Originally posted by heremypet

You're right, but people are still willing to risk all of that if it means the excitement they're looking for.  I played D2 HC for years, died to TPPKers, lag, power outages, and just bad luck, but even though you had to start all the way over, the thrill of making it through a dungeon knowing full well that every move could be your last is worth all that.  D2 was released in 2000 and it's still sitting right there in store shelves today, and has probably sold more copies than many MMOs have.  There are still a lot of people playing hardcore mode, but the thing about D2 is, the client is unsafe, people hack and Blizz can't stop it.  Dying to TPPKers suck after so many times, that is one reason I would be interested in a permadeath MMO or server, because typically MMO clients are much safer from hacks than peer to peer or hosted multiplayer clients.

Good for you, I'm sure not willing to do that.  In fact, if an MMO's server issues, server lag or whatever caused me to lose a character, gear, loot, etc. I'd be on the phone to customer service demanding it all be restored so fast it would make your head spin.  Most people would.  It's one thing to die if you do something stupid.  It's another thing to die because of something entirely beyond your control.

In the single player games that came between PnP and MMOs there were a few different types.

In this post I am only going to address the types of character saves they allowed.

There were checkpoint saves where you reached a certain point in the game and could save. Most people did, unless they were an idiot, but people complained because they were too stupid to save it should be automatic.

Then there were checkpoints that once you passed them you auto saved however players complained there were not enough of them.

Then there were auto save points and additional save points where players could save if they wished. Again you would be an idiot not too however this still angered people because they wanted to be able to save whenever they wanted.

So most of the single player games let you save almost anywhere or anywhere. Then people just started pulling up cheat codes and walk thru's to make it through easier.

The point is there are always going to be people who are focused more on winning/achieving than playing the game. They are so hooked on catching the carrot on the stick that they forget the whole purpose of being there is to have fun.

MMOs have just become a contest of how to give the most wow for the longest period of time. The carrot gets split in to parts and you keep collecting bigger and bigger parts as you progress. Never is anyone talking about the storyline of an MMO, they are always talking about levels and gear. Granted in the old PnP days gear was sweet to get however you talked about the ADVENTURE you had getting the gear.

One of the most memorable adventures I had involved my ENTIRE party dying. I was the last one up and could have run and come back and saved the group. That would have been the smart thing to do. However I was running a cleric of war and he didn't run. Ever. So I did a final stand and blew the top off the mountain and stopped an invading horde before they could reach the city. Broke a staff of power to do it. It was a great storyline leading up to that point and to this day my friends and I still talk about what a great game it was. And we all died.

I don't think it is about death or no death. I think it is more about people having fun. For most people the thought of losing items, exp or time is not fun. However, that is more a reflection of poorly designed games rather than a true reflection of how mechanics should work.

First... I agree with much of the OP's sentiments.

In every MMO I've played that hasn't had any death penalty above a corpse run or minor gear damage, I've seen a greater amount of careless and reckless players who will run haphazardly into any situation, even one they know will cause the death of them and/or their party's characters. They don't care... Why should they? The cemetery's just around the corner and the loss of gear durability is negligible. To use a phrase out of context, because it describes the situation well, they often "fail their way to success". Even if you die 10 times in the process, if you keep throwing yourself at that mob, or keep trying to run haphazardly through that area, eventually you'll get it. 

People use death in many new MMOs as a convenient way to travel. My brother was bragging about how he explored a lot of Azeroth by hopping around between cemeteries and it hardly cost him anything in repairs relative to the amount of money he could make.

I mean, seriously...  there's something wrong with that picture. Death should be the consequence of failure that players actively try to avoid... not a convenient mode of transportation.

On the other hand, every MMO I've played where death has a definite bite... be it significant XP loss, possible loss of a level (if you lose enough xp), loss of gear, etc... players are, by and large, much more strategic, much more thoughtful and not even *remotely* as reckless as they are in those with less severe, or no death penalty at all.

In FFXI, Lineage 2 and other MMOs of that ilk where death has a bite that *means* something to your character, players have been, by far, more cautious and strategic. It's not because they're "better players" - it's because they know the penalty of failing, so they're not going to take pointless risks, they're going to choose their fights carefully, at all times - not only when they're fighting end-game raid bosses, etc.

In FFXI there are many times when you'll get a quest or otherwise need to go through a very dangerous area. Knowing how different mobs aggro (sight? sound? magic? scent?) and what type of preparations you need to make to get through as safely as possible actually *matters*. And it's always a cool feeling when you do so successfully. I'm playing FFXI since it came out in the US 7+ years ago, and safely making it through Ifrit's Cauldron or Den of Rancor or other similarly dangerous areas *still* feels like an accomplishment, like a mini victory, because one screw up in any of those places could very well mean death... even at level cap. Defeating a tough boss or surviving an encounter that seems doomed is all the sweeter because you *know* what penalties failing would carry.

So, at least to me, it's not a matter of "people who like games with harsh death penalties are better gamers"... Not at all. It's simply that to us, it's more *fun* to have that extra sense of danger, or to require that extra bit of strategy or caution... it makes the game more exciting and more enjoyable to play. 

There are some who say "well, it's time wasted when you lose xp". I've always found that to be a funny argument in the context of playing a video game; "I'm wasting time... while wasting time". And, it's even more so in a MMO considering you're talking about maybe an hour or two to recover lost xp in a game that the average player will invest *hundreds* of hours into over the course of playing it.

Again, I can understand some people don't enjoy death penalties; I understand that perfectly well. That's their prerogative. However, I think it's at least useful to understand that those of us who prefer a harsher death penalty in a MMO - at least some of us - aren't "masochists who enjoy dying and wasting hours of our lives"... to the contrary, we enjoy the heightened sense of knowing what the penalties are for failure. We don't like dying either... we simply enjoy the fact that avoiding it is *that* much more meaningful (in gameplay terms) than it would be if dying carried no penalty beyond negligible gear damage. It's a time-old concept, especially in games, the greater the risk, the sweeter the reward.

My thoughts

A PVE game with a significant death penalty where the player can balance risk by playing intelligently is reasonable for players who want more of a challenge.

A PVP game with a significant death penalty often does not allow a player to balance risk with intelligent play. In many games with a PVP focus a player through no fault of their own can lose significant progress to other players who's main goal is to grief or gank.

I personally like a fair playing field. If I am subject to harsh penalties then by playing intelligently and skillfully I should be able to mitigate those penalties. If I am unable to migate the risk I through intelligent or skillfull play I am out of there. 

So a more significant death penalty in a PVE game could be enjoyable for some but I don't see it happing due to the overall trend in gaming.

I don't hate the trend. MMOs are in theory supposed to be a social setting for people to play together and have fun. If this trend allows more people to experience the MMO genre then cool.

Originally posted by uttaus

My thoughts

A PVE game with a significant death penalty where the player can balance risk by playing intelligently is reasonable for players who want more of a challenge. 

Harsh death penalty isn't challenge.  It's penalty.  Penalty is what happens when you fail the challenge.

I want challenge.  I don't want excessive penalty.

Originally posted by Axehilt

Originally posted by uttaus

My thoughts

A PVE game with a significant death penalty where the player can balance risk by playing intelligently is reasonable for players who want more of a challenge. 

 

Harsh death penalty isn't challenge.  It's penalty.  Penalty is what happens when you fail the challenge.

I want challenge.  I don't want excessive penalty.

The penalty doesn't create the challenge, the penalty is by which you measure your successes. Without having ever seen darkness, by what do you measure light?

Sorry for the analogy lol, but I think it fits.  If I overcome a challenge, but there was no risk involved, I would view that victory with indifference.  Where no penalty is applied, you can simply keep losing over and over again until you finally win, but that would not be much of a victory in my mind.

Suppose you saw a clown walking the highwire at a circus, with harnesses attached to him and a safety net underneath, then at the next ring the same act is happening with no harness or net, which clown would you be more interested in, and which would get more enjoyment from his accomplishments?

I'm not saying that enjoying a game without penalties is wrong or impossible, but I am saying that there are plenty of people who would rather have the penalties there, because of how they amplify success when overcoming the challenges.

Why are there no death penalties in fps'?

Originally posted by spades07

Why are there no death penalties in fps'?

Because you are in God mode.

The penalty doesn't create the challenge, the penalty is by which you measure your successes. Without having ever seen darkness, by what do you measure light?

Sorry for the analogy lol, but I think it fits. If I overcome a challenge, but there was no risk involved, I would view that victory with indifference. Where no penalty is applied, you can simply keep losing over and over again until you finally win, but that would not be much of a victory in my mind.

This is totally stupid. You measure you success by how tough the challenge is, not by how much meaningless penalty after a failure.

Just take boss fight ... even if you lose nothing but only your time, don't you think people feel better beating hard mode then normal mode. In fact, that is how FPS are designed because no matter how hard it is, they do NOT add unnecessarily penalty after you die. And don't tell me PvP FPS has no challenge.

Ditto for challenge in other areas, even work. There is no penalty if you try and fail to solve the P=NP (one of those million dollar math problem) except your time. However, whoever solves it gets a Field's medal. Now tell me it is not worthwhile to do just because no one asked you to sit in a box for 1 month if you fail.

The last line "you can simply keep losing over and over again until you finally win" is totally stupid. No one can win a hard mode boss fight by simply lose again and again. You need to learn to play the fight. Less than 2% players ever beat Sunwell. Tell me people can just win by trying and trying .. LOL.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

The penalty doesn't create the challenge, the penalty is by which you measure your successes. Without having ever seen darkness, by what do you measure light?

Sorry for the analogy lol, but I think it fits. If I overcome a challenge, but there was no risk involved, I would view that victory with indifference. Where no penalty is applied, you can simply keep losing over and over again until you finally win, but that would not be much of a victory in my mind.

This is totally stupid. You measure you success by how tough the challenge is, not by how much meaningless penalty after a failure.

Just take boss fight ... even if you lose nothing but only your time, don't you think people feel better beating hard mode then normal mode. In fact, that is how FPS are designed because no matter how hard it is, they do NOT add unnecessarily penalty after you die. And don't tell me PvP FPS has no challenge.

Ditto for challenge in other areas, even work. There is no penalty if you try and fail to solve the P=NP (one of those million dollar math problem) except your time. However, whoever solves it gets a Field's medal. Now tell me it is not worthwhile to do just because no one asked you to sit in a box for 1 month if you fail.

The last line "you can simply keep losing over and over again until you finally win" is totally stupid. No one can win a hard mode boss fight by simply lose again and again. You need to learn to play the fight. Less than 2% players ever beat Sunwell. Tell me people can just win by trying and trying .. LOL.

Well, less than 2% of players ever beat Sunwell, right? But how many players have tried to beat Sunwell, again and again and again, without beating it? I'm pretty sure those 2% didn't all do it in one go, they probably did it like, 6 times, and then finally finished it on the 7th or some crap.

Like, if death was some sort of ominous thing, like it probably should be, you know, since it's death, then people would be more wary about going into the dungeon. People leaving raids wouldn't happen because, hey, people would be thinking "man, I have to go to work soon, and I don't want that penalty of death for leaving, I'd better just not do this raid then"

Disconnects would still suck, but that's a problem with someone's internet or computer, it's not the game's fault.

Games like WoW are trying to keep many millions of players happy - people don't like death, so hey, let's make them eventually enjoy dying now and then. Wheee, look how fast my little legs go when I'm dead! Etc.

Originally posted by heremypet

Sorry for the analogy lol, but I think it fits.  If I overcome a challenge, but there was no risk involved, I would view that victory with indifference.  Where no penalty is applied, you can simply keep losing over and over again until you finally win, but that would not be much of a victory in my mind.

I just don't see this argument at all.  I understand risk is important for some players, but to say you can't have fun at all without risk is extremist, and you are very much in the minority with that sort of opinion.

One angle I could take is pointing out that you're playing a videogame, so there's no risk, so how could you ever have fun playing games?

Another angle I could take is that everything is a small risk -- dying in Halo and being sent back 10 seconds of gameplay just "cost" you 10 seconds of your time. 

I'll take your clown example a few steps further:

• Clown A still has no harness.  Now he's over a pit of molten lava.  With spikes.  But he's just walking a simple tightrope.
• Clown B still has a harness.  Now he juggles.  And ninja-flips between multiple tightropes, some of which are in constant lateral motion, others which are in constant rotation around a central pillar.

Clown B is far more interesting to watch.  The skill involved is many times greater, and the achievement would be many times more impressive.

Originally posted by Blazz

Originally posted by nariusseldon

The penalty doesn't create the challenge, the penalty is by which you measure your successes. Without having ever seen darkness, by what do you measure light?

Sorry for the analogy lol, but I think it fits. If I overcome a challenge, but there was no risk involved, I would view that victory with indifference. Where no penalty is applied, you can simply keep losing over and over again until you finally win, but that would not be much of a victory in my mind.

This is totally stupid. You measure you success by how tough the challenge is, not by how much meaningless penalty after a failure.

Just take boss fight ... even if you lose nothing but only your time, don't you think people feel better beating hard mode then normal mode. In fact, that is how FPS are designed because no matter how hard it is, they do NOT add unnecessarily penalty after you die. And don't tell me PvP FPS has no challenge.

Ditto for challenge in other areas, even work. There is no penalty if you try and fail to solve the P=NP (one of those million dollar math problem) except your time. However, whoever solves it gets a Field's medal. Now tell me it is not worthwhile to do just because no one asked you to sit in a box for 1 month if you fail.

The last line "you can simply keep losing over and over again until you finally win" is totally stupid. No one can win a hard mode boss fight by simply lose again and again. You need to learn to play the fight. Less than 2% players ever beat Sunwell. Tell me people can just win by trying and trying .. LOL.

Well, less than 2% of players ever beat Sunwell, right? But how many players have tried to beat Sunwell, again and again and again, without beating it? I'm pretty sure those 2% didn't all do it in one go, they probably did it like, 6 times, and then finally finished it on the 7th or some crap.

Like, if death was some sort of ominous thing, like it probably should be, you know, since it's death, then people would be more wary about going into the dungeon. People leaving raids wouldn't happen because, hey, people would be thinking "man, I have to go to work soon, and I don't want that penalty of death for leaving, I'd better just not do this raid then"

Disconnects would still suck, but that's a problem with someone's internet or computer, it's not the game's fault.

Games like WoW are trying to keep many millions of players happy - people don't like death, so hey, let's make them eventually enjoy dying now and then. Wheee, look how fast my little legs go when I'm dead! Etc.

As games like Eve and such have demonstrated, if you make the death penalty harsh, a smaller fraction of your player base will even take part.  Make it harsh enough, and players will not even bother with your game.  Its not like the time of UO, when there wasn't much of a choice. These days there are literally hundreds of games to play.  Your last demonstrates that you don't understand the basic reality that Blizzard obviously does... Or they wouldn't have almost 12 million players. That being that you play to your demographic. They have different modes for the various instances. If you want to try to face roll your way through one of the top tier boss fights on hard mode, I doubt you are going to be pleased at the result...

Corpse runs, experience loss, gear loss and all the rest of the barbaric relics of an earlier age of MMO development should stay buried in the past, where they so richly deserve to be.  There are other paths to this "challenge" that some seek. 

Originally posted by nariusseldon

This is totally stupid. You measure you success by how tough the challenge is, not by how much meaningless penalty after a failure.

Then by your logic, jumping a distance of 12 feet on a sidewalk, and jumping 12 feet between rail cars on a moving train are the same.  The challenge is identical.  But tell me, would your preparations for these two feats also be the same? What about the spectators, would they react the same? Would you're pulse be the same while you're jumping? Would you take the same amount of pride in either situation?  No, the only thing that is the same is the challenge, just about everything else is different.

I assume you play FPS where you respawn immediately after dying, what's the point?  I would prefer CS style FPS where when you die you wait until the end of the match.  You know it's funny how that style of FPS makes people play smarter, now why is that?  Doesn't sound "totally stupid" to me.

Originally posted by Axehilt

Originally posted by heremypet

Sorry for the analogy lol, but I think it fits.  If I overcome a challenge, but there was no risk involved, I would view that victory with indifference.  Where no penalty is applied, you can simply keep losing over and over again until you finally win, but that would not be much of a victory in my mind.

I just don't see this argument at all.  I understand risk is important for some players, but to say you can't have fun at all without risk is extremist, and you are very much in the minority with that sort of opinion.

One angle I could take is pointing out that you're playing a videogame, so there's no risk, so how could you ever have fun playing games?

Another angle I could take is that everything is a small risk -- dying in Halo and being sent back 10 seconds of gameplay just "cost" you 10 seconds of your time. 

I'll take your clown example a few steps further:

• Clown A still has no harness.  Now he's over a pit of molten lava.  With spikes.  But he's just walking a simple tightrope.
• Clown B still has a harness.  Now he juggles.  And ninja-flips between multiple tightropes, some of which are in constant lateral motion, others which are in constant rotation around a central pillar.

Clown B is far more interesting to watch.  The skill involved is many times greater, and the achievement would be many times more impressive.

You can say I'm extremist, minority, etc all you want, but that is largely speculation.

Your second angle answers your first in part, sure It's not life and death, but the risk is still win or lose, but that isn't the argument.  The argument is: what is a win for you isn't a win for me.  If one player beats an equally matched opponent, only to see him respawn and finish his last little sliver of life off, that is not a win to me.  Sure PvP in MMOs aren't fair, but that  is partially why I like it, you can call that extremist if you wish, but killing a level 60 sorc at 40, or taking on 2 or 3 even cons, that's what it's about =P

You ignored my clown scenario, I'll look at your when you at least acknowledge it.

oh yeah a poster above is right there is death penalties with fps' (1) where maybe you have to run back a fair distance to a fighting location or (2) where you must wait till a round is over or (3) where you must wait a certain amount of seconds especially in TF2 attack-defence maps.

In mmos maybe it's a little harder to justify it's existance unless it has some sort of tactical implication like it's battlegrounds. Though in terms of a roleplaying game, having a sort of corpse that you must get back to is a depth on one level, but when you the whole meat of the game is repeated xping, and death then maybe it's very questionable it's there. In fact, as I'll repeat on every death penalty thread- the best sort of death penalty if there is one is one where you lose bonuses from being alive. Imagine being able to heal that extra bit quicker, or execute that extra crit just for not dieing- then dieing you simply would lose that. That wouldn't be a death penalty so much but an incentive not to die.

Incidentally the worst death penalty I ever saw was in AC2 when each time you died you had an xp debt to pay called vitae or whatever. And I remember that got stupidly long with the effect it just wasn't worth playing the character anymore.

---

Originally posted by Blazz

---

Originally posted by nariusseldon

The penalty doesn't create the challenge, the penalty is by which you measure your successes. Without having ever seen darkness, by what do you measure light?
Sorry for the analogy lol, but I think it fits. If I overcome a challenge, but there was no risk involved, I would view that victory with indifference. Where no penalty is applied, you can simply keep losing over and over again until you finally win, but that would not be much of a victory in my mind.
This is totally stupid. You measure you success by how tough the challenge is, not by how much meaningless penalty after a failure.
Just take boss fight ... even if you lose nothing but only your time, don't you think people feel better beating hard mode then normal mode. In fact, that is how FPS are designed because no matter how hard it is, they do NOT add unnecessarily penalty after you die. And don't tell me PvP FPS has no challenge.
Ditto for challenge in other areas, even work. There is no penalty if you try and fail to solve the P=NP (one of those million dollar math problem) except your time. However, whoever solves it gets a Field's medal. Now tell me it is not worthwhile to do just because no one asked you to sit in a box for 1 month if you fail.
The last line "you can simply keep losing over and over again until you finally win" is totally stupid. No one can win a hard mode boss fight by simply lose again and again. You need to learn to play the fight. Less than 2% players ever beat Sunwell. Tell me people can just win by trying and trying .. LOL.

---

Well, less than 2% of players ever beat Sunwell, right? But how many players have tried to beat Sunwell, again and again and again, without beating it? I'm pretty sure those 2% didn't all do it in one go, they probably did it like, 6 times, and then finally finished it on the 7th or some crap.
Like, if death was some sort of ominous thing, like it probably should be, you know, since it's death, then people would be more wary about going into the dungeon. People leaving raids wouldn't happen because, hey, people would be thinking "man, I have to go to work soon, and I don't want that penalty of death for leaving, I'd better just not do this raid then"
Disconnects would still suck, but that's a problem with someone's internet or computer, it's not the game's fault.
Games like WoW are trying to keep many millions of players happy - people don't like death, so hey, let's make them eventually enjoy dying now and then. Wheee, look how fast my little legs go when I'm dead! Etc.

---

But the lack of massive death penalty is what allows stuff like Sunwell to be hard. People at that level are pretty much playing at 100% so risk wouldn't make them any better. The best guilds brought their A games, knew the strategy exactly and still wiped HUNDREDS of times on M'uru. Nobody would ever do sunwell-difficulty stuff if if there was some kind of massive penalty for wiping. Hard raid bosses are based around "learn by wiping". There is no magical way of making everyone godlike so they can one-shot sunwell on their first visit there.

Originally posted by Murashu

Personally I love the idea of death penalties and corpse looting but I have many friends and guildmates who will not even consider a game if they hear player looting is involved. Most of them do not understand how different these type games are and why those mechanics are in the game.

 

In gear driven games like WoW, where someone might spend days/weeks farming for a certain item or EQ, where someone might spend weeks/months for an item, the idea of having those items looted by the first ganker to come along is a huge turn off. I played everyday for 9 months straight to get my clerics water sprinkler and I wont lie, I would cry like biatch if someone ever looted it.

 

In skill based games like EVE and DF, the gear you lose is typically crafted and most players have back up sets in the bank or hangar. In EVE I would lose 3-4 rifters a night during faction warfare but when I docked I would come out equipped in the identical ship/setup that I lost 30 seconds prior. Both in EVE and DF, your characters main strengths are not in your gear/ships (unlike WoW) but in your skills, which cannot be looted.

 

In order to have a game that allows player looting, you have to design a game based around a skill system or some other system that does not so heavily rely on gear as the main strength of your character. Then you have to educate those casual players that think player looting = losing their purple EPICS, so that they understand losing a piece of gear is not the end of the world. Even then, most of those players wont try it because there are plenty of games on the market that offer them cool rewards with zero risk, like a penguin for making a b.net account. You cant win against the penguin!

There is the telling point. In a grind game where the developers have deliberately set out to waste immense amounts of player time so they can tell their bosses "we're keeping them playing", a death penalty is huge to the player.

This is completely the developer's fault, and the blame must be laid on them. Games where there is a death penalty, but gear is not hard to come by, are much more fun than games where death isn't a problem, but you waste huge amounts of play time chasing gear. Examples are any FPS - the death penalty removes you from play and can make your side lose because you were out of the fight - and Planetside, where again, death removed you from play AND you may be unable to pull the gear (vehicles and special equipment) because your base had been hacked or had the gen blown in your absence.

Those are to me the perfect death penalties. You don't personally lose stats or anything, but you have to travel to rejoin the fight and your side might suffer because you failed. Translating this to an MMO game would mean that NPCs might not forge you a new uber sword of doom or ultimate armor of protection for awhile because your reputation has gone down, so you'd be forced to fight in regular or player-bought gear.

But of course, that would mean the end of the horrifically time-wasting gear grind, which players loathe beyond measure but are programmed to do as soon as they log in. Instead, developers would have to create a dynamic adventure system which gave you something new to do every time, and that's a lot more work for them than just filling up a store-bought engine with rat-killing quests and calling it a game :\

 I liked the Death Penalty on FFXI it made you stay on your toes when you just leveled because if you died you could lose that level and have to regain it now I'm unsure but I think it was you lose 10% of your current level cap or 5%. I think there should be a Death penalty in every game and not some lame lose durability.

Originally posted by heremypet

Your second angle answers your first in part, sure It's not life and death, but the risk is still win or lose, but that isn't the argument.  The argument is: what is a win for you isn't a win for me.  If one player beats an equally matched opponent, only to see him respawn and finish his last little sliver of life off, that is not a win to me.  Sure PvP in MMOs aren't fair, but that  is partially why I like it, you can call that extremist if you wish, but killing a level 60 sorc at 40, or taking on 2 or 3 even cons, that's what it's about =P

You ignored my clown scenario, I'll look at your when you at least acknowledge it.

What MMOs are you playing where players can respawn and finish off the last sliver of health?  In every MMORPG I've played, the reinforce (travel) and respawn time are much longer than the time it takes to regain health/mana to full out of combat.  Which means the only situation where it ever happens is if you're fighting multiple opponents (at which point it's part of the game's tactics and strategy to choose whether or not you want to engage such a large enemy force in the first place.)

I read your clown scenario.  The clown without the harness would be slightly more interesting.  The value of Risk isn't nonexistant for me, it just pales compared to how much I value Challenge and Reward.

Alas this thread isn't about the reasonable risks that are necessary for fun gameplay. This thread is about excessive risks.

Originally posted by heremypet

Originally posted by nariusseldon

This is totally stupid. You measure you success by how tough the challenge is, not by how much meaningless penalty after a failure.

Then by your logic, jumping a distance of 12 feet on a sidewalk, and jumping 12 feet between rail cars on a moving train are the same.  The challenge is identical.  But tell me, would your preparations for these two feats also be the same? What about the spectators, would they react the same? Would you're pulse be the same while you're jumping? Would you take the same amount of pride in either situation?  No, the only thing that is the same is the challenge, just about everything else is different.

I assume you play FPS where you respawn immediately after dying, what's the point?  I would prefer CS style FPS where when you die you wait until the end of the match.  You know it's funny how that style of FPS makes people play smarter, now why is that?  Doesn't sound "totally stupid" to me.

Who cares about the spectators? We are talking about GAMES here, not performing arts. And yes, the challenge is the same. The only difference is that no one is going to try to jump between moving trains because the penalty is so harsh .. and thus ... BAD for the "sport of jumping 12 feet".

Have you ever watched a little sport game called the OLYMPICS? You mean the long jump in the OLYMPICS is meaningless because there is not moving trains in between? LOL ...

Well, as someone said before, you are in teh minority preferring down-tijme and no fun activity. Of course I respawn immediately if I play FPS. The point is that i got to shoot more people. You play FPS to wait? I play FPS to have fun.