting activity than the other gameplay of an MMORPG.)
I want challenge, and lots of it. I want strong skill gates which challenge my skill. But I don't want my time to be wasted, and the overwhelming majority of gamers feel the same way (regarding wasted time; they vary a bit regarding exactly how much challenge they want.)
In my opinion, you are too focused on the penalty. And too focused on the reward. There is a huge game in there in-between the two. There is a challenge in avoiding death, but aparenlty no challenge ignoring death.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
Does Harsh Death Penalty really make the Challenge, or does Harder Gameplay make the Challenge?
I know I made this thread before, but after seeing Dark Soul (the sequel to Demon Soul) being hyped up at E3, and seeing the developers cheer on "Player Frustration" as if some kind of positive feature, I have to question the dirrection of many games are going, in order to simulate Challenge in Video Games.
Really has Harsh Death Penalty become the norm way to handle difficulty in modern day gaming?
To be honest, I believe players are confusing "Frustration" with "Challenging".
When something gets less Frustrating, players make the automatic assumption that its some how becoming less challenging.
lets take a look at WoW for example.
Blizzard made "forming groups" less frustrating, but somehow that translate to people, that Blizzard is dumbing down the gameplay and making it easier.
Blizzard lowers the raid format from 40 man, down to 25 and 10 man groups, in order to make group formations less frustrating, but again, players some how translate that to Blizzard dumbing down the game and making it easier.
Back to Demon Soul. This game was popular for its difficulty. But lets be real here people. Was it really the gameplay that was Difficult, or was it the Harsh Death Penalty being very Harsh?
Take away the Harsh DP, and keep the exact same gameplay elements, is the game "so called" Hard any more? heck no! Only thing that makes Demon Soul "Challenging" as people seem to put it, was the DP, and that alone.
But lets think harder about that. "How can something That effects you when you LOSE, make the game Harder?"
In my opinion, Developers are simply being lazy, and using the HDP as a scape goat on making actual Challenging gameplay experiences.
I want to point out gameplay that actually applies a true challenge, rather than deploying gimmicks like HDP. That game is "HALO". yes its a FPS, but thats not the point. Just look at Halo's different difficulty modes. (Easy, Normal, Superior, Legendary) How is it that the Developers were able to make the game harder, but at the same time, not effecting what happens when a player dies? The Penalty of Death, doesnt change from different Difficulties in Halo, but that game still gets harder.
If this is possible to do, why is it so hard to for most Developers to do the same, and deliver actual challenges in video games, rather than these lame gimmicks?
I think your thinking about this in the wrong way....
A death penalty is the consequence that makes the game play more challenging or difficult. A death penalty is what causes you to think twice before attempting a kill, or doing anything else in the game. It makes you think out the scenarios, pay attention better to your surroundings, be more aware of what your opponet is doing....and FINALLY.....LEARN FROM YOUR MISTAKES
Also, I need to take issue with your WOW example. The automatic grouping system had more effects on the overall way players act and treat eachother than just removing some fustrating part of grouping. Automatic grouping means players drop group at the first sign of conflict within the group instead of learning a lesson or two from using conflict resolution skills to fix the problem. Automatic grouping across servers (in the name of reducing grouping time...or fustration as you put it) created a situation where players treat other group members with disrespect and refer to eachother by their class instead of their name because the chances of ever playing with that same person again is nill to none.
As that old saying goes, nothing worth doing is ever easy. Many times there are implicit benefits and lessons to be learned from doing things that take time, patience, and some elbow grease. I understand what your getting at in your argument....but its a FINE line between removing things that are difficult for the sake of difficult and things that are difficult for a reason.
How can you say avoiding the inconvenience of a death penalty does not take skill? Players use social grace (taking a team, or the right team, instead of going alone or with just anyone), suvrivial instincts (plotting escape routes and knowing when to run), and game experience (knowing what places and monsters to avoid in every situation) specifically to avoid a harsh death penalty. Those are skills in my opinion. Skills that become obsolete with light death penalties.
Before dying, skill matters. That's challenge.
After dying, you're dead. You're suffering the penalty and there's nothing you can do to avoid the penalty. That's inconvenience.
You just listed factors which are skills used to beat the challenge -- none of them matter if you die. In a game with tough bosses and light DP, all of the factors you list would be just as important because they all take place before dying.
I think it's great you find a death penalty an inconvenience, however your logic fails to recognize the other side of the coin. The other side loves having to deal with the challenge of the death penalty after they have died. It's not an inconvenience to them, it's a challenge, and a challenge that they want. If you have to recover your corpse naked that's a challenge and a challenge that takes skill. Skill and challenge to deal with it, skill and challenge to avoid it.
There's no challenge to the majority of death penalties. It's just penalty.
And when there is challenge to death penalty, typically it's a much less interesting game than the core gameplay (struggling to get your corpse back is a less interesting activity than the other gameplay of an MMORPG.)
I want challenge, and lots of it. I want strong skill gates which challenge my skill. But I don't want my time to be wasted, and the overwhelming majority of gamers feel the same way (regarding wasted time; they vary a bit regarding exactly how much challenge they want.)
No challenge for you, you can't speak for everyone and that's fine, it's what makes the world go round heh. There are people who do see it as a challenge.
I'm not a pc geek and very bad at spelling and typing. I can't even "quote" another on these forums so there is little I really know about the mechanics of this game lotro.
I will tell you this, I've played since 1999 in EQ1 for 7 yrs then EVE for 3, then wow 2, and now lotro.
Death has ALWAYS been "THE" underlying modivater for games but just yesterday I died "IN TOWN" while jumping a fence! How is that contributing to a "BETTER" game?
This is the THIRD TIME one of my characters died at a very low level doing absolutely nothing. I took screen shots and have them but no matter, kill em early save space!
When confronted with it a senior GM said "You said you were defeated didn't you?" LMAO I did not and there was NO FIGHT how then was I defeated? By a fence?
Out of all those games I've played this one LOTRO has to be the best at deciption. Basicly the whole game is set up that way. Hiding things and impossible travel has become THE hard part in lotro. Battles are nothing compared to finding some things the game knows you are looking for, or ending a slayer deed with a few left, or after you finish a slayer deed they are EVERYWHERE! It's the norm....this has been what we are reduced to after 20 yr's of gaming.
I should just sit and let them play.....after all if I can die jumping a fence what controll at all do I have over my toons?
I think your thinking about this in the wrong way....
A death penalty is the consequence that makes the game play more challenging or difficult. A death penalty is what causes you to think twice before attempting a kill, or doing anything else in the game. It makes you think out the scenarios, pay attention better to your surroundings, be more aware of what your opponet is doing....and FINALLY.....LEARN FROM YOUR MISTAKES
I'm not going to go over the myriad posts that have already spoken to the wrongness of "penalty=challenge". If you weren't ambitious enough to read theirs, why would you read mine?
But let's assume, which I don't, that the highlighted is correct. Wouldn't that mean that a harsher death penalty make content LESS difficult? After all, it's easier to defeat something if, "you think twice about it", "think about the scenario", and "pay attention to your surroundings", since your likelihood of survival would be much higher due to your now constant vigilance...
No. because the premise doesn't stand on its own. Edit: The intensity of Death Penalties do not effect the actual challenge or difficulty of any encounter, dungeon, or raid.
Also, I need to take issue with your WOW example. The automatic grouping system had more effects on the overall way players act and treat eachother than just removing some fustrating part of grouping. Automatic grouping means players drop group at the first sign of conflict within the group instead of learning a lesson or two from using conflict resolution skills to fix the problem. Automatic grouping across servers (in the name of reducing grouping time...or fustration as you put it) created a situation where players treat other group members with disrespect and refer to eachother by their class instead of their name because the chances of ever playing with that same person again is nill to none.
Actually, if you risk losing a level and a half and/or all your gear, you'll be LESS LIKELY to stick around and try to make a dysfunctional group work than if you have a lighter penalty. I think you're mistaking your own argument against auto-groups for one supporting harsh DP's. It has quite the opposite point to make, really.
As that old saying goes, nothing worth doing is ever easy. Many times there are implicit benefits and lessons to be learned from doing things that take time, patience, and some elbow grease. I understand what your getting at in your argument....but its a FINE line between removing things that are difficult for the sake of difficult and things that are difficult for a reason.
And as the old wise saying goes: "Dyin's easy. It's livin' that's the hard part."
I think your thinking about this in the wrong way....
A death penalty is the consequence that makes the game play more challenging or difficult. A death penalty is what causes you to think twice before attempting a kill, or doing anything else in the game. It makes you think out the scenarios, pay attention better to your surroundings, be more aware of what your opponet is doing....and FINALLY.....LEARN FROM YOUR MISTAKES
I'm not going to go over the myriad posts that have already spoken to the wrongness of "penalty=challenge". If you weren't ambitious enough to read theirs, why would you read mine?
But let's assume, which I don't, that the highlighted is correct. Wouldn't that mean that a harsher death penalty make content LESS difficult? After all, it's easier to defeat something if, "you think twice about it", "think about the scenario", and "pay attention to your surroundings", since your likelihood of survival would be much higher due to your now constant vigilance...
No. because the premise doesn't stand on its own. Edit: The intensity of Death Penalties do not effect the actual challenge or difficulty of any encounter, dungeon, or raid.
Also, I need to take issue with your WOW example. The automatic grouping system had more effects on the overall way players act and treat eachother than just removing some fustrating part of grouping. Automatic grouping means players drop group at the first sign of conflict within the group instead of learning a lesson or two from using conflict resolution skills to fix the problem. Automatic grouping across servers (in the name of reducing grouping time...or fustration as you put it) created a situation where players treat other group members with disrespect and refer to eachother by their class instead of their name because the chances of ever playing with that same person again is nill to none.
Actually, if you risk losing a level and a half and/or all your gear, you'll be LESS LIKELY to stick around and try to make a dysfunctional group work than if you have a lighter penalty. I think you're mistaking your own argument against auto-groups for one supporting harsh DP's. It has quite the opposite point to make, really.
As that old saying goes, nothing worth doing is ever easy. Many times there are implicit benefits and lessons to be learned from doing things that take time, patience, and some elbow grease. I understand what your getting at in your argument....but its a FINE line between removing things that are difficult for the sake of difficult and things that are difficult for a reason.
And as the old wise saying goes: "Dyin's easy. It's livin' that's the hard part."
Rob you and Axehilt have some good arguments, and present them well. I have no doubt the majority of what you speak is true. I can only hope you've seen some of the truths in the arguments that do not coincide with your own viewpoints.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
Comments
Is it that players despise losing so bad, they have to make it more comfortable?
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
Well, I certainly can't agree with you for one simple reason; it is clear that people do things that they shouldn't in game in a low DP situation because they have no fear of dying! I've seen this countless times and for me it breaks immersion.
The example I gave recently would be "the pit" near the Erudite city in EQ1. You didn't want to fall in there below a certain level. You would need major high level help to get out. The fear that radiated from the pit was palpable.
Contrast that with most of today's games. In a modern version of the same situation people would gleefully jump right in just to see what's down there BECAUSE they had no fear of the consequences of thier actions.
If you are incapable of feeling this kind of fear except in the limited situations that you describe, well, I guess we'll never connect on this issue and I'd also have to observe that in my opinion your missing out on a boat load of fun!
Not having read the entire 18 pages, I'll just put out my opinion.
Harsher death penalties tend to increase dissatisfaction with a game. You work hard and die, just to lose everything you built up. Recall EQ, dying and losing xp and dropping a level? Harsh.
Now harder gameplay is okay in my opinion. There is more of a sense of satisfaction when you complete a hard quest than when you have it handed to you on a plate.
I'll take harder gameplay over harsh death penalties any day.
Aurora, 4x Gaming
I think it's more that losing is a foreign concept in MMOs. I mean, how many missions/quests in MMOs can you actually fail? And of the ones that you can actually fail, how many have any consequence for failure? Most MMOs are designed to aid you in your leveling to cap, while most other types of games are designed to constantly prevent you from reaching the cap and although some may be on personal quests to 'win' an MMO, it's rare if at all that you will find an MMO that will let you lose at it.
Many Facebook games and persistent browser games are either similar in design to MMOs or are simply toys, where loss is often not only absent but an impossibility.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I think that Death Penalty and Difficulty are inextricably related. A harsh death penalty can be a tool to add higher difficulty, but if the death penalty is too harsh, it becomes ridiculous.
For example, consider this...
Imagine a very "difficult "side-scroller game where there is no death penalty, when you die, you literally reappear right where you just were, with full health again. So no matter how "difficult" the game is, you can succeed by just bowling through with no regard for caution because dying doesn't cost you anything. I would say that this actually lowered the difficulty of the game. In fact, you could really consider this game a bit of a grind as the need for player skill is basically removed from the game due to dying having no consequence. You could probably just keep hitting fire, forward, and occasionally jump and win eventually.
Now imagine that same game with a mega harsh death penalt.y You die, you start from the beginning. In this case, completing the game has become much more difficult. There is ZERO room for error, you die, you start over. Probably extremely rewarding if you ever complete the game, but so frustrating very few ever will. This is going too far with the death penalty.
So my point is that there needs to be a happy medium. A place where the death penalty is inconvenient enough for the player so that they want to avoid death, and thus are forced to play intelligently; but not so severe that players will be so frustrated by the loss they incur from dying that they quit.
In most modern MMORPGs for example, the death penalty is laughable. You typically get transported a 3 minute walk back and have to pay a minimal fee via repairs. Death is even used as a form of travel in most games because it's a quick way back to town. IMO, this is too light. The death penalty should incur at least some kind of loss to make it undesirable for players to die.
I think full loot is a bit severe, as was the exp loss you experienced in EQ (you could lose hours of work from one death). But maybe more moderate exp loss/debt (CoH) or more severe monetary costs for death (DAoC).
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
Harsh Death Penalites makes a game more challenging. It requires a more skill approach to playing to better manage risk.
Harder Gameplay also can make a game more challenging, since it would require more effort and better control of your character to defeat.
Very well said, Creslin. The degree of potential loss dictates to a certain extent how one plays and the challenge of the content. I'd add, as I suggested earlier, that objective/task-based rewards would also impact challenge, as one will be more likely to try to evade the traps and hit the right triggers if they knew there was a bonus for doing so.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
That could certainly be a part of it. Many of the people gaming these days were raised in a time when dodgeball wasn't even allowed in gym class. The idea being that the children who spent more time losing than winning were taking a big self-esteem hit. For a time, competition was viewed as unhealthy and almost unnecessary. A scary time that I'm glad I wasn't growing up in.
It has made for a generation that is overly emotional and "soft". This is how things have progressed in my neck of the woods, anyways.
I refer to them as generation Emo.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
So you're saying that in games with light death penalty you just let yourself die constantly?
You're not a normal player if that's the case. Most players understand that dying is failure to advance and wasted time, and strive to get the reward that comes with beating the encounter. No reward comes from failing the encounter.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Of the two options, being afraid of the pit or being able to jump down there to see what's going on, being able to jump down there sounds like more fun. Especially since it's not my skill that prevents me from seeing the bottom of the pit but the amount of time I spend playing the game. The pit has become something that goads me into playing (and paying) longer rather than something I'd enjoy seeing. It's not that much different than raid lockout timers or other artificial road blocks to playing the game.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Kind of an odd question. Is someone touting "Death Bonuses"? If so, I'm not seeing it.
I think it's all a matter of perspective.
Dying is failure when you are trying to complete a quest and getting killed by a MOB sets you back.
Dying is not failure when you are trying to get back to town and jumping off a cliff saves you a 5 minute walk.
I don't think it's abnormal for players to "manipulate" the death mechanic of MMORPGs for personal gain...in fact I think it's pretty typical.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
LOL!
Dude...this boss is really hard. Let's buff each other before we get in the fight. Go on, you kill me first then I'll do you.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
It goes back to what I said in my original post. Psychologically, if we're invested in a game, LOSING MATTERS. But for some people, it doesn't seem the case. Either they're not really into the game and are more motivated by the gambling aspect of their psyche, or something.
I remember when SWG Trials of Obi Wan came out and you could kill yourself in the lava and get cloned back to the station. SWG had removed the DP altogether since the musician heals were no longer in place(NGE). I still couldn't bring myself to do it.
Your character is supposed to matter to you. That's the point of playing an RPG, IMO.
I'm sure that there are many players that agree with you, in fact I'd go so far to say that this is exactly the prevailing attitude in the MMO community overall.
From my point of view, if I'm going to play a role playing game, then certainly role play is a big part of the experience for me. There's a reason that in a fantasy novel that all the characters are damn scared of the big bad ol' dragon and rightly so! Why would you NOT want to be scared of the big bad dragon? Why would you NOT want to be scared of entering his lair?
Your attitude is as much a mystery to me as I'm sure mine is to you.
There's no right or wrong about it, just a matter of personal style.
Doesn't not being scared of entering the dragon's lair more or less cheapen the experience? Don't you want that elevated sense of accomplishment by FINALLY being able to enter with a reasonable chance of victory?
Can you fail "kill 8 rats"? Not technically, but if you never collect enough to turn in, then yes, you've failed. You get no quest XP, no reward.
In LotRO, all the instance quests are failable. Some of the quests that aren't instances are also failable. In all cases, you have to get the quest, again. So, failure in MMO's is exactly the same as failure in every other PC game made that has a save function, except you have no real "load" function.
Far as consequences go, again, they're the same as any single player game; you have to start over. though you also have a DP, which isn't in 1 player games.
So I don't see how MMO's have less means of failure or lack of consequences than any PC game made in the last 20 years. Save for that one... was it Alan Wake, where there was no save, and the story went on based on your success/failure?
Lokto already confirmed my suspicion when he said that losing is a foreign concept in todays Online RPGs. But, to answer your question, yes, I let myself die. I don't feel any need or reason not to. And of course I get bored of the game in two weeks as I see everyone around me doing the exact same thing. For me, no reward comes from completing the encounter if it's just a matter of losing a dozen gold pieces for dying. Items are not a motivating force for me.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
There's no challenge to the majority of death penalties. It's just penalty.
And when there is challenge to death penalty, typically it's a much less interesting game than the core gameplay (struggling to get your corpse back is a less interesting activity than the other gameplay of an MMORPG.)
I want challenge, and lots of it. I want strong skill gates which challenge my skill. But I don't want my time to be wasted, and the overwhelming majority of gamers feel the same way (regarding wasted time; they vary a bit regarding exactly how much challenge they want.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
In my opinion, you are too focused on the penalty. And too focused on the reward. There is a huge game in there in-between the two. There is a challenge in avoiding death, but aparenlty no challenge ignoring death.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
I think your thinking about this in the wrong way....
A death penalty is the consequence that makes the game play more challenging or difficult. A death penalty is what causes you to think twice before attempting a kill, or doing anything else in the game. It makes you think out the scenarios, pay attention better to your surroundings, be more aware of what your opponet is doing....and FINALLY.....LEARN FROM YOUR MISTAKES
Also, I need to take issue with your WOW example. The automatic grouping system had more effects on the overall way players act and treat eachother than just removing some fustrating part of grouping. Automatic grouping means players drop group at the first sign of conflict within the group instead of learning a lesson or two from using conflict resolution skills to fix the problem. Automatic grouping across servers (in the name of reducing grouping time...or fustration as you put it) created a situation where players treat other group members with disrespect and refer to eachother by their class instead of their name because the chances of ever playing with that same person again is nill to none.
As that old saying goes, nothing worth doing is ever easy. Many times there are implicit benefits and lessons to be learned from doing things that take time, patience, and some elbow grease. I understand what your getting at in your argument....but its a FINE line between removing things that are difficult for the sake of difficult and things that are difficult for a reason.
No challenge for you, you can't speak for everyone and that's fine, it's what makes the world go round heh. There are people who do see it as a challenge.
I'm not a pc geek and very bad at spelling and typing. I can't even "quote" another on these forums so there is little I really know about the mechanics of this game lotro.
I will tell you this, I've played since 1999 in EQ1 for 7 yrs then EVE for 3, then wow 2, and now lotro.
Death has ALWAYS been "THE" underlying modivater for games but just yesterday I died "IN TOWN" while jumping a fence! How is that contributing to a "BETTER" game?
This is the THIRD TIME one of my characters died at a very low level doing absolutely nothing. I took screen shots and have them but no matter, kill em early save space!
When confronted with it a senior GM said "You said you were defeated didn't you?" LMAO I did not and there was NO FIGHT how then was I defeated? By a fence?
Out of all those games I've played this one LOTRO has to be the best at deciption. Basicly the whole game is set up that way. Hiding things and impossible travel has become THE hard part in lotro. Battles are nothing compared to finding some things the game knows you are looking for, or ending a slayer deed with a few left, or after you finish a slayer deed they are EVERYWHERE! It's the norm....this has been what we are reduced to after 20 yr's of gaming.
I should just sit and let them play.....after all if I can die jumping a fence what controll at all do I have over my toons?
1001 Laws, only one matters.
Rob you and Axehilt have some good arguments, and present them well. I have no doubt the majority of what you speak is true. I can only hope you've seen some of the truths in the arguments that do not coincide with your own viewpoints.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.