By the way, just so we are all on the same page, I played and LIKED World of Warcraft. I liked it so much I pre-ordered the Collector's Edition box -- was pretty nice.
I also very much liked Asheron's Call, EverQuest, Anarchy Online and Dark Age of Camelot. I played a lot of other MMORPGs but those stand out as my favorites.
I also am following the progress of Age of Conan, Hero's Journey, and other MMORPGs.
What I am saying is, I am not closed-minded about my games and my favorites games did not really share identical game mechanics -- but I enjoyed each one of them as the game it was.
That's how I feel about Vanguard.
I won't ever try to force the game to be the type of game I insist it to be. Vanguard will be its own gaming experience, and, so far, I like the direction it is heading in.
Originally posted by SpiritofGame I won't ever try to force the game to be the type of game I insist it to be. Vanguard will be its own gaming experience, and, so far, I like the direction it is heading in.
That's cool. I actually play MOST games. . . I play them to find out about them and what I like and dislike about them. Something I've always hated was how punishing MMOs are and how many timesinks have been designed for them, and the sophistry that devs used to explain these timesinks.
It's interesting now that there is a game that has these timesinks that have been thrown out of it's competition (to those game's fiscal benefit), and it selling them as a highpoint of their game. I also find it interesting that there are a large number of avid supporters who are all about these timesinks and parrot the various sophistries that they've learned from devs over the years like "xp loss = challenge".
I've said it many times before, but I'll say it again because it mirrors your point here. I'm not really trying to get them to make the game more accessible, because they probably don't read this site, and even if they do, they probably aren't making design decisions based off these posts (if they do, then the game is going to have bigger problems than the ones we are discussing - lol). But I am interested in people's thoughts on this subject, and ultimately I'm interested in Vanguard as a case study. . . which will ONLY be an interesting case-study if they get the game to actually work right before they release it, so I'm interested in that happening too.
Originally posted by dink Originally posted by n2sooners Yes, why have any variety in games at all? They should all be very easy games that don't offer any challenge and no risk for lots of rewards. After all, no one wants to actually have to work for anything and would rather just have it handed to them.
Who in their right mind thinks Vanguard would be better off trying to compete directly with WoW instead of offering an alternative that doesn't currently exist in MMOs of today?
I think as competition gets tougher in the MMO market, games like these will not be able to cut it. Seriously, Vanguard may be the turning point in being the last game designed for hardcore gamers ever. (I mean serious MMOs here - not the indy shoe-string budget ones).
The thing is. . . it's not a CHALLENGE to have corpse runs, xp debt, and long travel times. Those are just frustrations. . . unless you mean a challenge of patience.
What we'll see more and more with MMOs is that they'll have to start adding more challenge in their actual gameplay. Puzzles that need to be solved to challenge our minds and occassional and/or hybridized twitch play to challenge our reflexes. MMOs really could use more challenges. . . but inaccessability is only interpreted as "challenge" in spin. Timesinks aren't challenges, they are ways to make the player have to spend more time before acheiving goals in order to extend the play-time of a game.
Still, Vanguard is super interesting for committing to these game mechanics that are so aimed at a very specific and small group.
I'm hoping the game will get the rest of it's crap together, because I'm super interested in whether a good game based on hardcore mechanics can support itself. If the game sucks, then people will blame that, so they need to get it up and working right.
Originally posted by dink Then you haven't played Guild Wars and WoW. Both have lighter penalties and people take risks all the time. I've never seen anyone dual-boxing, and while people still use spoiler sites, they do not do so for EVERY quest, and they often attempt quests that should be too hard for their level instead of out-leveling them or at least outnumbering them completely.
Did you really just say that? You NEVER saw anyone 2 box in WoW? I find that incredibly hard to believe. Minimal spolier site usage in WoW? Anytime a quest question is asked in game the default response is: "Check thottbot". Hell they have a thottbot mod to use in game. I mean I can appreciate you like more candy-coated "accessible" games and you feel that any game where it takes you longer to get the rewards is an archaic game model soon to be obsolete. But these claims are just ludicrous, no offense. Maybe that was your experience in game, but if that's the case I would say you are in the vast minority. Again I respect your desrie to come here and make sideways comments about Vanguard's inferior design and label it a case study. But if these are some of your arguing points, your case is tough to take at face value.
Originally posted by Amnesiac07 Originally posted by dink
Amnesiac - My statements were quite clear and correct as they were stated (as oppossed to how you restated them).
Restated them? All I did was quote something you wrote which was completely inaccurate. Incorrect. You quoted me, then paraphrased me incorrectly in your replies to the the quote.
Originally posted by Amnesiac07 Um ok. You said people "never" two box in WoW, and spolier sites are infrequently used. Both of those statements are false as I see them.
Incorrect. I said that I've never seen people two-box, and that while spoiler sites exist they are not used for EVERY bit of content the way I have seen them used for games that have extremely punishing death penalties.
While I'm sure there are people who two-box in WoW, there isn't any reason to use them to cheese through content. . . it is more fun to attempt it yourself w/o the cheese because dying only makes you lose five to ten minutes of play while you repair and then return to where you were before you died.
The same is true in regards to quests. In FFXI, my linkshell would ask everyone to read the forums to read a quest guide BEFORE we went on the quest as trying to explain it to everyone at once was difficult and death was a real pain in that game. . . literally an hour of grinding needed to regain the xp loss. This was never true of WoW. While I went to thottbot occassionally when I found myself having trouble finding the starting points for quests, I never went to thottbot because I was looking for strategies for beating quests while making sure I won't die and to make certain that I have a large enough group, that is the right level and has the right skills for the content.
Smart players will plan their evening in Vanguard around player-made guides. It just doesn't make sense not to take 5 minutes to read a guide when not doing so could result in your having to spend an hour or more grinding back lost xp.
Fair enough, I guess I see where you're coming on these things being byproducts of the greater potential penalities. I think that a player's characteristics are gonna dictate the use of multi-boxing/"spoiler" sites, not the game itself, but I can see the connection you're trying to make.
From what I have seen, the majority of "two-boxers" in WoW aren't necessarily doing it because the game is all that difficult or easy - it's because they are power-leveling to sell characters on E-bay or "farming" gold. But yeah, there is a fair amount of it going on in WoW.
Like was said before. The game itself and it's mechanics have little to do with the two-boxing and quest spoiler sites. It has a lot more to do with the gamer themselves.
Just to clarify on the quest spoiler site issue. I like them and use them if I get stuck myself. I think they are a useful tool, but I agree that they shouldn't be necessary to solve EVERY quest. Which I don't know of any game where that is the case. Again, it has more to do with the guild or group make-up than it does the game itself.
dragonace - Sure, there will be people who cheese their way through even on games that are accessible like WoW and that has something to do with the player, but in a game that has death that can result in your spending an hour or more recovering from that death it is SMART to cheese your way through.
Spend 5 minutes on a spoiler site or spend hours recovering from death? The point is that smart people do everything they can to eliminate risk in games with punishing death penalties, whereas in games that are more accessible like WoW, they just log in and have fun. The spoiler sites become about finding hidden stuff instead of about planning your evening.
Originally posted by dragonace I guess I'm an idiot then, because in the orginal EQ that's exactly what I did -- just login and have fun! Heh, stupid me!
Right. . . or you didn't know about the sites, or have access to two-boxing. That doesn't change the fact that punishing death penalties lead people to remove the in-game risk by cheesing the content on spoiler sites or by two-boxing. When the price of death is so obnoxiously high, people will do what it takes to avoid it.
Originally posted by dink Originally posted by dragonace I guess I'm an idiot then, because in the orginal EQ that's exactly what I did -- just login and have fun! Heh, stupid me!
Right. . . or you didn't know about the sites, or have access to two-boxing. That doesn't change the fact that punishing death penalties lead people to remove the in-game risk by cheesing the content on spoiler sites or by two-boxing. When the price of death is so obnoxiously high, people will do what it takes to avoid it.
Explain how the fact that there aren't any (worth mentioning) is a cogent argument?
This is about increased use when death penalites are absurd, as oppossed to be used by completists looking for every quest when people do not need to strain to eliminate all risk in a game due to the penalties for failure being too high.
Originally posted by n2sooners Name the game without spoiler sites.
Explain how the fact that there aren't any (worth mentioning) is a cogent argument?
This is about increased use when death penalites are absurd, as oppossed to be used by completists looking for every quest when people do not need to strain to eliminate all risk in a game due to the penalties for failure being too high.
People don't use spoiler sites to eliminate risk, they do it to eliminate any thinking or leg work on their part. That is why spoiler sites exist for even the easiest games with the least risk. The only way to eliminate (or at least reduce) the use of spoiler sites is to spoon feed the players every bit of information you can right in the game. In other words, the game must become a spoiler site in and of itself. Spoiler sites don't reduce risk, they reduce work (in the form of time and actually having to think).
Originally posted by n2sooners Originally posted by dink
Originally posted by n2sooners Name the game without spoiler sites.
Explain how the fact that there aren't any (worth mentioning) is a cogent argument?
This is about increased use when death penalites are absurd, as oppossed to be used by completists looking for every quest when people do not need to strain to eliminate all risk in a game due to the penalties for failure being too high.
People don't use spoiler sites to eliminate risk, they do it to eliminate any thinking or leg work on their part. That is why spoiler sites exist for even the easiest games with the least risk. The only way to eliminate (or at least reduce) the use of spoiler sites is to spoon feed the players every bit of information you can right in the game. In other words, the game must become a spoiler site in and of itself. Spoiler sites don't reduce risk, they reduce work (in the form of time and actually having to think).
You are wrong. Others will read your post and know you are wrong instantly. . . I can't really add anything to this because your point is so wrong that the wrongness is tainting my keyboard with a thick black goo that is making it increasingly difficult to typ----
Originally posted by dink Originally posted by n2sooners Originally posted by dink
Originally posted by n2sooners Name the game without spoiler sites.
Explain how the fact that there aren't any (worth mentioning) is a cogent argument?
This is about increased use when death penalites are absurd, as oppossed to be used by completists looking for every quest when people do not need to strain to eliminate all risk in a game due to the penalties for failure being too high.
People don't use spoiler sites to eliminate risk, they do it to eliminate any thinking or leg work on their part. That is why spoiler sites exist for even the easiest games with the least risk. The only way to eliminate (or at least reduce) the use of spoiler sites is to spoon feed the players every bit of information you can right in the game. In other words, the game must become a spoiler site in and of itself. Spoiler sites don't reduce risk, they reduce work (in the form of time and actually having to think).
You are wrong. Others will read your post and know you are wrong instantly. . . I can't really add anything to this because your point is so wrong that the wrongness is tainting my keyboard with a thick black goo that is making it increasingly difficult to typ----
Actually, Dink, it is you that is wrong. n2sooners is right about spoilers being used (most often) for reduction of effort vs reduction of risk. My experience has been that people jump to those sites when they get to a part of a quest and they are unsure what to do. In stead of spending time seeking a solution in game, they just load up thottbot, etc. This is a very important distinction in this argument.
In addition, the decision to two-box vs not to two-box is almost always made based on the access to two boxes. Even in a very easy game there is some advantage to running two toons. These people will use that advantage simply because they can.
Lastly, you have requested everyone reply intelligently to your posts. Perhaps you should follow your own advise. A number of times in this thread you have resorted to "online Jerry Springer" methods to mute someones viewpoint. Your above response is a clear example. Simply telling someone they are wrong is not an effective argument, but rather the sign of immaturity and a lack of a true counter-argument. Perhaps its time you just admit that you arent doing a case study, but rather are just sitting on the sidelines cheering against Vanguard. If you were doing a case study, you would be carefully considering each side in an unbiased fashion.
Originally posted by n2sooners Originally posted by dink
Originally posted by n2sooners Name the game without spoiler sites.
Explain how the fact that there aren't any (worth mentioning) is a cogent argument?
This is about increased use when death penalites are absurd, as oppossed to be used by completists looking for every quest when people do not need to strain to eliminate all risk in a game due to the penalties for failure being too high.
People don't use spoiler sites to eliminate risk, they do it to eliminate any thinking or leg work on their part. That is why spoiler sites exist for even the easiest games with the least risk. The only way to eliminate (or at least reduce) the use of spoiler sites is to spoon feed the players every bit of information you can right in the game. In other words, the game must become a spoiler site in and of itself. Spoiler sites don't reduce risk, they reduce work (in the form of time and actually having to think).
Originally posted by dink Originally posted by n2sooners Originally posted by dink
Originally posted by n2sooners Name the game without spoiler sites.
Explain how the fact that there aren't any (worth mentioning) is a cogent argument?
This is about increased use when death penalites are absurd, as oppossed to be used by completists looking for every quest when people do not need to strain to eliminate all risk in a game due to the penalties for failure being too high.
People don't use spoiler sites to eliminate risk, they do it to eliminate any thinking or leg work on their part. That is why spoiler sites exist for even the easiest games with the least risk. The only way to eliminate (or at least reduce) the use of spoiler sites is to spoon feed the players every bit of information you can right in the game. In other words, the game must become a spoiler site in and of itself. Spoiler sites don't reduce risk, they reduce work (in the form of time and actually having to think).
You are wrong. Others will read your post and know you are wrong instantly. . . I can't really add anything to this because your point is so wrong that the wrongness is tainting my keyboard with a thick black goo that is making it increasingly difficult to typ----
I have read n2sooners' post and I know he is right instantly.
The prime example is with an offline or consle game, there is absolutly no risk when you are playing by yourself (you can just reload a save game right before death/mistake -hell you can even turn on godmode!), but there are still countless spoilers and faq's for any of the solo games and people will continue to use them because people don't want to put in the work.
I voted for all of them. Super surprised that 43% don't have problems with any of these inacessible parts of games. . . even on a forum for this game, that is a high number.
Originally posted by n2sooners People don't use spoiler sites to eliminate risk, they do it to eliminate any thinking or leg work on their part. That is why spoiler sites exist for even the easiest games with the least risk. The only way to eliminate (or at least reduce) the use of spoiler sites is to spoon feed the players every bit of information you can right in the game. In other words, the game must become a spoiler site in and of itself. Spoiler sites don't reduce risk, they reduce work (in the form of time and actually having to think).
Me and N2sooners rarely agree. On this precise case I agree with him. Although I would have choosen a different wording, rather than saying reducing amount of thinking and legwork, I would have said to paliete to defficient design.
I would not have used the word spoon feeded, but intuitive. But basically, we agree and think in the same direction, he might be negative while I am positive about this issue, still think in the same direction.
Personnally I seldom use these sites, as I rather do everything in game. When I am at a disadvantage not using them, it conflict with my achievements, thereby I will reluctantly use them.
As to the original thread, IMO debts + amount of lives per month would be perfect, CR and Travel adds nothing. Preventing me from playing my character would make me furious, but I would love the game just all the more if it is done with care and well thinked, so I just avoid to died in game. Even if on average I would have to play 2 characters, that would be fine and I would adapt positively to such a great game. Note that the amount of lives per month is balanced to limit peoples playing more than 200 hours in the month. Debts are balanced for casuals players, just as in CoH. CR and Travel are plainly waste of my "precious" time rather than playing. Just cut my play time, don't put boring stuff into it.
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
Comments
By the way, just so we are all on the same page, I played and LIKED World of Warcraft. I liked it so much I pre-ordered the Collector's Edition box -- was pretty nice.
I also very much liked Asheron's Call, EverQuest, Anarchy Online and Dark Age of Camelot. I played a lot of other MMORPGs but those stand out as my favorites.
I also am following the progress of Age of Conan, Hero's Journey, and other MMORPGs.
What I am saying is, I am not closed-minded about my games and my favorites games did not really share identical game mechanics -- but I enjoyed each one of them as the game it was.
That's how I feel about Vanguard.
I won't ever try to force the game to be the type of game I insist it to be. Vanguard will be its own gaming experience, and, so far, I like the direction it is heading in.
~ Ancient Membership ~
That's cool. I actually play MOST games. . . I play them to find out about them and what I like and dislike about them. Something I've always hated was how punishing MMOs are and how many timesinks have been designed for them, and the sophistry that devs used to explain these timesinks.
It's interesting now that there is a game that has these timesinks that have been thrown out of it's competition (to those game's fiscal benefit), and it selling them as a highpoint of their game. I also find it interesting that there are a large number of avid supporters who are all about these timesinks and parrot the various sophistries that they've learned from devs over the years like "xp loss = challenge".
I've said it many times before, but I'll say it again because it mirrors your point here. I'm not really trying to get them to make the game more accessible, because they probably don't read this site, and even if they do, they probably aren't making design decisions based off these posts (if they do, then the game is going to have bigger problems than the ones we are discussing - lol). But I am interested in people's thoughts on this subject, and ultimately I'm interested in Vanguard as a case study. . . which will ONLY be an interesting case-study if they get the game to actually work right before they release it, so I'm interested in that happening too.
I think as competition gets tougher in the MMO market, games like these will not be able to cut it. Seriously, Vanguard may be the turning point in being the last game designed for hardcore gamers ever. (I mean serious MMOs here - not the indy shoe-string budget ones).
The thing is. . . it's not a CHALLENGE to have corpse runs, xp debt, and long travel times. Those are just frustrations. . . unless you mean a challenge of patience.
What we'll see more and more with MMOs is that they'll have to start adding more challenge in their actual gameplay. Puzzles that need to be solved to challenge our minds and occassional and/or hybridized twitch play to challenge our reflexes. MMOs really could use more challenges. . . but inaccessability is only interpreted as "challenge" in spin. Timesinks aren't challenges, they are ways to make the player have to spend more time before acheiving goals in order to extend the play-time of a game.
Still, Vanguard is super interesting for committing to these game mechanics that are so aimed at a very specific and small group.
I'm hoping the game will get the rest of it's crap together, because I'm super interested in whether a good game based on hardcore mechanics can support itself. If the game sucks, then people will blame that, so they need to get it up and working right.
Thats what i liked about EQ... FEAR OF DEATH.
get it ?
eqnext.wikia.com
Did you really just say that? You NEVER saw anyone 2 box in WoW? I find that incredibly hard to believe. Minimal spolier site usage in WoW? Anytime a quest question is asked in game the default response is: "Check thottbot". Hell they have a thottbot mod to use in game. I mean I can appreciate you like more candy-coated "accessible" games and you feel that any game where it takes you longer to get the rewards is an archaic game model soon to be obsolete. But these claims are just ludicrous, no offense. Maybe that was your experience in game, but if that's the case I would say you are in the vast minority. Again I respect your desrie to come here and make sideways comments about Vanguard's inferior design and label it a case study. But if these are some of your arguing points, your case is tough to take at face value.
Amnesiac - My statements were quite clear and correct as they were stated (as oppossed to how you restated them).
Incorrect. You quoted me, then paraphrased me incorrectly in your replies to the the quote.
Incorrect. I said that I've never seen people two-box, and that while spoiler sites exist they are not used for EVERY bit of content the way I have seen them used for games that have extremely punishing death penalties.
While I'm sure there are people who two-box in WoW, there isn't any reason to use them to cheese through content. . . it is more fun to attempt it yourself w/o the cheese because dying only makes you lose five to ten minutes of play while you repair and then return to where you were before you died.
The same is true in regards to quests. In FFXI, my linkshell would ask everyone to read the forums to read a quest guide BEFORE we went on the quest as trying to explain it to everyone at once was difficult and death was a real pain in that game. . . literally an hour of grinding needed to regain the xp loss. This was never true of WoW. While I went to thottbot occassionally when I found myself having trouble finding the starting points for quests, I never went to thottbot because I was looking for strategies for beating quests while making sure I won't die and to make certain that I have a large enough group, that is the right level and has the right skills for the content.
Smart players will plan their evening in Vanguard around player-made guides. It just doesn't make sense not to take 5 minutes to read a guide when not doing so could result in your having to spend an hour or more grinding back lost xp.
Fair enough, I guess I see where you're coming on these things being byproducts of the greater potential penalities. I think that a player's characteristics are gonna dictate the use of multi-boxing/"spoiler" sites, not the game itself, but I can see the connection you're trying to make.
Like was said before. The game itself and it's mechanics have little to do with the two-boxing and quest spoiler sites. It has a lot more to do with the gamer themselves.
Just to clarify on the quest spoiler site issue. I like them and use them if I get stuck myself. I think they are a useful tool, but I agree that they shouldn't be necessary to solve EVERY quest. Which I don't know of any game where that is the case. Again, it has more to do with the guild or group make-up than it does the game itself.
dragonace - Sure, there will be people who cheese their way through even on games that are accessible like WoW and that has something to do with the player, but in a game that has death that can result in your spending an hour or more recovering from that death it is SMART to cheese your way through.
Spend 5 minutes on a spoiler site or spend hours recovering from death? The point is that smart people do everything they can to eliminate risk in games with punishing death penalties, whereas in games that are more accessible like WoW, they just log in and have fun. The spoiler sites become about finding hidden stuff instead of about planning your evening.
Heh, stupid me!
Right. . . or you didn't know about the sites, or have access to two-boxing. That doesn't change the fact that punishing death penalties lead people to remove the in-game risk by cheesing the content on spoiler sites or by two-boxing. When the price of death is so obnoxiously high, people will do what it takes to avoid it.
Right. . . or you didn't know about the sites, or have access to two-boxing. That doesn't change the fact that punishing death penalties lead people to remove the in-game risk by cheesing the content on spoiler sites or by two-boxing. When the price of death is so obnoxiously high, people will do what it takes to avoid it.
Name the game without spoiler sites.
Explain how the fact that there aren't any (worth mentioning) is a cogent argument?
This is about increased use when death penalites are absurd, as oppossed to be used by completists looking for every quest when people do not need to strain to eliminate all risk in a game due to the penalties for failure being too high.
Explain how the fact that there aren't any (worth mentioning) is a cogent argument?
This is about increased use when death penalites are absurd, as oppossed to be used by completists looking for every quest when people do not need to strain to eliminate all risk in a game due to the penalties for failure being too high.
People don't use spoiler sites to eliminate risk, they do it to eliminate any thinking or leg work on their part. That is why spoiler sites exist for even the easiest games with the least risk. The only way to eliminate (or at least reduce) the use of spoiler sites is to spoon feed the players every bit of information you can right in the game. In other words, the game must become a spoiler site in and of itself. Spoiler sites don't reduce risk, they reduce work (in the form of time and actually having to think).
Explain how the fact that there aren't any (worth mentioning) is a cogent argument?
This is about increased use when death penalites are absurd, as oppossed to be used by completists looking for every quest when people do not need to strain to eliminate all risk in a game due to the penalties for failure being too high.
People don't use spoiler sites to eliminate risk, they do it to eliminate any thinking or leg work on their part. That is why spoiler sites exist for even the easiest games with the least risk. The only way to eliminate (or at least reduce) the use of spoiler sites is to spoon feed the players every bit of information you can right in the game. In other words, the game must become a spoiler site in and of itself. Spoiler sites don't reduce risk, they reduce work (in the form of time and actually having to think).
You are wrong. Others will read your post and know you are wrong instantly. . . I can't really add anything to this because your point is so wrong that the wrongness is tainting my keyboard with a thick black goo that is making it increasingly difficult to typ----
Explain how the fact that there aren't any (worth mentioning) is a cogent argument?
This is about increased use when death penalites are absurd, as oppossed to be used by completists looking for every quest when people do not need to strain to eliminate all risk in a game due to the penalties for failure being too high.
People don't use spoiler sites to eliminate risk, they do it to eliminate any thinking or leg work on their part. That is why spoiler sites exist for even the easiest games with the least risk. The only way to eliminate (or at least reduce) the use of spoiler sites is to spoon feed the players every bit of information you can right in the game. In other words, the game must become a spoiler site in and of itself. Spoiler sites don't reduce risk, they reduce work (in the form of time and actually having to think).
You are wrong. Others will read your post and know you are wrong instantly. . . I can't really add anything to this because your point is so wrong that the wrongness is tainting my keyboard with a thick black goo that is making it increasingly difficult to typ----
Actually, Dink, it is you that is wrong. n2sooners is right about spoilers being used (most often) for reduction of effort vs reduction of risk. My experience has been that people jump to those sites when they get to a part of a quest and they are unsure what to do. In stead of spending time seeking a solution in game, they just load up thottbot, etc. This is a very important distinction in this argument.
In addition, the decision to two-box vs not to two-box is almost always made based on the access to two boxes. Even in a very easy game there is some advantage to running two toons. These people will use that advantage simply because they can.
Lastly, you have requested everyone reply intelligently to your posts. Perhaps you should follow your own advise. A number of times in this thread you have resorted to "online Jerry Springer" methods to mute someones viewpoint. Your above response is a clear example. Simply telling someone they are wrong is not an effective argument, but rather the sign of immaturity and a lack of a true counter-argument. Perhaps its time you just admit that you arent doing a case study, but rather are just sitting on the sidelines cheering against Vanguard. If you were doing a case study, you would be carefully considering each side in an unbiased fashion.
Explain how the fact that there aren't any (worth mentioning) is a cogent argument?
This is about increased use when death penalites are absurd, as oppossed to be used by completists looking for every quest when people do not need to strain to eliminate all risk in a game due to the penalties for failure being too high.
People don't use spoiler sites to eliminate risk, they do it to eliminate any thinking or leg work on their part. That is why spoiler sites exist for even the easiest games with the least risk. The only way to eliminate (or at least reduce) the use of spoiler sites is to spoon feed the players every bit of information you can right in the game. In other words, the game must become a spoiler site in and of itself. Spoiler sites don't reduce risk, they reduce work (in the form of time and actually having to think).
Quoted for truth
Explain how the fact that there aren't any (worth mentioning) is a cogent argument?
This is about increased use when death penalites are absurd, as oppossed to be used by completists looking for every quest when people do not need to strain to eliminate all risk in a game due to the penalties for failure being too high.
People don't use spoiler sites to eliminate risk, they do it to eliminate any thinking or leg work on their part. That is why spoiler sites exist for even the easiest games with the least risk. The only way to eliminate (or at least reduce) the use of spoiler sites is to spoon feed the players every bit of information you can right in the game. In other words, the game must become a spoiler site in and of itself. Spoiler sites don't reduce risk, they reduce work (in the form of time and actually having to think).
You are wrong. Others will read your post and know you are wrong instantly. . . I can't really add anything to this because your point is so wrong that the wrongness is tainting my keyboard with a thick black goo that is making it increasingly difficult to typ----
I have read n2sooners' post and I know he is right instantly.
The prime example is with an offline or consle game, there is absolutly no risk when you are playing by yourself (you can just reload a save game right before death/mistake -hell you can even turn on godmode!), but there are still countless spoilers and faq's for any of the solo games and people will continue to use them because people don't want to put in the work.
I voted for all of them. Super surprised that 43% don't have problems with any of these inacessible parts of games. . . even on a forum for this game, that is a high number.
Me and N2sooners rarely agree. On this precise case I agree with him. Although I would have choosen a different wording, rather than saying reducing amount of thinking and legwork, I would have said to paliete to defficient design.
I would not have used the word spoon feeded, but intuitive. But basically, we agree and think in the same direction, he might be negative while I am positive about this issue, still think in the same direction.
Personnally I seldom use these sites, as I rather do everything in game. When I am at a disadvantage not using them, it conflict with my achievements, thereby I will reluctantly use them.
As to the original thread, IMO debts + amount of lives per month would be perfect, CR and Travel adds nothing. Preventing me from playing my character would make me furious, but I would love the game just all the more if it is done with care and well thinked, so I just avoid to died in game. Even if on average I would have to play 2 characters, that would be fine and I would adapt positively to such a great game. Note that the amount of lives per month is balanced to limit peoples playing more than 200 hours in the month. Debts are balanced for casuals players, just as in CoH. CR and Travel are plainly waste of my "precious" time rather than playing. Just cut my play time, don't put boring stuff into it.
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren