The amount of people talking about how great women are at gaming have given me the need to write this reply.

It's clear that women game, especially since the popularity of social gaming has risen. I think the thought that "women don't play videogames" is less prominent than you imagine. There's always going to be some people that are ignorant and make claims like this. If there's anything to talk about it's how annoying some girls are about letting others know that they are in fact female and they they do in fact play videogames. Making an article like this is exactly what "girl gamers" do. They go onto servers and they announce to everyone that they play games and make a big fucking deal about it. By "girl gamers" I am of course referring to the very specific type of female gamer that people loathe running into both online and off who bitch and moan anytime they are criticised and constantly talk about themselves instead of playing the game (and distracting us until we mute them). Nobody cares that you're a female gamer and that female gamers are able to hold their own in videogames except maybe other females that want to pat their own ego by acknowledging the article. Devoting an entire article to this is just...ugh.

Also, female gamers have never...eeeeever...had as much of a prominent role in competitive gaming as men have. In the past, it has been the case that women almost always underperform compared to the men (see: CGS and pretty much every serious eSports competition ever) and in other cases blatantly cheated (see the Counter-Strike Women's All-Stars game) their way to mediocrity. I'm not pointing out that women can never be as good as men in competitive gaming, but I am making the point that men are more reliable, in general, at high-level play.

When it comes to selecting teammates or guild mates for any game, I am almost always going to go into the situation with higher expectation for the male (although I'm going to pick the best person either way). That's just honesty on my part. The Museum of Tolerance has a whole thing about how we all have prejudice, and to pretend that you don't is simply assinine.

Until the vast majority of women that make their presence as a woman known in games isn't trying to make a big deal about how they're a female, or until I stop running into girls that claim they are gamers who actually only play WoW or [insert recent game that is actually just an interactive movie here] and don't give a shit about anything else in the industry, or attempt to become the leader of the guild despite the fact that there are better people suited for the task, or throw temper tantrums everytime they get criticised...

I have every reason to believe that there are differences between men and women that do effect our relationship in game and not only that, but also how we play and our ability to deal with the challenges in front of us.

Originally posted by ActionMMORPG

My day...

1. grind materials

2. travel to get rare crafting pattern

3. on the way back to town get slaughtered multiple times by a corpse camping griefer

 

= Adventure?

 

That's going to be a tough one to sell to a mass appeal audience.

If you only had the imagination to realize a game could exist that doesn't share your exact Character Level to everyone else, including your hunter, and that in that type of game people would be much less inclined to attack you.

OR

If only you had the imagination to realize a game could exist where you could escape from that PK.

OR

If only you had the imagination to realize a game could exist where your corpse couldn't be "camped."

OR

If only you had the imagination to realize a game could exist where acquiring those materials wasn't a chore.

OR

If only you had the imagination to realize a game could exist that isn't exactly the ONE WAY you can imagine it happening because of your lack of experience and your stubbornness.

Somehow, to you:

1. grind materials

2. travel to get rare crafting pattern

3. get back to town

= Adventure?

I'm confused...did you see this coming when you made that point? Do 3 mundane tasks add up to 1 Adventure? No, they don't.

I'll take one of my examples from above:

1. Grind materials

2. Travel to get rare crafting pattern

3. On the way back to town, get ambushed by a bloodthirsty player

4. Narrowly escape from the other player

= Adventure

Originally posted by Talinguard

Originally posted by kaydinv

Really? You were so dumbfounded by my post that all you could muster was a shallow and innacurate insult?

You immature dults are so spoiled by the games that get made annually for your pleasure. The MMORPG market is oversaturated with pointless, instanced "Battleground PVP" and easy mode "PVE" with no consequence for failure MMORPG's yet the people in this thread claim that it's the "PVP crowd" that can't be satisfied. There's so fucking many of the "WoW, ME TOO," games yet everyone is drifting along waiting for "that one MMO" except the people playing WoW.

You sit there with your shit-eating grins, pondering amongst the endless amounts of games that are made "for your tastes" only to never be satisfied and then blame it on everyone else. If you idiots would listen to the "vocal minority," you might find that there's actually progress to be made in this genre instead of slapping eachother's asses while you debate about whether or not "PVE, PVP and Crafting could all exist in ONE GAME!?!??!" when it's been done before in the past...successfully.

It's the morons buying every game, preordering SWTOR because it's FACT that it's going to be AMAZING even though there's no reason to believe that and standing behind concepts like consensual PVP only while slandering the idea of nonconsensual PVP that you've never experienced or were too immature to actually give any real consideration that hold back this genre from actually becoming about the adventure again.

Why do you assume I fit in that category?  You do the same thing you assume I did to you then you fling yourself into a childish tirade, twice and wonder why I respond with a low grade insult....

You want to put you big boy pants on, I would be glad to discuss, or debate any point you would like to address...

Cheers....

That's not true and you know it. Don't try and bullshit your way out of this.

You lumped me into the PVP crowd and then I explained to you where I really stand.

You claim I did the same thing but you don't clarify what category you think I lumped you into? Why don't you explain that part? Sorry, it's not good enough to just tell someone they're "wrong" in a debate and then turn around and pretend your argument landed you fucking child. No one awards you any points. You don't "win." You haven't contributed anything to ANY argument at all.

In my last post, the first sentence was the only part where I addressed to you.
 

Originally posted by psyclum

Originally posted by kaydinv

I read all but 2 or 3 posts and none of the things anyone has suggested have been innovative. Your ideas are actually less innovative than the uncreative devs that make modern MMORPG's.

Here's a tip to try and help you guys out: It's not innovative if your description includes "like but better," or  " with more emphasis on ."

That eliminates 90% of the suggestions so far.

 

Good luck, all!

hum   very preceptive you are....

but do consider the following,

"like but better like a 20 inch gun on a battleship"

or

" with more emphasis on "?

or maybe

"like but better like a space shuttle with 2 million pounds of rocket fuel"?:D

the over generalization of your descriptions is exactly how changes occur.  believe it or not, most human advancements have been "improvements" over existing ideas....  and to say improvement over existing MMO's is not a valid suggestion shows just how much contribution YOU are actually making:D

Except I DIDN'T say improvement wasn't a valid suggestion for anything.

Read the OP champ. This thread is about "innovations."

The way you jump to conclusions like a baboon indicates how much relevant contribution YOU actually make =\

I read all but 2 or 3 posts and none of the things anyone has suggested have been innovative. Your ideas are actually less innovative than the uncreative devs that make modern MMORPG's.

Here's a tip to try and help you guys out: It's not innovative if your description includes "like <other game> but better," or  "<currently existing feature> with more emphasis on <currently existing element of previously mentioned feature>."

That eliminates 90% of the suggestions so far.

Good luck, all!

Originally posted by nickman1993ask?!

How do you play your MMO's?

What the fuck is with the options in this poll? How do you play Sandbox? Why is there not Themepark or Casual if there's Sandbox and Hardcore? Somehow Sandbox is mutually exclusive from PvE and PvP?

WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON?

OP, I'm glad this works for you to some degree but I really think it isn't your responsibility, as the customer, to make a product worthwhile. In fact, I hate people like you for supporting games that you know are boring and uninspiring and are not willing to wait for a company to deliver a product that is actually enjoyable.

You're right that we bought into the journey in the early days, but we can still buy into that journey today. One major problem with MMORPG's today is that transparency of the game. If weapons didn't tell us exactly how fast they attacked and for how much damage, if we couldn't see the level of the person standing next to us at the bank or the enemy we're about to engage and if other information wasn't presented to us in this half-assed manner, then we could buy into that journey again. We need ignorance to do that...we need uncertainty.

The above, along with several other retarded and archaic MMORPG staples like aggro systems, UI driven gameplay (god, WoW might as well be a MUD cause theres no reason to look at what's actually happening on screen), super-fast leveling, "end game" focus, non-challenging gameplay, etc...are what keep this genre the piece of shit that it is. The MMORPG genre isn't even reaching towards it's real potential, and games like Rifts and SWTOR that are coming out in the future are following this same uninspired bullshit path.

Just fixing the part that you're complaining about would do wonders for the genre and it starts with eliminating the transparency littered throughout modern MMORPG's...

Originally posted by Itchy01

Not sure if I can post this here but......

http://thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=epic

 

Thank you, for posting that. I haven't read his site in a long time. That article is amazing.

Originally posted by donkeys

Originally posted by pierth

Except to follow your analogy, those bicycling vets are still paying for bikes with training wheels. If they'd knock that sh!t off

Aye. Try before you buy!

Stop pre-ordering bikes please people >_<.

People would rather be stupid with their freedom of will than take obviously good advice.

A lot of people think that they're being smart by buying a game and cancelling their sub if they don't like it. They really need to just stop and only do free trials or hear players reviews. Unfortunately, we all know a ton of people are going to buy SWTOR before they do any research, giving Bioware tons of money for what will probably be a mediocre game. Investors and developers alike will see this and begin working on their next  MOVIE IP BASED MMORPG THAT PLAYS JUST LIKE WOW because it's pretty much guaranteed success with how fucking moronic the large majority of MMORPG players are.

Ugh.

Originally posted by lizardbones

 

---

Originally posted by kaydinv

---

Originally posted by CzechGuy
 I think MMO developers need to value my playstyle as much as anyone else. We all pay the same subscription fees so we should all have access to the same content and have the same ability to beat that content and get all the rewards...
Really? So if I buy tickets to a soccer game and run onto the field or punch other spectators, by your logic my spectatestyle should be as valued as anyone else because I bought tickets? Sounds like you believe the world centers around you.
You're suppose to buy the products that best match your personal preferences. Within the world of gaming the best kind of product for you would be a single-player adventure of epic proportions. It shouldn't be that every game caters to your specific preference. In fact, that's the whole reason that MMO's have sucked hard for the past 6 or 7 years, they've been trying to cater to people like you.
When i play MMO's i see myself as the hero who sets out on a great adventure who slowly gets more powerful until he defeats the greatest evil in the world...
This is the antithesis of heroism. It is not heroic to basically climb the ladder of progression until you can safely defeat your nemesis. Being heroic means being brave or courageous. What you described is nothing like that.
...There is no Group in MMORPG.
Some people would argue that the second M in MMORPG (multiplayer) is synonamous with "group."

---

---

Those people would be wrong. You could make the same argument that the second M means Guild, which would be just as wrong. Multiplayer just means more than one player. If there are two players in a game, and they are each trying to kill each other, then it's a multiplayer game. No groups, no guilds, but multiplayer just the same.

Those people wouldn't be "wrong." The word Multiplayer is synonymous with many other words, but synonymous means being alike or similar, not necessarily identical.

It's also pointless to have an entire genre dedicated to the idea of exploring the many facets of multiplayer scenarios if you're not going to explore and take advantage of those scenarios.

Originally posted by pierth

Originally posted by kaydinv

Originally posted by CzechGuy

 I think MMO developers need to value my playstyle as much as anyone else. We all pay the same subscription fees so we should all have access to the same content and have the same ability to beat that content and get all the rewards...

Really? So if I buy tickets to a soccer game and run onto the field or punch other spectators, by your logic my spectatestyle should be as valued as anyone else because I bought tickets? Sounds like you believe the world centers around you.

You're suppose to buy the products that best match your personal preferences. Within the world of gaming the best kind of product for you would be a single-player adventure of epic proportions. It shouldn't be that every game caters to your specific preference. In fact, that's the whole reason that MMO's have sucked hard for the past 6 or 7 years, they've been trying to cater to people like you.

When i play MMO's i see myself as the hero who sets out on a great adventure who slowly gets more powerful until he defeats the greatest evil in the world...

This is the antithesis of heroism. It is not heroic to basically climb the ladder of progression until you can safely defeat your nemesis. Being heroic means being brave or courageous. What you described is nothing like that.

...There is no Group in MMORPG.

Some people would argue that the second M in MMORPG (multiplayer) is synonamous with "group."

Completely agreed. I will say though that if a MMO allows you to play the majority of the game solo, then they ought to have some type of solo endgame progression- otherwise just leave soloing out of the game entirely as far as development attention and specific content go.

I think you make a noble point here.

I wasn't trying to make the point that the "average player wants harsh death penalties." I was simply making the point that there have been many popular games that featured "harsh death penalties" so it isn't as big of an issue as people would have you believe. Some people claim that for a game to be commercially successful it cannot have harsh death penalties because "nobody wants them," but that is clearly inaccurate as demonstrated by the examples given.

To be positively successful, a game only needs to be legitimately compelling. We need tension or eye-candy or a connection with other players (and/or other things) to truly enjoy a game. As long as a death penalty isn't unfair within the context of the game, it will achieve that feeling of tension during a battle and teach us to play smart so that we may have connections with other players when we party with them.

Only people that are egotistical or miss the entire point of playing games would be against some kind of risk for the rewards they seek. Real gamers understand the fact that without risk there is no reward. Only epeen morons take pride in the "rewards" they gathered that required no challenge and no risk.

Originally posted by lizardbones

 

---

Originally posted by kaydinv

---

Originally posted by lizardbones
The problem with a perceived harsh death penalty is that for most people it is a deterrent to trying new things in the game...

---

This way of thinking is fallacious.
Even in games that have existed with harsh death penalties, this has not been the case. People will find ways to "practice" those new things regardless of the penalty. For example, in Ultima Online, people would "spar" eachother to try out new things for PvP. Whoever lost would drop all their gear, but their partner would not take it because they were both only playing for practice. They could practice whatever they wanted without as much risk. They would then go out into the real PvP world and try their newly found strategies for real. If someone wanted to practice using a specific ability in PvE, he could go find a monster he could easily defeat and practice using his ability.
A harsh death penalty does not prevent people from "practicing." Anyone that actually takes the time to play a game with a harsh death penalty (and understand it, rather than throwing a tantrum) knows this.

---

It's not fallacious. If most people wanted a harsh death penalty, they would say so in surveys...the things game companies hand out before spending millions on developing a game. Do you seriously think game companies received the input, "We want harsher death penalties." and then didn't do it? It would be trivial to implement and trivial to tweak.

It's is an assumption on my part that people will become discouraged in trying new things in a game because of harsh death penalties, but it's not an assumption that most people would stop playing games with harsh death penalties. Most people do not like them. Therefore most games that target a large audience do not and will not have them.

It IS an assumption that most people would stop playing games with harsh death penalties. Most people haven't even played MMORPG's with harsh death penalties. I bet more people protest harsh death penalties that have actually experienced them.

How accurate would a survey with answers based on ignorance and inexperience be?

How about this: There have been many popular non-MMO games that featured harsh penalties for failure (relative to their own genres) such as Counter-Strike, Ultima Online was kneck and kneck with EQ1 back in the early days of MMORPG's (UO had much harsher penalties for death) and EVE online, which features one of the potentially most unforgiving death penalties ever in an MMORPG is one of the most popular MMORPG's today.

Originally posted by pierth

Yes, I reread it and it just sounds like he has the attention span of a chihuahua and needs quick successions of stimuli to be entertained. Boo hoo. Still sounds like MMOs aren't the best genre for the type of gameplay he values. Any more ad hominem attcks then- especially those that not only have nothing to do with the discussion, but have nothing to do with gaming at all, internet tough guy?

There was no ad hominem attacks made towards you. You should probably find out what that actually means.

I think you're just attacking his character because you didn't agree with his argument from the offset and you can't come up with a good counter-argument. There's no point to arguing in that kind of scenario. You're basically too stubborn to admit when your opponent has a good point.

I don't even agree completely with his point. I just don't find myself above it like you do.

Originally posted by pierth

Originally posted by kaydinv

Originally posted by pierth

Please don't simplify your explanation, because it seems when you simplify, you just write more in widely varying directions that don't entirely form a coherent response.

His points are actually layed out very well and his opinion is clear.

You just have bad reading comprehension.

Thank you for your concise response. It was very meaningful and inspired- really helped this thread to evolve.

Well, hopefully my reply inspired you to reread the post you criticized until you get it. You sound like a massive tool though, so you probably won't.

Originally posted by pierth

Please don't simplify your explanation, because it seems when you simplify, you just write more in widely varying directions that don't entirely form a coherent response.

His points are actually layed out very well and his opinion is clear.

You just have bad reading comprehension.

Originally posted by CzechGuy

 I think MMO developers need to value my playstyle as much as anyone else. We all pay the same subscription fees so we should all have access to the same content and have the same ability to beat that content and get all the rewards...

Really? So if I buy tickets to a soccer game and run onto the field or punch other spectators, by your logic my spectatestyle should be as valued as anyone else because I bought tickets? Sounds like you believe the world centers around you.

You're suppose to buy the products that best match your personal preferences. Within the world of gaming the best kind of product for you would be a single-player adventure of epic proportions. It shouldn't be that every game caters to your specific preference. In fact, that's the whole reason that MMO's have sucked hard for the past 6 or 7 years, they've been trying to cater to people like you.

When i play MMO's i see myself as the hero who sets out on a great adventure who slowly gets more powerful until he defeats the greatest evil in the world...

This is the antithesis of heroism. It is not heroic to basically climb the ladder of progression until you can safely defeat your nemesis. Being heroic means being brave or courageous. What you described is nothing like that.

...There is no Group in MMORPG.

Some people would argue that the second M in MMORPG (multiplayer) is synonamous with "group."

Originally posted by lizardbones

The problem with a perceived harsh death penalty is that for most people it is a deterrent to trying new things in the game...

This way of thinking is fallacious.

Even in games that have existed with harsh death penalties, this has not been the case. People will find ways to "practice" those new things regardless of the penalty. For example, in Ultima Online, people would "spar" eachother to try out new things for PvP. Whoever lost would drop all their gear, but their partner would not take it because they were both only playing for practice. They could practice whatever they wanted without as much risk. They would then go out into the real PvP world and try their newly found strategies for real. If someone wanted to practice using a specific ability in PvE, he could go find a monster he could easily defeat and practice using his ability.

A harsh death penalty does not prevent people from "practicing." Anyone that actually takes the time to play a game with a harsh death penalty (and understand it, rather than throwing a tantrum) knows this.

Originally posted by Meowhead

Originally posted by pierth

I'm not entirely sure what you are going on about. When you say gaining skill, are you talking about character skills in a skill-based game or are you speaking of personal skill, such as hand-eye coordination/"muscle-memory" reactions for your class? Also, which MMOs don't have repetitive gameplay- do you not have to keep rolling through kill after kill or quest after quest to advance? And regarding the last line- the game suddenly turns bad once you no longer feel challenged? So up to that moment the game is fine?

 

I certainly noted the sarcasm as you were laying it on thick, but you missed actually making a point.

Sorry, I didn't realize I'd have to spell it out for people in excruciatingly slow, mind-numbing, child level detail, but I'm always willing to cater to my audience! ;)

I'll use your post to point out some problems with the MMO genre, and their audience.  No offense intended, of course.

1.  Of course when I'm talking about gaining skill I'm talking about gaining actual player skill.  The idea that somebody could think of gaining character skill as 'meaningful progress and fun' is a good sign of a problem with the genre, right there.  Spending large amounts of time to 'improve' your character, and then being proud of the extra boosts in bigger numbers is pretty silly.

Somebody who plays an FPS, or a fighting game, or an RTS... a platformer, a puzzle game, even a sports game is gaining some actual skills.  They're improving their reflexes, their ability to respond to situations, puzzle solving and other things.  In an MMO, way too much of what you're improving is 'time wasted gaining bigger numbers'.  The characters aren't defeating the next monster because the player is SO much better at playing, they're defeating bigger monsters because the numbers on their armor, or spaceship, or whatever is higher.  It's giving people the idea that they're spending their time in a useful fashion, rather than a poorly disguised grind.

If you play Starcraft for 500 hours, you're theoretically getting damn good at Starcraft, improving your reflexes.  If Starcraft was an MMO, those 500 hours would be spent doing the same simple, very repetitive tasks that you've already mastered, while you're slowly eked out rewards of new units and abilities for those units.

The idea that you could POSSIBLY even think I meant character skills outlines this horrible deep flaw in MMOs, their treadmill nature.

2.  All MMOs have horribly repetitive gameplay.  That doesn't mean that horribly repetitive, treadmill like grinding gameplay is a good thing.  That's like me complaining about all the bad problems with politics, and saying I would prefer something new, and you saying that corruption is an inherent part of politics, so there is no reason not to elect the most corrupt people out there.  Also, just because I think there's a lot of problem with politicians and the political system, doesn't mean I'm an anarchist and I think the government should disappear.  MMOs have good points.  Amazingly fresh gameplay is not one of them.  Yes.  When a game is challenging, or delivering fun in some way (Playing a game with my friends, no matter how crappy the game is, is one way to add fun, for example.  Delivering some good story can be fun as well.), I'm enjoying it, the moment it stops delivering the challenge or fun in some form =I AM NO LONGER ENJOYING IT=.  The idea that I should be enjoying a game from sheer MOMENTUM is bullshit.  This is another problem with MMOs.  'Well, it was fun before, and it'll be fun in the future, so I should put up with 5 hours of not-fun'.  Really?  REALLY?  That's poor game design.  MMOs get away with it only because they're one of the few things that can deliver this particular brand of gaming experience, but that doesn't mean it's a good thing, it means it's an evil we put up with.

Putting up with something (Repetitive gameplay) doesn't mean it's good, no matter how much you try to convince me that because I put up with something I should be enjoying it.  Having it extremely prolific doesn't mean it's good either.  Those are horrible arguments.  Please don't ever use them again.

3.  You missed the point, so here it is again.  MMOs are horribly flawed.  Every moment I play it, I'm suffering through the game already just to play with my friends, maybe get a little bit of lore, and hope that I can eke out enough enjoyment from what is usually flawed gameplay systems.

Death penalty is a horrifying penalty because the whole basis behind the penalty is 'forcing you to replay our game, but in a less fun fashion'.  MMOs.  LESS FUN.  As if they weren't unfun enough!

Death penalty, item decay, corpse runs... they're all punishments that have no meaning other than to make you repeat the game without gaining skills.

THIS IS POOR DESIGN.

Replaying something is one thing, but making me replay it + more of what I've already done and gotten over?

POOR DESIGN.

4.  Please don't make me simplify my explanation anymore, it'll ruin my stellar impression of the kinds of people who have convinced themselves that treadmill gameplay and 'improvement' through bigger numbers is the apex of game design, and the most beautiful thing such a game can do is to base every game design decision around making people play these wonderful games even more.

Meowhead, you deliver your argument very well here. I have one question for you: If MMO's didn't have such terribly flawed gameplay, would a death penalty like xp loss be fine?

The problem, as I see it, is that people do not want to replay old content because the gameplay is terrible throughout the game (whether or not they realize it). The only enjoyment found in an MMO is through the progression, because the gameplay is absolutely horrid. So no one wants to participate in anything that doesn't involve constant progression. That is why people hate death penalties, because it hinders their ability to be constantly progressing, the only fun in the game.

If the gameplay was actually fun to begin with, would people be fine with replaying content? The reason for replaying it would be to have the player learn to master their skills more. I don't see a problem with penalties for failing in non-MMO's and I think that's because they generally have better gameplay. For example, dying in Counter-Strike is not only bad for your team but it also has the penalty of having to wait until the next round to respawn and you lose all your guns, having to rebuy them. In a match, the wait time is around 90 seconds. In a public game, the wait time is usually even longer (3 minutes or so). Yet, Counter-Strike is one of the most popular FPS games of all time because despite those penalties, the gameplay is extremely fun. Get what I'm saying?

Originally posted by Quirhid

Originally posted by kaydinv

Originally posted by Quirhid

Harsh death penalty does not make players better. Infact I believe the effect is opposite. Three points:

 

One

With harsh death penalty, players take less risks and therefore strain their skills less. To be better you have to take risks. If you go around killing toothless rats because your fear of dying, you'll soon be a moderate exterminator but not a good fighter.

 

Two

Harsh death penalty usually means a lot of time wasted. Downtime. Downtime means less action less gaming experience. Experience makes you a better player. If one can jump right in after their violent demise, they learn faster. FPS-pro's will tell you that they pick a server with high respawn rate to train faster: to get more action. Not to mention downtime is boring.

 

And lastly...

Death is a learning experience, as any, and people are more willing to try new stuff, new tactics etc. to an encounter or PvP when they don't fear the death penalty. It's a cheap way to get your adrenaline pumping and to waste your gold in (money sink) but one thing it doesn't do is make you a better player.

One

Playing it safe is one of the signs of a smart player and it takes playing the game to learn what is safe and what is not. You have basically destroyed your own arguement with this point. Also, in no game would a player reach any kind of success killing toothless rats. If any such game even did exist, it would be irrelevant to this point. Toothless rats could take you to max level in a game with or without harsh death penalties and no one would ever learn anything. That's a pathetic example.

 

Two

You are basically relying on the people reading your bullshit to concede to the idea that all time is equal when the whole point of playing in a harsh environment is that your time will be more valuable (per second) than the time you spend playing a game in a forgiving environment. Yes, you will spend more time playing in a game without penalties, but you are also learning less in that time because all risk is absent and therefore out of consideration. That is the whole point of the arguement. I don't know how you typed this much without realizing that.

Also, pros will sometimes play on servers with fast respawn times to practice specific things (like aiming), but they do not spend the majority of their time there. Practicing within the rules of the actual matches is the most important practice because of several factors. Stop talking about things you know very little about. You sound like an ass.

And lastly...

While I think you bring up a good point (finally) here, but consider this: What is the point of using your freedom to experiment when it has little to no benefit? If there is no death penalty, there is no reason to worry about failing. All paths lead to victory eventually, because none of them lead to failure.

 

BTW: Incase you guys haven't noticed, when a Raid boss goes back to 100% health after a whipe, that is a death penalty. If the Raid boss kills your group after 20 minutes of fighting, your "penalty" is 20 minutes wasted. So those of you stating that "failing is a penalty in itself," remember that you've probably never played a game where you simply failed without consequence. If the boss stays at whatever % of health you got it down to, then maybe you had no death penalty. I've never even heard of a game that works that way (without some other kind of penalty).

The first bit is not about leveling. Max level doesn't tell anything about your skill as a player. It is about straining that player skill, not gaining level in a game. Do boxers beat up children for training? -No, they have a sparring partner who is close to their skill level.

Second perceives death penalty as punishment or penalty, not as a "risk". Are you telling me that if held at gun point, you'll be, for example, a better driver? Did they hold Michael Schumacher's family hostage so that he could be one of the most succesful formula 1 driver in the world? Every sports analogy stomps on your argument that risk makes better players. You are free to challenge yourself without fear of punishment.

The last part: You win in PvE eventually. That is true. But I guess I was looking it in more in the perspective of a PvP player.

Your first point doesn't add anything to this discussion. It has no point.

Second, I'm pretty sure if someone held a gun to my head while I was driving, I would drive A LOT more careful for several reasons. One obvious reason would be that I wouldn't want the person holding the gun to accidently fire, so I would be a lot more cautious around bumps. Also, every spors analogy stomps YOUR argument. In every sport, the BEST players play at the highest level of risk and reward. They might practice at lower risk but when a basketball or soccer player are attempting to win in a major league they're going to play BETTER than the people in amateur leagues because they CARE more because there is more risk. That's how they got there in the first place. They might not die if they lose, but there is still other things to lose (money, sponsorship, etc...).

Again, what difference does losing make in a game without penalty? Even in PvP, you're just PvPing to PvP because without risk there is no reward.