| 200 posts found | |
|---|---|
|
RamenThief7
Novice Member
Joined: 5/13/09
Undefeatability lies within ourselves. Defeatability lies with the enemy. |
Originally posted by Torik I really see no difference between these scenarios. In either case when you die you have failed to cross the zone and have to start again. The only way to cross the zone is to navigate the dangers correctly. Just because there is a death penalty does not make the zone more dangerous in itself. If crossing the zone is so easy that you can do so while chatting or using your cell phone, it will be just as easy as if there were death penalties. WIth a harsh death penatly you will simply stop trying sooner and miss out on the excitement of actually beating the challenge. Well actually there is a huge difference between the scenarios. It doesn't matter that the zone will be no harder with either punishment attached, what matters is that you'll be more aware of not wanting to die, so you'll guage the situation with more precaution. Fear is an element used inside those situations, but it creates adrenaline rushes for those who like those situations, which is why people will play these scenarios. Lights, on the other hand, simply want to accomplish something because they simply want to win, few obstacles apply. Harsh punishments will scare lights away, but middle-cores and rogue-like gamers will instead see the risk and challenge and accept them with anticipation and excitement (most of the time). |
|
RamenThief7
Novice Member
Joined: 5/13/09
Undefeatability lies within ourselves. Defeatability lies with the enemy. |
Whoa, three posts in a row. I would like to quickly say that I am not bumping my own thread, it's just that there's so much to say that I need that many posts. Goragg: I do see your point. Why not have adjustable difficulties and death punishments? A game like that would attract gamers from all death punishment perspectives. One issue is that it's difficult to implement this idea that games that have been running for a while. For example, let's say Blizzard put rogue-like servers in WOW. The majority of gamers on that game would not like it, as a result, the server wouldn't last long (or it might, but it would have a small crowd). This idea has to be put into a game right when it's created, so that fresh new gamers will instantly choose what they want to do. I've heard of a few cases where rogue-like servers were put into an existing game, and they did well (I think Diablo2 follows this, not sure). But, those cases are few and between. You do have an excellent thought. My question is, why haven't we seen many games with this idea? |
|
I'm not sure you'd need different servers - though it might be better. You could possibly have a system where you could flag yourself e.g there might be three options, the first setting was the default one with a low penalty, the second might be more hardcore with a 5% exp bonus and the third setting would be perma-death with a 10% exp bonus. edit: btw these settings wouldn't have to be permanent - you could unflag yourself with time delays etc. |
|
Originally posted by DoomsDay01
EQ1 is not a good example. It is the 2nd real MMO on the market and players have no choice then. Now they do. |
|
There really isn't a way to describe how danger and risk can really make games memorable and bring people together aside from experiencing it for yourself. Unfortunately there aren't many games these days that can do this, and certainly none that will ever live up to EQ. Here is a quote from a player, posted a few months ago in the EQ forum. The poster describes in detail events in a video game session he played over 10 years ago. You don't remember a video game session for 10 years unless it was simply an outstanding experience. Originally posted by Doomsday01 Without any danger or risk, this memory / story would not even exist. That memory would likely have been simply not having been very impressed with the graphics, and maybe complaining about the other group pulling adds on them, and forgotten within a week.
|
|
|
CactusmanX
Elite Member
Joined: 5/05/04
Don't mock me my friend. It's a condition of mental divergence. |
Originally posted by RamenThief7
I think that developers of MMOs focus too much on creating an ulterior motive for everything. I mean you don't just do dungeons for fun but for some shiney sword and you don't just win a fight in PvP for fun but to avoid being looted. Developers put too much effort trying to train the players when I just want to enjoy the game for its own sake, the result is really exact and practiced players but it also creates a more tense mood I think, one where players take the game too seriously for me to enjoy it, and that goes for both positive and negative reinforcement. Here I was complainin' about loss of pride and how life had treated me, and now I realized... I never had any pride |
Originally posted by heremypet
If you game actually have content .. sure. There are plenty of people using God Mode to go through SP games for the same reason. They want to see and experience the content. When are people realize that games are now more like movies. Players are entertained by CONTENT, not challenges.
|
|
Originally posted by RamenThief7
And that is why i tried Eve and decide not to subscribe (not to mention the horribly skimpy and boring PvE) and people like me prob outnumber you by a factor of 10. And sure, if the developers want to settle on a niche game, it is their perogative. Just don't expect people flock to it. |
|
Originally posted by nariusseldon
If you game actually have content .. sure. There are plenty of people using God Mode to go through SP games for the same reason. They want to see and experience the content. When are people realize that games are now more like movies. Players are entertained by CONTENT, not challenges.
"Players are not entertained by challenges" "Games are now more like movies" |
|
Originally posted by RamenThief7 Neanderthal, you prove an excellent point. See, in general Goragg, no one likes the penalties. But us rogue-likes (and I'm guessing the middle-core crowd as well) love to hate the penalties, if that makes any sense to you. We like suffering middle-severe penalties for dying, it teaches us not to repeat it. It also gives us adrenaline during the times that we are in danger, because now we are putting our 100% effort into not dying. That is where we get our adrenaline rush. And so far, I haven't seen that in many games so far, with the exception of EVE (and at one point, Runescape). Interesting. I think, for some of us, dying itself is enough of a penalty. First off, it reminds me that, at least on that attempt, I have failed. Second, I have to stop doing what I enjoy (playing the game) and now have to deal with whatever consequences have arisen from my failure, be it a corpse run, a wait period (a la Wow) or something more harsh. But, for some of us, the severity of harshness is irrelevant. The only incentive I need to not die is: dying will force me to stop playing and have to do some punishment until I can continue playing. Even if that punishment is walking across a field, it's enough for me. Question: if a game had an option to choose either a mild death penalty or a harsh one, how many of you can honestly say you'd choose the harsher one as your default?
|
|
Originally posted by heremypet "Players are not entertained by challenges" "Games are now more like movies"
FWIW, I have played games almost entirely in God Mode just so I can watch them uninterrupted. Sometimes I'm enjoying the story so much, the game gets in the way. Think of it this way: watching a video can be like reading a book. You're enjoying the story as it unfolds. But suddenly, around the end of chapter 5, a message tells you that you did not play well enough and have to replay chapter 5. It's like being told I didn't read the chapter well enough, and have to read it again. I don't want to read it again, I want to see what happens in chapter 6. The game Indigo Prophecy was an excellent example of this. Great story, but awkward gameplay that made you die much too often. |
|
Originally posted by RamenThief7
Actually, I don't see why they wouldn't. The thing stopping most demands for "different server types" is that each type of server requires different CODE VERSIONS. And it's not just the cost of adding a block; it's the ongoing cost of reviewing and troubleshooting it every time you do a patch - and that gets bigger as the codes evolve apart. And that cost is the same whether you add a dozen servers or just one. That's a really big deal for adding PVP servers, so you need to make sure you have a significant chunk of players interested before you add that feature. But it seems that permadeath would be pretty darned trivial to add, and patching should be very little if any problem. With as many servers as WoW has, I'm sure that at least a few "hard core" servers would fill up in no time. Sure, the game wouldn't be "balanced" for permadeath. But you'd assume the players would be aware of that. On the other hand, even the best designed game code is still going to occasionally cause a character's death through no fault on the part of the player. And glitches that go unnoticed on the regular servers might be seen as a gigantic problem by the small number of "hard core" players, who would then demand fixes. Which, in turn, would then require a separate set of code, with separate patches, bug testing, etc.... |
|
|
I think MMORPG.com summed it up well in their review of The Chronicles of Spellborn. It likely has the best light death penalty system. In addition to your normal XP to gain levels, you also gain personal experience points. (PeP) You can level your PeP to 5 and you gain stunning bonuses like 30% movement speed, 30% damage increase and 15% attack speed at level 5. It takes quite a bit of grinding to work up to 5. When you die, you lose an entire PeP level and the bonuses lower. Once you experience what it's like to go from PeP level 5 to 1 or 2, then you suddenly realize how much of a huge difference it makes. After that, you attempt to preserve your PeP levels like you would your gear in a hardcore MMO. |
|
Originally posted by SwampRob
If there was a seperate server with a harsher penalty, absolutely, I would go for it. Having a toggle between harsh and light all on one server, it depends and I honestly doubt that that idea would work out very well. If there wasn't some noticable benefit to playing on the harsh setting you'd just end up feeling stupid, like you're self-gimping yourself, and you really can't expect people to do that. On the other hand if there were a noticable benefit to it (like better loot drops) then everyone would feel like they had to play with the harsher penalty and it would become the default. |
|
|
I used to play a game called Everquest and the death penalties brought the game to a whole different level. Loosing exp when you died, the hell levels where you would loose more exp, corpse runs and NO armour on corpse runs in the REAL enviroment( not a ghost). I thikn Everquest was the perfect game :)Im hoping to go back soon. |
|
|
Dewm
Advanced Member
Joined: 5/29/09
You won't respond to my post, because you know i'm right. |
I think that FFXI got it right,
If you die and no one res's you (aka you have to go back to your home point) you lose 12% of ALL XP (not just that levels xp but ALL) But if you got res'd you'd only lose 2% of xp. (and you could only be res'd in 1 hour of dieing)
It was a very nice set up, and if that was on a server by inself I would deffinitly chose it over a lighter penilty. If at first the power of persuasion doesn’t work, use the persuasion of power. |
Originally posted by Neanderthal
If there was a seperate server with a harsher penalty, absolutely, I would go for it. Having a toggle between harsh and light all on one server, it depends and I honestly doubt that that idea would work out very well. If there wasn't some noticable benefit to playing on the harsh setting you'd just end up feeling stupid, like you're self-gimping yourself, and you really can't expect people to do that. On the other hand if there were a noticable benefit to it (like better loot drops) then everyone would feel like they had to play with the harsher penalty and it would become the default.
I dont know why Developers dont do this. Why not make a game, and then make harder servers( more grouping and harsher death penalties) and easy servers( more solo friendly and lighter death penalties). I would go on the harder server for sure |
|
Originally posted by Dewm
No it is not. It is a way to people to grind more. I guess i will avoid FFXI. |
|
Originally posted by Swoogie
LOL .. that is the funniest thing I have read today. I played EQ since beta. Let me see ... rampant camping with taking a number to kill the boss. Sit down for 10 min (at least in the beginning) to regen mana. If you don't have time to do a corpse run, you are screwed. At time that I have no choice so I played it until i can't stand the camping. I won't go back to it if I have nothing else to play.
|
|
|
Dewm
Advanced Member
Joined: 5/29/09
You won't respond to my post, because you know i'm right. |
Originally posted by nariusseldon
No it is not. It is a way to people to grind more. I guess i will avoid FFXI.
Meh your opinion, have fun in WoW If at first the power of persuasion doesn’t work, use the persuasion of power. |
Originally posted by nariusseldon
If you game actually have content .. sure. There are plenty of people using God Mode to go through SP games for the same reason. They want to see and experience the content. When are people realize that games are now more like movies. Players are entertained by CONTENT, not challenges.
That doesn't sound like much fun to me. I guess you have to be entertained very easily to pay for that garbage. |
|
Originally posted by SwampRob "Players are not entertained by challenges" "Games are now more like movies"
FWIW, I have played games almost entirely in God Mode just so I can watch them uninterrupted. Sometimes I'm enjoying the story so much, the game gets in the way. Think of it this way: watching a video can be like reading a book. You're enjoying the story as it unfolds. But suddenly, around the end of chapter 5, a message tells you that you did not play well enough and have to replay chapter 5. It's like being told I didn't read the chapter well enough, and have to read it again. I don't want to read it again, I want to see what happens in chapter 6. The game Indigo Prophecy was an excellent example of this. Great story, but awkward gameplay that made you die much too often.
Good lord, buy a movie. I can't believe people feel this way. I play games to you know actually PLAY them. I'll buy a movie if I want to watch a story. |
|
Good lord, buy a movie. I can't believe people feel this way. I play games to you know actually PLAY them. I'll buy a movie if I want to watch a story. I don't do this for many games, and never for the entire game, but I have done it for a few. Think of it this way: when I watch a James Bond movie, everyone watching knows that Bond isn't going to die. But this way, I get to control Bond myself, do all the shooting and killing and steering without having the game/movie/story reset to some previous point just cause I was a bit slow in the trigger. In a way, you could argue that having the main character die in a game is the most non-immersive thing you could put in it. |
|
|
The problem with death penelties is that the result in such things requires you to spend more time playing the game. ie loss of exp, gear or money. This causes a problem in most people cause not enough people can playing on the same level as everyone as in hardcore vs casuals. Hardcores hate casuals for making there games easier to play but unforunatly people have lives and bills to play, so unless something is less time consuming and easier, casuals aren't going to bother playing it because then it becomes a waste of time or money but game companies need the subscriber numbers of the casuals to help make there game more of a hit. |
|
Originally posted by Dewm
ugh... I hated that in FFXI's Death Penalty... not so much the xp lost, but the amount and the fact you could delevel. And nariusseldon is right, it just made you grind more.
|
|