Originally posted by Axehilt

Originally posted by ReallyNow10

But it does.  There is a different feel when the safety net is not there, even though the challenge remains the same.  There is an adrenaline rush maybe, and tolerance for heart-pounding gameplay is different for folks, I know (hence the range from carebear candy-land types to hardcore full loot PVP'ers).  I do believe there is a happy medium for a penalty somewhere in between where it heightens the senses and immersion in gameplay without being too much for folks to tolerate.

Right, and there's a masochistic niche seeking that penalty threat while the rest of us seek interesting challenges (which are actually made less fun by excessive penalties.)

The "happy medium" is largely what hardcore PVP already does in games like EVE (where security gives some measure of protection.)  Trying to venture in between the lines doesn't seem like it would increase the appeal to either group, but very likely could decrease the appeal to both groups.

Well there is a problem.  You say challenge but many others don't want that and will call 'challenge" a penalty.  From my point of view, games are time sinks and mmoRPGs should have times sinks in that you earn stuff.  Reputation "grinds" are a challenge of a type if it it's just time and/or patience.

The harsh penalty crowd might be reacting to the current situation where "easy mode" gameplay and lack of time sink challenges.  Remove those and so they counter "at least add a harsh death penalty if you are going to make it easy".   The wow 15 run for badges is part of it to me.

Originally posted by Golelorn

Harsh death penalities and the inability to solo is not what made EQ great. To suggest this is just ignorant.

It's a big part of what made EQ social (i.e., made you need people), and thereby built up a pretty good community.  But, there are other factors that helped the game:  free range gameplay, no mini map, but a cloth map then made imaginations run wild, hidden dungeons (and public dungeons), racial starting areas, day/night cycles, wandering overconned mobs, hidden sewer tunnels under cities, etc....

EQ was a great game.  Long in the tooth now, but one of the greatest of MMORPG's.

Originally posted by Axehilt

Originally posted by mufasy

With harsh penalization, they will never be good at anything just as in real life. You live and learn. Of course it doesnt have to be harsh. For example in pvp, if you get killed, there is a change of X% that you will drop some item or more. It can be done on accesible level, but we really dont have developers for that.

Harsh PVP brings meaning to the virtual world, where groups of people fight for territory, cities and so on, which can be conquered or lost. THAT ALONE brings more fun and imerssion than 1mil dailies, 20 billions instances and 1000 gazilion crapy quests. So thats really an end content.

BUT BUT? What about "me" i dont like PVP. Then you can pariticipate by helping the group with crafting, scouting, trading and other task.

Never be good at anything?  Complete nonsense.

Picture two kids riding a bike:

• Kid A falls off.  He gets back on and keeps trying til he gets it right.
• Kid B falls off.  His father takes his bike away for 15 minutes.

Kid A will obviously learn to ride better and more rapidly than Kid B.

Kid C falls off. Blames the devs for being lazy.  Devs respond by giving the kid a four wheeled bike or someone to carry him around.

Originally posted by FredomSekerZ

I think the problem is that whenever we talk about death penalty it has to mean "hardcore". It's the same with Open world pvp. Devs always think it has to be full loot, kill anyone anywhere, etc.

To me, "harsh death penalty" means that when you die, it stings, so when you go out to battle again, you have to be carefull, plan before you jump in, learn mechanics and even group up to just be safe. I'd like to just find a balance. The problem is, like i already stated in my previous posts, the penalty is so non existant, that people literally zerging everything without thinking. Many players can be pretty stupid unfortunatly, so punishing that stupidity is what i think HDP should be.

Players who *ahem* "literally zerg" will take many tries before they are successful, and may not be successful at all until they try a superior strategy. Players who learn from their mistakes and immediately study the circumstances of their defeat after their very first loss will probably be successful on their second try.

How is this not a death penalty in and of itself?

People who fail to learn their class or coordinate with others fail ten times in a row, while others complete the challenge after learning from their mistakes, and move on to bigger and better things.

What is the downside of allowing stupid players to fail over and over? Is the death penalty supposed to make them quit the game, or is it supposed to magically make them into better, smarter gamers?

(You can't literally zerg unless you're playing the Zerg race in Starcraft. Anything else is figurative zerging.)

Originally posted by Disdena

Originally posted by FredomSekerZ

I think the problem is that whenever we talk about death penalty it has to mean "hardcore". It's the same with Open world pvp. Devs always think it has to be full loot, kill anyone anywhere, etc.

To me, "harsh death penalty" means that when you die, it stings, so when you go out to battle again, you have to be carefull, plan before you jump in, learn mechanics and even group up to just be safe. I'd like to just find a balance. The problem is, like i already stated in my previous posts, the penalty is so non existant, that people literally zerging everything without thinking. Many players can be pretty stupid unfortunatly, so punishing that stupidity is what i think HDP should be.

Players who *ahem* "literally zerg" will take many tries before they are successful, and may not be successful at all until they try a superior strategy. Players who learn from their mistakes and immediately study the circumstances of their defeat after their very first loss will probably be successful on their second try.

How is this not a death penalty in and of itself?

People who fail to learn their class or coordinate with others fail ten times in a row, while others complete the challenge after learning from their mistakes, and move on to bigger and better things.

What is the downside of allowing stupid players to fail over and over? Is the death penalty supposed to make them quit the game, or is it supposed to magically make them into better, smarter gamers?

 

(You can't literally zerg unless you're playing the Zerg race in Starcraft. Anything else is figurative zerging.)

99% of what the death penalty does is to make you feel, to draw you somewhat into your character or your character's experience.  Why are dungeons or dark castles scary?  Because you can die in them.  Why is dying a problem?  Because it hurts the player in some minor way, which in turn makes the dungeons and dark castles scary.

THE PURPOSE OF THE STINGING DEATH PENALTY IS IMMERSION.  Anything else (superior gameplay from it) is just and add-on benefit.

Originally posted by ReallyNow10

99% of what the death penalty does is to make you feel, to draw you somewhat into your character or your character's experience.  Why are dungeons or dark castles scary?  Because you can die in them.  Why is dying a problem?  Because it hurts the player in some minor way, which in turn makes the dungeons and dark castles scary.

THE PURPOSE OF THE STINGING DEATH PENALTY IS IMMERSION.  Anything else (superior gameplay from it) is just and add-on benefit.

Like most things that people demand for immersion's sake, penalizing death for immersion's sake is silly. I already posted why on page 9.

Originally posted by Disdena

Originally posted by ReallyNow10

99% of what the death penalty does is to make you feel, to draw you somewhat into your character or your character's experience.  Why are dungeons or dark castles scary?  Because you can die in them.  Why is dying a problem?  Because it hurts the player in some minor way, which in turn makes the dungeons and dark castles scary.

THE PURPOSE OF THE STINGING DEATH PENALTY IS IMMERSION.  Anything else (superior gameplay from it) is just and add-on benefit.

Like most things that people demand for immersion's sake, penalizing death for immersion's sake is silly. I already posted why on page 9.

I think you went over the top on your pag 9 post.  And I still believe that if there is some sting to dying in-game, players will avoid doing stupid stuff that leads to dying and will feel more immersion from gameplay.  I know, I have played games like this and they felt more immersive to me.

[Quote="OP"]

[...]

But, the point of the harsh death penalty was not to experience it, but to try real hard to avoid it. As such, acts of bravery were really acts of bravery (at least in game), players communicated far more, trusted each other and formed bonds. And hence, community and guilds were built based upon mutual survival and friendship.

Just as important, when your character traveled through a dangerous area or into a dungeon, your heart pumped; the adrenaline was going. And when you arrived at a safe camp or town you felt actual relief; you felt safe there; you felt like you accomplished something just completing the journey, even though no points of any kind were rewarded.

We have to get the harsh death penalty back [...] if we are to make people care and socialize again. Recent MMORPG's, without this penalty, feel too much like modern subway terminals, crowded but empty feeling.

[/Quote]

I agree 100% with the original poster. Nice to see I am not alone in my views on death.

(... and yes, I couldn't figure out how to quote properly)

God mode doesn't break immersion does it?

Originally posted by Disdena

Originally posted by FredomSekerZ

I think the problem is that whenever we talk about death penalty it has to mean "hardcore". It's the same with Open world pvp. Devs always think it has to be full loot, kill anyone anywhere, etc.

To me, "harsh death penalty" means that when you die, it stings, so when you go out to battle again, you have to be carefull, plan before you jump in, learn mechanics and even group up to just be safe. I'd like to just find a balance. The problem is, like i already stated in my previous posts, the penalty is so non existant, that people literally zerging everything without thinking. Many players can be pretty stupid unfortunatly, so punishing that stupidity is what i think HDP should be.

Players who *ahem* "literally zerg" will take many tries before they are successful, and may not be successful at all until they try a superior strategy. Players who learn from their mistakes and immediately study the circumstances of their defeat after their very first loss will probably be successful on their second try.

How is this not a death penalty in and of itself?

People who fail to learn their class or coordinate with others fail ten times in a row, while others complete the challenge after learning from their mistakes, and move on to bigger and better things.

What is the downside of allowing stupid players to fail over and over? Is the death penalty supposed to make them quit the game, or is it supposed to magically make them into better, smarter gamers?

 

(You can't literally zerg unless you're playing the Zerg race in Starcraft. Anything else is figurative zerging.)

Zerg was a play on words. Most mmorpg players don't try to improve and get better, even when defeated. I believe this is because there's always another way. After all, dungeons get cleared right? Players aren't fully bad at all, but because defeat is meaningless, defeat is also, so instead of trying to learn from their mistakes, they try to find the path of least resitance, which is mostly hidding behind better players.

Originally posted by ReallyNow10

I think you went over the top on your pag 9 post.  And I still believe that if there is some sting to dying in-game, players will avoid doing stupid stuff that leads to dying and will feel more immersion from gameplay.  I know, I have played games like this and they felt more immersive to me.

The most immersive experiences I have had while gaming had absolutely nothing to do with the consequences for failure. In fact, as far as I am concerned, as long as you are conscious of the consequences that you—the player—will suffer for failure, you are not as absorbed by the game as you could be.

I hardly think that this is because I haven't played the games that you have.

Here's the thing that people who constantly want to return to old, "hardcore", rules games used to have forget. Those mechanics weren't made to make the game challenging, they weren't made to make it hard, they weren't there to teach you anything. They were there so you spend more money over time. 

Old platformers and brawlers wwere quite unforgiving, but it wasn't because the games were designed with hardcore market in mind, they were designed with arcade machines in mind. You know, those boxes where you have to put coins to continue playing. You died often because it meant you will drop another coin in. Simple. 

Same with the MMOs of the old, they had death penalties and very slow leveling because that ensured people will pay subscription for longer. The player base was smaller, the tech wasn't there to really expand on secondary acitivities, F2P wasn't even considered as option.

All the grinds, loosing exp or levels, weeks to gain a level... it was there to keep you playing for longer. These days they have other ways of doing it, those mechanics became obsolate and actually harmful to profits. Majority of new players that weren't "trained" on the old games just wouldn't accept it. 

When you make games for money, you pretty much want as many people as possible to enjoy the game, because that gives you more money. Even EVE over time adjusted adding the whole High-Sec space ages ago and further developing content for people that don't exactly want to travel to null sec. 

Originally posted by ReallyNow10

Originally posted by Golelorn

Harsh death penalities and the inability to solo is not what made EQ great. To suggest this is just ignorant.

It's a big part of what made EQ social (i.e., made you need people), and thereby built up a pretty good community.  But, there are other factors that helped the game:  free range gameplay, no mini map, but a cloth map then made imaginations run wild, hidden dungeons (and public dungeons), racial starting areas, day/night cycles, wandering overconned mobs, hidden sewer tunnels under cities, etc....

EQ was a great game.  Long in the tooth now, but one of the greatest of MMORPG's.

EQ was not that great. It is full of problems like camping, and staring at spellbook. Some were fixed though.

Oh wow, I guess I am showing my MMO-age by saying that it was a surprise to me when someone mentioned DAoC's death penalty as being harsh. I think it is spot on: you lose xp at death, your death is spammed to everyone in the area, if no rez is incoming then you end up back at your last bind place, some constitution which you have to pay very minor money to have repaired and a small repair fee. You can get back a lot of the lost xp by finding the tombstone your character drops. If you have a rez, you just get a minor xp setback. Non-artifact gear wears out as you keep repairing it, which of course helps out crafters.

Sure, each time you die any given level, the xp loss gets to be more and more hefty (except at max), but thing is you can never de-level and you never lose gear. It might cause a few laughs from the people seeing your big, hard troll warrior die to a perfidious pook, but I sort of like that aspect of the older games and it gave me a chuckle at times even when it was me doing the dying.

It is just annoying enough to make people play a little more wisely but not enough to keep people from doing risky, tough content from my experience. It was bad enough also to blacklist those players who got their groups purposely killed, but also made famous amidst the player community those people who continuously rezzed corpses or protect others from adds.

Games these days mainly don't have a death penalty. In Vanilla WoW, it sort of made sense not to have an overly harsh one because it seemed like it was so easy to die in the game those days. Now, I almost never die in WoW unless I am in a PuG. It is sort of a shame in the sense that a DAoC death penalty would keep most people from playing like asses or trying to grief their PuGs.

Originally posted by waynejr2

Well there is a problem.  You say challenge but many others don't want that and will call 'challenge" a penalty.  From my point of view, games are time sinks and mmoRPGs should have times sinks in that you earn stuff.  Reputation "grinds" are a challenge of a type if it it's just time and/or patience.

The harsh penalty crowd might be reacting to the current situation where "easy mode" gameplay and lack of time sink challenges.  Remove those and so they counter "at least add a harsh death penalty if you are going to make it easy".   The wow 15 run for badges is part of it to me.

Challenge and penalty are pretty clearly defined:

• Challenge is how much skill is required to avoid failure.
• Penalty is what happens if you fail.

Originally posted by Axehilt

Challenge and penalty are pretty clearly defined:

• Challenge is how much skill is required to avoid failure.
• Penalty is what happens if you fail.

So if someone calls challenge "penalty", they're kinda just being wrong.

 

Time is obviously going to be used up in any game.  But it's only going to be called a timesink if it's boring; if it doesn't feel worthwhile.  And most people are seeking interesting challenges and/or interesting experiences in games (not necessarily both, but those are the two big ones by far.)  Seldom are people seeking to be punished more in games.

Challenge and Penalty go hand in hand. What your saying is kinda like saying that  its just as difficult to beat Contra on the NES without using the 30 lives code as it is with the 30 lives code.. Its obvious that thats not true.

If there is no significant penalty to deter you from trying again then there is nothing stopping you from brute forcing your way through attempts until you succeed. Sure it may consume time but if it doesn't make you think about what you did wrong and what you have to change to overcome said challenge. than the penalty is not enough..

The problem is that too many games are giving you the equivlant of the brute force method during your leveling up period & people quit the end game because it requires actual thinking.Hence you have the brick wall endgame (which itself has been dumbed down due to basically unlimited attempts in current games)

Originally posted by Ezhae

Here's the thing that people who constantly want to return to old, "hardcore", rules games used to have forget. Those mechanics weren't made to make the game challenging, they weren't made to make it hard, they weren't there to teach you anything. They were there so you spend more money over time. 

 

Old platformers and brawlers wwere quite unforgiving, but it wasn't because the games were designed with hardcore market in mind, they were designed with arcade machines in mind. You know, those boxes where you have to put coins to continue playing. You died often because it meant you will drop another coin in. Simple. 

 

Same with the MMOs of the old, they had death penalties and very slow leveling because that ensured people will pay subscription for longer. The player base was smaller, the tech wasn't there to really expand on secondary acitivities, F2P wasn't even considered as option.

All the grinds, loosing exp or levels, weeks to gain a level... it was there to keep you playing for longer. These days they have other ways of doing it, those mechanics became obsolate and actually harmful to profits. Majority of new players that weren't "trained" on the old games just wouldn't accept it. 

When you make games for money, you pretty much want as many people as possible to enjoy the game, because that gives you more money. Even EVE over time adjusted adding the whole High-Sec space ages ago and further developing content for people that don't exactly want to travel to null sec. 

I disagree with you that all of the challenge was there to keep you paying money for as long as possible so that they could earn more, even the arcade games. Most of the old arcade games had a pretty smooth progression in difficulty from board to board. If they didn't have that, people didn't play them for very long. The harder games, like Tempest for example, didn't have a big audience, for that reason. I remember that game got extremey hard after the third or fourth board. On the other hand, Donkey Kong and the others in its series had a smoother progression in difficulty and kept people playing longer. Even so, unless the player was a real arcade game addict, most people moved on after 1 or 2 tries.

The old Atari games were still challenging even if they did not have the arcade-style coin operation inherent in them. In fact, all of the genres from the 80s and 90s were much harder, RPGs included. The latter were mainly based on old AD&D which was hard especially if you played by the real rules. This was continued in BG1/BG2, Torment, Icewind Dale 1/2. I played those games on hard and they were truly hard; even normal was much more challenging than any MMO of today. I mean, my party could be taken to pieces by kobolds in BG1.... This was well beyond the arcade period and before DLCs, so basically the non-nickle and dime period of RPGs.

And then there were the MUDs. They were just as hard, and yet this was before the subscription era, when it was volunteers running them. They too were based on PnP games, especially AD&D for the fantasy games even if they were not AD&D games in particular.

EQ1 was completely and entirely based on MUDs though it was actually easier than any I played. I think even progression timewise it was faster. There was a small period of MMORPG development that was very experimental: the people developing EQ1, AO, DAoC, etc. did not know if this genre would kick off and be popular. I don't get the impression from any of these titles that they were doing it exclusively to rip their players off.

There just seemed to be a completely different ethos operating in game developers in the earlier part of the gaming industry. It wasn't just about money, they wanted to make good games. This is the case of Blizzard too: the older Blizz games were easy to get into, but challenging enough to keep a person interested like in D1/D2, both of which incidently had a harsher death penalty than D3 does. So many D1/D2 fans are saying that D3 doesn't live up to the first two games, and it is probably because of the change of ethos more than challenge or ease of play.

Originally posted by FredomSekerZ

Zerg was a play on words. Most mmorpg players don't try to improve and get better, even when defeated. I believe this is because there's always another way. After all, dungeons get cleared right? Players aren't fully bad at all, but because defeat is meaningless, defeat is also, so instead of trying to learn from their mistakes, they try to find the path of least resitance, which is mostly hidding behind better players.

When this happens, it is because of the game's mechanics, not its penalty. It is possible to make a game with no penalty where it is difficult-to-impossible for bad players to advance. It's also possible to make a game with a harsh death penalty where staying alive and advancing at a good rate is based mostly on luck, so that bad players get by almost as well as the best players. In fact, most of the permadeath games that I play (Spelunky, Nethack, Realm of the Mad God) are extremely random and it is possible for a bad player to get very far or for an expert player to die within the first few minutes.

Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but I can't help finding a little meaning in the obsession with how stupid players are allowed to progress through multiple attempts. Not just from you, but throughout the thread. Players who are smart and/or knowledgeable about the game already progress much faster and succeed much more often than players who are dumb and/or careless. A severe death penalty would multiply this effect, perhaps even to the point where dumb careless players can't progress past a certain point. If this is what would make you happy, maaaaaybe think about trying a different genre?

Think for a second about how classic console RPGs like Final Fantasy and Dragon Warrior have always worked. If you die in battle, you go back to the point where you last saved. You then can either head straight towards that fight again and try to do it better, or you can hang out and grind a few levels. These RPGs were designed to work this way: you needed either skill (or luck) or the patience to grind to an appropriate level. With even a minimal understanding of basic strategy, you could get through the entire game if you just beat up enough mooks to level up past any challenging content.

MMOs follow the same kind of formula, as least where solo content is concerned. Endgame is a bit different, though; there are raids that you won't ever be able to faceroll regardless of your gear without an understanding of that specific fight as well as the game's underlying mechanics. So even despite having its roots in this "grind ten levels and then pound face" mentality from console RPGs, MMOs already took some steps away from this in making endgame content that absolutely requires you to be attentive and follow directions.

Anyone who's still upset that bad players aren't further excluded from game content ought to think about what they want out of a game and whether massively multiplayer games are where they should be looking for it.

Originally posted by OberanMiM 

Challenge and Penalty go hand in hand. What your saying is kinda like saying that  its just as difficult to beat Contra on the NES without using the 30 lives code as it is with the 30 lives code.. Its obvious that thats not true.

If there is no significant penalty to deter you from trying again then there is nothing stopping you from brute forcing your way through attempts until you succeed. Sure it may consume time but if it doesn't make you think about what you did wrong and what you have to change to overcome said challenge. than the penalty is not enough..

 

The problem is that too many games are giving you the equivlant of the brute force method during your leveling up period & people quit the end game because it requires actual thinking.Hence you have the brick wall endgame (which itself has been dumbed down due to basically unlimited attempts in current games)

The challenge is identical.  The amount of skill to avoid failure is identical.

The amount of failures allowed is different.

As for "no significant penalty", that's why I specifically say excessive penalty in my posts.  Games need the minimum penalty necessary for the challenge to be meaningful -- and no more.  Once you have that bare mimum penalty, you've improved the game by letting the challenge matter.  If you increase the penalty beyond that point, you don't really improve the game but you do start detracting from it for most players.

Brute forcing is like graveyard zerging a monster in a MMORPG (or in Diablo 3 for that matter.)  It's bad game design, and the game is going to be more interesting if things reset and you're forced to deal with the full challenge or miss out on the rewards.

Originally posted by MurlockDance

I disagree with you that all of the challenge was there to keep you paying money for as long as possible so that they could earn more, even the arcade games. Most of the old arcade games had a pretty smooth progression in difficulty from board to board. If they didn't have that, people didn't play them for very long. The harder games, like Tempest for example, didn't have a big audience, for that reason. I remember that game got extremey hard after the third or fourth board. On the other hand, Donkey Kong and the others in its series had a smoother progression in difficulty and kept people playing longer. Even so, unless the player was a real arcade game addict, most people moved on after 1 or 2 tries.

The old Atari games were still challenging even if they did not have the arcade-style coin operation inherent in them. In fact, all of the genres from the 80s and 90s were much harder, RPGs included. The latter were mainly based on old AD&D which was hard especially if you played by the real rules. This was continued in BG1/BG2, Torment, Icewind Dale 1/2. I played those games on hard and they were truly hard; even normal was much more challenging than any MMO of today. I mean, my party could be taken to pieces by kobolds in BG1.... This was well beyond the arcade period and before DLCs, so basically the non-nickle and dime period of RPGs.

And then there were the MUDs. They were just as hard, and yet this was before the subscription era, when it was volunteers running them. They too were based on PnP games, especially AD&D for the fantasy games even if they were not AD&D games in particular.

EQ1 was completely and entirely based on MUDs though it was actually easier than any I played. I think even progression timewise it was faster. There was a small period of MMORPG development that was very experimental: the people developing EQ1, AO, DAoC, etc. did not know if this genre would kick off and be popular. I don't get the impression from any of these titles that they were doing it exclusively to rip their players off.

There just seemed to be a completely different ethos operating in game developers in the earlier part of the gaming industry. It wasn't just about money, they wanted to make good games. This is the case of Blizzard too: the older Blizz games were easy to get into, but challenging enough to keep a person interested like in D1/D2, both of which incidently had a harsher death penalty than D3 does. So many D1/D2 fans are saying that D3 doesn't live up to the first two games, and it is probably because of the change of ethos more than challenge or ease of play.

Many of the early Atari/C64 games were based of arcade games and shared many of the mechanics. Even if the coin weren't there the design principles stayed. They weren't really based around challenging content, but often silly precission where pressing a button for half a second too long would mean death and need to restart the level. 

I spend loads of time ona rcades when they were the thing for video games. Starting with a new game you havent played before you were guaranteed to die several times, you had to learn all the specific parts to be able ot beat it on single coin. It was possible, but to get to this point you usually had to spend at least 5-10 coins on practicing. 

Similarly with MMOs. The levelling wasn't really more challenging, it was just longer in many cases. You gained less expierience per kill, quests were either far between or more group oriented, in some cases there was a lot of more RNG elements. Even early WoW shared that idea, somewhat tamed and adjusted ofcourse, but there was a lot of group content in 55-60 areas and killing elites was best way to get money/exp. 

Over time hwoever the developers started moving away form that. The market expldoed around 2005, after WoW came out and internet access became more common thing. A completley fresh pool of players were able to join on the fun, not having the preivous experience of rouglike's, MUDs or tabletop RPGs. They had to come up with ways that one one hand would not disocurage those new people while same time giving enough things to do that theyw ould subscribe for long time. More variation and easier access to end game content (reducing raid sizes), instant gratification PvP (battlegrounds of all sorts), more collectible things as well as achievements that started becoming big thing on consoles. 

All those features allowed for MMOs to keep being engaging for long time without making general gameplay a chore. Nowadays You can level up easily, get decent gear easily, play public PvP matches easily, you don't have to spawn camp to get a boss, more content is readily avalible at any time through instancing. The chalenge part shifted to competing and/or visual prestige and away from the slow, and often painful journey. That way they manage to keep both the so called "hardcore" crowd as well as the more casual, few hours a week groups playing and paying.

For someone who only has little time to play every now and then there is still that feeling of progress, that "I finished those 2 quests, gained a level" feeling rather than "Hurray, today I managed ot fill 5% of my xp bar, at this rate, maybe in 3 month's I'll level up and get new skill".