Announcements
Join the ongoing conversation on Discord: https://discord.gg/w6Tpkp2
To purchase your copy of the City of Titans Launcher, visit our store at https://store.missingworldsmedia.com/ A purchase of $50 or more will give you a link to download the Launcher for Windows or Mac based machines.
I recall the slow run speed at low levels in CoX, and yes, that was a major penalty haha, but you quickly earned travel powers. I really liked DCUO starting you with travel powers that could be upgraded later, and ability sets based on your movement abilities. It was a great idea, though a purely movement based hero wasn't entirely possible, at least not initially (and you have to kind of cheese it to do it now). But many heroes rely on their movement power as their main ability set.
That's a different conversation though. I'm fine with a content run as a penalty, but I would like to see at least some instances with bigger penalties in favor of much greater rewards.
One thing I've disliked about the big push in end game MMO tropes is time requirements favored over penalizing gameplay. For example, raids in some games can take HOURS. Many gamers simply opt out, not because they aren't skilled enough to do them, but because the time it takes for completion is too long.
Instead, I'd like to see shorter end game missions, with a greater penalty, something like forfeiture of any loot you've gained on the mission if you fail, a growing currency penalty (by percentage) or something a little harsher but not entirely discouraging, with exceptional rewards upon completion.
I like the idea of an opt-in system to give you a penalty when you die. And maybe you get a visual effect or title you can wear while it’s active. That way players who want a challenge have a reason to take it on but those who don’t want that stress don’t feel pressured to do it.
the percentages would be of the penalty..ie:1st determine what % of xp debt you want, then apply 25/50/75/100of that.
The difficu;ty of the content is the risk, not the severity of the punishment.
That being said, I am not fond of repairs or losing xp. especially when a game can crash and hand you a death. does pvp accrue repairs? why or why not? does falling/environmental. can you drown? does falling off the edge of the world give the same penalty as being pummeled to death by little old ladies?
That would be assuming we have xp debt as the penalty. I'm not sure for what other possible penalties such a slider would be applicable. Since we will not have an XP debt penalty in CoT, is there any other intention you had for this?
I think there is a disconnect here between your understanding of the word risk and my understanding of the word risk.
In my understanding, risk is made up of both the likelihood [u]and[/u] the consequence of failure. Here is a diagram to help visualize it:
[img]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-2ZB5RuVXrcc/VJwi-9_66VI/AAAAAAAAGwk/Aw5kYUQ5RT8/s1600/diagram_risk_matrix.gif[/img]
It uses the word impact as a synonym for consequence. The level of risk is inside each square.
While I agree with you that difficulty increases the likelihood of a failure, it completely misses the consequence aspect of risk, which is where death penalty comes into play. So while I agree with you that difficulty should increase reward, I believe so should the death penalty.
[hr]I like to take your ideas and supersize them. This isn't criticism, it is flattery. I come with nothing but good will and a spirit of team-building. If you take what I write any other way, that is probably just because I wasn't very clear.
Would be possible with the creative equivalent of the rez inspriations or temp powers from CoH. You'd have the default "respawn" option available to anyone, but you have a variety of one-shot self-rezzes, ranging in rarity AND whether they proivide a challenge for the player or provide assistance.
"not dead yet"- lets you get up with limited hp and some form of debuff, fairly common
"on borrowed time"- rezzes you to full health, but with a damage over time ticking away+debuff that requires an action (mission completion? a rest action?) to get rid of.
"here comes the cavalry!" - NPC reinforcements appear, one revives you while the others draw aggro. They last for 3-4 minutes. very rare.
"ninja escape" smokebomb, short-duration stealth, rez, very limited health recovery. basically a 'get somewhere safe STAT'
Mediports were still lame.
They could do without them and you could just as easily RP you having a mediport, without putting such a thing into actual game lore.
Count me in on the "too much effort explaining a respawn/try again into the lore is immersion-breaking, not enhancing" crowd. I tried to ignore it- and minimize its impact by not needing to rez much. I'm just [b]that damn good(tm).[/b] (Ok, the difficulty slider helped... a lot) Seriously, though, I took death/defeat too seriously in CoH, like a major personal failure. Teaming with PUGS that just saw it as a trivial price to pay for running in haphazardly, unhealed, buffed, or prepped used to drive me nuts. The effort I put into avoiding a hospital run bordered on unhealthy.
While I rarely have trouble adapting to stuff, I did find both the CoH tram and mediport rather inelegant.
If I understand correctly, CoT won't have a tram (yay!). I'd prefer not to have a mediport either, and would rather have something that could be left more to the player's imagination--but I don't know exactly what would be feasible.
But, as I said, whatever CoT choses, I'll make do :).
FIGHT EVIL! (or go cause trouble so the Heroes have something to do.)
It's called a button that shows up and gives you the option of where to rez at the start point or wait for a revive.
Of course, but I said feasible because I don't know what all of their considerations are. What makes perfect sense in your head might not be as simple from where they are sitting. Or it might.
FIGHT EVIL! (or go cause trouble so the Heroes have something to do.)
Outside of XP debt (which MWM has said they don't plan on implementing, nor are they planning on repair costs) this sounds to essentially be their challenges system. The big difference is that the challenges are effectively voluntary and thus an extra reward for doing "better than normal" instead of being a base-line penalty.
However I just have to ask, how is different amounts of XP debt not different severity of punishment? And if nothing else changes than the amount of XP debt then what is the actual point of choosing the higher percentage (since difficulty and thus reward are chosen through other settings), masochism?
I think the devs had said at some point that some missions will change if the player dies during them. Could be getting imprisoned by the bad guys, or bad guys getting more back-up, or anything really.
Which if that's one of the few consequences for death, I like it. It would mean that in certain missions dying matters more, you know, when the mission is important.
And I'm fine with no XP debt, or money lost on death, or whatever. You want to keep folks engaged and I dunno how many times in games where I've died a few times in the same place that I've decided to put the game down and do something else. The less time you spend making up for what you've lost is better in my book.
Also I never minded the mediport lore on CoX. The lore on it was it teleported you away when your vitals showed you were in trouble, things that instantly killed folks would have still worked. If someone shot you with a ray that turned you instantly to a pile of dust would work, there's no time for it not working. But either way, people either ignored it or used it, some times both at different times.
I know one of my characters used it, that's how their teleport worked, they hacked the mediport grid to teleport themselves and others.
"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."
The hack the mediport...a very commonly used idea. So, a bunch of beginning heroes can easily hack the mediport, but no villain has thought to? :p
It's was a flawed RP system. Not to mention, you were knocked out and just laid there until you clicked a button. So, it shows the system having a delay which should've given the criminals time to go.
How do we take down the villains, if they have the same system in place?
Heroes have easier access to the technology. But then again Arachnos had their own, which IIRC they copied from blue side... So a huge villain organization hacked it.
You're knocked down and you wait, that doesn't mean you're knocked out. Also doesn't mean your vitals are indicating you need a mediport. I assume in those instances you're at least conscious enough to be able to like, manually activate the mediport.
And judging by how often you could run like Frostfire in rapid succession... Uh, you don't take the villains down, not permanently. Does explain why their bodies always disappeared though.
"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."
Almost the same for me. None of my characters would have used (or needed) the in-lore mediporter based on their own origins and abilities. So I put possibly unreasonable efforts into avoiding hospitals/defeats, whether it meant caution, always having emergency bug-out powers available, or just tough archetypes and loads of IO bonuses so that lag-death was the game's best chance to kill them. Strangely enough, I still enjoyed the occasional berserk PUG, though more as a test of whether I could still avoid a death.
I did like the "log out and the XP debt depletes via rested XP" mechanic, as it gave me the option to just switch to another character whenever I felt an unfair death had occurred in solo play. Lag-induced death? Ok game, but I won't eat your XP penalty too.
No. Actually. On that point you're just wrong.
Running Frostfire rapid fire had nothing to do with RP. Even solo/justin your own head RP, if you went by the story the game gave.
By your own statement, you're saying "Oh look! That silly Frostfire. He's doing the same plan for the 100th time, to the same people. When will he ever learn. That silly goose."
The story of CoH was progressive and based on a single characters perspective. Just because you could repeat it, doesn't mean anything. The respawn of the enemies was meant as a way so others could run the same content.
Yeah, you see game mechanics and RP do not often go hand in hand and sometimes you have to ignore certain game mechanics for RP.
You also seem to be mistaking lore for RP, which also do not always go hand in hand.
And also if I'm doing that in RP then yeah, that's exactly what that'd be. How many times has the Flash stopped his rogues from say, robbing jewelry stores? How is the Frostfire mission all that different, exactly?
"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."
Heck, we can't even do something as simple as having a "Go to Hospital?" option result in a countdown [i]while ambulance siren sound FX ramp up from zero[/i] before we get transferred to a Hospital to rez. Why? Because wimpy Players will not tolerate ANYTHING that delivers a buzzkill following a faceplant.
No "time outs" will be tolerated.
No imposition of costs will be tolerated.
No chances of "item degradation" will be tolerated.
At this point, I'm mildly surprised that we'll even have a Health bar in the game, since everything is pointing in the direction that even DEFEAT WILL NOT BE TOLERATED as a possibility (and I'm only slightly exaggerating for effect with that one).
[center][img=44x100]https://i.imgur.com/sMUQ928.gif[/img]
[i]Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.[/i][/center]
Red what are you even talking about?
Why does defeat in a videogame need to be more punishing than "you failed"?
I don't get what's with your "will not be tolerated" talk. Most people have said about them is they don't like them, or they aren't enjoyable for them. No one's saying anything close to "I won't play this game if it has x"
Sheesh. Calm down.
"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."
Yeah that post was unnecessarily hyperbolic.
Different dialogue. Different hostages. Different henchman. Different scene in the back. Something a CoH mission didn't do differently.
With Frostfire, it was the SAME mission. It wasn't a SIMILAR mission.
I've seen people say it. Though, I always took people saying it as wanting an easy ride.
I never had a problem with CoH's debt system. Others did.
It was way easier to overcome at the end of CoH.
I'm of the thought, either way is fine. :p
I think I have a new favorite self-referential quote... ;)
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
It would be rather difficult for an MMO back in the day to have a mission be different every time.
But as far as missions and RP go I didn't know anyone who treated any of the various story missions in CoH as being part of their character's canon. A lot of game mechanics/necessities didn't translate over to RP. Most people didn't RP as having enhancements, influence wasn't an actual currency, levels weren't indicative of power, etc. I had no problem with the mediport being a thing in the lore because if you wanted to have it be in character, it was there, if not just ignore it. Every registered hero in CoH were on the mediport grid, but from a game mechanics/lore stand point every hero was registered.
I'd be fine with a generic respawn button with no lore attached, I'd be fine with a lore explanation, I'd be super fine with the ability to choose an animation on how you evac.
If there's additional penalties, I'll deal. If there isn't I'll be more likely to keep playing after face planting a few times (or at least to continue doing missions).
On the whole consequences of death in video games I'm in the camp of less consequences. In breath of the wild there are very little consequences for dying (sometimes you even gain things if you broke a load of weapons dying or whatever) but it was still frustrating to die. It still had the impact.
Back when I started playing games the big impact of a failure was time lost. And if you failed too much you had to do the whole game over again. When that happens that's usually when you put the game down and play/do something else unless you literally have nothing else to do, but even then sometimes you'd still turn it off out of frustration. And all it was was wasting your time... And that's really all consequences of death are in MMOs, time wasters.
Went off on a bit of a tangent there. Probably should have been multiple posts. I don't even remember what started another Project Hero, Brand X discussion/argument at this point.
Ah, well.
"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."
That is an [b]excellent[/b] question. I agree that any punishment further than failure would just be adding insult to injury. But what is failure?
Does failure mean the mission arc can not be completed, or is completed but with undesirable results? If you die during the mission you didn't save the hostages and the bad guy got away, and you lose reputation with the faction you were helping. If so, then I am fully on board with you that no further death penalty is required.
But if mission failure is [u]not[/u] an option there needs to be some other incentive to stir the risk-reward centers of the brain. Death penalty is one way of doing that, and death penalty comes in all shapes and sizes. I would be interested in seeing what other options people could come up with besides a death penalty.
MWM has stated that they are trying to make it less of a penalty for dying than the loss of a reward for not dying. They haven't really gone into too many details about that other than saying that there might be kill streaks and survival bonuses at stake; and I am interested to see how much of that makes it into the final game.
[hr]I like to take your ideas and supersize them. This isn't criticism, it is flattery. I come with nothing but good will and a spirit of team-building. If you take what I write any other way, that is probably just because I wasn't very clear.
This seems like a question of applying the right "kind" punishment to fit the given situation at hand. Perhaps the game could implement multiple types of death penalties and the one that is "assigned" to a given mission depends on the type of mission you're in. Obviously if a mission is hard enough maybe the type of death penalty assigned to it would be "None" because as you say mission failure alone might be enough in those cases.
Another idea (akin to being able to select mission difficulty in CoH) would be that CoT could provide for multiple types of death penalties and then let the players decide which one they want to deal with. Then as a means to keep players from -always- choosing the least painful type of death penalty the game could reward you extra mission-end bonuses for selecting the more painful types. Having more options is ALWAYS better no matter what you're talking about.
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
Remember the Circle of thorns missions where if you died and rezzed you ended up in the prison deep in the mission map? That was a fun variation.
Unless of course you were soloing as a low level Controller without pets. I remember getting stuck one time for the better part of 15 minutes pecking away at that silly cell door. I started to feel like [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shawshank_Redemption]Andy Dufresne[/url] digging my way out of Shawshank. ;)
To be clear I don't mind the -idea- of things like getting stuck in prison as a death penalty as long as it's an [b]equal[/b] punishment for any character build.
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
Your tolerance for consequences following a defeat/death in game is LOW. Thanks for clarifying/verifying that fact for all to see and appreciate.
The point and purpose of a Death Penalty is ... (wait for it) ... RISK AVERSION. A Death Penalty is explicitly meant and intended to be both a reinforcement and punishment for unsuccessful behavior (up to and including "suicidally stupid" behavior) on the part of the Player. The purpose is to instill a sense of Risk Aversion in the Player such that the Player doesn't "want" to do things that will result in death/defeat.
That's what it's for.
That's what it's supposed to do.
Without any kind of Risk Aversion in play, you literally wind up with an "anything goes!" mentality, since the "rules" of the game allow it (therefore there isn't any REASON to NOT do things).
Why take the stairs to climb down from the top of a skyscraper when you can just jump off the roof, splatter on the pavement like a raw egg and get back up as if what you just did was a "smart" thing to do since it saved you all that time of running down all those switchback stairs (safely)?
In order for a Death Penalty to "shape" Player Behavior in positive ways, it needs to have "bite" to it in order to induce a sense of Risk Aversion in the Players.
That's because if there's no ... reason ... to either fear or avoid death/defeat, well ... the incentive structure for how to play the game starts to skew pretty darn badly towards what you CAN do and away from what (common sense says) you SHOULD do.
And realistically speaking, the only way to properly enforce that sense of Risk Aversion in Players is to [b]TAKE AWAY something that they value[/b] when they're defeated or otherwise "die" in the game.
Q: So what do Players [i]VALUE ENOUGH[/i] for them to develop the necessary incentive structure of Risk Aversion to want to actively avoid getting themselves killed (deliberately or otherwise)?
A: RESOURCES.
What resources?
Duh ... the resources that the PC gathers through playing the game (items, currency, experience, durability ratings, etc.) ... but also perhaps the most "expensive" resource of all ... TIME. The Player's TIME that they have to spend playing the game is precious to them (re: speed runs), since no matter what happens the amount of time that an individual Player can spend on playing the game is a FINITE resource.
So in order for death/defeat to carry the necessary instillation of Risk Aversion, a consequence of getting defeated/dying in the game simply has to be the "wasting" of resources ... whether those resources be either what the PC has gathered in the past ([b]Costs[/b]) or as losses in the present ([b]Time[/b]) or as obligations to be paid off reducing intake in the future ([b]Debt[/b]).
After that, it then becomes a balancing act on the part of the Developers to determine "how much" is an appropriate penalty, with a suitable Goldilocks Factor where the penalty isn't so punishing that it drives people out of the game but also isn't so negligible that it doesn't even function for the shaping of Player aversions to risky (and/or stupid) behavior. The intent of a Death Penalty is to "wound without killing" the sense of FUN of playing the game.
Needless to say, it's in the Player's (selfish) Interest to kick up a maximal fuss in order to "work the refs" as much as possible in order to minimize any Death Penalty in any game as much as they possibly can. This isn't a theoretical point. We've seen it happen ... repeatedly ... in these very forums for a game that no one can even play yet! Needless to say, I'm always amused by these efforts at minimizing any Death Penalties into functional non-existence because they are always argued from the standpoint of "What Is Good For ME(!)" rather than from a standpoint of "what is good for the game?" which the Devs need to take. Over and over and over again, the posture of the most vocal on this issue basically boils down to ... "if I have to lose [b]ANYTHING of value[/b] (IGC, XP, itemization, momentum/reserves, rewards, future income, TIME) then I'm against it!" ... when it comes to the topic of Death Penalties. And really, why wouldn't such opinions bubble up to the surface? After all, what's "good" for ME is "good" for everyone, right?
Well ... no ... actually ... not when taken to extremes, and we've already seen that there are plenty of people in these forums perfectly comfortable with going to the maximal extremes on this very issue. I've even seen people stake out a position in which getting Defeated shouldn't be a "hassle" to the Players in any meaningful way at all, and defend it as reasonable. The best example of this would be the argument that after being Defeated you should be able to get rezzed at a Hospital (for free!) and then teleported directly back to your Mission Door (for free, again!) so as to minimize the "hassle" involved in being Defeated and needing to run back to wherever you "lost" in combat. In other words, let me push 2 buttons and carry on as if nothing went wrong (or better yet, that [b][i]*I*[/i][/b] as a Player not only did nothing wrong but I'm also not responsible for my actions that led up to my defeat in the first place).
So there's plenty of people who simply want to "mulligan" their way out of getting defeated (or suicidally getting themselves killed deliberately) ... and if they can get "infinite mulligans" ... sure, why not?
And that's fine.
What's NOT fine is being in the camp of NO consequences ... or the closely related condition of making the consequences functionally meaningless (or so easily avoided that for all intents and purposes they cease to be meaningful). City of Heroes nerfed its Debt into this condition eventually, making a mockery of the purpose of having a Death Penalty at all.
There is a "sweet spot" out there to be found, but the problem is that it's going to be in different places for different people. That's because everyone's "pain threshold" or tolerance level for Death Penalties is going to be different (go figure, eh?). Different Players will value different resources (IGC, time played, experience, etc.) differently. Because of this "different people are different" factor, the BEST option for a game when it comes to Death Penalties is to go the PICK YOUR POISON route, where the Player is presented with (*gasp!*) OPTIONS (*horrors!*) as to what they are [b][i]willing to sacrifice[/i][/b] following an in-game defeat. That way, you don't have a One Size Fits All™ solution, but rather a [i]range of possibilities[/i] and it's up to each Player to decide [i]for themselves[/i] what they're willing to sacrifice following an in-game defeat. The trick is giving the Player a menu of choices for sacrifices to make following a defeat, such that the Player can choose the option that yields the least amount of "pain" for THEM in the current circumstances they find themselves in, since circumstances change over time and with increased knowledge and experience in playing the game.
But if you're unwilling to sacrifice ANYTHING AT ALL in the first place, then there's nothing to negotiate, and there are no tradeoffs to be considered. There's no "space" available for different options. All you have is a lack of tolerance for any Death Penalty at all ... which is in the Player's (selfish) Interest, but it's not what's good for the game's overall health.
[center][img=44x100]https://i.imgur.com/sMUQ928.gif[/img]
[i]Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.[/i][/center]
Why do we need to punish people playing the way they like in solo play? Why do you need to discourage certain behaviors? If someone just wants to run into enemies all willy nilly on their own... Why punish them for it? If they try that stuff in a team the team will punish them for it; telling them to cut it out, or kicking them from the team.
What behaviors are you trying to curb by having death punishments?
PvP doesn't really need death penalties because the goal is still/always defeat the other player. Fighting Games played competitively don't have consequences for losing, losing -is- the consequence.
Most modern games about the only consequence for losing is just "you gotta do it again" sometimes you don't even lose any items, xp, or whatever when you lose.
So I don't really see why an MMO needs any lose condition beyond "you lost."
Maybe instead of -having- to pick a consequence after you are defeated (slowing down the process of getting back into the action) perhaps having the option to risk a penalty before doing a mission, more penalties you choose to have you get more XP, IGC, whatever upon completing the mission.
"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."
I wonder where I've seen [url=https://cityoftitans.com/comment/145642#comment-145642]this idea before[/url]... Obviously I approve. ;)
But as to the rest of your question about what death punishments accomplish I think if nothing else they serve the purpose of reinforcing the use of good tactics.
If missions were -easy- enough that you could just mash buttons willy-nilly without any thought about playing smartly then there'd really almost be no more point to playing them than spinning a fidget spinner. Death penalties are reminders that you actually need to be engaged with what you're doing and directly "play" the game as a participant, not just a spectator.
This is why I (we?) suggested the idea of selectable death penalties for missions. I suppose there would be nothing stopping the Devs from making the "weakest" death penalty for any given mission be [b]NONE[/b] for those folks who seriously don't want to deal with it, but then have the game offer some serious end-mission bonuses for those folks who choose to accept significantly -painful- death penalty variations.
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
But death penalties have almost nothing to do with how tough the missions are. You go in mashing buttons and die, the penalty is that you have to go back there and do it again. Adding additional penalties on top of that isn't going to make them learn any quicker, it'll just make them get more frustrated when they die.
Even if when you died it plopped you back at the start of the mission with nothing lost it'd still be annoying when you die. Having to navigate back through a mission area is a hassle.
Even if you respawn on the spot it still could suck, if all the enemies you were fighting fully heal like they do in most games after defeat/moving too far away from them. They beat you once, presumably they'll do it again.
Death, defeat, losing is it's own penalty. Failure is it's own penalty. And some people won't care about it. Some people don't care no matter how much you lose on defeat.
Additional penalties don't add anything. I have never heard anyone say anything close to "the penalties I suffer upon defeat really make the game more enjoyable and engaging!" Heck, even modern rogue-likes don't punish you much when you lose.
Losing and defeat are the reminders that you need to pay attention. Not that you lose half your gold, or that you incur some penalty. People just don't like to lose, even if there's no consequence to losing.
"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."
I'm with you on this, Project_Hero. Luckily, MWM seems to be so also.
I have yet to see a defence of death penalties in games that doesn't actually boil down to, 'I want others to be penalised for not playing the game my way.'
Spurn all ye kindle.
Death penalties or, rather, consequential gameplay is important. It's what makes a game a game, and it's what makes players better at playing.
While a penalty of dying and having to restart a level is a minor penalty, if everything resets upon death, then what a developer is requesting, is that you complete everything in the level without being knocked out. That isn't too much to ask. If that isn't the case, and every death does nothing but requires you to start exactly where you left off, death has no consequence. When has no consequences for your actions ever been a good idea?
Y'know, a penalty I didn't hate was the GW1 penalty. You had your characters stats decreased for a little while, but after defeating enough enemies without dying (or using a consumable), you returned to normal. If you kept dying your stats kept reducing until you either quit that level, or received enough help to complete it. (If you zoned out of the level and rezoned in, your stats would be back to normal)
How that would work in an open world could work in several different ways, but with zero penalty aside from just having to walk a little bit, you may as well have no penalty at all and have characters just pop up again after 30 seconds in the exact spot they died in. Or better yet, no characters die at all?
I'm not saying death penalties need to be harsh, but they need to be, at least, comparative to the content you're playing. In an open world, who cares, a jaunt back from a hospital, whatever, but when we're talking about increased rewards, in an instance, or in an area where consequences *should* matter, the punishment for failure should very much so be increased.
[img]https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-UpSCKI8xd2I/WjGk5ei7SVI/AAAAAAAAF7s/AueVg2Wxvdg2yds5e_dz803nNJcBJznrgCLcBGAs/s1600/Strawman.png[/img]
[center][img=44x100]https://i.imgur.com/sMUQ928.gif[/img]
[i]Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.[/i][/center]
I'm just going to put my hopes in here, I hope and pray that CoT will be the exact same. EXP debt on death is a thing so many MMORPGs have moved away from and those games community player skills drop like a rock.
One thing I never had to deal with in CoH was bad players at top level, because by the time they got there they realized how bad death was and they learned how to actually play. EXP debt on death is the sole reason for that, so please, keep it in.
Well at least in my previous suggestion I did say that players ought to be able to choose [b]NONE[/b] as a option for what "type" of death penalty they want to deal with. Don't know how you could make it any more accommodating to the "I hate death penalties" crowd than that?
Meanwhile I'll just play the game without dying in the first place and enjoy collecting all of the "hard death penalty" mission bonuses... *shrugs*
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
The consequence for death in a video game can be just that. There's no consequence for losing in a fighting game, losing is the consequence. Heck a bunch of the most popular kinds of games don't even -have- a lose state (a lot of casual games). There's games where all you do is have numbers go up (cookie clicker and the like). So no, games don't need consequences for failure to be games.
You could have the game pick you up exactly where you dropped, enemies still at the same HP, and it can still have fun and engaging gameplay.
People have been mitigating the penalties of dying in video games for ages (saving often so you don't lose anything important), in most of those instances there's no consequence to death, I saved before I came in the room, but you still don't want to lose, you still don't want to die (unless you save so you can leap off a really tall thing for funsies).
Games don't need any more consequence for failure other than losing (and some don't even have that). The only reason we have stuff like lives, continues, and game overs in games is left over from their roots as coin grabbing arcade games. Where those punishments were introduced to seperate people from their cash!
I mean, like, quick what's the penalty for losing in Monopoly? Soccer? Hangman? I spy? It's strange that only video games seem to have this ingrained sense that losing needs to be more than just that, hm? Well, video games and gambling, I suppose.
"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."
Then what's the consequence for playing without reasonable tactics in a MMO? Would you allow a baseball player to keep trying to run the bases [i]without[/i] swinging at the ball first? Games have rules and norms - death penalties in MMOs reinforce the concept that "death is bad".
Sure as has been said a team can always drop a Leeroy Jenkins who's acting badly but can you answer me WHY that team would consider it bad behavior? The answer to that question is precisely WHY there's a need for some kind of penalty for death. It's a straightforward reinforcement for collectively accepted "good behavior" in MMOs.
As I've implied I'm completely open to talk about all kinds of suggestions for innovative TYPES of death penalties that might prove to be more appropriate or flexible in CoT. But I've yet to see a good reason here why there shouldn't -any- consequence for playing like an asshat. *shrugs*
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
Here is where I think everyone is talking past each other and not really listening to what the other parties are saying. Everyone wants to be understood without making any attempts to understand.
For example, Project_Hero said this:
In Project_Hero's headspace, he has a given assumption that dying results in getting kicked out of wherever [b]there[/b] is. So I am assuming he has accepted that being kicked out of the instance or being sent to the hospital is an acceptable given for him. But what Project_Hero probably does not realize is that being kicked out of the instance and having to make your way back to where you were actually [b]is[/b] a death penalty according to the others in this forum. It is a [i]TIME PENALTY[/i]. If people haven't read [url=https://cityoftitans.com/comment/145679#comment-145679]Redlynne's Post above[/url] yet, now would be a good time to do so.
And Project_Hero goes on to admit that being kicked out of an instance is already a hassle:
So there is actually more common ground here than most posters realize.
Now onto some details:
This is not nearly a convincing argument. Nothing is stopping a player from killing one enemy and dying. Killing another and dying, killing another and dying and so on until all the enemies are dead and the player can move on. That is what the gaming industry calls an exploit. For the good of the game we need to prevent this kind of kamikaze clearing. This isn't an issue in the open world where respawns happen and make this tactic unwinnable.
Exactly. A poor game design will result in players who don't care. And players who don't care will stop playing. A good game design will find a way to get 99% of players to care. Care for rewards, care for challenge, care for risk, care for immersion. There are lots of ways and to get 99% of players to care, they should hit on every one.
[hr]I like to take your ideas and supersize them. This isn't criticism, it is flattery. I come with nothing but good will and a spirit of team-building. If you take what I write any other way, that is probably just because I wasn't very clear.
Lothic to answer the Leeroy Jenkins question it's because he's wasting the rest of the team's time. They want the rewards in a timely fashion and that player is an obstacle to that.
Huck, all death penalties are, in essence, time penalties.
And oh no, someone can take longer and chip away at a mission when they're playing poorly. So what? If they're having fun with that, let them. If they're not, they'll... Learn to do it better.
And it's not an exploit if it's a feature.
A bunch of folks don't really play games to be challenged. I sure as heck didn't play CoH for the challenge. Some of the most fun I had in the game was with my Super Strength/Will Power tank, they weren't challenged by pretty much anything, least not much I went against. Stomping through as an unyielding powerhouse was awesome. Same as any time I decimated a group of foes as a blaster.
I'll give you rewards and immersion though. Leveling up in CoH was awesome, all shiny, and especially after they gave you buffs when you leveled up. Though most of my immersion with the game came from RP.
Would it have still felt as satisfying without XP debt? Yes. I mean after they introduced the... Whatever it was, the thing where you get an XP thing when you're logged out, XP debt wasn't even a thing for me as I spent so much time not playing the actual game and just RPing.
As for risk? Na. I don't need risk in a game to make me not want to lose. Heck, even in a game I don't enjoy I still wouldn't want to lose. Less risks in a game can let players push the envelope, and try things they wouldn't usually. Get creative, get sloppy, have fun with it. Throw caution to the wind and get crazy!
You want some good freeking ideas for death penalties? How about lose states. If you die in this mission x happens. The villain gets away, other things that forward a story. Have death matter on a story level if you want it to matter at all. I don't need it when I'm doing this game's equivalent to radio missions, cause honestly that's probably most of what I'll be doing. Let me pick back up at the hospital, entrance, the spot I fell, cause I'm just playing to have a good time.
"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."
The [b]Undead Zombie Zerg[/b] strategy.
The situation that Huckleberry is describing basically casts the PC/Player in the role of the undead (since they won't STAY "dead") and they just keep getting up to polish off one more Foe before dying each time. To kill a 101 Foes, you just need to die 100 times.
Without a Death Penalty (of any kind) there is nothing preventing Players from resorting to such a strategy ... which while stupid, still works.
Games should not be in the habit of authorizing (let alone condoning, or worse, rewarding) "stupid" behavior on the part of their Players in order to "win" the game.
[center][img=44x100]https://i.imgur.com/sMUQ928.gif[/img]
[i]Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.[/i][/center]
Constantly dying even while playing the game SOLO is a waste the solo player's time. A death penalty helps to teach and reinforce that fact. It's really just that simple.
Don't want to suffer the penalty? Learn how to -not- die so much...
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
[i]The FAIL is STRONG in this one ...[/i]
[img]https://i.imgur.com/5iiI3oc.gif[/img]
[center][img=44x100]https://i.imgur.com/sMUQ928.gif[/img]
[i]Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.[/i][/center]
Redlynne obviously nailed the [b]BEST[/b] response to this. As the second best response I'll just say if I didn't want a game like CoT to challenge me I'd play with a fidget spinner all day...
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
I remember the worst death penalty I ever suffered in an MMO. It was in The Lord of the Rings Online (LotRO). There was a special title you could get, I believe it was called Undying (or Immortal). You could only get it if you reach a certain experience level without dying.
I had one character that I was determined to get that title. I played pretty conservatively with him, avoiding anything with too much risk, overleveling the areas I was in, etc. I was doing very well, I think I had half a level to go, when I got into a fight with a moderately tough enemy and lost my connection. In a panic I logged back in the game but I’d been killed. From that point on I could never get that title on that character. Soooo harsh and demoralizing.
Interestingly I technically didn’t “lose” anything that I’d had before. But I took that death harder than any character death in any other MMO. I think I never even bothered to play that character again, it was too painful.
I know that’s a pretty extreme example but I’ll tell you that MWM’s plan to have you lose rewards and achievements if you die and break some kind of streak can be worse than all of the other kinds of penalties being suggested here. Losing money or experience or having a temporary debuff is nothing compared to missing out on an achievement you’ll have to start all over. Especially if you were about to complete it. We’re talking ragequit levels of frustration.
What MWM suggests isn’t a soft penalty. It’s harsher than you think if you haven’t experienced it.
The consequence of a fighting game is losing the game. You lose. That doesn't work in a persistent game or games that revolve around a planned journey to a perpetual end game.
When I used to play street fighter in the arcade, if I lost, my penalty was 25 cents to continue. When it came to consoles, when you lose, it costs nothing, you still lose the match, but have to restart and compete (and win) 2 rounds to advance. The penalty is less than paying 25 cents, but you are still locked at the door of the following level if you can't defeat your opponent. Eventually there were difficulty levels added. In the more recent fighters, you play against one another for "ranks".
That (being locked from progression) would effectively be a much worse penalty in a persistent world game, to lock advancement completely if you can't pass a single level would fundamentally kill an MMO. Take Marvel Heroes Omega as an example, the Trials effectively gated gameplay, and while I loved the trials, completed them with every single character, and even made guides on how other players could pass them easier, not a week would go by without someone saying that a trial was "impossible" with a character, that I knew for a fact could pass the trial.
Games don't need any more consequences to failure apart from losing.. as long as losing is clearly defined, and winning has actual meaning. Again, if all losing means is a 30 second walk back to where you were and picking up exactly where you left off, you learn nothing, you don't get any better.
I know there's a consensus from a subset of people that just want to do whatever they want in games, and that there are a lot of people that aren't like me. I like somewhat tougher content, and like some competitive play, often requiring considerable trial and error to be where I want to be in those game modes. I get that people aren't all like that.
But you also have those same people that complain that some content is too hard, that things should be made easier. I've seen it many times over. CoX had the ability to choose the difficulty of their instances, and that was nice, I always played on the hardest possible difficulty, and I'm fine with that, but the problem is, when you see items locked behind tougher game modes or game play, people complain.
Many of those complaining about death penalties will be the same people complaining they aren't getting the "good rewards" for playing "how they want to play" (on the easy setting). In essence, death penalties aid in sectioning off content. Again, a penalty can be as simple as resetting an instance, but it's important that the bar remains there.
To use Marvel Heroes Omega as an anecdote again, once players found a way to cheat their way through the cosmic trial (the hardest content gate at the time) by piggybacking on another character (which wasn't supposed to really be allowed), they were put out into the open world where bosses were placed on a timer, and scaled to the amount of people you had.
With players that couldn't actually beat the trial on their own, properly, they wouldn't add the proper amount of damage, nor stay alive like required to beat the content in the right amount of time, and it would cause the groups to fail. In a game that has no consequences for content, "trying" hard content at the expense of others is an awful thing to do, as the consequences no longer just affect one person. This is why difficulties and penalties exist in games, to ensure the player is at their proper place in both character and gameplay progression.
That's cool for you, but last I checked you weren't "a bunch of folks". I mean, there's a pretty good reason a lot of modern RPGs have a "Story" difficulty setting. A lot of people don't have the time or patience to be challenged by a video game. They just want to experience the story. Mario games are handing out powerups when you lose enough times in a stage. Sports games allow you to fail forward so you can experience the story.
How is an MMORPG much different?
Some people just want to be able to log in and be a super hero for a time. Punch a load of bad guys. Fling fire. For the like, two hours they have a night.
"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."
Everyone plays for their own reasons, some for challenge and some to unwind and everything in-between. Attempting to shame someone for their reason saying that it's a failure isn't cool. If you don't agree, just leave it at that.
Holy smokes, people. Relax and stop being so judgmental. It's becoming contagious around here.
I would be genuinely amazed/surprised if CoT implemented anything equivalent to the LotRO Undying thing that could be screwed up just from a random bit of game lag.
On the other hand if they actually did offer something like that I'd simply suck it up and give it a try - I'm the kind of person who had no problem setting up nightly heal farms for the better part of nine months to earn the [b]1 billion[/b] HP version of the [url=https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Empath_Badge]Empath[/url] badge on -two- different CoH characters.
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
I'm not saying my way is "better" or some other way is "worse". I'm more fundamentally saying one way has a POINT for doing it and the other doesn't. Again spinning my fidget spinner wouldn't cost me an extra dime at this point...
I'm not out to offend anyone by that, just the way I see it. *shrugs*
One more time I've already agreed the game should LET YOU go without death penalty if you don't want one. I'm just saying I personally doubt I'd ever CHOOSE that option myself.
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
So playing a game to just have fun and not be challenged is pointless to you?
"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."
These are all very good points. And If the game sets up a mode to cater to people like that, I certainly wouldn't complain. But the rewards would also have to be scaled down commensurate with the risk, or lack thereof. This is not a single player game and in order to satisfy all the players who accept more challenge and risk, they will need to have a greater reward than the players who do not.
[hr]I like to take your ideas and supersize them. This isn't criticism, it is flattery. I come with nothing but good will and a spirit of team-building. If you take what I write any other way, that is probably just because I wasn't very clear.
I play games like this to have fun AND to be challenged. For me the fun is derived by OVERCOMING the challenge. Games without consequences are also not typically challenging, therefore aren't typically fun for me. Again if I don't want a challenge I can always have "fun" with my fidget spinner for free.
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
/em falls out of chair
[i]... hilarity ensues ...[/i]
[center][img=44x100]https://i.imgur.com/sMUQ928.gif[/img]
[i]Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.[/i][/center]
What? You act like I never give credit where credit is due. The problem is that it usually isn't "due" very often as far as I'm concerned. ;)
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
Thank you for clarifying.
"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."
It’s a shared experience unlike all of your single-player examples. MMOs mandate at least an attempt at parity between different players. So everyone experiences the same risk/reward process. You don’t avoid the risks and penalties without missing out on the rewards. There’s no “easy mode” to choose that lets you experience the same content. Everyone is on the same difficulty level. You can choose to avoid PvP or raids or anything else you choose not to do but that means missing out on what you’d receive for participating. That’s how an MMO works.
As Flesh Forge would tell you I'm not trying to employ my usual "chronic terrible behavior" to be an ass here. I'm just saying I'm too old to have grown up in the era of "participation awards".
For me a game like this HAS to provide a challenge in order to derive enjoyment from it. Avoiding death is simply an element of that and if the game wants to -reinforce- that element with institutionalized death penalties I simply don't have a problem with that.
Now for like the fourth time I'd have no problem exploring different options for TYPES of death penalties, even including options to turn them off. I just don't think the game should be designed so that death penalties don't exist as an option even if you actually WANT them. Options people - that's the name of the game.
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
This!
And...
Assuming there shall be no “hardcore” setting for a character then all deaths are by default meaningless just as in comics. Most if not all characters come back from death at least once if not regularly. There is really no reason why this game shouldn't kinda be the same. Some characters manage to get revived by others or their own rezzes they bought, dropped, or whatever. Failing that there is no sound reason they shouldn’t have to at the very least have to be resurrected somewhere and have a bit of a chore returning to the fight locale.
So that said I see no reason that the mechanics of death should change from the way they were in COH.
All else is whining...
"A sad spectacle. If they be inhabited, what a scope for misery and folly. If they be not inhabited, what a waste of space." ~ Thomas Carlyle
There was an easy mode in CoH. You could set the difficulty to the minus numbers IIRC. And other MMOs have employed steps so you can see the content; solo modes of dungeons for example.
There's no real reason there can't be an easy mode in an MMO if such a difficulty setting is agreed upon by a team.
I am with the opinion that a higher risk/more challenge should grant better rewards, but there's no reason that you shouldn't be able to experience all the content on a game while on easy modes.
Raids are easy to make an easy mode for, less enemies, bosses don't have all the gimmicks they usually do and their damage and health are reduced.
Heck, I'd be down with having raids with essentially training wheels. Get to learn the mechanics in a less stressful environment. Boss only uses one of it's gimmicks for the lowest, then more as you increase it till it's at normal. Heck, add super hard modes where he has even more gimmicks!
PvP would be difficult, the only way to have an "easy mode" would be to set a handicap. But that likely wouldn't go over so well.
Even in outside/community areas it could be done. CoH had a thing with certain enemies that they were always a set strength to your character, regardless of level, so it'd be like that, only with a variable strength.
Large overworld bosses would be tougher, but then you just take an FF 14 FATE System approach and just have it have an area around it that you need to accept to be brought to a certain level, only with a slider, the lowest level garnering the the highest rewards for that enemy.
So, there. MMOs, easy mode. Done.
"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."
maybe they could ask us what we want and leave it at that. An NPC at the morgue that allows us to choose our death penalty. Maybe achievements for doing x things in the game with a certain level of penalty.
If your hero's in the morgue it might be too late for them. But this -is- superheroes so that's a very soft 'might'
"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."
I think we’re using different definitions here. I’ll give an example. Let’s take something like World of Warcraft (pretty much the “standard” MMO in this era). There are many dungeons that can be done at low level as a challenge, or go in at high levels and you can basically walk through and one-shot everything and be practically invincible (you passively regenerate health faster than they can damage you).
Then there are “elite” versions of those same dungeons meant to challenge high level players. The enemies are stronger and more numerous, the bosses have new and more complex mechanics, etc. You get a slightly different experience and get completely different loot, and maybe a new achievement (or at least earn a step toward one). But it’s otherwise a complete copy.
To me, that elite version may as well be a different dungeon. But to you it might not be. If you’re okay going into the low level version and getting low level loot, just to look around, do whatever story quests are inside, and see the bosses, and you can say “been there, done that”, I get it. You have no reason to do the elite version. And I’m good with that. Many MMOs have something like that.
So if you’re hoping to get through most content without having to struggle, and you’re not chasing the best gear or achievements, then I expect you’d be able to do that. I don’t think you can expect to do [b]all[/b] content, I’ve never seen an MMO that didn’t have at least a little bit reserved exclusively for the “high end” players. But you could expect to be able to do most of it.
I think we're also defining content a bit differently here. For my definition content is like, the story, the side missions etc. I don't include achievements or like, challenges in that.
So I think on easy you should be able to do all the story content, and raids and stuff. That said the better rewards, challenges, and maybe even achievements should be for normal+ difficulties.
I've seen some games that don't give out achievements for playing on easy mode.
"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."
Sounds reasonable. Even raids often have an easier version (like a 10 person version vs a 25 person version). As you said, PvP is its own thing but that’s mostly player-driven content. Yelling “DON’T HIT ME I’M DELICATE!” is just going to make you more of a target. :D
When my hero(ine) is defeated, Angels weep.
Be Well!
Fireheart
I've always defined "content" as being [b]Stuff That You Do[/b] as well as being the things you do stuff to (in a manner of speaking). Basically, if you interact with it, it's content, in some form or fashion. There would then be subheadings under that, of course ... such as Lore and Game Mechanics and Environments and so on ... but it's all content.
[center][img=44x100]https://i.imgur.com/sMUQ928.gif[/img]
[i]Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.[/i][/center]
Mostly I just don't include achievements when I refer to content. Possibly because when they first really became mainstream in the Xbox 360 era they never seemed to be part of the game, but a sort of meta game tacked onto it if that makes any sense.
Like, hey I did this thing in game and recieved this thing out of game.
So, in that respect I don't really consider them part of the games content. So when I talk about players being able to do the game's content I'm not saying they should be able to get all the achievements on easy mode. I just feel they should be able to go everywhere and fight everything in the game, do all the missions, even if it's paired down versions of it.
I mean, like, they presumably bought the game too it'd suck if you bought something and then weren't able to enjoy it because you can't do a thing, you know?
"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."
I know in world of Warcraft if you healed the tank you can steal aggro from mobs I think titans mentioned something like this so tanks will have to be on their toes and healers will have a lot of debt xp
They can do it, they choose not to. I see no reason to pity a person who misses out on something they decide not to do.
Yeah, cause everyone has the ability to put in the time to practice, right? Because a video game you play for fun should require you to practice, right? The thing you do to escape the daily toil should also be hard work, right?
Sometimes people just want an easy, enjoyable experience.
"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."
Here's your game then ...
[img]https://m.media-amazon.com/images/S/aplus-seller-content-images-us-east-1/ATVPDKIKX0DER/ANGIJ9SDJJSQC/B072J7MV6V/3XjD1SWwT66G._UX300_TTW__.png[/img]
You can pick it up and put it down anytime you want.
No need to log in or deal with the hassle of remember your account/password in order to play.
Does not require you to "practice" in order to play (although "practice" will, as always, help you in playing).
Does not require "hard work" in order to play.
An "easy, enjoyable experience" to play.
PvP mode not required for enjoyment.
[center][img=44x100]https://i.imgur.com/sMUQ928.gif[/img]
[i]Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.[/i][/center]
While I had no issue whatsoever with the XP Debt mechanic in CoX (wasn't really punishing at all - I even thought it had some meta-game advantages), I also have no issue with the "mission achievement/reduced rewards" system CoT is planning - it's very positive/carrot-on-stick (the better you do - the bigger the rewards). At this early juncture - I suppose my main worry is with possible repeat missions (trying to get those achievements) and out-levelling content.
This is a [i]dangerous[/i] sentiment to introduce into a game that is meant to be played long term.
Is there going to be certain types of content for players to log in and blow off steam on? Sure. Not everyone is going to be able to experience all levels of content though. There is also going to be content that REQUIRES you to put in practice time, to put in "hard work". Without that "higher tier" content to keep players engaged people leave to play other games. Quite possibly not returning.
Developers of MMOs [i]want[/i] players to continue to play their game. There should [i]never[/i] be a scenario where a player can "helicopter their dick across the keyboard" and clear any and all content.
Heroes get remembered, but Legends never die.
Protect the pack kid, no matter how much it hurts. If everyone else in the pack is safe, you can carry on or die knowing you've done your duty. - Fanfiction
When face-rolling is no longer a derisive enough statement. I learned something new today. Thanks for sharing.
Yeah I like this one. I learned something new too.
Myri does raise good points I might add.
If a game is so easy I don't have any real challenge then I'm not likely to play it long, even if I can adjust the difficulty.
"A sad spectacle. If they be inhabited, what a scope for misery and folly. If they be not inhabited, what a waste of space." ~ Thomas Carlyle
CoH was a very relaxing game to play. When I wanted a little challenge I'd solo on 4x8 in DA or Cimerora pulling multiple groups, or run a TF solo or maybe PvP or something. Otherwise it was just enjoying being in a comic book and making up a hero and going out and "heroing". I mean, that was my experience of the game, anyway. From what the Dev's have said I would guess that CoT might be just a hair more challenging and skill-based in gameplay, but I wouldn't think that it will be significantly harder overall.
FIGHT EVIL! (or go cause trouble so the Heroes have something to do.)
Depends on my mood, honestly. I was a badge-hunter in CoH/V, so going for the iTrial/TF/SF challenge badges was fun because I felt that we actually earned the achievement. On the other hand, some days I just want to log in and crush faces by street-sweeping. That being said, when it comes to development, it's my personal opinion that the majority of the content should be made that's going to appeal to the majority of the playerbase. MWM is a business after all and I would like to see them succeed. If, for sake of discussion (meaning these numbers are arbitrary), 80% of the playerbase prefers non-challenging content, then 80% of the development effort should be in that direction. If the remaining 20% of the playerbase are those that seek achievements via challenges (or whatever), then 20% so on and so forth. Much like CoH/V, MWM could just design an option to change the mob size/level to allow for easy access to what some could consider challenging content without actually having to re-write missions. That's a quick and easy partial solution for those that just like to fight larger and higher-level mobs for the challenge, much like you mentioned. In addition to that, some form of badge/achievement system would, of course, appeal to those seeking additional challenges. As previously mentioned, I was a badge-hunter, so this would naturally appeal to my gaming mindset. However, I realize that not everyone has that particular outlook and therefore I don't expect major development resources to be committed along those exact lines. I'll play the game no matter what, but when they do add those systems, bonus.
I agree with this. Sometimes I wanted to explore and see an area I hadn't before or in a long time. Sometimes when I wasn't really looking for a challenge street sweeping was a nice way to blow off steam but then there were times where I really wanted a good challenge.
I think those percentages fit my mood/preferences pretty good. Most the time I want a casual fun time but some not a ton but some of the time I want some real challenge. While I think most of the game shouldn't require a ton of overly difficult play I think there should be those runs that are just for when it suits the mood. I never really had a problem with knowing there was content I might never get to play. If there are people that want the heavy challenge all the time good on them.
I like to play casually most the time but when I am trying to team on a difficult run I like to know I'm going to do my part to the best I can do it. This means I do my best to get better with each playstyle I enjoy. Death and penalties is part of improvement. Frankly, I see it no different than a powerset that makes you lose health to heal a teammate. Kinda makes you develop better understandings of tactics and when different kinds apply to a situation depending on, well everything going on in the game at that moment. Also makes you learn both to be part of a team and how to solo effectively. While I probably did both about 50/50 I tried to master tactics in both situations.
Fun times! Missing it a lot!
"A sad spectacle. If they be inhabited, what a scope for misery and folly. If they be not inhabited, what a waste of space." ~ Thomas Carlyle
My biggest fear is pushing content for the "casual player" too far. It's one thing to make all content "accessible" to the player base. It's another thing entirely to make that same content be "completable" to all levels of player skill. I've seen the nerfing of mid core content that only required the smallest level of cooperation between players. Dungeon difficulty made so simple you can literally sleep through them even while mass pulling the entire dungeon. Much asked for "story modes" that have a fraction of the "difficulty" of normal dungeons, yet have the same rewards [i] and story mode players expect it as their due[/i].
I've seen this player and development mindset destroy games that had the potential to be epic too many times before. It literally turns my stomach to ice when I see people advocating lower and lower "penalties" or "difficulty".
Heroes get remembered, but Legends never die.
Protect the pack kid, no matter how much it hurts. If everyone else in the pack is safe, you can carry on or die knowing you've done your duty. - Fanfiction
It sets a dangerous precedent to have a game include an easy mode? It's a dangerous thing to have a game that's supposed to be played long term be playable and enjoyable to the largest amount of people?
I'm not saying to make the game have no challenge whatsoever I'm saying to include modes that allow people to have less of a challenge if they so desire.
Sheesh.
Yep. Need to put in tons of hard work in this GAME people PLAY for FUN. Cause when people think of games that people play for fun they think hard work and practice. Better go get back to practicing at monopoly.
Not to mention that easy mode would essentially be "practice time"
You all sound like the kind of folks who pitched a fit when they talked about having an easy difficulty setting in dark souls.
Having an easy mode in a game does not preclude it from having harder modes, or challenge.
"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."
I can understand that, but I think you're ok if you liked CoH. While the Dev's pay attention to the forums, their fundamental plans have been in place for a long time (barring actual gameplay testing, at which point they will adjust as needed), and those plans run very close to the spirit of CoH. So, if you found CoH ok, I'd think you'll be ok. Also, while they are very bent on accessibility, they also seem to be very interested in allowing greater challenge levels than CoH had for those that want them.
As I said, I was mostly a "chill" CoH player, but once in a while I was in the mood to stress test my build or push for a certain level or enhancement or costume piece, and it was fun to have challenges available. Also, many challenges were player created, like Pylon runs or solo TF's, so there'll always be plenty of that too.
FIGHT EVIL! (or go cause trouble so the Heroes have something to do.)
Yeah I don't want to see this happen. While I never expect to manage completing everything in the game and hope to see as much as possible, I expect there to be stuff that is just too hard to manage without really good tactics, even with a really good team. Frankly, the stuff I remember most as being the "brass ring" of COH was the stuff that was really challenging. For example, I remember one time having a group of 7 blasters. Only blasters! We managed FF and a few more mishes that honestly we really couldn't have managed if we hadn't had really good tactics and played as a team with a plan for every boss we ran into. We had to wait repeatedly for people to make it back to the mish map after rezzes ran out, that power pool with the Rez power took forever to recharge.
We were just patient and lucky really but that was a challenge. I thought we would get destroyed and the team would disband after about a single mission but we lasted like a couple hours altogether. It was a blast! He he he... Yeah pun intended. But even doing that good, we could never have managed a simple TF that would have been far too difficult. Honestly, I would have been a little disappointed if we could have done one, if all it takes is a bevy of heavy dps then why play anything else? This is why mastering different playstyles is so rewarding, difficult missions, TF's, etc. Difficulty gives the game more meaning, thus making it more rewarding and fun!
"A sad spectacle. If they be inhabited, what a scope for misery and folly. If they be not inhabited, what a waste of space." ~ Thomas Carlyle
I think the MWM devs have a good handle on risk vs. reward, which is what that comes down to and has been discussed at length before. Its also my personal opinion that story mode shouldn't provide the same rewards as the higher challenge modes, as that flies in the face of risk vs. reward. Now don't get me wrong, I understand and can sympathize that Jimmy the Filthy Casual may want that hard-to-earn achievement because it unlocks some sweet costume piece, but I feel that it is the community that should come together and help out ol' Jimmy. I can't speak for other servers, but I can say that Champion used to regularly schedule badge/achievement runs for situations like that, which I felt was a credit to the CoH/V community overall. Instead of the devs lowering the bar and reducing the challenge, therefore also reducing the enjoyment for a percentage of the playerbase, the community should be encouraged to help each other out.
People play Fighting Games for fun. That game, requires practice. Gotta know those moves. You're not going to win with just light jab. :p
In fact, people play games for fun and most of the games for fun, require practice. :p Just because it's a video game does not change it.
Exactly! From what I've heard from MWM, we'll have options for setting difficulty that are similar to those we had in the old game. Possibly even more options. CoT should be able to cater to the entire spectrum of players, from casual to ultra-challenge-welcoming. Even with no defeat penalty at all, such a system can still make content very challenging, so everyone should be happy...except for the players who want others to play the way they say and only that way.
Spurn all ye kindle.
You know what else fighting games have?
An easy mode.
Also handicaps.
"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."
If you've read my posts in the past, then this will be probably the fourth time you've seen me use this postulate:
[indent][i]The behavior of a system in which humans are a component will be determined by the motivations of the humans in the system, regardless of the intended design of the system[/i][/indent]
So when the player (the human in this game system) plays, they will not always be playing for the same reasons one time to the next, and multiply that by all the players playing, each with their own motivations. So when a player is really trying for a particular achievement they will play differently than when they are just blowing off some work related stress of the day, and they will play differently than when they are helping out one of the new members of the guild, and they will play differently when they are in an elite team-based dungeon run. When i say they will play differently, I mean their motivations and associated reward centers in their brains firing off will be different.
So a game which will be able to reward as many play styles (read motivations) as possible will be able to keep the largest player base for the longest duration. Not just in terms of playing session length, but how long the player keeps coming back to the game.
I want to encourage content for care bears, for pitiless PvPers, for achievement hunters, for explorers, for builders, and for as many others and in-betweens as possible. Arguing over which motivation is better misses the whole point.
At the same time, however, sometimes the game designers have to give the players what they need at the expense of what they want. To wit, a game without a challenge is also a game without thrill. Play a game without thrill long enough and the [u]average player[/u] will get bored and lose interest. So no matter how much players clamor for less challenge, sometimes the game designers have to respond with a very compassionate "no". Some low-challenge content is fine, for those players and those days when you don't really want any. But for the good of the game, I think those opportunities should be limited so as to keep interest and inject some mandatory thrill.
Here's another example: Even in games where challenge levels are intense, players will find ways to glitch the content, find exploits and watch videos to learn the secrets of Boss mechanics etc. before going into them; instead of going through the trial of learning for themselves. Why? Because their primary motivation is to beat the content. Regardless of whatever secondary motivations might exist, such as running the content with friends, or for the actual challenge, or whatever challenge the content was designed to provide, their primary motivation to beat it was the primary driver in the behavior. And so whether they are willing to admit it to themselves or not, their motivation to beat the difficult content caused behavior that reduced the challenge of the content to as low as possible, while still keeping the "difficulty level" of the content high.
[hr]I like to take your ideas and supersize them. This isn't criticism, it is flattery. I come with nothing but good will and a spirit of team-building. If you take what I write any other way, that is probably just because I wasn't very clear.
^This.
Pages