Announcements

This week's oneshot update is live!
Join the discussion, and don't forget to leave other update ideas in our FAQ Feedback thread.

What Happens when your hero is defeated?

727 posts / 0 new
Last post
ivanhedgehog
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 8 hours ago
kickstarter
Joined: 11/04/2013 - 12:46
Lothic wrote:
Lothic wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:
deksam wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

So what you're saying is that XP debt didn't teach me anything at all. At least nothing more than dying already did.

"Better ways to spend my time as a player" was RP, but I did that regardless of character effectiveness. So XP debt did nothing there, other than to possibly make me give up on playing the actual game for a time to do something else within it and if I didn't RP I'd have probably just found something else to do, play a different game, perhaps. Which is great for player retention.

Also "better ways to spend time as a player" can translate into "play something else" which is a great thing to invest in people when you want them to play your game and continue to come back to it.

Games with challenge will always hold player retention longer than games without a challenge. If all you learned from accruing XP debt was to go play something else, maybe that was a good lesson to learn? What I've learned about the CoT philosophy is that they want to make the game more accessible to all kinds of people, and that may be why the premise at the moment is a lax death penalty. That doesn't mean that as the game evolves there won't be one in certain circumstances. If a player can't complete content on their own and it makes them quit, it's better than making the content so easy that the greater population quits out of boredom.

Ah yes, that's why the casual game market is doing so poorly. No wait, they're one of the largest most profitable kinds of games. And they generally don't require much skill, nor do they really challenge the players. Huh. Would you look at that... Where as the most challenging games on the market get a small to moderate amount of success but are generally considered niche products.

If CoT adopts a total "casual game" mentality that requires little/no skill and presents its players little/no challenge I would consider that a sad loss for all of us. If I wanted a "no challenge" activity I could spin my fidget spinner all day long. *sigh*

and if I wanted a challenge I could go to law school. both ends of the spectrum covered. playing an online game is wasting time by definition. but it is what we want to do for fun, so lets keep it fun.

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 34 min ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
Lothic wrote:
Lothic wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

Pokemon Go still has over 20+ million players a day. Can a game like Dark Souls boast such a number?

WoW in it's hayday had about 12million.

Edit: granted I don't know how long any of those players have been playing.

So first you offer an example of a game (Pokemon Go) that almost couldn't be more different from CoT if you tried. How that's supposed to have any relevance to what CoT is going to be is anyone's guess.

Then you trot out WoW like no other MMO except CoT has ever thought about trying to match since 2004. Has any other MMO even gotten close to WoW's numbers yet? Besides can you even call WoW (as a MMO) a "hyper-causal" game like you're trying to say CoT ought to be? I don't think so.

Look I get that you think CoT would be better off being a "zero challenge" game just because you got annoyed that you couldn't wildly charge in with your Blasters without getting killed all the time. Thankfully I simply don't think the Devs of CoT are going to be stupid enough to follow your advice in this particular area.

I was using WoW as a comparison to a casual game. As in a casual game get's this many even months after release where as in it's prime this non-casual game only pulled in this much.

This is to dispelled the notion that most gamers play games for the challenge or that some how more challenging games have higher retention.

I am not and have never claimed I want CoT to be a "hyper casual game" I have merely been pointing out that challenge does not intrinsically make a game better or more compelling.

I have never stated that I want CoT to be a "zero challenge game" and you're making a ton of assumptions about me and my play style when you have absolutely nothing to go off of in that regard.

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 34 min ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
ivanhedgehog wrote:
ivanhedgehog wrote:
Lothic wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:
deksam wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

So what you're saying is that XP debt didn't teach me anything at all. At least nothing more than dying already did.

"Better ways to spend my time as a player" was RP, but I did that regardless of character effectiveness. So XP debt did nothing there, other than to possibly make me give up on playing the actual game for a time to do something else within it and if I didn't RP I'd have probably just found something else to do, play a different game, perhaps. Which is great for player retention.

Also "better ways to spend time as a player" can translate into "play something else" which is a great thing to invest in people when you want them to play your game and continue to come back to it.

Games with challenge will always hold player retention longer than games without a challenge. If all you learned from accruing XP debt was to go play something else, maybe that was a good lesson to learn? What I've learned about the CoT philosophy is that they want to make the game more accessible to all kinds of people, and that may be why the premise at the moment is a lax death penalty. That doesn't mean that as the game evolves there won't be one in certain circumstances. If a player can't complete content on their own and it makes them quit, it's better than making the content so easy that the greater population quits out of boredom.

Ah yes, that's why the casual game market is doing so poorly. No wait, they're one of the largest most profitable kinds of games. And they generally don't require much skill, nor do they really challenge the players. Huh. Would you look at that... Where as the most challenging games on the market get a small to moderate amount of success but are generally considered niche products.

If CoT adopts a total "casual game" mentality that requires little/no skill and presents its players little/no challenge I would consider that a sad loss for all of us. If I wanted a "no challenge" activity I could spin my fidget spinner all day long. *sigh*

and if I wanted a challenge I could go to law school. both ends of the spectrum covered. playing an online game is wasting time by definition. but it is what we want to do for fun, so lets keep it fun.

Time spent having fun is never time wasted.

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

ivanhedgehog
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 8 hours ago
kickstarter
Joined: 11/04/2013 - 12:46
deksam wrote:
deksam wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:
deksam wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

So what you're saying is that XP debt didn't teach me anything at all. At least nothing more than dying already did.

"Better ways to spend my time as a player" was RP, but I did that regardless of character effectiveness. So XP debt did nothing there, other than to possibly make me give up on playing the actual game for a time to do something else within it and if I didn't RP I'd have probably just found something else to do, play a different game, perhaps. Which is great for player retention.

Also "better ways to spend time as a player" can translate into "play something else" which is a great thing to invest in people when you want them to play your game and continue to come back to it.

Games with challenge will always hold player retention longer than games without a challenge. If all you learned from accruing XP debt was to go play something else, maybe that was a good lesson to learn? What I've learned about the CoT philosophy is that they want to make the game more accessible to all kinds of people, and that may be why the premise at the moment is a lax death penalty. That doesn't mean that as the game evolves there won't be one in certain circumstances. If a player can't complete content on their own and it makes them quit, it's better than making the content so easy that the greater population quits out of boredom.

Ah yes, that's why the casual game market is doing so poorly. No wait, they're one of the largest most profitable kinds of games. And they generally don't require much skill, nor do they really challenge the players. Huh. Would you look at that... Where as the most challenging games on the market get a small to moderate amount of success but are generally considered niche products.

Have you even seen the numbers lately? The highest grossing F2P game on the console market currently? Fortnite and their Battle Royale game. PUBG? One of the highest grossing games in years, and battle royale games are the harshest out there in terms of competition and penalties.

Other notable ones, Monster Hunter World, another big player with a very punishing penalty if your team loses, you get no rewards. Call of Duty? I think we already talked about that one from another user. What about NBA 2K18? That has no "death penalty" oh.. but if you don't beat a team, you drop in rankings and don't make it to the finals, that's a pretty harsh penalty, you can't just face roll your way into winning a championship.

Casual games don't mean they lack penalties for losing, they just mean you can pick them up and play them casually. I play Marvel Puzzle Quest when I'm out and about, they sometimes do missions with big enemies, if you fail to defeat that enemy, you lose out on massive points for your alliance. It's a game as casual as they come, but missing out on those points can lose you and your entire alliance a 4 star cover, which is highly coveted. That's a pretty harsh penalty.

how is wildstar doing again? that at least is an mmo to compare to, not a completely different market segment

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 2 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Project_Hero wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:
Lothic wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

Pokemon Go still has over 20+ million players a day. Can a game like Dark Souls boast such a number?

WoW in it's hayday had about 12million.

Edit: granted I don't know how long any of those players have been playing.

So first you offer an example of a game (Pokemon Go) that almost couldn't be more different from CoT if you tried. How that's supposed to have any relevance to what CoT is going to be is anyone's guess.

Then you trot out WoW like no other MMO except CoT has ever thought about trying to match since 2004. Has any other MMO even gotten close to WoW's numbers yet? Besides can you even call WoW (as a MMO) a "hyper-causal" game like you're trying to say CoT ought to be? I don't think so.

Look I get that you think CoT would be better off being a "zero challenge" game just because you got annoyed that you couldn't wildly charge in with your Blasters without getting killed all the time. Thankfully I simply don't think the Devs of CoT are going to be stupid enough to follow your advice in this particular area.

I was using WoW as a comparison to a casual game. As in a casual game get's this many even months after release where as in it's prime this non-casual game only pulled in this much.

This is to dispelled the notion that most gamers play games for the challenge or that some how more challenging games have higher retention.

I am not and have never claimed I want CoT to be a "hyper casual game" I have merely been pointing out that challenge does not intrinsically make a game better or more compelling.

I have never stated that I want CoT to be a "zero challenge game" and you're making a ton of assumptions about me and my play style when you have absolutely nothing to go off of in that regard.

And likewise you're assuming I want CoT to be hyper-challenging just because I want death to be consequential. If something like a reasonable death penalty prevents (on average) most people from becoming Leeroy Jenkins clones (regardless if they're teaming or wasting their own time soloing) then I generally consider that a GOOD thing, not bad.

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

deksam
deksam's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 1 week ago
Joined: 07/12/2017 - 10:22
ivanhedgehog wrote:
ivanhedgehog wrote:
deksam wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:
deksam wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

So what you're saying is that XP debt didn't teach me anything at all. At least nothing more than dying already did.

"Better ways to spend my time as a player" was RP, but I did that regardless of character effectiveness. So XP debt did nothing there, other than to possibly make me give up on playing the actual game for a time to do something else within it and if I didn't RP I'd have probably just found something else to do, play a different game, perhaps. Which is great for player retention.

Also "better ways to spend time as a player" can translate into "play something else" which is a great thing to invest in people when you want them to play your game and continue to come back to it.

Games with challenge will always hold player retention longer than games without a challenge. If all you learned from accruing XP debt was to go play something else, maybe that was a good lesson to learn? What I've learned about the CoT philosophy is that they want to make the game more accessible to all kinds of people, and that may be why the premise at the moment is a lax death penalty. That doesn't mean that as the game evolves there won't be one in certain circumstances. If a player can't complete content on their own and it makes them quit, it's better than making the content so easy that the greater population quits out of boredom.

Ah yes, that's why the casual game market is doing so poorly. No wait, they're one of the largest most profitable kinds of games. And they generally don't require much skill, nor do they really challenge the players. Huh. Would you look at that... Where as the most challenging games on the market get a small to moderate amount of success but are generally considered niche products.

Have you even seen the numbers lately? The highest grossing F2P game on the console market currently? Fortnite and their Battle Royale game. PUBG? One of the highest grossing games in years, and battle royale games are the harshest out there in terms of competition and penalties.

Other notable ones, Monster Hunter World, another big player with a very punishing penalty if your team loses, you get no rewards. Call of Duty? I think we already talked about that one from another user. What about NBA 2K18? That has no "death penalty" oh.. but if you don't beat a team, you drop in rankings and don't make it to the finals, that's a pretty harsh penalty, you can't just face roll your way into winning a championship.

Casual games don't mean they lack penalties for losing, they just mean you can pick them up and play them casually. I play Marvel Puzzle Quest when I'm out and about, they sometimes do missions with big enemies, if you fail to defeat that enemy, you lose out on massive points for your alliance. It's a game as casual as they come, but missing out on those points can lose you and your entire alliance a 4 star cover, which is highly coveted. That's a pretty harsh penalty.

how is wildstar doing again? that at least is an mmo to compare to, not a completely different market segment

Are you using Wildstar as a game that offers a challenge or as a casual game? Wildstar hasn't been doing well for a while. Would probably do better if it went to consoles.

The fact of the matter is, MMOs are a tough segment to gauge. WoW is an MMO that also has penalties in its own right that are not for the "casual" player. What about GW2? Same thing. There are bosses and enemies where, if you don't do something properly, if you don't have specific gear, if you don't plan your character properly, you fail, and the penalty is *reduced* rewards. Not no rewards, because GW2 wants everyone to have a trophy even if it's trivial and utterly meaningless.

The purpose of me correlating other segments of the industry should actually be more of a wake up call than a case of "it's not apples to apples". The largest segments of the gaming population are residing in games with challenging content. If the defense of that is that "MMOs with challenging content don't do well" .. MMOs without challenging content don't do well either. Most MMOs have a mix of challenging content and easy content though, but in those instances, there's no real middle ground for players that don't want a challenge. Tell a GW2 player to join a raid, or do high level fractals, they'll never get the rewards they want or complete them.

There's actually a very similar conversation going on over at MMO right now https://forums.mmorpg.com/discussion/473178/lets-talk-exp-debt-death-penalty-at-max-level/p1 but a lot of people there are saying they want harsher death penalties.

Hero_Zero
Hero_Zero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 1 week ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 03/20/2015 - 11:54
Is COT meant to be a casual

Is COT meant to be a casual game?

"THE TITANS ARE COMING! THE TITANS ARE COMING!"

deksam
deksam's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 1 week ago
Joined: 07/12/2017 - 10:22
Hero_Zero wrote:
Hero_Zero wrote:

Is COT meant to be a casual game?

"THE TITANS ARE COMING! THE TITANS ARE COMING!"

Based on the knowledge we have, yes, it will likely be meant as a casual game, at least at launch.

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 34 min ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
Lothic wrote:
Lothic wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:
Lothic wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

Pokemon Go still has over 20+ million players a day. Can a game like Dark Souls boast such a number?

WoW in it's hayday had about 12million.

Edit: granted I don't know how long any of those players have been playing.

So first you offer an example of a game (Pokemon Go) that almost couldn't be more different from CoT if you tried. How that's supposed to have any relevance to what CoT is going to be is anyone's guess.

Then you trot out WoW like no other MMO except CoT has ever thought about trying to match since 2004. Has any other MMO even gotten close to WoW's numbers yet? Besides can you even call WoW (as a MMO) a "hyper-causal" game like you're trying to say CoT ought to be? I don't think so.

Look I get that you think CoT would be better off being a "zero challenge" game just because you got annoyed that you couldn't wildly charge in with your Blasters without getting killed all the time. Thankfully I simply don't think the Devs of CoT are going to be stupid enough to follow your advice in this particular area.

I was using WoW as a comparison to a casual game. As in a casual game get's this many even months after release where as in it's prime this non-casual game only pulled in this much.

This is to dispelled the notion that most gamers play games for the challenge or that some how more challenging games have higher retention.

I am not and have never claimed I want CoT to be a "hyper casual game" I have merely been pointing out that challenge does not intrinsically make a game better or more compelling.

I have never stated that I want CoT to be a "zero challenge game" and you're making a ton of assumptions about me and my play style when you have absolutely nothing to go off of in that regard.

And likewise you're assuming I want CoT to be hyper-challenging just because I want death to be consequential. If something like a reasonable death penalty prevents (on average) most people from becoming Leeroy Jenkins clones (regardless if they're teaming or wasting their own time soloing) then I generally consider that a GOOD thing, not bad.

I have never made, nor ran with the assumption that you want the game to be super challenging.

I've mostly been arguing that a death penalty in no way encourages a certain play style nor does it enhance the experience.

If people want to do better at a game they will try to do better, and the quicker and easier it is to get back to the point their forward momentum was stopped the happier they'll be.

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 2 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Hero_Zero wrote:
Hero_Zero wrote:

Is COT meant to be a casual game?

I think the main problem we're having here is trying to define exactly how "casual" we're all talking about here.

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 34 min ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
Lothic wrote:
Lothic wrote:
Hero_Zero wrote:

Is COT meant to be a casual game?

I think the main problem we're having here is trying to define exactly how "casual" we're all talking about here.

I think most of us are in agreement that a sliding scale of casual to difficult would be nice.

Though as Lothic states, just how casual the easiest setting should be is debatable.

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 2 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Project_Hero wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:
Lothic wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

I was using WoW as a comparison to a casual game. As in a casual game get's this many even months after release where as in it's prime this non-casual game only pulled in this much.

This is to dispelled the notion that most gamers play games for the challenge or that some how more challenging games have higher retention.

I am not and have never claimed I want CoT to be a "hyper casual game" I have merely been pointing out that challenge does not intrinsically make a game better or more compelling.

I have never stated that I want CoT to be a "zero challenge game" and you're making a ton of assumptions about me and my play style when you have absolutely nothing to go off of in that regard.

And likewise you're assuming I want CoT to be hyper-challenging just because I want death to be consequential. If something like a reasonable death penalty prevents (on average) most people from becoming Leeroy Jenkins clones (regardless if they're teaming or wasting their own time soloing) then I generally consider that a GOOD thing, not bad.

I have never made, nor ran with the assumption that you want the game to be super challenging.

I've mostly been arguing that a death penalty in no way encourages a certain play style nor does it enhance the experience.

If people want to do better at a game they will try to do better, and the quicker and easier it is to get back to the point their forward momentum was stopped the happier they'll be.

First you talk about whether a person "wants" to do better at a game or not. I'd ask why a person would ever -not- want to do better at any game they are spending time on. After we get past that weird premise that anyone would -not- want to do better we can then tackle why the death penalty ought to exist.

If a meaningful death penalty doesn't exist what's the consequence for lack of improvement? Heck if I knew death was effectively meaningless even I might be -negatively- motivated to play sloppily because I'd know there was no consequence for not doing better. I don't want the game to do anything that would even remotely reward me for playing badly.

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Safehouse
Safehouse's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 hours 5 min ago
kickstarter
Joined: 10/15/2013 - 12:03
Just popping in to give my

Just popping in to give my two cents here:

I genuinely liked how CoH did difficulty settings and death penalties. It wasn’t “hard normal easy” but rather determining how enemies’ levels scaled to yours. I thought it was neat and haven’t seen any other MMO do something of that nature.

In my opinion i don’t mind experience debt. I never felt like it was too punishing, but I also joined CoH in 2010 so maybe things had relaxed a bit since then. And running from the hospital made me groan every now and again, even frustrated me, but it wasn’t intolerably frustrating and usually resulted from me doing something unwise gameplay wise.

The penalties helped me learn my limits in what I could handleas a scrapper. As a blaster, consequences turned my deaths into learning experiences so I could figure out kiting and knocking mobs off one by one. I was never a hardcore player so maybe that’s why the death penalty didn’t discourage me much, but I don’t personally have a problem with a reasonable penalty.

I can’t remember, in CoH did you lose levels if you accrued enough exp debt? I know I’m FFXI rather than accruing debt you actually LOST exp and could even lose a level. Exp loss for me is where it goes too far.

Name: Safehouse
Ranger: Gunner
Primary: Force Blast
Secondary: Super Agility
Tertiary: Kinetic Melee
Travel Power: Parkour
Status: Traveling. Following rumors of a huge city in Massachusetts that is teeming with supers.

rookslide
rookslide's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 2 min ago
kickstarter
Joined: 09/25/2013 - 10:26
You didn’t lose levels per se

You didn’t lose levels per se but it took longer to get yo the next level starting after level ten I think. My experience mirrors yours.

"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

Safehouse
Safehouse's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 hours 5 min ago
kickstarter
Joined: 10/15/2013 - 12:03
rookslide wrote:
rookslide wrote:

You didn’t lose levels per se but it took longer to get yo the next level starting after level ten I think. My experience mirrors yours.

That’s what I thought. I never remembered losing levels. And I don’t think the slowdown ever bothered me too much although I definitely sought to avoid accruing too much of it.

I remember it was level ten. I was in the Hollows doing the Trolls/Outcast missions when the debt began. Actually that and Steel Canyon ended up becoming my favorite zones because I spent so much time experimenting and learning there.

Name: Safehouse
Ranger: Gunner
Primary: Force Blast
Secondary: Super Agility
Tertiary: Kinetic Melee
Travel Power: Parkour
Status: Traveling. Following rumors of a huge city in Massachusetts that is teeming with supers.

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 2 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Safehouse wrote:
Safehouse wrote:

I can’t remember, in CoH did you lose levels if you accrued enough exp debt? I know I’m FFXI rather than accruing debt you actually LOST exp and could even lose a level. Exp loss for me is where it goes too far.

You didn't lose XP that was already earned, and you could get to a "max debt" point where you wouldn't gain any more than the max limit. Check out this webpage to learn more about how CoH handled it.

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

deksam
deksam's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 1 week ago
Joined: 07/12/2017 - 10:22
Safehouse wrote:
Safehouse wrote:
rookslide wrote:

You didn’t lose levels per se but it took longer to get yo the next level starting after level ten I think. My experience mirrors yours.

That’s what I thought. I never remembered losing levels. And I don’t think the slowdown ever bothered me too much although I definitely sought to avoid accruing too much of it.

I remember it was level ten. I was in the Hollows doing the Trolls/Outcast missions when the debt began. Actually that and Steel Canyon ended up becoming my favorite zones because I spent so much time experimenting and learning there.

I remember accruing quite a bit of debt at the high levels on my scrapper, there was one particular issue where they had very high level enemies appear even in low areas, I remember I accrued a lot of higher level debt on taking those enemies out. It was fun though, and while XP debt is on the harsher side of penalties, it really isn't that bad.

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 34 min ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
Some people just want to do

Some people just want to do something enjoyable for a period of time. If whatever they're doing is enough to get them through whatever content they want to do there's no need for them to put in the extra effort. They could find it relaxing to just turn their brain off and just blast some bad guys.

Does there need to be consequence for lack of improvement? Lack of death penalties might encourage you to play more recklessly, which you could find more enjoyable or learn what risks you can take. I know some of the most fun I've had in a game is when I don't care about failing, some times you just want to mess around for a bit. Lack of death penalties might make you think about trying some less than optimal builds, which you could still find fun even if they won't allow you to do the hardest challenges.

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

Safehouse
Safehouse's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 hours 5 min ago
kickstarter
Joined: 10/15/2013 - 12:03
Lothic wrote:
Lothic wrote:
Safehouse wrote:

I can’t remember, in CoH did you lose levels if you accrued enough exp debt? I know I’m FFXI rather than accruing debt you actually LOST exp and could even lose a level. Exp loss for me is where it goes too far.

You didn't lose XP that was already earned, and you could get to a "max debt" point where you wouldn't gain any more than the max limit.

I think I read somewhere once that that “max debt” didn’t always exist and, before it was implemented, you could go all the way to 50 with debt. Is this true or is it a wives tale?

Name: Safehouse
Ranger: Gunner
Primary: Force Blast
Secondary: Super Agility
Tertiary: Kinetic Melee
Travel Power: Parkour
Status: Traveling. Following rumors of a huge city in Massachusetts that is teeming with supers.

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 2 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Safehouse wrote:
Safehouse wrote:
Lothic wrote:
Safehouse wrote:

I can’t remember, in CoH did you lose levels if you accrued enough exp debt? I know I’m FFXI rather than accruing debt you actually LOST exp and could even lose a level. Exp loss for me is where it goes too far.

You didn't lose XP that was already earned, and you could get to a "max debt" point where you wouldn't gain any more than the max limit.

I think I read somewhere once that that “max debt” didn’t always exist and, before it was implemented, you could go all the way to 50 with debt. Is this true or is it a wives tale?

Check out this webpage to learn more about how CoH handled it.

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Safehouse
Safehouse's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 hours 5 min ago
kickstarter
Joined: 10/15/2013 - 12:03
Lothic wrote:
Lothic wrote:
Safehouse wrote:
Lothic wrote:
Safehouse wrote:

I can’t remember, in CoH did you lose levels if you accrued enough exp debt? I know I’m FFXI rather than accruing debt you actually LOST exp and could even lose a level. Exp loss for me is where it goes too far.

You didn't lose XP that was already earned, and you could get to a "max debt" point where you wouldn't gain any more than the max limit.

I think I read somewhere once that that “max debt” didn’t always exist and, before it was implemented, you could go all the way to 50 with debt. Is this true or is it a wives tale?

Check out this webpage to learn more about how CoH handled it.

Oh interesting this helps clear up a lot. Neato to read some players actually used debt to their advantage to avoid outleveling contacts and stuff.

You’ve also sent me down a rabbit hole with this wiki.

Man I miss CoH

Name: Safehouse
Ranger: Gunner
Primary: Force Blast
Secondary: Super Agility
Tertiary: Kinetic Melee
Travel Power: Parkour
Status: Traveling. Following rumors of a huge city in Massachusetts that is teeming with supers.

deksam
deksam's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 1 week ago
Joined: 07/12/2017 - 10:22
Project_Hero wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

Some people just want to do something enjoyable for a period of time. If whatever they're doing is enough to get them through whatever content they want to do there's no need for them to put in the extra effort. They could find it relaxing to just turn their brain off and just blast some bad guys.

Does there need to be consequence for lack of improvement? Lack of death penalties might encourage you to play more recklessly, which you could find more enjoyable or learn what risks you can take. I know some of the most fun I've had in a game is when I don't care about failing, some times you just want to mess around for a bit. Lack of death penalties might make you think about trying some less than optimal builds, which you could still find fun even if they won't allow you to do the hardest challenges.

See, here's the thing though, what you're talking about is easy CONTENT, not no DEATH PENALTY. There's a big difference.

Being able to have an easy mode for people who want to relax and do nothing, what's the point of having zero death penalty if there's little to no threat of death? In that same avenue there should be little to no reward either. It's like having a community pool with the shallow end, the deep end, and then a completely separate pool for kids only.

Easy content with a death penalty is the shallow end, Tough content with a death penalty is the Deep end, and easy content with no death penalty is the kiddie pool. That's not meant to denigrate anyone or make them feel like they are "less than" but we're talking about the difference of playing a game with 1) rules (must win to progress) and 2) challenge (game gets tougher as you increase in level, with increasing penalties) compared to a game with 1) no rules (win or lose you progress) and 2) no challenge. (no consequences, rewards for everything however small)

Games are built on the former and not the latter in most cases. If there are some that want to "opt out" of playing a game with any sort of challenge, y'know, that's fine, but what is fair and balanced in that scenario? Do they get a voice in what their rewards should be?

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 34 min ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
deksam wrote:
deksam wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

Some people just want to do something enjoyable for a period of time. If whatever they're doing is enough to get them through whatever content they want to do there's no need for them to put in the extra effort. They could find it relaxing to just turn their brain off and just blast some bad guys.

Does there need to be consequence for lack of improvement? Lack of death penalties might encourage you to play more recklessly, which you could find more enjoyable or learn what risks you can take. I know some of the most fun I've had in a game is when I don't care about failing, some times you just want to mess around for a bit. Lack of death penalties might make you think about trying some less than optimal builds, which you could still find fun even if they won't allow you to do the hardest challenges.

See, here's the thing though, what you're talking about is easy CONTENT, not no DEATH PENALTY. There's a big difference.

Being able to have an easy mode for people who want to relax and do nothing, what's the point of having zero death penalty if there's little to no threat of death? In that same avenue there should be little to no reward either. It's like having a community pool with the shallow end, the deep end, and then a completely separate pool for kids only.

Easy content with a death penalty is the shallow end, Tough content with a death penalty is the Deep end, and easy content with no death penalty is the kiddie pool. That's not meant to denigrate anyone or make them feel like they are "less than" but we're talking about the difference of playing a game with 1) rules (must win to progress) and 2) challenge (game gets tougher as you increase in level, with increasing penalties) compared to a game with 1) no rules (win or lose you progress) and 2) no challenge. (no consequences, rewards for everything however small)

Games are built on the former and not the latter in most cases. If there are some that want to "opt out" of playing a game with any sort of challenge, y'know, that's fine, but what is fair and balanced in that scenario? Do they get a voice in what their rewards should be?

Tough content with or without a death penalty is still tough content. You save before fighting a boss there's no penalty for losing other than the time you put in to the fight.

I don't think I've seen a game with increasing penalties as you get further in it. I mean I guess in something like D&D you have more to lose at higher level but the penalty for losing is still the same, your character dies. Although in higher level play there's more ways to bring a character back too, so if anything one could argue the penalties lessen as you get further.

What's the point of having no death penalty when there's little to no chance of death? I dunno, how about not rubbing it in that you lost? You already lost to easy content do you really need to game to punish someone further?

Do they get a voice in what their rewards should be? Does anyone? Likely the rewards will match up with the difficulty. On the easiest settings you won't need the rarest gear to advance. Nor will you need to be ahead of the curve in XP or IGC. On harder modes it'd be more likely that you'll need the edge.

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

deksam
deksam's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 1 week ago
Joined: 07/12/2017 - 10:22
Project_Hero wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:
deksam wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

Some people just want to do something enjoyable for a period of time. If whatever they're doing is enough to get them through whatever content they want to do there's no need for them to put in the extra effort. They could find it relaxing to just turn their brain off and just blast some bad guys.

Does there need to be consequence for lack of improvement? Lack of death penalties might encourage you to play more recklessly, which you could find more enjoyable or learn what risks you can take. I know some of the most fun I've had in a game is when I don't care about failing, some times you just want to mess around for a bit. Lack of death penalties might make you think about trying some less than optimal builds, which you could still find fun even if they won't allow you to do the hardest challenges.

See, here's the thing though, what you're talking about is easy CONTENT, not no DEATH PENALTY. There's a big difference.

Being able to have an easy mode for people who want to relax and do nothing, what's the point of having zero death penalty if there's little to no threat of death? In that same avenue there should be little to no reward either. It's like having a community pool with the shallow end, the deep end, and then a completely separate pool for kids only.

Easy content with a death penalty is the shallow end, Tough content with a death penalty is the Deep end, and easy content with no death penalty is the kiddie pool. That's not meant to denigrate anyone or make them feel like they are "less than" but we're talking about the difference of playing a game with 1) rules (must win to progress) and 2) challenge (game gets tougher as you increase in level, with increasing penalties) compared to a game with 1) no rules (win or lose you progress) and 2) no challenge. (no consequences, rewards for everything however small)

Games are built on the former and not the latter in most cases. If there are some that want to "opt out" of playing a game with any sort of challenge, y'know, that's fine, but what is fair and balanced in that scenario? Do they get a voice in what their rewards should be?

Tough content with or without a death penalty is still tough content. You save before fighting a boss there's no penalty for losing other than the time you put in to the fight.

I don't think I've seen a game with increasing penalties as you get further in it. I mean I guess in something like D&D you have more to lose at higher level but the penalty for losing is still the same, your character dies. Although in higher level play there's more ways to bring a character back too, so if anything one could argue the penalties lessen as you get further.

What's the point of having no death penalty when there's little to no chance of death? I dunno, how about not rubbing it in that you lost? You already lost to easy content do you really need to game to punish someone further?

Do they get a voice in what their rewards should be? Does anyone? Likely the rewards will match up with the difficulty. On the easiest settings you won't need the rarest gear to advance. Nor will you need to be ahead of the curve in XP or IGC. On harder modes it'd be more likely that you'll need the edge.

In most games the higher level you are, the more you have to lose, and the tougher the content gets, at least in RPGs. In CoH you didn't get the same amount of XP debt throughout the entire leveling process if you died.

Gamers are a fickle, entitled bunch on a broad spectrum.

People complain that something is too hard, they complain they don't get the rewards they want, and equally on the other side people complain when things are too easy, and that there aren't any rewards worth playing for. You have people that use cheat engine in games to enable god mode, and you have people who put games on the hardest setting before even learning to play.

Whether you think losing is punishment enough, is only determined by what it means to lose. Until that is defined in a game, it's meaningless. If losing means you pop back up and keep going, it's pointless. If it means you start back at the beginning but every piece of your progress is saved, it's not a loss at all, you aren't losing anything. If it means you have to start the mission over again, or what you completed resets, you're starting to get the idea of what a real loss is.

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 34 min ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
Was it the same percentage of

Was it the same percentage of XP debt though? It's been so long I don't remember how it worked.

As you get higher level you have more to lose but are less likely to lose it, as presumably you have the skills to have got you that far and you likely have tools to help prevent it. I die far less in breath of the wild now that I have fully upgraded armor, all the hearts, all the champion abilities, and access to fairies to catch. I don't recall the last time I got a game over. But at the start I was dying all over the place.

In most traditional RPGs you have save points or the ability to save often enough that death is more or less meaningless. Though people rarely play those for the challenge and more for the stories they tell. The ability in most games to save anywhere or autosave very close to where you die makes death in those games almost meaningless. Yet people still play.

And yeah, gamers complain a heck of a lot. And cheating has been part of games since at least they came to consoles. And people cheat to make the game easier or just to have fun. It's when folks have their fun at the expense of another it becomes a problem.

Most games these days have very little penalty for death, thanks to the ability to save the game, autosave, and the like. And games are more popular now than they ever have been.

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

deksam
deksam's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 1 week ago
Joined: 07/12/2017 - 10:22
Project_Hero wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

Was it the same percentage of XP debt though? It's been so long I don't remember how it worked.

Most games these days have very little penalty for death, thanks to the ability to save the game, autosave, and the like. And games are more popular now than they ever have been.

It was a percentage per each death, but since leveling up increased the amount of XP per level it took a lot longer to remove the debt the higher up you went.

Most games having a "very little penalty for death" depends on what you consider a little penalty and what you consider a high penalty. Again, a few posts back I mentioned several games across a few genres that are currently leading in popularity, and they all had varying penalties, some harsher than others. I think if you really looked into the penalties for what people are playing you'd notice that maybe the penalties aren't as simple in every case as you perceive them. Even in the most casual games there will be parts of the game with very high risk to reward ratios.

I don't think anyone is saying that a game should have nothing but challenging content, but I believe a lot of people are saying, don't tell me this is a world ending scenario and give me a run of the mill mugging. If you are in a level where the stakes are high, the losses should be equally as high, and that includes penalties, whether its lack of rewards, having to start over, or incurring some kind of charge to get back up, but either was, waking up and walking back like nothing happened won't cut it.

blacke4dawn
blacke4dawn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 17 hours 1 min ago
Joined: 03/28/2015 - 03:02
Project_Hero wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

Some people just want to do something enjoyable for a period of time. If whatever they're doing is enough to get them through whatever content they want to do there's no need for them to put in the extra effort. They could find it relaxing to just turn their brain off and just blast some bad guys.

Don't really see what this has to do with death penalty since it looks to be more related to dieing in the first place, not what happens after that.

Quote:

Does there need to be consequence for lack of improvement?

In the long run, yes by not being able to do harder content or challanges.

Quote:

Lack of death penalties might encourage you to play more recklessly, which you could find more enjoyable or learn what risks you can take.

If there is no penalty then can we really call it "more recklessly"?
As for learning ones limits (a.k.a what risks you can take) that is part of playing the game in any form.

Quote:

I know some of the most fun I've had in a game is when I don't care about failing, some times you just want to mess around for a bit.

If you don't care about failing then why do you care about a death penalty?

Quote:

Lack of death penalties might make you think about trying some less than optimal builds, which you could still find fun even if they won't allow you to do the hardest challenges.

What?? I seriously doubt that playing on normal difficulty will need an "optimal build" of any sort.

Really, the way you are talking makes me think that you believe that death penalties can't go below a "two weeks progress"-level in how much you loose upon death.

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 9 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
Project_Hero wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

I've mostly been arguing that a death penalty in no way encourages a certain play style nor does it enhance the experience.

And pretty much everyone has been telling you that the point and purpose of a death penalty is to DIScourage a collection of suicidal styles of game play ... and you have resolutely refused to accept the hint/clue for multiple pages of this thread already.

Encouraging a mindset towards survival goes hand in hand with discouraging a mindset that thinks suicide is an "okay" strategy. Every single time this gets pointed out to you or you have your nose rubbed in it (again!) you resolutely refuse to accept the hint/clue and instead point wildly off into the distance a shout "but what's that over there!" so as to repeatedly refuse to accept what you are being told in no uncertain terms. At this point you have established a lengthy track record of refusing to LEARN from what people have been telling you so many times and in so many ways.

To put it mildly, you will not be convinced ... and there is no point in wasting further effort on the futile attempt to convince you that you're wrong. You're a Lost Cause, Project_Hero. Congratulations ... ACHIEVEMENT UNLOCKED.


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 34 min ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
deksam wrote:
deksam wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

Was it the same percentage of XP debt though? It's been so long I don't remember how it worked.

Most games these days have very little penalty for death, thanks to the ability to save the game, autosave, and the like. And games are more popular now than they ever have been.

It was a percentage per each death, but since leveling up increased the amount of XP per level it took a lot longer to remove the debt the higher up you went.

Most games having a "very little penalty for death" depends on what you consider a little penalty and what you consider a high penalty. Again, a few posts back I mentioned several games across a few genres that are currently leading in popularity, and they all had varying penalties, some harsher than others. I think if you really looked into the penalties for what people are playing you'd notice that maybe the penalties aren't as simple in every case as you perceive them. Even in the most casual games there will be parts of the game with very high risk to reward ratios.

I don't think anyone is saying that a game should have nothing but challenging content, but I believe a lot of people are saying, don't tell me this is a world ending scenario and give me a run of the mill mugging. If you are in a level where the stakes are high, the losses should be equally as high, and that includes penalties, whether its lack of rewards, having to start over, or incurring some kind of charge to get back up, but either was, waking up and walking back like nothing happened won't cut it.

If it's a percentage then it's the same for you regardless of level. You need more XP, but you gain more XP.

I bet if you looked into those games the top reasons for playing wouldn't be "the penalties for losing" most either wouldn't comment on them, or count them as an annoyance.

The problem with the "end of the world" scenario is that... The player will win. There's no other way about it. So the losses can't be equal to the task. The player can't lose and doom the world. So what you're really asking is how much annoyance do you want to pile on a player for dying in a video game. So either way the player will win, just one way you burden them with a bunch of annoying baggage. In both instances of a player playing flawlessly and another failing their way through it they'll both get the rewards at the end and they'll both get to see the story. Just in one instance you'll make the player's rewards worth less because they succeeded despite the trouble and strife.

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 34 min ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
Redlynne wrote:
Redlynne wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

I've mostly been arguing that a death penalty in no way encourages a certain play style nor does it enhance the experience.

And pretty much everyone has been telling you that the point and purpose of a death penalty is to DIScourage a collection of suicidal styles of game play ... and you have resolutely refused to accept the hint/clue for multiple pages of this thread already.

Encouraging a mindset towards survival goes hand in hand with discouraging a mindset that thinks suicide is an "okay" strategy. Every single time this gets pointed out to you or you have your nose rubbed in it (again!) you resolutely refuse to accept the hint/clue and instead point wildly off into the distance a shout "but what's that over there!" so as to repeatedly refuse to accept what you are being told in no uncertain terms. At this point you have established a lengthy track record of refusing to LEARN from what people have been telling you so many times and in so many ways.

To put it mildly, you will not be convinced ... and there is no point in wasting further effort on the futile attempt to convince you that you're wrong. You're a Lost Cause, Project_Hero. Congratulations ... ACHIEVEMENT UNLOCKED.

What is the problem with suicidal gameplay if the player doing so is having fun at the expense of no one?

Edit: why should a player be penalized for having fun they way they want to?

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

deksam
deksam's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 1 week ago
Joined: 07/12/2017 - 10:22
Project_Hero wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:
deksam wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

Was it the same percentage of XP debt though? It's been so long I don't remember how it worked.

Most games these days have very little penalty for death, thanks to the ability to save the game, autosave, and the like. And games are more popular now than they ever have been.

It was a percentage per each death, but since leveling up increased the amount of XP per level it took a lot longer to remove the debt the higher up you went.

Most games having a "very little penalty for death" depends on what you consider a little penalty and what you consider a high penalty. Again, a few posts back I mentioned several games across a few genres that are currently leading in popularity, and they all had varying penalties, some harsher than others. I think if you really looked into the penalties for what people are playing you'd notice that maybe the penalties aren't as simple in every case as you perceive them. Even in the most casual games there will be parts of the game with very high risk to reward ratios.

I don't think anyone is saying that a game should have nothing but challenging content, but I believe a lot of people are saying, don't tell me this is a world ending scenario and give me a run of the mill mugging. If you are in a level where the stakes are high, the losses should be equally as high, and that includes penalties, whether its lack of rewards, having to start over, or incurring some kind of charge to get back up, but either was, waking up and walking back like nothing happened won't cut it.

If it's a percentage then it's the same for you regardless of level. You need more XP, but you gain more XP.

I bet if you looked into those games the top reasons for playing wouldn't be "the penalties for losing" most either wouldn't comment on them, or count them as an annoyance.

The problem with the "end of the world" scenario is that... The player will win. There's no other way about it. So the losses can't be equal to the task. The player can't lose and doom the world. So what you're really asking is how much annoyance do you want to pile on a player for dying in a video game. So either way the player will win, just one way you burden them with a bunch of annoying baggage. In both instances of a player playing flawlessly and another failing their way through it they'll both get the rewards at the end and they'll both get to see the story. Just in one instance you'll make the player's rewards worth less because they succeeded despite the trouble and strife.

That makes no sense... the player doesn't always win in those scenarios... they don't get the rewards, they don't complete the tasks set before them. Just because one player doesn't complete the quest doesn't mean others won't. It's like saying "well I can't complete the raid, so it must not be that important" ... yet you lose out on the rewards for doing so, and other players reap the rewards.

I'd also bet that the "penalties for losing" very much do play a big factor in why some games have grown in popularity. Why do you think so many battle royale games have been created, some even more punishing than PUBG and Fortnite? The fact of the matter is, people don't specifically say that they play games based on a penalty, because it's just part of the game. It's a defining feature that people don't think about, like controller schemes. You only notice them if they are done poorly or don't make sense, but the proof is in the popularity.

rookslide
rookslide's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 2 min ago
kickstarter
Joined: 09/25/2013 - 10:26
Project_Hero wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:
Redlynne wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

I've mostly been arguing that a death penalty in no way encourages a certain play style nor does it enhance the experience.

And pretty much everyone has been telling you that the point and purpose of a death penalty is to DIScourage a collection of suicidal styles of game play ... and you have resolutely refused to accept the hint/clue for multiple pages of this thread already.

Encouraging a mindset towards survival goes hand in hand with discouraging a mindset that thinks suicide is an "okay" strategy. Every single time this gets pointed out to you or you have your nose rubbed in it (again!) you resolutely refuse to accept the hint/clue and instead point wildly off into the distance a shout "but what's that over there!" so as to repeatedly refuse to accept what you are being told in no uncertain terms. At this point you have established a lengthy track record of refusing to LEARN from what people have been telling you so many times and in so many ways.

To put it mildly, you will not be convinced ... and there is no point in wasting further effort on the futile attempt to convince you that you're wrong. You're a Lost Cause, Project_Hero. Congratulations ... ACHIEVEMENT UNLOCKED.

What is the problem with suicidal gameplay if the player doing so is having fun at the expense of no one?

Edit: why should a player be penalized for having fun they way they want to?

Again hey look over there!

There is nothing wrong with this style of gameplay provided it is at no one else’s expense. The real problem with this is that once you begin to employ the same tactics in a team one frequently gets others in the team killed as well which may not be how they wish to play. XP debt discourages this however if one refuses to recognize it isn’t appreciated by others or finds it entertaining to get the team killed then it ceases to be at no one else’s expense... but I’m sure this logic is failing to get through as well... good luck all... I believe this may be a lost cause...

"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

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 34 min ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
deksam wrote:
deksam wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:
deksam wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

Was it the same percentage of XP debt though? It's been so long I don't remember how it worked.

Most games these days have very little penalty for death, thanks to the ability to save the game, autosave, and the like. And games are more popular now than they ever have been.

It was a percentage per each death, but since leveling up increased the amount of XP per level it took a lot longer to remove the debt the higher up you went.

Most games having a "very little penalty for death" depends on what you consider a little penalty and what you consider a high penalty. Again, a few posts back I mentioned several games across a few genres that are currently leading in popularity, and they all had varying penalties, some harsher than others. I think if you really looked into the penalties for what people are playing you'd notice that maybe the penalties aren't as simple in every case as you perceive them. Even in the most casual games there will be parts of the game with very high risk to reward ratios.

I don't think anyone is saying that a game should have nothing but challenging content, but I believe a lot of people are saying, don't tell me this is a world ending scenario and give me a run of the mill mugging. If you are in a level where the stakes are high, the losses should be equally as high, and that includes penalties, whether its lack of rewards, having to start over, or incurring some kind of charge to get back up, but either was, waking up and walking back like nothing happened won't cut it.

If it's a percentage then it's the same for you regardless of level. You need more XP, but you gain more XP.

I bet if you looked into those games the top reasons for playing wouldn't be "the penalties for losing" most either wouldn't comment on them, or count them as an annoyance.

The problem with the "end of the world" scenario is that... The player will win. There's no other way about it. So the losses can't be equal to the task. The player can't lose and doom the world. So what you're really asking is how much annoyance do you want to pile on a player for dying in a video game. So either way the player will win, just one way you burden them with a bunch of annoying baggage. In both instances of a player playing flawlessly and another failing their way through it they'll both get the rewards at the end and they'll both get to see the story. Just in one instance you'll make the player's rewards worth less because they succeeded despite the trouble and strife.

That makes no sense... the player doesn't always win in those scenarios... they don't get the rewards, they don't complete the tasks set before them. Just because one player doesn't complete the quest doesn't mean others won't. It's like saying "well I can't complete the raid, so it must not be that important" ... yet you lose out on the rewards for doing so, and other players reap the rewards.

I'd also bet that the "penalties for losing" very much do play a big factor in why some games have grown in popularity. Why do you think so many battle royale games have been created, some even more punishing than PUBG and Fortnite? The fact of the matter is, people don't specifically say that they play games based on a penalty, because it's just part of the game. It's a defining feature that people don't think about, like controller schemes. You only notice them if they are done poorly or don't make sense, but the proof is in the popularity.

The player either wins or doesn't finish the mission. Either way the world isn't destroyed.

How is fortnite or PBUG punishing? Don't you just lose what you gained during the round? How is that any different from a moba that starts fresh every round? How is it any different from dying in like, quake back in the day and losing the weapons you picked up? The losing of those things when you die is the nature of the game. It's the same as in a fighting game, new round start fresh. That is what those types of games, competitive games, are.

How do they have any relevance to a solo/co-op experience of an MMORPG? How does how skill based shooters (important part there as it's a test of skill vs skill) deal with death penalties have anything to do with an MMORPG?

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 34 min ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
rookslide wrote:
rookslide wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:
Redlynne wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

I've mostly been arguing that a death penalty in no way encourages a certain play style nor does it enhance the experience.

And pretty much everyone has been telling you that the point and purpose of a death penalty is to DIScourage a collection of suicidal styles of game play ... and you have resolutely refused to accept the hint/clue for multiple pages of this thread already.

Encouraging a mindset towards survival goes hand in hand with discouraging a mindset that thinks suicide is an "okay" strategy. Every single time this gets pointed out to you or you have your nose rubbed in it (again!) you resolutely refuse to accept the hint/clue and instead point wildly off into the distance a shout "but what's that over there!" so as to repeatedly refuse to accept what you are being told in no uncertain terms. At this point you have established a lengthy track record of refusing to LEARN from what people have been telling you so many times and in so many ways.

To put it mildly, you will not be convinced ... and there is no point in wasting further effort on the futile attempt to convince you that you're wrong. You're a Lost Cause, Project_Hero. Congratulations ... ACHIEVEMENT UNLOCKED.

What is the problem with suicidal gameplay if the player doing so is having fun at the expense of no one?

Edit: why should a player be penalized for having fun they way they want to?

Again hey look over there!

There is nothing wrong with this style of gameplay provided it is at no one else’s expense. The real problem with this is that once you begin to employ the same tactics in a team one frequently gets others in the team killed as well which may not be how they wish to play. XP debt discourages this however if one refuses to recognize it isn’t appreciated by others or finds it entertaining to get the team killed then it ceases to be at no one else’s expense... but I’m sure this logic is failing to get through as well... good luck all... I believe this may be a lost cause...

So. You want a team to suffer penalties for how one member of their team plays? Death penalties aren't going to stop a troll from trolling, in fact it'd probably encourage trollish behavior.

So. With death penalties a bad player gives penalties to the whole team, without they're just an annoyance and would be kicked off the team.

Yep, I can clearly see how death penalties are totally necessary. That'll teach those people for teaming with that guy.

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 9 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
rookslide wrote:
rookslide wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

What is the problem with suicidal gameplay

Again hey look over there!

It's kind of beyond obvious at this point. This sort of thing is what is meant when people talk about arguing in bad faith.

rookslide wrote:

I believe this may be a lost cause...

Called it.


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 34 min ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
How about instead of death

How about instead of death penalties we have life rewards?

Do missions without dying, bonus rewards.

Do consecutive missions without dying, bonus rewards.

Instead of punishing folks for playing badly reward those who play well.

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

deksam
deksam's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 1 week ago
Joined: 07/12/2017 - 10:22
Project_Hero wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:
deksam wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:
deksam wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

Was it the same percentage of XP debt though? It's been so long I don't remember how it worked.

Most games these days have very little penalty for death, thanks to the ability to save the game, autosave, and the like. And games are more popular now than they ever have been.

It was a percentage per each death, but since leveling up increased the amount of XP per level it took a lot longer to remove the debt the higher up you went.

Most games having a "very little penalty for death" depends on what you consider a little penalty and what you consider a high penalty. Again, a few posts back I mentioned several games across a few genres that are currently leading in popularity, and they all had varying penalties, some harsher than others. I think if you really looked into the penalties for what people are playing you'd notice that maybe the penalties aren't as simple in every case as you perceive them. Even in the most casual games there will be parts of the game with very high risk to reward ratios.

I don't think anyone is saying that a game should have nothing but challenging content, but I believe a lot of people are saying, don't tell me this is a world ending scenario and give me a run of the mill mugging. If you are in a level where the stakes are high, the losses should be equally as high, and that includes penalties, whether its lack of rewards, having to start over, or incurring some kind of charge to get back up, but either was, waking up and walking back like nothing happened won't cut it.

If it's a percentage then it's the same for you regardless of level. You need more XP, but you gain more XP.

I bet if you looked into those games the top reasons for playing wouldn't be "the penalties for losing" most either wouldn't comment on them, or count them as an annoyance.

The problem with the "end of the world" scenario is that... The player will win. There's no other way about it. So the losses can't be equal to the task. The player can't lose and doom the world. So what you're really asking is how much annoyance do you want to pile on a player for dying in a video game. So either way the player will win, just one way you burden them with a bunch of annoying baggage. In both instances of a player playing flawlessly and another failing their way through it they'll both get the rewards at the end and they'll both get to see the story. Just in one instance you'll make the player's rewards worth less because they succeeded despite the trouble and strife.

That makes no sense... the player doesn't always win in those scenarios... they don't get the rewards, they don't complete the tasks set before them. Just because one player doesn't complete the quest doesn't mean others won't. It's like saying "well I can't complete the raid, so it must not be that important" ... yet you lose out on the rewards for doing so, and other players reap the rewards.

I'd also bet that the "penalties for losing" very much do play a big factor in why some games have grown in popularity. Why do you think so many battle royale games have been created, some even more punishing than PUBG and Fortnite? The fact of the matter is, people don't specifically say that they play games based on a penalty, because it's just part of the game. It's a defining feature that people don't think about, like controller schemes. You only notice them if they are done poorly or don't make sense, but the proof is in the popularity.

The player either wins or doesn't finish the mission. Either way the world isn't destroyed.

How is fortnite or PBUG punishing? Don't you just lose what you gained during the round? How is that any different from a moba that starts fresh every round? How is it any different from dying in like, quake back in the day and losing the weapons you picked up? The losing of those things when you die is the nature of the game. It's the same as in a fighting game, new round start fresh. That is what those types of games, competitive games, are.

How do they have any relevance to a solo/co-op experience of an MMORPG? How does how skill based shooters (important part there as it's a test of skill vs skill) deal with death penalties have anything to do with an MMORPG?

In Battle Royale games, you don't just pop back up and continue playing, you die, you're done, next round, you might earn a little xp but that's about it. You die early on, you are no good to your team, your team loses, you lose.

Starting fresh every round is fine as a penalty, your penalty is starting over, taking the loss, and not getting the rewards. Sounds like that's fine with you, and that's fine with me.

What's the point of playing an MMORPG if you don't plan to play or interact with the other players? CoH was known for it's community, working together to save the city. Now you want other players to have to save people who choose to play "however they want" even if how they are playing is at the expense of others in their team or in the open world?

What you do solo, echoes in end game gameplay when that person wants to play tougher content. No consequences for them, means high consequences for others. You might be a person who doesn't mind carrying others through content, but when I play with others, it's more fun when we are all working together towards a common goal. What it sounds like you want is a game with no skill and no consequences, and that's fine, just don't expect other people to accept that.

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 9 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
Project_Hero wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

Yep, I can clearly see how death penalties are totally necessary.

Obvious bad faith rhetoric is obvious.


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 34 min ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
deksam wrote:
deksam wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:
deksam wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:
deksam wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

Was it the same percentage of XP debt though? It's been so long I don't remember how it worked.

Most games these days have very little penalty for death, thanks to the ability to save the game, autosave, and the like. And games are more popular now than they ever have been.

It was a percentage per each death, but since leveling up increased the amount of XP per level it took a lot longer to remove the debt the higher up you went.

Most games having a "very little penalty for death" depends on what you consider a little penalty and what you consider a high penalty. Again, a few posts back I mentioned several games across a few genres that are currently leading in popularity, and they all had varying penalties, some harsher than others. I think if you really looked into the penalties for what people are playing you'd notice that maybe the penalties aren't as simple in every case as you perceive them. Even in the most casual games there will be parts of the game with very high risk to reward ratios.

I don't think anyone is saying that a game should have nothing but challenging content, but I believe a lot of people are saying, don't tell me this is a world ending scenario and give me a run of the mill mugging. If you are in a level where the stakes are high, the losses should be equally as high, and that includes penalties, whether its lack of rewards, having to start over, or incurring some kind of charge to get back up, but either was, waking up and walking back like nothing happened won't cut it.

If it's a percentage then it's the same for you regardless of level. You need more XP, but you gain more XP.

I bet if you looked into those games the top reasons for playing wouldn't be "the penalties for losing" most either wouldn't comment on them, or count them as an annoyance.

The problem with the "end of the world" scenario is that... The player will win. There's no other way about it. So the losses can't be equal to the task. The player can't lose and doom the world. So what you're really asking is how much annoyance do you want to pile on a player for dying in a video game. So either way the player will win, just one way you burden them with a bunch of annoying baggage. In both instances of a player playing flawlessly and another failing their way through it they'll both get the rewards at the end and they'll both get to see the story. Just in one instance you'll make the player's rewards worth less because they succeeded despite the trouble and strife.

That makes no sense... the player doesn't always win in those scenarios... they don't get the rewards, they don't complete the tasks set before them. Just because one player doesn't complete the quest doesn't mean others won't. It's like saying "well I can't complete the raid, so it must not be that important" ... yet you lose out on the rewards for doing so, and other players reap the rewards.

I'd also bet that the "penalties for losing" very much do play a big factor in why some games have grown in popularity. Why do you think so many battle royale games have been created, some even more punishing than PUBG and Fortnite? The fact of the matter is, people don't specifically say that they play games based on a penalty, because it's just part of the game. It's a defining feature that people don't think about, like controller schemes. You only notice them if they are done poorly or don't make sense, but the proof is in the popularity.

The player either wins or doesn't finish the mission. Either way the world isn't destroyed.

How is fortnite or PBUG punishing? Don't you just lose what you gained during the round? How is that any different from a moba that starts fresh every round? How is it any different from dying in like, quake back in the day and losing the weapons you picked up? The losing of those things when you die is the nature of the game. It's the same as in a fighting game, new round start fresh. That is what those types of games, competitive games, are.

How do they have any relevance to a solo/co-op experience of an MMORPG? How does how skill based shooters (important part there as it's a test of skill vs skill) deal with death penalties have anything to do with an MMORPG?

In Battle Royale games, you don't just pop back up and continue playing, you die, you're done, next round, you might earn a little xp but that's about it. You die early on, you are no good to your team, your team loses, you lose.

Starting fresh every round is fine as a penalty, your penalty is starting over, taking the loss, and not getting the rewards. Sounds like that's fine with you, and that's fine with me.

What's the point of playing an MMORPG if you don't plan to play or interact with the other players? CoH was known for it's community, working together to save the city. Now you want other players to have to save people who choose to play "however they want" even if how they are playing is at the expense of others in their team or in the open world?

What you do solo, echoes in end game gameplay when that person wants to play tougher content. No consequences for them, means high consequences for others. You might be a person who doesn't mind carrying others through content, but when I play with others, it's more fun when we are all working together towards a common goal. What it sounds like you want is a game with no skill and no consequences, and that's fine, just don't expect other people to accept that.

How many other super hero RPGs are there where one can create their own super hero and go around doing super hero stuff that aren't MMOs?

Like... X-MEN destiny... Um... I think Freedom force had a create/edit character option... Hm... I think that's about it.

Edit: it'd only be high consequences for others if there are high consequences to begin with.

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

Atama
Atama's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 6 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/09/2013 - 22:32
Project_Hero wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:
rookslide wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:
Redlynne wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

I've mostly been arguing that a death penalty in no way encourages a certain play style nor does it enhance the experience.

And pretty much everyone has been telling you that the point and purpose of a death penalty is to DIScourage a collection of suicidal styles of game play ... and you have resolutely refused to accept the hint/clue for multiple pages of this thread already.

Encouraging a mindset towards survival goes hand in hand with discouraging a mindset that thinks suicide is an "okay" strategy. Every single time this gets pointed out to you or you have your nose rubbed in it (again!) you resolutely refuse to accept the hint/clue and instead point wildly off into the distance a shout "but what's that over there!" so as to repeatedly refuse to accept what you are being told in no uncertain terms. At this point you have established a lengthy track record of refusing to LEARN from what people have been telling you so many times and in so many ways.

To put it mildly, you will not be convinced ... and there is no point in wasting further effort on the futile attempt to convince you that you're wrong. You're a Lost Cause, Project_Hero. Congratulations ... ACHIEVEMENT UNLOCKED.

What is the problem with suicidal gameplay if the player doing so is having fun at the expense of no one?

Edit: why should a player be penalized for having fun they way they want to?

Again hey look over there!

There is nothing wrong with this style of gameplay provided it is at no one else’s expense. The real problem with this is that once you begin to employ the same tactics in a team one frequently gets others in the team killed as well which may not be how they wish to play. XP debt discourages this however if one refuses to recognize it isn’t appreciated by others or finds it entertaining to get the team killed then it ceases to be at no one else’s expense... but I’m sure this logic is failing to get through as well... good luck all... I believe this may be a lost cause...

So. You want a team to suffer penalties for how one member of their team plays? Death penalties aren't going to stop a troll from trolling, in fact it'd probably encourage trollish behavior.

So. With death penalties a bad player gives penalties to the whole team, without they're just an annoyance and would be kicked off the team.

Yep, I can clearly see how death penalties are totally necessary. That'll teach those people for teaming with that guy.

I think the argument for death penalties encouraging better group play works like this...

Scenario One, no death penalty or a negligible one. The player learns to be reckless, not pull carefully, they often bite off more than they can chew, they never rest up between fights, etc. Because it’s more efficient to complete the toughest content as fast as possible to advance the quickest way, and if you push the envelope too far, who cares? Nothing bad will happen.

Scenario Two, the death penalty is meaningful. The same player pushes things too far, gets creamed, suffers, and learns to be more cautious. They size up opponents and scenarios first to see if it’s worth even trying, then come up with a strategy to maximize success, and proceed with care and forethought. They advance more slowly but die less often to avoid that painful penalty.

The Scenario One player joins a group and goes all Leeroy Jenkins, irritates the group, and gets kicked. The Scenario Two player is more thoughtful, might be more inclined to communicate with group members and will probably warn them that it’s the first time doing this material and may ask for pointers. The group appreciates that more.

Now I see Scenario One as self-correcting because that player now has consequences they didn’t before. Maybe they learn later but they do eventually learn. So it’s not that big of a deal. You could argue that Scenario Two leads to less drama and “stupid noob” moments though to be fair that’s probably going to happen eventually anyway. It at least mitigates it.

I hope I’m understanding the arguments correctly here.

Atama
Atama's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 6 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/09/2013 - 22:32
Project_Hero wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

How about instead of death penalties we have life rewards?

Do missions without dying, bonus rewards.

Do consecutive missions without dying, bonus rewards.

Instead of punishing folks for playing badly reward those who play well.

I think that’s what MWM has hinted at. If you die you lose out on a benefit instead of getting punished. Like I said before, though, from personal experience if they withhold the carrot that may feel even harsher than suffering the stick. For me it has seemed that way. So we have to see what their implementation is before making judgments but be careful what you wish for.

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 34 min ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
Atama wrote:
Atama wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:
rookslide wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:
Redlynne wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

I've mostly been arguing that a death penalty in no way encourages a certain play style nor does it enhance the experience.

And pretty much everyone has been telling you that the point and purpose of a death penalty is to DIScourage a collection of suicidal styles of game play ... and you have resolutely refused to accept the hint/clue for multiple pages of this thread already.

Encouraging a mindset towards survival goes hand in hand with discouraging a mindset that thinks suicide is an "okay" strategy. Every single time this gets pointed out to you or you have your nose rubbed in it (again!) you resolutely refuse to accept the hint/clue and instead point wildly off into the distance a shout "but what's that over there!" so as to repeatedly refuse to accept what you are being told in no uncertain terms. At this point you have established a lengthy track record of refusing to LEARN from what people have been telling you so many times and in so many ways.

To put it mildly, you will not be convinced ... and there is no point in wasting further effort on the futile attempt to convince you that you're wrong. You're a Lost Cause, Project_Hero. Congratulations ... ACHIEVEMENT UNLOCKED.

What is the problem with suicidal gameplay if the player doing so is having fun at the expense of no one?

Edit: why should a player be penalized for having fun they way they want to?

Again hey look over there!

There is nothing wrong with this style of gameplay provided it is at no one else’s expense. The real problem with this is that once you begin to employ the same tactics in a team one frequently gets others in the team killed as well which may not be how they wish to play. XP debt discourages this however if one refuses to recognize it isn’t appreciated by others or finds it entertaining to get the team killed then it ceases to be at no one else’s expense... but I’m sure this logic is failing to get through as well... good luck all... I believe this may be a lost cause...

So. You want a team to suffer penalties for how one member of their team plays? Death penalties aren't going to stop a troll from trolling, in fact it'd probably encourage trollish behavior.

So. With death penalties a bad player gives penalties to the whole team, without they're just an annoyance and would be kicked off the team.

Yep, I can clearly see how death penalties are totally necessary. That'll teach those people for teaming with that guy.

I think the argument for death penalties encouraging better group play works like this...

Scenario One, no death penalty or a negligible one. The player learns to be reckless, not pull carefully, they often bite off more than they can chew, they never rest up between fights, etc. Because it’s more efficient to complete the toughest content as fast as possible to advance the quickest way, and if you push the envelope too far, who cares? Nothing bad will happen.

Scenario Two, the death penalty is meaningful. The same player pushes things too far, gets creamed, suffers, and learns to be more cautious. They size up opponents and scenarios first to see if it’s worth even trying, then come up with a strategy to maximize success, and proceed with care and forethought. They advance more slowly but die less often to avoid that painful penalty.

The Scenario One player joins a group and goes all Leeroy Jenkins, irritates the group, and gets kicked. The Scenario Two player is more thoughtful, might be more inclined to communicate with group members and will probably warn them that it’s the first time doing this material and may ask for pointers. The group appreciates that more.

Now I see Scenario One as self-correcting because that player now has consequences they didn’t before. Maybe they learn later but they do eventually learn. So it’s not that big of a deal. You could argue that Scenario Two leads to less drama and “stupid noob” moments though to be fair that’s probably going to happen eventually anyway. It at least mitigates it.

I hope I’m understanding the arguments correctly here.

And in scenario 2 there's a much higher chance for someone to abuse the fact that they can make a bunch of other people accrue penalties then troll away.

Also with scenario 2 you have people at the top unwilling to let in folks who don't have certain builds, item level, other such elitist garbage.

In scenario one sure, bring the noob along, nothing bad will come of it.

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

deksam
deksam's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 1 week ago
Joined: 07/12/2017 - 10:22
Project_Hero wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

.

How many other super hero RPGs are there where one can create their own super hero and go around doing super hero stuff that aren't MMOs?

Like... X-MEN destiny... Um... I think Freedom force had a create/edit character option... Hm... I think that's about it.

There are plenty of mods you can use for games like GTA and Fallout if you want super hero powers. There are several single player super hero games planned. But just because a Super Hero MMO may be the only one where you can make your own character, it doesn't mean that it's built only for a single person to do as they wish. In MMOs you play with other players, you're entitled to your enjoyment, but it should not be at the risk of others. And if there's a person that believes running in and dying every chance they get because there's no penalty to do so, then that person shouldn't play with other people or there should be a penalty.

Therein lies the main issue with positive reinforcement. You can't reward your way to playing the right way unless not reaping the rewards is highly detrimental. Earning 500 more dollars instead of 250 on a mission largely means nothing in the grand scheme of things. Every failure is a learning experience, if there is nothing but success even during failure, then
there
is.
no.
game.

rookslide
rookslide's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 2 min ago
kickstarter
Joined: 09/25/2013 - 10:26
I see now... life rewards...

I see now... life rewards... like another stated earlier participation rewards... he just wants to feel good about it in the end... no risks or consequences just bigger bonuses...

Wow, just wow...

"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

Atama
Atama's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 6 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/09/2013 - 22:32
Project_Hero wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:
Atama wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:
rookslide wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:
Redlynne wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

I've mostly been arguing that a death penalty in no way encourages a certain play style nor does it enhance the experience.

And pretty much everyone has been telling you that the point and purpose of a death penalty is to DIScourage a collection of suicidal styles of game play ... and you have resolutely refused to accept the hint/clue for multiple pages of this thread already.

Encouraging a mindset towards survival goes hand in hand with discouraging a mindset that thinks suicide is an "okay" strategy. Every single time this gets pointed out to you or you have your nose rubbed in it (again!) you resolutely refuse to accept the hint/clue and instead point wildly off into the distance a shout "but what's that over there!" so as to repeatedly refuse to accept what you are being told in no uncertain terms. At this point you have established a lengthy track record of refusing to LEARN from what people have been telling you so many times and in so many ways.

To put it mildly, you will not be convinced ... and there is no point in wasting further effort on the futile attempt to convince you that you're wrong. You're a Lost Cause, Project_Hero. Congratulations ... ACHIEVEMENT UNLOCKED.

What is the problem with suicidal gameplay if the player doing so is having fun at the expense of no one?

Edit: why should a player be penalized for having fun they way they want to?

Again hey look over there!

There is nothing wrong with this style of gameplay provided it is at no one else’s expense. The real problem with this is that once you begin to employ the same tactics in a team one frequently gets others in the team killed as well which may not be how they wish to play. XP debt discourages this however if one refuses to recognize it isn’t appreciated by others or finds it entertaining to get the team killed then it ceases to be at no one else’s expense... but I’m sure this logic is failing to get through as well... good luck all... I believe this may be a lost cause...

So. You want a team to suffer penalties for how one member of their team plays? Death penalties aren't going to stop a troll from trolling, in fact it'd probably encourage trollish behavior.

So. With death penalties a bad player gives penalties to the whole team, without they're just an annoyance and would be kicked off the team.

Yep, I can clearly see how death penalties are totally necessary. That'll teach those people for teaming with that guy.

I think the argument for death penalties encouraging better group play works like this...

Scenario One, no death penalty or a negligible one. The player learns to be reckless, not pull carefully, they often bite off more than they can chew, they never rest up between fights, etc. Because it’s more efficient to complete the toughest content as fast as possible to advance the quickest way, and if you push the envelope too far, who cares? Nothing bad will happen.

Scenario Two, the death penalty is meaningful. The same player pushes things too far, gets creamed, suffers, and learns to be more cautious. They size up opponents and scenarios first to see if it’s worth even trying, then come up with a strategy to maximize success, and proceed with care and forethought. They advance more slowly but die less often to avoid that painful penalty.

The Scenario One player joins a group and goes all Leeroy Jenkins, irritates the group, and gets kicked. The Scenario Two player is more thoughtful, might be more inclined to communicate with group members and will probably warn them that it’s the first time doing this material and may ask for pointers. The group appreciates that more.

Now I see Scenario One as self-correcting because that player now has consequences they didn’t before. Maybe they learn later but they do eventually learn. So it’s not that big of a deal. You could argue that Scenario Two leads to less drama and “stupid noob” moments though to be fair that’s probably going to happen eventually anyway. It at least mitigates it.

I hope I’m understanding the arguments correctly here.

And in scenario 2 there's a much higher chance for someone to abuse the fact that they can make a bunch of other people accrue penalties then troll away.

Also with scenario 2 you have people at the top unwilling to let in folks who don't have certain builds, item level, other such elitist garbage.

In scenario one sure, bring the noob along, nothing bad will come of it.

That argument doesn’t really work. The problem with group content scenarios (like dungeons or whatever CoT might have) isn’t death penalties. The problem is that if you do it wrong you can’t complete it. Or you fail so often it takes too long to complete and people give up (or kick out the bad apple ruining it for everyone). That’s the case regardless of death penalty. Honestly your argument sounds like something a person might say if they’ve only read about MMORPGs but never experienced one...? I’m not sure how sincere your points are because I think you’ve indicated you do have experience.

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 34 min ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
deksam wrote:
deksam wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

.

How many other super hero RPGs are there where one can create their own super hero and go around doing super hero stuff that aren't MMOs?

Like... X-MEN destiny... Um... I think Freedom force had a create/edit character option... Hm... I think that's about it.

There are plenty of mods you can use for games like GTA and Fallout if you want super hero powers. There are several single player super hero games planned. But just because a Super Hero MMO may be the only one where you can make your own character, it doesn't mean that it's built only for a single person to do as they wish. In MMOs you play with other players, you're entitled to your enjoyment, but it should not be at the risk of others. And if there's a person that believes running in and dying every chance they get because there's no penalty to do so, then that person shouldn't play with other people or there should be a penalty.

Therein lies the main issue with positive reinforcement. You can't reward your way to playing the right way unless not reaping the rewards is highly detrimental. Earning 500 more dollars instead of 250 on a mission largely means nothing in the grand scheme of things. Every failure is a learning experience, if there is nothing but success even during failure, then
there
is.
no.
game.

I guess Saints row IV too.

People always want more rewards. More rewards means less time. Less time to get the XP you want to get a level up. Less time spent to get that money you want/need for that thing. If you clear it without dying you get a guaranteed piece of rare loot.

Everyone wants more stuff.

It doesn't have to be highly detrimental. I try for the bonus objectives on Borderlands 2 even though I don't need it. I want it. I want that extra stuff. Most of the time it's garbage, but I want it.

Losing out on bonuses is a punishment.

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 34 min ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
Atama wrote:
Atama wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:
Atama wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:
rookslide wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:
Redlynne wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

I've mostly been arguing that a death penalty in no way encourages a certain play style nor does it enhance the experience.

And pretty much everyone has been telling you that the point and purpose of a death penalty is to DIScourage a collection of suicidal styles of game play ... and you have resolutely refused to accept the hint/clue for multiple pages of this thread already.

Encouraging a mindset towards survival goes hand in hand with discouraging a mindset that thinks suicide is an "okay" strategy. Every single time this gets pointed out to you or you have your nose rubbed in it (again!) you resolutely refuse to accept the hint/clue and instead point wildly off into the distance a shout "but what's that over there!" so as to repeatedly refuse to accept what you are being told in no uncertain terms. At this point you have established a lengthy track record of refusing to LEARN from what people have been telling you so many times and in so many ways.

To put it mildly, you will not be convinced ... and there is no point in wasting further effort on the futile attempt to convince you that you're wrong. You're a Lost Cause, Project_Hero. Congratulations ... ACHIEVEMENT UNLOCKED.

What is the problem with suicidal gameplay if the player doing so is having fun at the expense of no one?

Edit: why should a player be penalized for having fun they way they want to?

Again hey look over there!

There is nothing wrong with this style of gameplay provided it is at no one else’s expense. The real problem with this is that once you begin to employ the same tactics in a team one frequently gets others in the team killed as well which may not be how they wish to play. XP debt discourages this however if one refuses to recognize it isn’t appreciated by others or finds it entertaining to get the team killed then it ceases to be at no one else’s expense... but I’m sure this logic is failing to get through as well... good luck all... I believe this may be a lost cause...

So. You want a team to suffer penalties for how one member of their team plays? Death penalties aren't going to stop a troll from trolling, in fact it'd probably encourage trollish behavior.

So. With death penalties a bad player gives penalties to the whole team, without they're just an annoyance and would be kicked off the team.

Yep, I can clearly see how death penalties are totally necessary. That'll teach those people for teaming with that guy.

I think the argument for death penalties encouraging better group play works like this...

Scenario One, no death penalty or a negligible one. The player learns to be reckless, not pull carefully, they often bite off more than they can chew, they never rest up between fights, etc. Because it’s more efficient to complete the toughest content as fast as possible to advance the quickest way, and if you push the envelope too far, who cares? Nothing bad will happen.

Scenario Two, the death penalty is meaningful. The same player pushes things too far, gets creamed, suffers, and learns to be more cautious. They size up opponents and scenarios first to see if it’s worth even trying, then come up with a strategy to maximize success, and proceed with care and forethought. They advance more slowly but die less often to avoid that painful penalty.

The Scenario One player joins a group and goes all Leeroy Jenkins, irritates the group, and gets kicked. The Scenario Two player is more thoughtful, might be more inclined to communicate with group members and will probably warn them that it’s the first time doing this material and may ask for pointers. The group appreciates that more.

Now I see Scenario One as self-correcting because that player now has consequences they didn’t before. Maybe they learn later but they do eventually learn. So it’s not that big of a deal. You could argue that Scenario Two leads to less drama and “stupid noob” moments though to be fair that’s probably going to happen eventually anyway. It at least mitigates it.

I hope I’m understanding the arguments correctly here.

And in scenario 2 there's a much higher chance for someone to abuse the fact that they can make a bunch of other people accrue penalties then troll away.

Also with scenario 2 you have people at the top unwilling to let in folks who don't have certain builds, item level, other such elitist garbage.

In scenario one sure, bring the noob along, nothing bad will come of it.

That argument doesn’t really work. The problem with group content scenarios (like dungeons or whatever CoT might have) isn’t death penalties. The problem is that if you do it wrong you can’t complete it. Or you fail so often it takes too long to complete and people give up (or kick out the bad apple ruining it for everyone). That’s the case regardless of death penalty. Honestly your argument sounds like something a person might say if they’ve only read about MMORPGs but never experienced one...? I’m not sure how sincere your points are because I think you’ve indicated you do have experience.

I'd be way more willing to work with randos or help out new people (I help out new people anyway) if there wasn't a punishment for doing so.

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

rookslide
rookslide's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 2 min ago
kickstarter
Joined: 09/25/2013 - 10:26
He’s kinda proved the

He’s kinda proved the trolling point at this point.., hooked all of us on trying to make him get it...

"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

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 2 weeks ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
I am a proponent of death

I am a proponent of death penalties.

I believe death penalties strike at the player's risk+reward centers. They add thrill of victory which otherwise would be much paler without the specter of the agony of defeat.

And I am convinced I am right.

But just because I am right does not mean that people like Project_Hero who want the ability to play more casually and maybe even without death penalties are wrong. It is a logical fallacy to come to that conclusion. In fact, I think Project_Hero has made some very valid points amidst the barrage of contrary opinions he or she has faced.

If CoT is designed with an option to play in a casual mode or in a mode in which suicide is a valid advancement strategy, then the pace of progression and rewards should reflect that. I think Project_Hero is correct when stating who are we to judge another player's fun is wrong.

You want to play on the lowest difficulty with no death penalty? Guess what, you're getting no rewards or experience either. So be as casual and suicidal as you want for as long as you want. Have fun! No judgment here.


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.
Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 34 min ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
rookslide wrote:
rookslide wrote:

He’s kinda proved the trolling point at this point.., hooked all of us on trying to make him get it...

Not trolling. I don't want you to make me get it. I want you to get it.

Death penalties are an archaic leftover from the arcade days and do not need to be in games.

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 34 min ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
Huckleberry wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:

I am a proponent of death penalties.

I believe death penalties strike at the player's risk+reward centers. They add thrill of victory which otherwise would be much paler without the specter of the agony of defeat.

And I am convinced I am right.

But just because I am right does not mean that people like Project_Hero who want the ability to play more casually and maybe even without death penalties are wrong. It is a logical fallacy to come to that conclusion. In fact, I think Project_Hero has made some very valid points amidst the barrage of contrary opinions he or she has faced.

If CoT is designed with an option to play in a casual mode or in a mode in which suicide is a valid advancement strategy, then the pace of progression and rewards should reflect that. I think Project_Hero is correct when stating who are we to judge another player's fun is wrong.

You want to play on the lowest difficulty with no death penalty? Guess what, you're getting no rewards or experience either. So be as casual and suicidal as you want for as long as you want. Have fun! No judgment here.

Rewards for doing well as opposed to penalties for doing bad would carry the same risk vs reward feelings. Especially as there can be more tiers of rewards for doing even better.

Full stealth, reward.
No deaths, reward.
Save all hostages, reward.
Kill secret boss, reward.

That way you don't get punished for being bad. You just get cool bonus stuff for doing well.

It's like the WoW rest XP thing. It used to be if you didn't log out at an inn you got penalized for it. They found conferring a bonus to XP for resting at an inn made players feel better.

It is in essence the same thing but one way feels crappy and the other doesn't.

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

rookslide
rookslide's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 2 min ago
kickstarter
Joined: 09/25/2013 - 10:26
Huckleberry wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:

I am a proponent of death penalties.

I believe death penalties strike at the player's risk+reward centers. They add thrill of victory which otherwise would be much paler without the specter of the agony of defeat.

And I am convinced I am right.

But just because I am right does not mean that people like Project_Hero who want the ability to play more casually and maybe even without death penalties are wrong. It is a logical fallacy to come to that conclusion. In fact, I think Project_Hero has made some very valid points amidst the barrage of contrary opinions he or she has faced.

If CoT is designed with an option to play in a casual mode or in a mode in which suicide is a valid advancement strategy, then the pace of progression and rewards should reflect that. I think Project_Hero is correct when stating who are we to judge another player's fun is wrong.

You want to play on the lowest difficulty with no death penalty? Guess what, you're getting no rewards or experience either. So be as casual and suicidal as you want for as long as you want. Have fun! No judgment here.

Oh we get it. Huck just made it perfectly clear.

"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

jtpaull
jtpaull's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 1 week ago
Joined: 01/27/2015 - 15:00
I realize I'm late to the

I realize I'm late to the party but I think CoT will start out more of a casual game and become less of a casual game with each 'expansion'/'patch' to a certain point. I can't imagine all their end-game content will be ready at launch (which is more of the non-casual gameplay right?) so once they get all that going I imagine the casualness of the game will reach it's 'rolling average' once nearly all the content is ready.

All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.

Cobalt Azurean
Cobalt Azurean's picture
Offline
Last seen: 15 hours 44 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/03/2013 - 16:39
Huckleberry wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:

I am a proponent of death penalties.

I believe death penalties strike at the player's risk+reward centers. They add thrill of victory which otherwise would be much paler without the specter of the agony of defeat.

And I am convinced I am right.

But just because I am right does not mean that people like Project_Hero who want the ability to play more casually and maybe even without death penalties are wrong. It is a logical fallacy to come to that conclusion. In fact, I think Project_Hero has made some very valid points amidst the barrage of contrary opinions he or she has faced.

If CoT is designed with an option to play in a casual mode or in a mode in which suicide is a valid advancement strategy, then the pace of progression and rewards should reflect that. I think Project_Hero is correct when stating who are we to judge another player's fun is wrong.

You want to play on the lowest difficulty with no death penalty? Guess what, you're getting no rewards or experience either. So be as casual and suicidal as you want for as long as you want. Have fun! No judgment here.

No judgment? Well, I'm judging this to be a well-said and agreeable (at least from my similar perspective) post.
+13 internets. Don't spend them all in one place.

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 2 weeks ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
Project_Hero wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

Rewards for doing well as opposed to penalties for doing bad would carry the same risk vs reward feelings. Especially as there can be more tiers of rewards for doing even better.

Full stealth, reward.
No deaths, reward.
Save all hostages, reward.
Kill secret boss, reward.

That way you don't get punished for being bad. You just get cool bonus stuff for doing well.

It's like the WoW rest XP thing. It used to be if you didn't log out at an inn you got penalized for it. They found conferring a bonus to XP for resting at an inn made players feel better.

It is in essence the same thing but one way feels crappy and the other doesn't.

I think it will be interesting to see how this plays out. Pardon the pun.

I agree that the loss of a potential reward could be as much as an incentive as any other death or failure penalty. But we have to consider the consequences of human feedback behavior.

There will be unintended consequences. There always are. For example, take a look at the threads in these forums about achievements and one-time only rewards and such. There is a VERY vocal percentage of the population who are nigh obsessed with getting all accolades. I have even been bit by that bug a little. For example, DCUO actually has a no-defeat achievement for each mission. In that game I have often quit in the middle of and restarted missions just to get the achievement. The unintended consequence is that I the player stopped thinking of the mission as a mission for my character and started thinking of it as a vehicle to obtain some meta-achievement or reward. The plus side is that players will be motivated to repeat missions as many times as it takes to get all the rewards. The negative side is that we lose immersion and build up the boredom counter as we force ourselves to repeat content that gets staler and staler with each run-through just to appease our subconscious desire to fulfill some completion metric.
Which will be the stronger drive? I don't know yet and it will be different for every player.

But if MWM wants to go the route of lost rewards rather than a failure penalty, we will see what the unintended consequences will actually be. I, for one, will be eagerly curious to find out.


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.
Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 34 min ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
As long as you make it so the

As long as you make it so the missions are repeatable then there'd be no loss of a reward there, as long as you wanna keep trying.

Edit: which in turn would make you get better at the game.

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 9 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
Project_Hero wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

Not trolling. I don't want you to make me get it. I want you to get it.

Death penalties are an archaic leftover from the arcade days and do not need to be in games.

You refuse to accept the validity of points made against your interests and expect everyone else to agree with your perspective ... reality and experience with human nature be damned.
Game. Set. Match.
Bad faith ... proven ... in your own words.


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 34 min ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
Redlynne wrote:
Redlynne wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

Not trolling. I don't want you to make me get it. I want you to get it.

Death penalties are an archaic leftover from the arcade days and do not need to be in games.

You refuse to accept the validity of points made against your interests and expect everyone else to agree with your perspective ... reality and experience with human nature be damned.
Game. Set. Match.
Bad faith ... proven ... in your own words.

How is that any different from those who want to "make me get it"? How is it different from Huck stating his mind is made up?

Obviously because I hold an opposing viewpoint I'm doing so in bad faith :V

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

deksam
deksam's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 1 week ago
Joined: 07/12/2017 - 10:22
Project_Hero wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:
rookslide wrote:

He’s kinda proved the trolling point at this point.., hooked all of us on trying to make him get it...

Not trolling. I don't want you to make me get it. I want you to get it.

Death penalties are an archaic leftover from the arcade days and do not need to be in games.

Wrong.. for so many reasons.

ivanhedgehog
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 8 hours ago
kickstarter
Joined: 11/04/2013 - 12:46
deksam wrote:
deksam wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:
deksam wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

Was it the same percentage of XP debt though? It's been so long I don't remember how it worked.

Most games these days have very little penalty for death, thanks to the ability to save the game, autosave, and the like. And games are more popular now than they ever have been.

It was a percentage per each death, but since leveling up increased the amount of XP per level it took a lot longer to remove the debt the higher up you went.

Most games having a "very little penalty for death" depends on what you consider a little penalty and what you consider a high penalty. Again, a few posts back I mentioned several games across a few genres that are currently leading in popularity, and they all had varying penalties, some harsher than others. I think if you really looked into the penalties for what people are playing you'd notice that maybe the penalties aren't as simple in every case as you perceive them. Even in the most casual games there will be parts of the game with very high risk to reward ratios.

I don't think anyone is saying that a game should have nothing but challenging content, but I believe a lot of people are saying, don't tell me this is a world ending scenario and give me a run of the mill mugging. If you are in a level where the stakes are high, the losses should be equally as high, and that includes penalties, whether its lack of rewards, having to start over, or incurring some kind of charge to get back up, but either was, waking up and walking back like nothing happened won't cut it.

If it's a percentage then it's the same for you regardless of level. You need more XP, but you gain more XP.

I bet if you looked into those games the top reasons for playing wouldn't be "the penalties for losing" most either wouldn't comment on them, or count them as an annoyance.

The problem with the "end of the world" scenario is that... The player will win. There's no other way about it. So the losses can't be equal to the task. The player can't lose and doom the world. So what you're really asking is how much annoyance do you want to pile on a player for dying in a video game. So either way the player will win, just one way you burden them with a bunch of annoying baggage. In both instances of a player playing flawlessly and another failing their way through it they'll both get the rewards at the end and they'll both get to see the story. Just in one instance you'll make the player's rewards worth less because they succeeded despite the trouble and strife.

That makes no sense... the player doesn't always win in those scenarios... they don't get the rewards, they don't complete the tasks set before them. Just because one player doesn't complete the quest doesn't mean others won't. It's like saying "well I can't complete the raid, so it must not be that important" ... yet you lose out on the rewards for doing so, and other players reap the rewards.

I'd also bet that the "penalties for losing" very much do play a big factor in why some games have grown in popularity. Why do you think so many battle royale games have been created, some even more punishing than PUBG and Fortnite? The fact of the matter is, people don't specifically say that they play games based on a penalty, because it's just part of the game. It's a defining feature that people don't think about, like controller schemes. You only notice them if they are done poorly or don't make sense, but the proof is in the popularity.

console games are popular with console gamers. first person shooters are popular with console gamers. This is neither a console game nor a first person shooter. what works for them doesnt necessarily work for an MMO. do console gamers flock to these games because of the penalties or in spite of the penalties? we havent seen any proof either way.

ivanhedgehog
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 8 hours ago
kickstarter
Joined: 11/04/2013 - 12:46
rookslide wrote:
rookslide wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:
Redlynne wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

I've mostly been arguing that a death penalty in no way encourages a certain play style nor does it enhance the experience.

And pretty much everyone has been telling you that the point and purpose of a death penalty is to DIScourage a collection of suicidal styles of game play ... and you have resolutely refused to accept the hint/clue for multiple pages of this thread already.

Encouraging a mindset towards survival goes hand in hand with discouraging a mindset that thinks suicide is an "okay" strategy. Every single time this gets pointed out to you or you have your nose rubbed in it (again!) you resolutely refuse to accept the hint/clue and instead point wildly off into the distance a shout "but what's that over there!" so as to repeatedly refuse to accept what you are being told in no uncertain terms. At this point you have established a lengthy track record of refusing to LEARN from what people have been telling you so many times and in so many ways.

To put it mildly, you will not be convinced ... and there is no point in wasting further effort on the futile attempt to convince you that you're wrong. You're a Lost Cause, Project_Hero. Congratulations ... ACHIEVEMENT UNLOCKED.

What is the problem with suicidal gameplay if the player doing so is having fun at the expense of no one?

Edit: why should a player be penalized for having fun they way they want to?

Again hey look over there!

There is nothing wrong with this style of gameplay provided it is at no one else’s expense. The real problem with this is that once you begin to employ the same tactics in a team one frequently gets others in the team killed as well which may not be how they wish to play. XP debt discourages this however if one refuses to recognize it isn’t appreciated by others or finds it entertaining to get the team killed then it ceases to be at no one else’s expense... but I’m sure this logic is failing to get through as well... good luck all... I believe this may be a lost cause...

COT will allow you to set your own difficulty to whatever you want, you can play how you want. What it will not do is give you a slider to set somone elses difficulty. I think thats what you are looking for.

ivanhedgehog
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 8 hours ago
kickstarter
Joined: 11/04/2013 - 12:46
Huckleberry wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:

I am a proponent of death penalties.

I believe death penalties strike at the player's risk+reward centers. They add thrill of victory which otherwise would be much paler without the specter of the agony of defeat.

And I am convinced I am right.

But just because I am right does not mean that people like Project_Hero who want the ability to play more casually and maybe even without death penalties are wrong. It is a logical fallacy to come to that conclusion. In fact, I think Project_Hero has made some very valid points amidst the barrage of contrary opinions he or she has faced.

If CoT is designed with an option to play in a casual mode or in a mode in which suicide is a valid advancement strategy, then the pace of progression and rewards should reflect that. I think Project_Hero is correct when stating who are we to judge another player's fun is wrong.

You want to play on the lowest difficulty with no death penalty? Guess what, you're getting no rewards or experience either. So be as casual and suicidal as you want for as long as you want. Have fun! No judgment here.

Playing a fully geared scrapper had a LOT less risk than a newbie blaster. should scrappers get less rewards?
is risk vs reward really what the game revolves around?

Brand X
Brand X's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 23 hours ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/01/2013 - 00:26
Fully gear scrapper was

Fully gear scrapper was fighting tougher enemies than a newbie blaster, and if that newbie blaster did beat what the scrapper was fighting, that usually meant they got a big boost of XP.

That was a bit how farming worked. Tough whoever, took out things the newbie couldn't, but being on a team, the blaster was treated like they did.

Atama
Atama's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 6 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/09/2013 - 22:32
Project_Hero wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:

I am a proponent of death penalties.

I believe death penalties strike at the player's risk+reward centers. They add thrill of victory which otherwise would be much paler without the specter of the agony of defeat.

And I am convinced I am right.

But just because I am right does not mean that people like Project_Hero who want the ability to play more casually and maybe even without death penalties are wrong. It is a logical fallacy to come to that conclusion. In fact, I think Project_Hero has made some very valid points amidst the barrage of contrary opinions he or she has faced.

If CoT is designed with an option to play in a casual mode or in a mode in which suicide is a valid advancement strategy, then the pace of progression and rewards should reflect that. I think Project_Hero is correct when stating who are we to judge another player's fun is wrong.

You want to play on the lowest difficulty with no death penalty? Guess what, you're getting no rewards or experience either. So be as casual and suicidal as you want for as long as you want. Have fun! No judgment here.

Rewards for doing well as opposed to penalties for doing bad would carry the same risk vs reward feelings. Especially as there can be more tiers of rewards for doing even better.

Full stealth, reward.
No deaths, reward.
Save all hostages, reward.
Kill secret boss, reward.

That way you don't get punished for being bad. You just get cool bonus stuff for doing well.

It's like the WoW rest XP thing. It used to be if you didn't log out at an inn you got penalized for it. They found conferring a bonus to XP for resting at an inn made players feel better.

It is in essence the same thing but one way feels crappy and the other doesn't.

I’m in agreement with you except that last sentence. Losing a chance at a reward feels so, so much worse. Oh good grief that’s the most painful penalty of all. Having to spend resources to fix my gear, having to suffer a penalty for five minutes, gaining XP at half rate for the next few bubbles, that’s just the cost of doing business.

Almost getting that achievement that takes so long and it’s so close and you’re just about to get it... Then fail and have to start over. Now that’s demoralizing and harsh.

That doesn’t make it bad. For me that’s actually a huge motivator (usually). I’ll work twice as hard to earn something good than to avoid something bad. That’s why achievements are so effective and popular. They can make people obsessive.

I support your idea Project_Hero, completely. I prefer it. But don’t make the mistake in thinking it’s less harsh, because it’s not, it’s so much worse.

In a good way. :)

deksam
deksam's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 1 week ago
Joined: 07/12/2017 - 10:22
ivanhedgehog wrote:
ivanhedgehog wrote:
deksam wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:
deksam wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

Was it the same percentage of XP debt though? It's been so long I don't remember how it worked.

Most games these days have very little penalty for death, thanks to the ability to save the game, autosave, and the like. And games are more popular now than they ever have been.

It was a percentage per each death, but since leveling up increased the amount of XP per level it took a lot longer to remove the debt the higher up you went.

Most games having a "very little penalty for death" depends on what you consider a little penalty and what you consider a high penalty. Again, a few posts back I mentioned several games across a few genres that are currently leading in popularity, and they all had varying penalties, some harsher than others. I think if you really looked into the penalties for what people are playing you'd notice that maybe the penalties aren't as simple in every case as you perceive them. Even in the most casual games there will be parts of the game with very high risk to reward ratios.

I don't think anyone is saying that a game should have nothing but challenging content, but I believe a lot of people are saying, don't tell me this is a world ending scenario and give me a run of the mill mugging. If you are in a level where the stakes are high, the losses should be equally as high, and that includes penalties, whether its lack of rewards, having to start over, or incurring some kind of charge to get back up, but either was, waking up and walking back like nothing happened won't cut it.

If it's a percentage then it's the same for you regardless of level. You need more XP, but you gain more XP.

I bet if you looked into those games the top reasons for playing wouldn't be "the penalties for losing" most either wouldn't comment on them, or count them as an annoyance.

The problem with the "end of the world" scenario is that... The player will win. There's no other way about it. So the losses can't be equal to the task. The player can't lose and doom the world. So what you're really asking is how much annoyance do you want to pile on a player for dying in a video game. So either way the player will win, just one way you burden them with a bunch of annoying baggage. In both instances of a player playing flawlessly and another failing their way through it they'll both get the rewards at the end and they'll both get to see the story. Just in one instance you'll make the player's rewards worth less because they succeeded despite the trouble and strife.

That makes no sense... the player doesn't always win in those scenarios... they don't get the rewards, they don't complete the tasks set before them. Just because one player doesn't complete the quest doesn't mean others won't. It's like saying "well I can't complete the raid, so it must not be that important" ... yet you lose out on the rewards for doing so, and other players reap the rewards.

I'd also bet that the "penalties for losing" very much do play a big factor in why some games have grown in popularity. Why do you think so many battle royale games have been created, some even more punishing than PUBG and Fortnite? The fact of the matter is, people don't specifically say that they play games based on a penalty, because it's just part of the game. It's a defining feature that people don't think about, like controller schemes. You only notice them if they are done poorly or don't make sense, but the proof is in the popularity.

console games are popular with console gamers. first person shooters are popular with console gamers. This is neither a console game nor a first person shooter. what works for them doesnt necessarily work for an MMO. do console gamers flock to these games because of the penalties or in spite of the penalties? we havent seen any proof either way.

Are you trying to say there's no overlap? There is a finite number of gamers out there, FPS gamers don't only play FPS games... Console games aren't just popular with console gamers, and more and more MMOs have released on console.. and for all we know, this may release on console someday, so saying that the communities of each different avenue wouldn't be interested or they only flock to one kind of game is misguided.

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 2 weeks ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
ivanhedgehog wrote:
ivanhedgehog wrote:

Playing a fully geared scrapper had a LOT less risk than a newbie blaster. should scrappers get less rewards?
is risk vs reward really what the game revolves around?

The way you've worded that question, it appears as if you know the answer before you asked it. So why ask a question if you don't really want an answer? But here's the answer, and it's probably not what you thought it would be:

The answer is yes. Playing the same content, the fully geared scrapper will actually be getting less reward than the newbie blaster even if the "rewards" are exactly the same. Why? Because the fully geared scrapper is capable of completing much more difficult content with correspondingly greater rewards and experience. So if a fully geared scrapper could run more risky content for greater rewards, but chooses to run less risky content for lesser rewards, then those rewards are less "rewarding" to them. Yeah, you get a twelfth 1% accuracy refinement. Junk. But to the newbie, that 1% accuracy refinement is a significant reward because it is something they haven't gotten before.
So yes, the rewards the fully geared scrapper gets by running less risky content are effectively less because they are not worth as much to that character as rewards more appropriate to that character's capability level.


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.
Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 hours 35 min ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
Brand X wrote:
Brand X wrote:

Fully gear scrapper was fighting tougher enemies than a newbie blaster, and if that newbie blaster did beat what the scrapper was fighting, that usually meant they got a big boost of XP.

That was a bit how farming worked. Tough whoever, took out things the newbie couldn't, but being on a team, the blaster was treated like they did.

That’s an assumption. While probably true, when it came to purely seeking rewards, Scrappers were top earners and typically did so at -1 / x8 difficulty for speed over risk over time.

Basically high end builds reaping rewards with absolutely minimum risk.

Now without delving too deep into the risk / reward / what is appropriate penalities I’ll touch on a few points:

1. The Zerg-suicide play comes with its own costs.
Powers that Rez go on cool down and set the pace for how often this can be accomplished.

2. Obtaining ready to use Rez Reserves comes with a cost.

3. Refilling Reaerves requires time in combat to build Momentum. Going constant Leeroy won’t be maintainable.

Incurring those costs in of themselves is a penalty.
They are also finite in resource and can be adjusted by the main resource (such as adjusting cool down of a Rez).

This does not necessarily mean that there should be no penalty for being defeated.

Primarily, death penalties are meant to be a form of negative reinforcement. A dev wants players to play a certain way and the negative result of not doing so is meant encouraged the appropriate play.

Our main penalty for being defeated is a loss of time from being out of combat.

There is also a personal and team based bonus to Achivement rewards when completing an Achivement (which can include street sweeping a neighborhood or instanced content). Being defeated means a loss to the completion bonus.

Now we can do something more harsh - continued diminishing loss based on a curve for continued defeats after the initial loss. And we can tune the curve for what is the “this is too many defeats to be worth it” value.

I’d prefer not to do this.

As to repeating content - doing so to reset instanced content to “farm” isn’t bad. However, for us the goal is to weight the rewards toward Achievemnt bonuses so repeating content over may outpace bonuses for multiple instanced content but - well this has to get into other rewards systems we want to employ and let’s say that restarting content won’t be beneficial for all types of rewards.

We do plan on diminishing returns for rerunning player generated content.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
Scott Jackson
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 2 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/20/2013 - 20:13
While not the same as CoH,

While not the same as CoH, that sounds like it will feel very similar, and fun for me both while solo and teamed. I loved the (few) opportunities CoH presented where I could earn extra merits/hour for myself and the team by being speedy or get extra raid rewards by completing an optional task, so the bonus to the achievement rewards sounds nice.

ivanhedgehog
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 8 hours ago
kickstarter
Joined: 11/04/2013 - 12:46
I used to run farms just to

I used to run farms just to relax often. No one else there +2 x6 or 8 and just kill away. real easy on a tank or scrapper, quite a bit harder on a blaster, but still fun.

jtpaull
jtpaull's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 1 week ago
Joined: 01/27/2015 - 15:00
Tannim222 wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:
Brand X wrote:

Fully gear scrapper was fighting tougher enemies than a newbie blaster, and if that newbie blaster did beat what the scrapper was fighting, that usually meant they got a big boost of XP.

That was a bit how farming worked. Tough whoever, took out things the newbie couldn't, but being on a team, the blaster was treated like they did.

That’s an assumption. While probably true, when it came to purely seeking rewards, Scrappers were top earners and typically did so at -1 / x8 difficulty for speed over risk over time.

Basically high end builds reaping rewards with absolutely minimum risk.

Now without delving too deep into the risk / reward / what is appropriate penalities I’ll touch on a few points:

1. The Zerg-suicide play comes with its own costs.
Powers that Rez go on cool down and set the pace for how often this can be accomplished.

2. Obtaining ready to use Rez Reserves comes with a cost.

3. Refilling Reaerves requires time in combat to build Momentum. Going constant Leeroy won’t be maintainable.

Incurring those costs in of themselves is a penalty.
They are also finite in resource and can be adjusted by the main resource (such as adjusting cool down of a Rez).

This does not necessarily mean that there should be no penalty for being defeated.

Primarily, death penalties are meant to be a form of negative reinforcement. A dev wants players to play a certain way and the negative result of not doing so is meant encouraged the appropriate play.

Our main penalty for being defeated is a loss of time from being out of combat.

There is also a personal and team based bonus to Achivement rewards when completing an Achivement (which can include street sweeping a neighborhood or instanced content). Being defeated means a loss to the completion bonus.

Now we can do something more harsh - continued diminishing loss based on a curve for continued defeats after the initial loss. And we can tune the curve for what is the “this is too many defeats to be worth it” value.

I’d prefer not to do this.

As to repeating content - doing so to reset instanced content to “farm” isn’t bad. However, for us the goal is to weight the rewards toward Achievemnt bonuses so repeating content over may outpace bonuses for multiple instanced content but - well this has to get into other rewards systems we want to employ and let’s say that restarting content won’t be beneficial for all types of rewards.

We do plan on diminishing returns for rerunning player generated content.

All of the thumbs up.

All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.

blacke4dawn
blacke4dawn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 17 hours 1 min ago
Joined: 03/28/2015 - 03:02
I know Tannim has outlined

I know Tannim has outlined what will be, and that is a fairly low death penalty with the rest as "extra" (iirc challenges) rewards but I still feel this needs addressed.

Project_Hero wrote:

So. You want a team to suffer penalties for how one member of their team plays? Death penalties aren't going to stop a troll from trolling, in fact it'd probably encourage trollish behavior.

So. With death penalties a bad player gives penalties to the whole team, without they're just an annoyance and would be kicked off the team.

Yep, I can clearly see how death penalties are totally necessary. That'll teach those people for teaming with that guy.

Are you really saying that penalties will be seen so bad as to be avoided at all costs but loosing team based and possibly personal challenge rewards will never be seen more than a mere annoyance and the worst they'll do is just kick them off of the team?

Doesn't matter if the "loss" is framed as a penalty or as a missed challenge reward, trolls will do what they can to fuck up for other people. Heck, when you look at it team-based challenges are most likely much easier to mess up than getting someone else killed (or even a team wipe) by over pulling or some such thus making the challenges a better "target" for trolls.

As with real life it depends on what you want out of the penalty and how you use it, not if it's present at all. That is both sticks and carrots have to be used in some form.

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 34 min ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
blacke4dawn wrote:
blacke4dawn wrote:

I know Tannim has outlined what will be, and that is a fairly low death penalty with the rest as "extra" (iirc challenges) rewards but I still feel this needs addressed.

Project_Hero wrote:

So. You want a team to suffer penalties for how one member of their team plays? Death penalties aren't going to stop a troll from trolling, in fact it'd probably encourage trollish behavior.

So. With death penalties a bad player gives penalties to the whole team, without they're just an annoyance and would be kicked off the team.

Yep, I can clearly see how death penalties are totally necessary. That'll teach those people for teaming with that guy.

Are you really saying that penalties will be seen so bad as to be avoided at all costs but loosing team based and possibly personal challenge rewards will never be seen more than a mere annoyance and the worst they'll do is just kick them off of the team?

Doesn't matter if the "loss" is framed as a penalty or as a missed challenge reward, trolls will do what they can to fuck up for other people. Heck, when you look at it team-based challenges are most likely much easier to mess up than getting someone else killed (or even a team wipe) by over pulling or some such thus making the challenges a better "target" for trolls.

As with real life it depends on what you want out of the penalty and how you use it, not if it's present at all. That is both sticks and carrots have to be used in some form.

The post, I believe, was made for death penalties vs no death penalties. If a bad player wipes a team when there's no penalties for death the team only loses some time. If there are penalties then the team loses more than just time.

I don't think I made this post with any reward scheme in mind.

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

blacke4dawn
blacke4dawn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 17 hours 1 min ago
Joined: 03/28/2015 - 03:02
Project_Hero wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:
blacke4dawn wrote:

I know Tannim has outlined what will be, and that is a fairly low death penalty with the rest as "extra" (iirc challenges) rewards but I still feel this needs addressed.

Project_Hero wrote:

So. You want a team to suffer penalties for how one member of their team plays? Death penalties aren't going to stop a troll from trolling, in fact it'd probably encourage trollish behavior.

So. With death penalties a bad player gives penalties to the whole team, without they're just an annoyance and would be kicked off the team.

Yep, I can clearly see how death penalties are totally necessary. That'll teach those people for teaming with that guy.

Are you really saying that penalties will be seen so bad as to be avoided at all costs but loosing team based and possibly personal challenge rewards will never be seen more than a mere annoyance and the worst they'll do is just kick them off of the team?

Doesn't matter if the "loss" is framed as a penalty or as a missed challenge reward, trolls will do what they can to fuck up for other people. Heck, when you look at it team-based challenges are most likely much easier to mess up than getting someone else killed (or even a team wipe) by over pulling or some such thus making the challenges a better "target" for trolls.

As with real life it depends on what you want out of the penalty and how you use it, not if it's present at all. That is both sticks and carrots have to be used in some form.

The post, I believe, was made for death penalties vs no death penalties. If a bad player wipes a team when there's no penalties for death the team only loses some time. If there are penalties then the team loses more than just time.

I don't think I made this post with any reward scheme in mind.

While you haven't done so directly a large part of your argumentation for no death penalty has been that you can't affect others beyond wasting their time. If it really is so then you should be equally against reward schemes because they are equally easy to make someone "loose" it, if not even more so, than it is to "force" a death penalty onto someone. But apparently you are all for reward schemes.
Add on that many who has argued for a death penalty has used the argument of it being one (out of many) motivating factor for improving oneself, that you have essentially said should be done through a reward system instead.

Yes I fully acknowledge that for most people missing out on a reward that they weren't aiming for won't feel as bad as getting a penalty even if the penalty is lower than the reward they missed out on. Though it creates a kinda disconnect in my mind when you are in dead set against one type of risk-reward system (death penalty) that is fairly hard to force "losses" onto others while being in favor of another risk-reward system (reward scheme) that is partially very easy to force "losses" onto others.

This might be rooted in where the perceived baseline for reward level is and at the launch of the game I think that one will be set at what you get as just the mission rewards but as time moves on I'm pretty sure the perceived baseline will include the no-dieing challenge rewards. So in essence if you get less than what you expect then it will feel like a penalty.

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 34 min ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
It's pretty much a similar

It's pretty much a similar argument as to the WoW rest XP thing. The game was originally going to punish players for not logging out in an inn, they switched it to rewarding players who did so. From mail mechanical point of view both have the same effect, just one feels better on the player end increasing enjoyment and retention.

A penalty tends to feel crappy while a bonus feels good, even if they are in essence the same thing.

Mostly I wasn't arguing for having no death penalties in the game, more so questioning the validity of having them in the first place. And all arguments for them can be just as easily satisfied by rewarding good behaviour instead. Though I still feel you'd get the same results even without it, people who like the game and the game play will want to do better at the game.

Rewarding good behaviour brings me to another thing which probably should have it's own thread. In FF14 when you team with randos for dungeons, after completion of the dungeon, you can reward your fellow players with commendations. It'd be nice to have a way of saying "This is a good player" rather than just being able to report a bad one.

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

Atama
Atama's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 6 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/09/2013 - 22:32
Project_Hero wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

Rewarding good behaviour brings me to another thing which probably should have it's own thread. In FF14 when you team with randos for dungeons, after completion of the dungeon, you can reward your fellow players with commendations. It'd be nice to have a way of saying "This is a good player" rather than just being able to report a bad one.

I like the idea but I worry that it’ll be like tipping in restaurants, where instead of it being something extra to reward excellence it becomes something mandatory and expected and eventually loses its meaning.

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 34 min ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
Atama wrote:
Atama wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

Rewarding good behaviour brings me to another thing which probably should have it's own thread. In FF14 when you team with randos for dungeons, after completion of the dungeon, you can reward your fellow players with commendations. It'd be nice to have a way of saying "This is a good player" rather than just being able to report a bad one.

I like the idea but I worry that it’ll be like tipping in restaurants, where instead of it being something extra to reward excellence it becomes something mandatory and expected and eventually loses its meaning.

It's only mandatory in the states. And only because the employers don't pay their employees enough. Tipping, that is.

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

blacke4dawn
blacke4dawn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 17 hours 1 min ago
Joined: 03/28/2015 - 03:02
Project_Hero wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

It's pretty much a similar argument as to the WoW rest XP thing. The game was originally going to punish players for not logging out in an inn, they switched it to rewarding players who did so. From mail mechanical point of view both have the same effect, just one feels better on the player end increasing enjoyment and retention.

A penalty tends to feel crappy while a bonus feels good, even if they are in essence the same thing.

Mostly I wasn't arguing for having no death penalties in the game, more so questioning the validity of having them in the first place. And all arguments for them can be just as easily satisfied by rewarding good behaviour instead. Though I still feel you'd get the same results even without it, people who like the game and the game play will want to do better at the game.

Rewarding good behaviour brings me to another thing which probably should have it's own thread. In FF14 when you team with randos for dungeons, after completion of the dungeon, you can reward your fellow players with commendations. It'd be nice to have a way of saying "This is a good player" rather than just being able to report a bad one.

On the flip side, if you don't have a death penalty of any kind (not even something small like going hospital then run back) then what's the point of having death at all?

Personally I would actually be more annoyed with having an "instant back" button upon dieing as the standard (possibly only) option compared to having to hospital and then run back, since the first would feel more of a disruption to combat flow than the latter. So the latter would feel meaningful to me while the first one would feel like they put in death purely for the sake of having death.

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 2 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Project_Hero wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:
Atama wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

Rewarding good behaviour brings me to another thing which probably should have it's own thread. In FF14 when you team with randos for dungeons, after completion of the dungeon, you can reward your fellow players with commendations. It'd be nice to have a way of saying "This is a good player" rather than just being able to report a bad one.

I like the idea but I worry that it’ll be like tipping in restaurants, where instead of it being something extra to reward excellence it becomes something mandatory and expected and eventually loses its meaning.

It's only mandatory in the states. And only because the employers don't pay their employees enough. Tipping, that is.

I understand the sentiment of wanting to recognize "good players" but if something like that became a value you could "inspect" on other players then you've (at least potentially) created a "class" system where people will not be chosen for teams unless they have a certain minimum rating or you'll have people who'll "downvote" people just as a griefing tactic. Let's leave the Social Credit system to the Chinese for as long as we can...

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 9 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
Wow, you're still trying to

Wow, you're still trying to have it both ways. Heads I win, tails you lose. Are you sure you're not a villain?

Project_Hero wrote:

Mostly I wasn't arguing for having no death penalties in the game, more so questioning the validity of having them in the first place.

Right.
You weren't arguing against them ... you were just arguing against them.
Got it.

Project_Hero wrote:

And all arguments for them can be just as easily satisfied by rewarding good behaviour instead.

Except that "rewards only" model results in greater inflationary pressure on the game's (other) systems, while "penalty inclusive" results reduce that inflationary pressure on the game's systems. From a design standpoint, you need to be wary of One Way Ratchet™ mechanics, particularly if the ratchet only turns on the positive side of things ... since turning that ratchet too many times will result in runaways (and that's even before asking what happens at the Level Cap when the ratchet can't keep turning in a positive direction anymore).

Again, the basic shape of what you're pushing for is a system that makes everyone "rich" and in which no one ever has to pay for anything ... ever. It's all upsides with no downsides to anything. Such systems are extremely prone to hyperinflation because the only forces allowed to act are the inflationary ones with no deflationary responses possible. You can only "get" money, but then you never have to "spend" money on anything (in effect).

If you refuse to allow the validity of ANY "cost" systems into the game, even modest ones, you have built hyperinflation in from the very beginning so as to be the only possible outcome right from the very start ... while simultaneously preventing anything from influencing that outcome. When the system is built as plus only with no minus possible, there are no other alternatives. You basically "win" just by showing up. That's not my idea of a Good Game™ (although it's obviously your preference).

Project_Hero wrote:

Though I still feel you'd get the same results even without it

Nice opinion you've got there. Got any historical examples documenting where this IS IN FACT the case in an MMORPG context? After all, if the conclusion is as self-evident as you're claiming it to be, then somebody somewhere would have already tried it and done before, right?

In other words, simply saying "I know I'm right, so there!" isn't good enough when it comes to evidence based analysis like this situation is calling for. At best, you're simply engaging in wishful thinking (and refusing to entertain any evidence that might point in a contrary direction). That isnt's open minded by a long stretch of the imagination.

Your statement of "I still feel" is the fulcrum point of your argument. I'm challenging you to reveal (in a Show Your Work kind of way) what that rests upon in terms of FACTS, rather than allowing it to "pass" based purely on OPINION. So ... what is your evidence? Back up your assertion with proof.


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
Atama
Atama's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 6 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/09/2013 - 22:32
Project_Hero wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:
Atama wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

Rewarding good behaviour brings me to another thing which probably should have it's own thread. In FF14 when you team with randos for dungeons, after completion of the dungeon, you can reward your fellow players with commendations. It'd be nice to have a way of saying "This is a good player" rather than just being able to report a bad one.

I like the idea but I worry that it’ll be like tipping in restaurants, where instead of it being something extra to reward excellence it becomes something mandatory and expected and eventually loses its meaning.

It's only mandatory in the states. And only because the employers don't pay their employees enough. Tipping, that is.

Actually no, it’s mandatory in all of North America (Canada and Mexico do it too). The only difference is that the US tips in larger percentages.

You’re trying to present the cart pushing the horse. Waiters aren’t tipped because they’re not paid enough, at least that’s not how it started. Establishments found that they could get away with paying servers less because the pay was supplemented by gratuities, until it became customary, then expected, and is now codified into law (people making tips can make less than the minimum wage in direct pay).

It actually started in England, where people staying in a person’s home overnight would give a small gift of money as thanks to the house’s servants. By the 1600s this was expected behavior, and then it spread to coffeehouses and restaurants. Ironically enough, England no longer expects tips except maybe to round up the bill (what Americans call “keep the change”).

The point is that it starts as something nice you do for people and once people get used to it, it becomes something you have to do otherwise you’re being antisocial. The more I think about it the more I think it would be divisive to the community and a bad idea.

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 34 min ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
Redlynne wrote:
Redlynne wrote:

Wow, you're still trying to have it both ways. Heads I win, tails you lose. Are you sure you're not a villain?

Project_Hero wrote:

Mostly I wasn't arguing for having no death penalties in the game, more so questioning the validity of having them in the first place.

Right.
You weren't arguing against them ... you were just arguing against them.
Got it.

Project_Hero wrote:

And all arguments for them can be just as easily satisfied by rewarding good behaviour instead.

Except that "rewards only" model results in greater inflationary pressure on the game's (other) systems, while "penalty inclusive" results reduce that inflationary pressure on the game's systems. From a design standpoint, you need to be wary of One Way Ratchet™ mechanics, particularly if the ratchet only turns on the positive side of things ... since turning that ratchet too many times will result in runaways (and that's even before asking what happens at the Level Cap when the ratchet can't keep turning in a positive direction anymore).

Again, the basic shape of what you're pushing for is a system that makes everyone "rich" and in which no one ever has to pay for anything ... ever. It's all upsides with no downsides to anything. Such systems are extremely prone to hyperinflation because the only forces allowed to act are the inflationary ones with no deflationary responses possible. You can only "get" money, but then you never have to "spend" money on anything (in effect).

If you refuse to allow the validity of ANY "cost" systems into the game, even modest ones, you have built hyperinflation in from the very beginning so as to be the only possible outcome right from the very start ... while simultaneously preventing anything from influencing that outcome. When the system is built as plus only with no minus possible, there are no other alternatives. You basically "win" just by showing up. That's not my idea of a Good Game™ (although it's obviously your preference).

Project_Hero wrote:

Though I still feel you'd get the same results even without it

Nice opinion you've got there. Got any historical examples documenting where this IS IN FACT the case in an MMORPG context? After all, if the conclusion is as self-evident as you're claiming it to be, then somebody somewhere would have already tried it and done before, right?

In other words, simply saying "I know I'm right, so there!" isn't good enough when it comes to evidence based analysis like this situation is calling for. At best, you're simply engaging in wishful thinking (and refusing to entertain any evidence that might point in a contrary direction). That isnt's open minded by a long stretch of the imagination.

Your statement of "I still feel" is the fulcrum point of your argument. I'm challenging you to reveal (in a Show Your Work kind of way) what that rests upon in terms of FACTS, rather than allowing it to "pass" based purely on OPINION. So ... what is your evidence? Back up your assertion with proof.

See, those two statements aren't contradictory. I wasn't arguing for having no death penalties in the game I was questioning the validity of having them in any game. I wasn't saying "we shouldn't have them and here's why" I was saying "why do we have them at all, anywhere?"

Yep a rewards only structure might require more work on the development side.

What happens at the level cap of any game? They can't gain more XP, only IGC and items. And for the money example you give them things to spend it on. In WoW they have a rather costly glamour system, same as FF14 the end game is all glamour. Getting your character to look cool.

You win by showing up, but you win more by doing well. Want the best gear, do well. Want to just coast by and experience the game? Well you can do that too.

MMOs don't tend to innovate very much. Neither do games in general. Innovation comes slowly. Especially now as games, especially MMOs, are expensive to make. Why try something unknown that might work when you can copy the biggest one on the block and just change it very slightly? One has inherently less risk involved.

And the argument of "this hasn't been done before therefore it's a bad idea" is stupid. There's a lot of things that haven't been done before but then afterwards revolutionized the thing.

Part of my evidence, again, stating for the third time, is how players felt about WoWs rest XP. As a penalty people didn't like it, as a bonus they did. People don't like to be penalized and like bonuses. Getting 0 or +1 feels better than getting -1 or 0. Even though they end up being the same thing.

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 34 min ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
Atama wrote:
Atama wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:
Atama wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

Rewarding good behaviour brings me to another thing which probably should have it's own thread. In FF14 when you team with randos for dungeons, after completion of the dungeon, you can reward your fellow players with commendations. It'd be nice to have a way of saying "This is a good player" rather than just being able to report a bad one.

I like the idea but I worry that it’ll be like tipping in restaurants, where instead of it being something extra to reward excellence it becomes something mandatory and expected and eventually loses its meaning.

It's only mandatory in the states. And only because the employers don't pay their employees enough. Tipping, that is.

Actually no, it’s mandatory in all of North America (Canada and Mexico do it too). The only difference is that the US tips in larger percentages.

You’re trying to present the cart pushing the horse. Waiters aren’t tipped because they’re not paid enough, at least that’s not how it started. Establishments found that they could get away with paying servers less because the pay was supplemented by gratuities, until it became customary, then expected, and is now codified into law (people making tips can make less than the minimum wage in direct pay).

It actually started in England, where people staying in a person’s home overnight would give a small gift of money as thanks to the house’s servants. By the 1600s this was expected behavior, and then it spread to coffeehouses and restaurants. Ironically enough, England no longer expects tips except maybe to round up the bill (what Americans call “keep the change”).

The point is that it starts as something nice you do for people and once people get used to it, it becomes something you have to do otherwise you’re being antisocial. The more I think about it the more I think it would be divisive to the community and a bad idea.

Tipping isn't mandatory in Canada. We make the employers pay the serving staff enough. Tips are just that here, extra.

It doesn't seem to be a problem in FF14, there's I think some titles you get from that, and if you get enough you can be part of the mentor's channel which is specifically for helping out new people. So ripping all of that would be nice.

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

ivanhedgehog
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 8 hours ago
kickstarter
Joined: 11/04/2013 - 12:46
blacke4dawn wrote:
blacke4dawn wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

It's pretty much a similar argument as to the WoW rest XP thing. The game was originally going to punish players for not logging out in an inn, they switched it to rewarding players who did so. From mail mechanical point of view both have the same effect, just one feels better on the player end increasing enjoyment and retention.

A penalty tends to feel crappy while a bonus feels good, even if they are in essence the same thing.

Mostly I wasn't arguing for having no death penalties in the game, more so questioning the validity of having them in the first place. And all arguments for them can be just as easily satisfied by rewarding good behaviour instead. Though I still feel you'd get the same results even without it, people who like the game and the game play will want to do better at the game.

Rewarding good behaviour brings me to another thing which probably should have it's own thread. In FF14 when you team with randos for dungeons, after completion of the dungeon, you can reward your fellow players with commendations. It'd be nice to have a way of saying "This is a good player" rather than just being able to report a bad one.

On the flip side, if you don't have a death penalty of any kind (not even something small like going hospital then run back) then what's the point of having death at all?

Personally I would actually be more annoyed with having an "instant back" button upon dieing as the standard (possibly only) option compared to having to hospital and then run back, since the first would feel more of a disruption to combat flow than the latter. So the latter would feel meaningful to me while the first one would feel like they put in death purely for the sake of having death.

I like the run back unless a team mate rezzes you or you use a wakie. it allows for a lot more tactical flexibility and allows teams to be able to overcome bad luck in raids and the like.

rookslide
rookslide's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 2 min ago
kickstarter
Joined: 09/25/2013 - 10:26
It seems like the crux of the

It seems like the crux of the issue is how it feels to not be rewarded.

Rewards are not givens they are a bonus for doing above and beyond expectations.

I would not expect a game to offer a base reward for everyone just for logging in. I expect to have to do something to progress in a positive direction. I would never expect any game mechanism to reward me for failing a substantial part of everything, which is not dying. I don’t recall any game where I got rewarded if an npc I am escorting dies before reaching the destination.

And failing in every single instance of life/gaming/etc should never result in a reward. Yes it feels bad to fail but that is part of life/gaming/etc. and it is ok to feel bad for failing but it is never wise to reward failing. This really is not a reasonably debatable issue, it’s a fundamental.

I would never reward my children for failing. I would console them, encourage them, help them to succeed but not reward them for failing to do so.

This is not found in any surviving system, gaming or otherwise. Whether it feels good or bad is really a moot point. No game always feels good there are always parts each player doesn’t enjoy. Those parts may vary but no system is perfect. However, this system is not found anywhere because it is fundamentally unsound.

"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

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 34 min ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
rookslide wrote:
rookslide wrote:

It seems like the crux of the issue is how it feels to not be rewarded.

Rewards are not givens they are a bonus for doing above and beyond expectations.

I would not expect a game to offer a base reward for everyone just for logging in. I expect to have to do something to progress in a positive direction. I would never expect any game mechanism to reward me for failing a substantial part of everything, which is not dying. I don’t recall any game where I got rewarded if an npc I am escorting dies before reaching the destination.

And failing in every single instance of life/gaming/etc should never result in a reward. Yes it feels bad to fail but that is part of life/gaming/etc. and it is ok to feel bad for failing but it is never wise to reward failing. This really is not a reasonably debatable issue, it’s a fundamental.

I would never reward my children for failing. I would console them, encourage them, help them to succeed but not reward them for failing to do so.

This is not found in any surviving system, gaming or otherwise. Whether it feels good or bad is really a moot point. No game always feels good there are always parts each player doesn’t enjoy. Those parts may vary but no system is perfect. However, this system is not found anywhere because it is fundamentally unsound.

Login bonuses have been shown to keep player retention.

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

jtpaull
jtpaull's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 1 week ago
Joined: 01/27/2015 - 15:00
Atama wrote:
Atama wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:
Atama wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

Rewarding good behaviour brings me to another thing which probably should have it's own thread. In FF14 when you team with randos for dungeons, after completion of the dungeon, you can reward your fellow players with commendations. It'd be nice to have a way of saying "This is a good player" rather than just being able to report a bad one.

I like the idea but I worry that it’ll be like tipping in restaurants, where instead of it being something extra to reward excellence it becomes something mandatory and expected and eventually loses its meaning.

It's only mandatory in the states. And only because the employers don't pay their employees enough. Tipping, that is.

Actually no, it’s mandatory in all of North America (Canada and Mexico do it too). The only difference is that the US tips in larger percentages.

You’re trying to present the cart pushing the horse. Waiters aren’t tipped because they’re not paid enough, at least that’s not how it started. Establishments found that they could get away with paying servers less because the pay was supplemented by gratuities, until it became customary, then expected, and is now codified into law (people making tips can make less than the minimum wage in direct pay).

It actually started in England, where people staying in a person’s home overnight would give a small gift of money as thanks to the house’s servants. By the 1600s this was expected behavior, and then it spread to coffeehouses and restaurants. Ironically enough, England no longer expects tips except maybe to round up the bill (what Americans call “keep the change”).

The point is that it starts as something nice you do for people and once people get used to it, it becomes something you have to do otherwise you’re being antisocial. The more I think about it the more I think it would be divisive to the community and a bad idea.

It's not mandatory to tip in the US. It is expected and generally followed, even frowned upon for not doing it, but it is not mandatory to tip. You can go to any restaurant and pay for only the meal and not tip.

All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 34 min ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
US establishments don't pay

US establishments don't pay their servers enough, because people are expected to tip.

It's a pretty awful set up.

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

Scott Jackson
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 2 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/20/2013 - 20:13
To anyone interested in a

To anyone interested in a though experiment, let's imagine an MMO which has the following mechanics:

General mechanics
- Player has a health bar and an energy bar.
- Player can easily refill health and energy between spawn groups.
- Player can refill health and energy during a fight, by using certain powers, "potions", or by waiting for a regeneration mechanic.
- Health and energy "potions" are obtained easily during combat and have no value except opportunity cost (using them when not needed deprives player of the chance to use them later when the need may be greater).
- Potions have no cooldown on use, but are limited to a maximum carried quantity of 20. They are highly effective, providing a heal of 50% per potion.
- The player can choose the type and quantity of "potions" that will be refilled rapidly and automatically as long as combat continues. ("60% Health and 40% Energy" for example)
- The potions will refill much more slowly when not in combat or when logged out, but fast enough so that the player will typically be able to start each mission will a full potion inventory.
- Low-rank NPCs are not particularly powerful, such that it takes at least 20 NPC hits to defeat a player from full health, even if the player takes no action and has no defensive powers.
- Player's powers recharge rapidly such that they can be used at least once per spawn group with the exception of a few "emergency" powers.
- Player movement is quite fast (and stealth abilities are easy to obtain and use), so the player can generally reach the final "boss / objective room" without fighting or drawing the attention of NPCs along the way.
- There is a modest mission completion reward, but it is balanced with XP from NPCs so that a player is not significantly motivated either to defeat all NPCs or avoid all NPCs. The player may still have a preference or external time constraints.
- NPCs regenerate health and energy slowly, whether they are fighting or not.
- NPCs will return to their spawn group location once their aggro list is empty.

Defeat mechanics
- Player defeat removes the player from every NPCs' aggro list and causes the player's accumulated aggro value to decay completely after five seconds.
- When defeated, the player's character kneels as if exhausted or surrendering, and the screen darkens slightly.
- When "rezzed" from defeat, player has 1 HP, the energy they had prior to defeat, and all powers are at the same % of recharge as they were at the time of defeat.
- The player can self-rez in place with effectively no delay (as fast as they can push the button to activate this self-rez power). The self-rez recharges instantly.
- The self-rez puts the player into an invulnerable, invisible, and fast-moving "ghost" state for 5 seconds, giving them the option to reach a safe location to heal, or use potions to heal in place.
- The player can attack an NPC during this period, but this first attack will do no damage and the ghost state is immediately lost; their attack will also reapply the aggro list value they had prior to defeat.

Now for the thought experiment. Ask yourself the following questions (no need to post answers):
1) Do you consider this game to have a defeat penalty?
- It does have a penalty for losing health (time to recover or opportunity cost of using potions), but I tried to avoid any additional penalty for defeat...however, the player also gains nothing from being defeated or from rezzing. There is no free restoration of health or removal of cooldowns, for example.

2) Can you imagine any scenario(s) in which getting defeated offers the player any in-game benefit while solo?
- If you find such a scenario, can you imagine a way for the game's developers to patch it while maintaining the "spirit" of the game as conveyed through the rest of the design?

3) Can you imagine any scenario(s) in which getting defeated offers either the player or the team any in-game benefit while teaming?
- A "troll" might do things such as gain aggro, pull NPCs toward the team, and then die to pass aggro...but only a very severe defeat penalty applied at the team's discretion would counter this out-of-game benefit to the troll.

4) With yourself as the player, what do you think is the optimal approach to combat for such a game? In other words, on a spectrum from "Zerg-style" to "mildly cautious" to "very cautious", how would you play?
- Would you play differently in different situations, such as solo versus teaming, or on the first encounter with an NPC faction?

5) What "bad" game behaviors do you think the lack of any (or a "significant") defeat penalty will encourage among each psychological segment of the playerbase?
- For instance, would "perfectionist" players (who dislike even seeing their characters kneel in defeat for a moment) change their normal behavior of avoiding defeat at all costs?
- Would trolling behavior be altered, increased, or diminished as compared to other MMOs that you have experienced?
- How about the behavior of players who are simply trying to obtain the maximum rewards for minimum effort or time?

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 34 min ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
Scott Jackson wrote:
Scott Jackson wrote:

To anyone interested in a though experiment, let's imagine an MMO which has the following mechanics:

General mechanics
- Player has a health bar and an energy bar.
- Player can easily refill health and energy between spawn groups.
- Player can refill health and energy during a fight, by using certain powers, "potions", or by waiting for a regeneration mechanic.
- Health and energy "potions" are obtained easily during combat and have no value except opportunity cost (using them when not needed deprives player of the chance to use them later when the need may be greater).
- Potions have no cooldown on use, but are limited to a maximum carried quantity of 20. They are highly effective, providing a heal of 50% per potion.
- The player can choose the type and quantity of "potions" that will be refilled rapidly and automatically as long as combat continues. ("60% Health and 40% Energy" for example)
- The potions will refill much more slowly when not in combat or when logged out, but fast enough so that the player will typically be able to start each mission will a full potion inventory.
- Low-rank NPCs are not particularly powerful, such that it takes at least 20 NPC hits to defeat a player from full health, even if the player takes no action and has no defensive powers.
- Player's powers recharge rapidly such that they can be used at least once per spawn group with the exception of a few "emergency" powers.
- Player movement is quite fast (and stealth abilities are easy to obtain and use), so the player can generally reach the final "boss / objective room" without fighting or drawing the attention of NPCs along the way.
- There is a modest mission completion reward, but it is balanced with XP from NPCs so that a player is not significantly motivated either to defeat all NPCs or avoid all NPCs. The player may still have a preference or external time constraints.
- NPCs regenerate health and energy slowly, whether they are fighting or not.
- NPCs will return to their spawn group location once their aggro list is empty.

Defeat mechanics
- Player defeat removes the player from every NPCs' aggro list and causes the player's accumulated aggro value to decay completely after five seconds.
- When defeated, the player's character kneels as if exhausted or surrendering, and the screen darkens slightly.
- When "rezzed" from defeat, player has 1 HP, the energy they had prior to defeat, and all powers are at the same % of recharge as they were at the time of defeat.
- The player can self-rez in place with effectively no delay (as fast as they can push the button to activate this self-rez power). The self-rez recharges instantly.
- The self-rez puts the player into an invulnerable, invisible, and fast-moving "ghost" state for 5 seconds, giving them the option to reach a safe location to heal, or use potions to heal in place.
- The player can attack an NPC during this period, but this first attack will do no damage and the ghost state is immediately lost; their attack will also reapply the aggro list value they had prior to defeat.

Now for the thought experiment. Ask yourself the following questions (no need to post answers):
1) Do you consider this game to have a defeat penalty?
- It does have a penalty for losing health (time to recover or opportunity cost of using potions), but I tried to avoid any additional penalty for defeat...however, the player also gains nothing from being defeated or from rezzing. There is no free restoration of health or removal of cooldowns, for example.

2) Can you imagine any scenario(s) in which getting defeated offers the player any in-game benefit while solo?
- If you find such a scenario, can you imagine a way for the game's developers to patch it while maintaining the "spirit" of the game as conveyed through the rest of the design?

3) Can you imagine any scenario(s) in which getting defeated offers either the player or the team any in-game benefit while teaming?
- A "troll" might do things such as gain aggro, pull NPCs toward the team, and then die to pass aggro...but only a very severe defeat penalty applied at the team's discretion would counter this out-of-game benefit to the troll.

4) With yourself as the player, what do you think is the optimal approach to combat for such a game? In other words, on a spectrum from "Zerg-style" to "mildly cautious" to "very cautious", how would you play?
- Would you play differently in different situations, such as solo versus teaming, or on the first encounter with an NPC faction?

5) What "bad" game behaviors do you think the lack of any (or a "significant") defeat penalty will encourage among each psychological segment of the playerbase?
- For instance, would "perfectionist" players (who dislike even seeing their characters kneel in defeat for a moment) change their normal behavior of avoiding defeat at all costs?
- Would trolling behavior be altered, increased, or diminished as compared to other MMOs that you have experienced?
- How about the behavior of players who are simply trying to obtain the maximum rewards for minimum effort or time?

This sounds like it'd be great for a Warframe style game. A very action heavy MMO.

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

deksam
deksam's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 1 week ago
Joined: 07/12/2017 - 10:22
Project_Hero wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

US establishments don't pay their servers enough, because people are expected to tip.

It's a pretty awful set up.

In some places that is correct, but that's been changing a lot in many big cities. In some places they actually put 15% - 20% gratuity added to your bill automatically, and almost all places do that for orders over a certain amount. Some places pay more money to their servers, but take a percentage back of tips. Just depends where you live and what kind of places you frequent

Pages