Originally posted by yaminsux

I dont have a good feeling with Dust 514, it just looked like a disaster waiting to happen. First off, PS3 only? I understand CCP wanted to tap into the console market, but restricting to only one console is just not a good move. Second FPS will always be better with keyboard + mouse.

BF-series sets the standard for online MP, I dont think Dust can meet that.

It was just announced yesterday that Dust 514 will support mouse/keyboard.  There goes half your argument.

Depends what you mean by 'social'.

EVE has an emphasis on PvP, and if you join a corp that is like-minded to what you want to do in the game, you will find a lot of people to talk to on a regular basis.  Voice chat and in-game channels always have people to talk to, but again you must seek out a good corp (guild) on your own and do your own research into the game.

It's not like anything you've ever played, so be prepared for a steep learning curve.  However, I personally feel that its community is one of the best of any MMO.  Yes, you'll find asshats.  You'll get those in any game, especially PvP games.  However, the harsh reality of the universe means that the groups of people you get along with will be that much better friends, joining together against the same harsh existence that everyone else has had to experience.

That may not make a lot of sense if you don't know much about the game, however I find EVE's community to be among the most -devoted- and helpful of any game I've played.  It's amazing how many people exist in that game solely to help other people.  The complex gameplay mechanics turn some people away, but the community does a wonderful job of helping ease people into the game and understand more and more of its intricacies.  There is even a corp that has been around for years now, called EVE University, that exists with the sole purpose of helping teach new players how to play the game and find something they want to do.  EVE will never hold your hand.  But the community might pick you back up after you fall, and help you so you don't fall again, or help it not hurt as much when you do.

Originally posted by baritone3k

"Dominate" was the reporter's word. Don't hold CCP to that.

 

 

Seriously, I find it kind of sad that so many people are so quick to jump down CCP's throats when the only time it is even mentioned is in the title of the article.

A player losing an item creates a demand for him to replace that item, thus purchasing from another player.  Granted, the item transfers to another player and it does not truly leave the economy.  That is why item destruction or permanent degredation is needed.

EVE Online is one of the only games on the market that fills this need.  Your ship is destroyed, as well as roughly half your fittings and cargo.  That half is then able to be looted by another player, and the other half is lost forever.  The loss is not AS devastating due to insurance, but the insurance payout doesn't cover all of the loss and so items are removed from the world permanently.

Again, don't assume death penalty will always be the same thing in every game.  You've said that themeparks have different takes on death penalty, yet you assume the death penalty in sandbox games is always the same exact thing.

And finally, why wont you answer what I said about ArcheAge?  Wasn't that the ENTIRE focus of your original post?  You stated a game had permadeath (it doesn't) and asked why all sandboxes have to have a harsh death penalty.  Well right there in your OP, your idea of a harsh death penalty is permadeath.

So clarify what your idea of a harsh death penalty is, excluding permadeath.  You're the one trying to incite a discussion here.  At least make your stance clear for the people involved in it.  :)

Is item loss of any kind too harsh?  Is item degredation too harsh?  Is XP penalty too harsh?  Is stat penalty too harsh?  Is a corpse run to recover crafting materials too harsh?  (for clarification, ArcheAge's death penalty involves crafting materials being dropped on death)

Edit:  And I did not say full looting.  I loathe the idea of full loot in a fantasy game.  In Everquest, you dropped everything on death and while enemies couldn't loot everything, it was absolutely terrible to have to run all the way to your body completely naked.  That is my idea of -too- harsh a death penalty.  Again, seems like you're brushing over a lot of my points and just continuing on without contemplating what I'm saying.

Originally posted by MMOExposed

Originally posted by Sheista

Feel like nearly everything you've been discussing has been addressed in my posts, yet it's as if you're ignoring about 75% of what I'm saying and picking parts of it that suit your argument.  (Yes, I know that wasn't my post, but mine addressed all that and much more)

The death penalty is just one cog in the machine.  Without it, other functions cease to work.  Likewise, without certain other features existing, death penalty ceases to have meaning.

 

You keep saying something about how this and that cease to work without death Penality. Yet I am still waiting for you to prove your argument. Because I seen MMO with both PvP and PvE, even PvPvE, without need for harsh Death Penality. What you say about PvP in Guild Wars2 pal? What about raiding in Cat WoW? Were the harsh Death Penality that you claim is needed for anything to be meaningful?

I don't know about Guild Wars 2 PvP.  See, I can admit when I don't understand a concept.  :)

As far as raiding in WoW, raiding just takes time. 

WoW has been my entire 'go-to' comparison for lack of meaning here, so it's become a lot more obvious that you simply aren't reading most of it, or that most of it is going right over your head.  Pal.  :)

What is the point of getting better gear in WoW?  To wait for the next expansion so that you can get even better gear?  Sounds soooo meaningful.  What is there to craft in WoW?  Gear that is made useless by gear that you get from raids?  Gear that is worth virtually nothing to other players because there is such a flood of it on the market.  I strongly urge you to go back and read my posts.  There is a lot more to them than describing a 'cog in the machine'.

You asked what the purpose of a death penalty is.  I gave you the purpose with my very first post.  That reason wasn't good enough for you, because you wanted to build things.  Then, I went on to describe even more reasons and ways that a death penalty is necessary for a sandbox game to be a true sandbox.  Because it affects so much more.  Keeping in mind we are NOT discussing PERMADEATH.  Because in your original post, the game which started this whole discussion, does NOT have PERMADEATH.

If permadeath is not the subject, then what do you feel is a harsh death penalty?  You spoke of item degredation as a potential death penalty.  I agree with item degredation.  It is necessary.  Item loss is also necessary.  Only by removing an item from a player can you give purpose to crafting (ie; you wanting to build things).

So maybe you should clarify what your idea of a harsh death penalty is, excluding permadeath.

I would like to reiterate once more in case you missed it, ArcheAge does not have permadeath and I don't know why you came to this conclusion that it does.

So permadeath aside, the harsh penalty we are discussing is item loss and item destruction, which go hand in hand IMO.

Only when you remove items completely from the world do you create a demand for crafters to supply.

Feel like nearly everything you've been discussing has been addressed in my posts, yet it's as if you're ignoring about 75% of what I'm saying and picking parts of it that suit your argument.  (Yes, I know that wasn't my post, but mine addressed all that and much more)

The death penalty is just one cog in the machine.  Without it, other functions cease to work.  Likewise, without certain other features existing, death penalty ceases to have meaning.

Also, re-reading your initial post.. I don't know where you get this impression that ArcheAge has perma-death.  It does not.

Originally posted by MMOExposed
I build up this awesome city of gems and wonder. 1 hour later a group of gankers come to my city and murder /pk all my city citizens as well as myself. Perma-Death kicks in, and now my character is gone, and meaningless nobody in the history of the world.

You're not looking at the total package.  You build this awesome city of gems and wonder.  First, I'd have to ask why you want to build this city?  What do you intend to happen in this city, and how do you intend to attract players to your city? If it was possible for -anyone- to do this, what is going to make anyone come to your city?  If there was no death penalty, no item loss, anyone would be capable of doing this.  Your city would no longer be unique.  Nobody would come to it, because there is a better one made by someone more popular just up the road.  It only took time, as there was no challenge to it.  Someone playing longer than you was able to make a better, bigger city because they had more money and had never experienced loss.

What is the purpose of your city?  Do you want people to sell things there?  Why would they sell things there when items hold very little value?

Let's assume people DO want to come to your city now.. what about all the people who are there?  Are they completely helpess?  Why is there a city with no group of people intent on protecting it?  You're not factoring other people completely into the formula.  You're only looking at the bad.

That group of gankers... which is just a negative term in general.  What if they're a rival guild, with whom your guild has been at war with for the past year?  Suddenly, someone says in guild chat "Just spotted a group of 25 kill-on-sights coming towards Diamond City" (idk, example)  Your guild, or a guild that calls your city home, rallies together and fights an epic battle that lasts an hour before the attackers are thoroughly defeated and decide to eat their losses and go home.  Your guild celebrates and takes all their loot, contributing the winnings to further bettering the city they live in.

Do you see what I am getting at?  There is far more to all of these situations than you're taking into account.  Add other players into the equation, and they will come together.  The communities in any sandbox game I have ever played have always been far closer and tightly knit than the communities of any themepark I've played.  The reason for this stems from the somewhat harsh existance that new players experience from the time they start in the game to the time they reach 'max' or high-end content.  Everyone went through it, so everyone understands it and is stronger because of it.

Originally posted by MMOExposed

Originally posted by jadedlevir

Originally posted by MMOExposed

 

 

Problem here is, when it comes to sandbox MMO, unlike THEMEPARK MMO,

I want to build things in the world,,,, not die. Death is not what excites me about a sandbox MMO. The freedom to build things is what attracts me. Why should Death Mechanics rule over that?

Because their's other players in a sandbox who want the freedom to be murderers, or pirates, or conquerers. If you got over your dislike of losing pixels, and realized it really isn't a big deal at all, you'd find a fun sandbox to paly in by joining likeminded players and helping each other prosper. But in the end, full loot and ffa opens up so many different gameplay situations that wouldn't be available otherwise.

 

If you really can't get over stuff like harsh death penalties, you could always play eve high sec, minecraft, terraria, runescape, wait for archage,fallen earth,  or wait for something else to come along

 

But the thing is, I can murder, pirate, and conquer in a game without harsh Death Penalty as well. The death penalty has nothing to do with that actually. That's why my point stands. In a sandbox I was to build and create. Death isn't on my mind. I am sure most people don't play minecraft, for the failure. They play it because they enjoy the building and creation. No sandbox developer ever seems to think outside the box on this topic. As I pointed out, the THEMEPARK developers make many different MMO with different levels of death penalty. Sandbox MMO, never give players the freedom like THEMEPARK MMO. They all have harsh death penalty.

First off, to your latest reply (which I didn't quote here), nobody is talking about permadeath.  I don't think the majority of sandbox lovers support permadeath.  I certainly don't, and that is not what I'm discussing here.

As for the quoted post, sure you can do those things in other games, except there is no purpose to them in those games.  I can camp and gank noobs all day in WoW if I want to.  What does it get me at the end of the day?  Nothing.  Congrats on wasted time.  What can those noobs do to get revenge on me?  Nothing.  They can't hurt me.  I ruined their day and they can't do a single thing about it.  Even their high level friend, come to save the day, can't get revenge.  Oh look, he killed me.  Guess I'll call it a day.

Past that point however, Sandboxes involve a great plethora of features which work like a well oiled machine.  A death penalty is one of those features that affects MANY, MANY aspects of the game.  From combat, to crafting, to questing, to the items you decide to use, to the people you associate with.  All these various features of a sandbox game would mean nothing if not for another feature most of the time.  There are many things that contribute to a sandbox feeling like a living breathing world.  A sandbox, to me at least, is a world ran by its players.  There may be a story implemented by the developers, but it is not why I play the game.  I play a sandbox because of the interactions I have with other people.

Perhaps what you're asking for is just a themepark in which you can build things, because there is much more to a sandbox game than a harsh death penalty.  It is the entire package and the experience it creates.  EVE is possibly the best example of this I can reference.  It has places for players who don't want to experience PvP, and places for people who do.  However, even in empire space, the things people craft and create have a purpose due to the people who play that do PvP in the more dangerous parts of the game.

You seem to have a very close-minded view on what's possible in sandbox games, especially saying that sandbox developers dont think outside the box.  If all you can focus on is a harsh death penalty, then it's apparent who really isn't thinking outside the box.

A harsh death penalty doesn't have to be the same thing in every game.  As I described in Asheron's Call, that death penalty is very different from say EVE or Darkfall.  Similarly, the ability to 'build things' does not define a sandbox game.  Again, it is a complete experience.  Giving players the freedom to use game mechanics to create purpose and give new objectives that the developers couldn't even forsee.  That is a sandbox.

Originally posted by MMOExposed

Originally posted by Sheista

A proper death penalty gives purpose to combat.  In a game like WoW, dying means nothing.  Literally nothing.  There is no adrenaline rush from dying, because when you die there is no penalty.

My best explanation for why a death penalty is good, is back in Asheron's Call.  PvP in that game, was -intense-.  A fight could last anywhere from 30 seconds, to 30 minutes.  It was a largely skill based (and I mean player skill) game, which meant that if you died it was 'mostly' your fault.  Character skill came into account, but not as much as a player's ability to fight.

It wasn't a terrible penalty.  You didn't drop everything you had.  However, you dropped a number of items based on their value, and if they had dropped recently.  The higher level you were, the more items you dropped.  While this system exactly isn't the answer, a modified system like this could certainly be.

You also got a 5% penalty to all of your skills which was worked off via earning XP (you still got to keep the XP and spend it on skills, it didn't just get eaten by the penalty).  This penalty could stack up to a cap of 40%.  While I feel the cap is a little high and unforgiving, a modified version of this could also work well in modern sandboxes.

The purpose of all this, was to make you truly want to not die.  When you died, it took you out of the action.  You couldn't just run back to a fight and attack again.  If you were involved in a 1vs2 or something like that, and you killed one of the 2 people attacking you, it evened the odds.  They weren't back in 30 seconds.

The adrenaline rush I got from the fights in this game, even in PvE, have never been matched by any of the dozens of MMOs I have played since.  Too harsh a penalty such as in Everquest when all of your gear was dropped, made it a huge pain to get back to your body since you'd be naked.  It could cripple you.  Too weak a penalty such as in WoW, and death was completely, and I do mean -completely- meaningless.  It was a time sink, that just made me run back to my body or rez at the spirit healer and repair my gear.  Nothing but a pointless timesink.  I lost nothing but time and it was more annoying than anything.

Anyways, I've rambled on and on... the point of a death penalty is the unmatched adrenaline rush you will get.  If you succeed and kill the other person, there is just something satisfying about taking their stuff.  And if the penalty is right, that stuff isn't necessarily their best stuff, but it's still rewarding.

In a modern game such as EVE, taking part in fights is exhilerating when you know that your ship can be blown up and your fittings will be lost.  Just the same, there is nothing more rewarding than winning a fight and scooping up someone else's loot as your own.

 

Problem here is, when it comes to sandbox MMO, unlike THEMEPARK MMO,

I want to build things in the world,,,, not die. Death is not what excites me about a sandbox MMO. The freedom to build things is what attracts me. Why should Death Mechanics rule over that?

I should have quoted this to respond directly to your question.  Anyways, if building things is what you enjoy, then a death penalty is not going to take away from that.  It is not going to conquer you unless you let it.

Surely there is a reason you want to build things.  Is it for money?  Is it so other people can see what you've done?  Is it for recognition, knowing other people are using the items you created?

My examples of EVE Online cover that aspect nicely, IMO.  Death penalty and item loss gives crafters purpose.  Otherwise, crafting is like WoW, where crafting is just a lesser alternative to raiding or attaining PvP gear.  Crafting is generally useless past a certain point.

It certainly wasn't everything in Asheron's Call, so I don't know why you seem to think it 'has' to be everything in any other MMO.  A -true- sandbox game is about creating the most immersive and 'world'-like experience possible.  It's exciting, new, huge.  You never know what is going to happen.  There is a purpose to everything; or there -can- be a purpose to everything.  A player may come up with a purpose for something that the developers didn't even intend.  Without a death penalty, combat - a HUGE part of ANY game - is meaningless.  It's just a way to constantly get better with no challenge.  There would be no feeling of reward for accomplishing something great.

I also feel that in a true sandbox, a player-ran economy is a necessity.  Potential item loss or destruction of some kind creates a constant need for new items.  This gives crafters a purpose.  If your idea of fun is building things, what happens when nobody wants what you have created?  Or if there are so many of them because there is no loss, that your item has no value, or that X piece from raid set 10 is always going to be better than anything you can make, so what's the point?

In a game like EVE, items are NOT the goal.  Nobody plays the game only because they want the biggest ship (ok, unless your goal IS to fly a Titan).  They play for the experience.  Achieving the greater goal of a corporation.  Expanding and conquering more space.  If you're a crafter, you create items because you want other players to buy them.  If there is no loss, then nobody will want them.

A proper death penalty gives purpose to combat.  In a game like WoW, dying means nothing.  Literally nothing.  There is no adrenaline rush from dying, because when you die there is no penalty.

My best explanation for why a death penalty is good, is back in Asheron's Call.  PvP in that game, was -intense-.  A fight could last anywhere from 30 seconds, to 30 minutes.  It was a largely skill based (and I mean player skill) game, which meant that if you died it was 'mostly' your fault.  Character skill came into account, but not as much as a player's ability to fight.

It wasn't a terrible penalty.  You didn't drop everything you had.  However, you dropped a number of items based on their value, and if they had dropped recently.  The higher level you were, the more items you dropped.  While this system exactly isn't the answer, a modified system like this could certainly be.

You also got a 5% penalty to all of your skills which was worked off via earning XP (you still got to keep the XP and spend it on skills, it didn't just get eaten by the penalty).  This penalty could stack up to a cap of 40%.  While I feel the cap is a little high and unforgiving, a modified version of this could also work well in modern sandboxes.

The purpose of all this, was to make you truly want to not die.  When you died, it took you out of the action.  You couldn't just run back to a fight and attack again.  If you were involved in a 1vs2 or something like that, and you killed one of the 2 people attacking you, it evened the odds.  They weren't back in 30 seconds.

The adrenaline rush I got from the fights in this game, even in PvE, have never been matched by any of the dozens of MMOs I have played since.  Too harsh a penalty such as in Everquest when all of your gear was dropped, made it a huge pain to get back to your body since you'd be naked.  It could cripple you.  Too weak a penalty such as in WoW, and death was completely, and I do mean -completely- meaningless.  It was a time sink, that just made me run back to my body or rez at the spirit healer and repair my gear.  Nothing but a pointless timesink.  I lost nothing but time and it was more annoying than anything.

Anyways, I've rambled on and on... the point of a death penalty is the unmatched adrenaline rush you will get.  If you succeed and kill the other person, there is just something satisfying about taking their stuff.  And if the penalty is right, that stuff isn't necessarily their best stuff, but it's still rewarding.

In a modern game such as EVE, taking part in fights is exhilerating when you know that your ship can be blown up and your fittings will be lost.  Just the same, there is nothing more rewarding than winning a fight and scooping up someone else's loot as your own.

Further, this sort of speculation about the marketing decisions for a game has nothing to do with the quality of the game.  There has been virtually no information about this game outside of a few developer videos and a few vague articles about the guns and vehicles in the game.  To predict failure before the product has been seen in its entirety or even remotely near finished quality, is ridiculous.

If there was any precedent set before this that said all of this was possible with no problems, you MIGHT.. a very emphasised MIGHT, have a point.  But the fact that none of this has ever been done before (the linking and interaction between 2 games and 2 communities), means this is all uncharted territory.

I question your ability to make the tough decisions if it were you working for a company attempting to do this.

You seem to have focused on very small points while ignoring the bulk of my post.  There are many reasons they chose PS3 over other systems, and at the end of the day, if they KNOW that it has potential to tank initially and are prepared for that, then I trust they have a solid gameplan for the future of the game.

You seem to assume it's easy to develop a game for multiple platforms.  A game, that will be groundbreaking with its concept. A game linked to an already established game's world and lore, that takes place on planets that exist in that game's world.  Imagine the complications with adding a second platform to that game.  Or a third.  Imagine trying to link 3 separate platforms, allowing them to all play together, roll out content and patch them together, balance them together, connect their communites.

Again, there were many factors that likely led them to this decision.  Microsoft wasn't willing to compromise with their patching process.  If it takes 2 weeks or a month longer to release a patch to the Xbox version, there is an instant discontinuity within the game.

I really don't think you've thought about this very thoroughly at all.  Your disdain for their decision seems to be a kneejerk reaction.  "I'm mad they didn't make it for a system I can play on"

You're not looking at this from a development standpoint, and you're acting like it is easy to develop a game, let alone on multiple platforms, while allowing those platforms to play together.  If the platforms couldn't play together, the entire concept would have been shattered from the start.

I have a very nice PC, and I would love for them to have made it a PC game.  For several reasons.  However, I understand their reasoning, and it seems Sony was the most willing to work with them to deliver on their vision.  It also means the hardware variance from player to player will not be an issue, nor will programming for multiple sets of hardware.. ie; nvidia vs ati, amd vs intel, etc.  There are a number of things that COULD go wrong in that, and it seems to me like they weren't prepared to devote those kinds of resources to this project while still focusing on their main money maker; EVE Online.

Quoted from CCP interview

"“If we don’t hit 6m in the first couple of months, that’s fine, that’s not what we’re really going for. We’re going for what we’ve seen in the CCP part of the world, and really with Eve, that it’s not about that one hit, buy the game and then you’re done. It’s about acquiring a user and keeping them for a year, two years, three years… If you look at the lifetime value of player in that sense, it’s so much more than that $60 you get from a box.”"

The PS3 is not coming to the end of its life cycle.  If it was, so would the 360.  The PS3's superior hardware likely means it will slightly outlast even the 360.  Either that, or both systems will announce their next generation system about the same time in order to compete.

Second, the 360 was not chosen because of the way Microsoft handles patches.  They would not have been able to keep multiple versions of the game (PS3 and 360) on the same patch cycle, and thus it would have been impossible for them to keep the players in the same universe.  It would have been a far more difficult, if not impossible task to make the game for 2 consoles, let alone 2 consoles AND PC.  So to that, my question would be "Were -you- even thinking when you criticized?"

Third, Sony worked out a better deal with them than Microsoft is what it came down to.  They were far more willing to work with them on making such an ambitious project work than Microsoft was willing to do.

It would be far too imbalancing to mix PC with console users.  PC users would ALWAYS have the advantage due to their control scheme vs consoles, and it would not be a 'fair' experience.  PS3 also allows them to essentially let players play for free.  There -will- be pay options if players want to purchase in-game money, however the fact that no subscription is required is a much more user friendly option than requiring players to pay for an Xbox live subscription as well as in-game costs.  If it was on multiple systems, the PS3 would have an advantage over the 360 in that regard and again, it would be an unfair experience.

While I personally would have preferred it be on PC solely, and not consoles, I do also own a PS3 and 360 and I will gladly purchase it on PS3.  Not going with PC allows for fewer hacks and exploits as well, as is typically the bane of PC shooters in the long run.

CCP have stated that they intend to nurture the game's player base long into the future with content updates and additional gameplay as it goes on.  In fact, there was an article that stated that CCP is -prepared- for Dust to tank at release, and that they intend to find a niche playerbase and nurture it as they have done with EVE over the years, and perhaps eventually grow it and attract more and more people to it.  It is not going to be your typical shooter that gets thrown aside when the next big thing comes out.  It is going to be a game that requires some devotion over time.  It will grow and develop, and players will feel an attachment to the world, their characters, and their corp.  It is an MMO.

As said, Asheron's Call was light years ahead of the competition.  It's a pity they lost the battle with Sony's Everquest as the mainstay of modern MMORPGs.

It's MW3, who cares?