Announcements

City of Titan's first official novelette has been released. Check it out!

Don't forget to leave update ideas or other feedback in our FAQ Feedback thread.

Testing...

What Happens when your hero is defeated?

727 posts / 0 new
Last post
Atama
Atama's picture
Online
Last seen: 3 min 7 sec ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/09/2013 - 22:32
jtpaull wrote:
jtpaull 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.

Well, two sides of that... For most establishments that have wait staff it’s expected to tip, so much so that not tipping is seen as sending the signal that you think the service was horrible. It’s enough of a faux pas to not tip or tip badly that sometimes servers will take to social media to “shame” a customer who they felt was offensive. It’s usually not really mandatory but it’s what Sheldon Cooper would call a “non-optional social convention”.

The other side is that in some establishments it actually is mandatory. Large parties have the tip included automatically in their bill, or in some places all customers.

All of this raises the question of how it’s a “gratuity” if it’s either implicitly or literally required payment. Which goes back to my original point, that over time gratuities stop being true gratuities once they become expected.

As for Canada, it’s customary to tip in Canada at almost the same rate as it is in the US, except that unlike the US an occupation that accepts tips is not exempt from minimum wage laws. Apparently Canadians tip anyway because you’re all that nice. :)

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 2 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
deksam wrote:
deksam 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

I live in the US but travel to Japan several times a year on average. It's nice/interesting to visit a place where it's actually considered rude to tip. Sure I understand the pay structures are completely different and ultimately I'm probably paying the same (or even more) for things while I'm there. But still as a consumer of various services it's nice to not have to think about it.

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

deksam
deksam's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 months ago
Joined: 07/12/2017 - 10:22
Lothic wrote:
Lothic wrote:
deksam 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

I live in the US but travel to Japan several times a year on average. It's actually nice to visit a place where it's actually considered rude to tip. Sure I understand the pay structures are completely different and ultimately I'm probably paying the same (or even more) for things while I'm there. But still as a customer of various services it's nice to not have to think about it.

Yeah I don't hate when they add gratuity to meals in the US, as long as the servers treat everyone properly.

In some cases though, servers can make a lot of money based on tips alone, it's not all as terrible as people believe, there's two sides to every coin, but you do hear horror stories.

rookslide
rookslide's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 41 min ago
kickstarter
Joined: 09/25/2013 - 10:26
deksam wrote:
deksam wrote:
Lothic wrote:
deksam 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

I live in the US but travel to Japan several times a year on average. It's actually nice to visit a place where it's actually considered rude to tip. Sure I understand the pay structures are completely different and ultimately I'm probably paying the same (or even more) for things while I'm there. But still as a customer of various services it's nice to not have to think about it.

Yeah I don't hate when they add gratuity to meals in the US, as long as the servers treat everyone properly.

In some cases though, servers can make a lot of money based on tips alone, it's not all as terrible as people believe, there's two sides to every coin, but you do hear horror stories.

This is true I’ve been a server and known several. Quality varies but those that are quite tuned to their customers expectations tend to do well. At least a few of these people are the primary income earners in their households and did quite well regularly.

It comes down to attitude and working at a decent establishment. Finer the dining the better you’ll do, generally. But respect and quality will always do well above the average wait staff.

"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

ivanhedgehog
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 8 min ago
kickstarter
Joined: 11/04/2013 - 12:46
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.

nobody expects to be rewarded for standing around, missions should reward based on the difficulty of the enemies (+? x?). just like coh did it. fight higher + level enemies, they reward more. no real problem there.I dont imagine the devs will have any problems with that. I certainly hope they do the "subscribed for 6,12,18 etc months" rewards.
Those work so much better than the garbage that swtor ran.

Myri
Myri's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 3 weeks ago
Joined: 04/10/2014 - 01:18
Pulling ideas from Final

Pulling ideas from Final Fantasy 14 is not necessarily a good thing.

The game itself is designed for player churn with little thought to retaining mid core or veteran players. Minimal challenge aside from savage raids, weekly loot lockouts when gear is relevant to current patch, no general sense of "danger" in game. Cookie cutter combat mechanics and a ridiculous upwards gear grind. To stay at the gear forefront you are literally spending 6 weeks of currency grinding , just to start over 6 weeks after completing the gear set. The FF14 project received an increased budget for their latest expansion yet they continue to reduce producing all forms of content. Yosheep himself essentially said he's not designing the game to keep players wanting to log in. That's not even touching on an increasing cash shop presence in a subscription based game.

Due to stellar design decisions the game is hemorrhaging players.

Yeah, lets not take too many queues from FF14.

Heroes get remembered, but Legends never die.

Protect the pack kid, no matter how much it hurts. If everyone else in the pack is safe, you can carry on or die knowing you've done your duty. - Fanfiction

Safehouse
Safehouse's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 13 min ago
kickstarter
Joined: 10/15/2013 - 12:03
Myri wrote:
Myri wrote:

Pulling ideas from Final Fantasy 14 is not necessarily a good thing.

The game itself is designed for player churn with little thought to retaining mid core or veteran players. Minimal challenge aside from savage raids, weekly loot lockouts when gear is relevant to current patch, no general sense of "danger" in game. Cookie cutter combat mechanics and a ridiculous upwards gear grind. To stay at the gear forefront you are literally spending 6 weeks of currency grinding , just to start over 6 weeks after completing the gear set. The FF14 project received an increased budget for their latest expansion yet they continue to reduce producing all forms of content. Yosheep himself essentially said he's not designing the game to keep players wanting to log in. That's not even touching on an increasing cash shop presence in a subscription based game.

Due to stellar design decisions the game is hemorrhaging players.

Yeah, lets not take too many queues from FF14.

This is a hard post for me to read. FFXIV has been one of my mainstay MMOs for the last 3 years, and the one I come back to the most. But I recently haven’t been playing as much, in part due to having a lot going on planning for getting married this weekend.

But there’s been more to it. It hasn’t been “scratching the itch” for me in a while. When I have had gaming time I’ve been favoring more games like Hollow Knight, which isn’t even an MMO, and Secret World Legends, a game which has its own missteps and serious design decisions with which I take issue, but it somehow manages to hold me more.

I haven’t been able to figure out why I stopped logging in, but your post I think hits on it. Some of their recent objectionable decisions have upset me and hit home more than I think I realized. I loved that game until the past 9 months or so until this shift came.

But all of that aside, just because I have fallen out of love with FFXIV doesn’t mean there aren’t good design decisions from which we can draw inspiration. In terms of death penalty, I haven’t taken any issue with it. You can either teleport back to your “home point” or wait for someone to Rez you. The worst aspect of it is if your home point is somewhere other than the zone you’re in and you have to pay a nominal in game currency fee to teleport back to whatever zone. Even that to me is a minor nuisance at worst.

That game also has gear “health” which declines over time, whether you die or not. Although when you die the damage your gear takes is a little higher. Ostensibly this is a nonissue for CoT since I’m pretty sure we’re not going to have conventional “gear” in the classic MMO sense.

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

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
A thought occurred to me

A thought occurred to me this morning about removing potential rewards as a form of failure penalty. It hit me so hard and seems so obvious that I wondered why it hadn't occurred to me earlier.

  • A typical death penalty is a setback. A chance to admit you messed up and figure out how to overcome it. Later, when you successfully complete the content you can revel in the fact that you pulled victory from defeat. That is a positive emotion. Think of a Rocky movie.
  • A reward removal form of penalty, on the other hand, has the opposite effect. Once you fulfill a failure criteria, there is no way to make it up, to recover. You could successfully complete the mission, but the lack of reward leaves you with a sour feeling of failure. In effect, you managed to pull defeat from victory. That is a negative emotion. Look up pyrrhic victory.

Sure, with reward removal there is incentive to run the content again to try for perfection, but how many times do you really want to do that? And should the game really be designed to only reward perfection like this? What mentality will that beget in the player base? Certainly not the acceptance and community for which CoX has been known.

Conversely, instilling the players' desire to repeat content until perfection is reached does maximize the ROI of the development effort. So there may be a business case to do it that way. (ROI=Return On Investment: How many player hours are spent consuming the average developer hour)


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: 16 hours 19 min ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
Huckleberry wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:

A thought occurred to me this morning about removing potential rewards as a form of failure penalty. It hit me so hard and seems so obvious that I wondered why it hadn't occurred to me earlier.

  • A typical death penalty is a setback. A chance to admit you messed up and figure out how to overcome it. Later, when you successfully complete the content you can revel in the fact that you pulled victory from defeat. That is a positive emotion. Think of a Rocky movie.
  • A reward removal form of penalty, on the other hand, has the opposite effect. Once you fulfill a failure criteria, there is no way to make it up, to recover. You could successfully complete the mission, but the lack of reward leaves you with a sour feeling of failure. In effect, you managed to pull defeat from victory. That is a negative emotion. Look up pyrrhic victory.

Sure, with reward removal there is incentive to run the content again to try for perfection, but how many times do you really want to do that? And should the game really be designed to only reward perfection like this? What mentality will that beget in the player base? Certainly not the acceptance and community for which CoX has been known.

Conversely, instilling the players' desire to repeat content until perfection is reached does maximize the ROI of the development effort. So there may be a business case to do it that way. (ROI=Return On Investment: How many player hours are spent consuming the average developer hour)

Some good points, but something to remember is that the rewards would be bonuses on top of already completing the content and said rewards can come from a variety of different requirements.

Typical death penalties moreso punish newb players than pros, which is just something to remember.

Death penalties can also cause a pyrrhic victory, died so much that all your gear has broken and you don't have the money to repair it, gained so much XP debt that completing the mission was practically meaningless, etc.

I don't think you need any kind of penalties or rewards to get that Rocky feeling. You can get that from.just something you're invested in, and neither penalties or rewards lost make it any sweeter. As in the end you're still in the hole a bit.

Something I can foresee with a rewards set up is that perfectionist attitude, the restarting of missions to get all the bonuses. Perhaps if they're small but numerous that would discourage some of that?

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

Atama
Atama's picture
Online
Last seen: 3 min 7 sec ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/09/2013 - 22:32
Your average gamer doesn’t

Your average gamer doesn’t see a reward as a “bonus over content”. The reward is what they’re trying to get. It makes the “content” (as you define it) less of a goal.

Death penalties usually punish new players less because low levels take less XP to complete, low level gear is less expensive to repair, etc. Yet again you’re arguing as if you don’t have much experience with MMORPGs.

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 16 hours 19 min ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
Atama wrote:
Atama wrote:

Your average gamer doesn’t see a reward as a “bonus over content”. The reward is what they’re trying to get. It makes the “content” (as you define it) less of a goal.

Death penalties usually punish new players less because low levels take less XP to complete, low level gear is less expensive to repair, etc. Yet again you’re arguing as if you don’t have much experience with MMORPGs.

If a bonus is clearly labeled then it's a bonus. In Borderlands 2 there are bonus objectives, doing them nets you a chance at something good, not doing them still gets you a reward. I have never seen them as anything more than bonuses. Same as any game that tallys up your score after a mission, giving you various bonus scores for things you did, these are also viewed as bonuses.

What effect does XP debt have on a max level player? Oh right, none. Low end gear costs less to repair but you also have less money and less ways to earn it on masse. Low end players, probably new players, will likely end up dying more as they learn the game than veteran players do.

Because of these reasons and more, Death penalties punish low end, new players, -far- more than high end players.

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

Atama
Atama's picture
Online
Last seen: 3 min 7 sec ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/09/2013 - 22:32
Project_Hero wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

What effect does XP debt have on a max level player? Oh right, none.

Depends on the game. You don’t stop getting XP in Neverwinter at max level, you just keep accumulating it and get rewards every time you reach a certain threshold. Same with Destiny and Destiny 2. It’s not common but not rare. But you’re now equating “high level” with “max level”. If you have to keep changing the goal posts with your arguments, that shows how shaky they are. So which are you talking about now? Just end game play vs not end game? Or new players vs not new players? Make up your mind so there can be a reasoned discussion.

Quote:

Low end gear costs less to repair but you also have less money and less ways to earn it on masse. Low end players, probably new players, will likely end up dying more as they learn the game than veteran players do.

In every MMO that I’ve played, the way it has always worked is that repair costs are negligible at the lower end, to the extent that you don’t even notice them. It’s not until higher levels that it starts to really hurt. I remember in LotRO, at end game if I died I might have to go farm or run some task to earn enough money for repairs because one death could cost more than I had available. I wasn’t alone, I was in a good size guild and we all had that pain.

Another thing is that gear is replaced far more quickly at low levels, so quickly that you often swap to something better before you bother repairing what you have.

Quote:

Because of these reasons and more, Death penalties punish low end, new players, -far- more than high end players.

They don’t. Again, I’m getting the impression your experience is limited because it’s divorced from reality. I’ve been playing MMOs steadily for about 20 years now and I can’t recall a single one that made death penalties harsher to low levels than high. Developers aren’t as dumb as you think. They figured this out a long time ago... ;)

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 16 hours 19 min ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
Atama wrote:
Atama wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

What effect does XP debt have on a max level player? Oh right, none.

Depends on the game. You don’t stop getting XP in Neverwinter at max level, you just keep accumulating it and get rewards every time you reach a certain threshold. Same with Destiny and Destiny 2. It’s not common but not rare. But you’re now equating “high level” with “max level”. If you have to keep changing the goal posts with your arguments, that shows how shaky they are. So which are you talking about now? Just end game play vs not end game? Or new players vs not new players? Make up your mind so there can be a reasoned discussion.

Quote:

Low end gear costs less to repair but you also have less money and less ways to earn it on masse. Low end players, probably new players, will likely end up dying more as they learn the game than veteran players do.

In every MMO that I’ve played, the way it has always worked is that repair costs are negligible at the lower end, to the extent that you don’t even notice them. It’s not until higher levels that it starts to really hurt. I remember in LotRO, at end game if I died I might have to go farm or run some task to earn enough money for repairs because one death could cost more than I had available. I wasn’t alone, I was in a good size guild and we all had that pain.

Another thing is that gear is replaced far more quickly at low levels, so quickly that you often swap to something better before you bother repairing what you have.

Quote:

Because of these reasons and more, Death penalties punish low end, new players, -far- more than high end players.

They don’t. Again, I’m getting the impression your experience is limited because it’s divorced from reality. I’ve been playing MMOs steadily for about 20 years now and I can’t recall a single one that made death penalties harsher to low levels than high. Developers aren’t as dumb as you think. They figured this out a long time ago... ;)

I've played MMOs for about 15 years. And in most as you get higher level the costs of repairing your gear are still negligible. You also have easier ways to get money as you get higher level. You also usually have more abilities that help you survive at higher levels.

While yes, your gear does tend to get replaced fairly quickly you can still run into a point where you end up spending a good deal of your money on repairs, especially if you and/or your group keep being defeated in a dungeon, or if you've been unlucky and not able to replace your gear (or lucky as you might have gotten something very good a few levels ago and it's still better than gear you find.)

I have never found high end repair costs any more than a slight nuisance and at lower levels money seems to have more value.

Maybe it's because I don't tend to get to higher levels in most MMOs (Most of my time is spent making new characters) that I have this view point.

With regards to XP debt, at higher levels you have more options for things that can grant you faster XP gains, so the price of it can be more easily mitigated (and CoH ended up pretty much trivializing it entirely thanks to the log out XP bonus and advent of AE which people used for farming.) At lower levels you had little choice but to just keep struggling through the content you may already be struggling with. I remember classic Hollows in CoH being exceedingly punishing, so much so that for the longest time that's where a lot of my characters ended. I don't really recall anywhere else being as difficult after it.

The only character I got to level 50 in CoH was my blaster who could easily make short work of multiple groups of enemies as they rose in level, any XP debt they gained could be easily wiped away in a short amount of time.

Granted most of this is anecdotal evidence from my time playing MMOs, usually with low level characters. And our experiences probably differ there. But just because our experiences are different doesn't mean that one is more limited than the other.

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

rookslide
rookslide's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 41 min ago
kickstarter
Joined: 09/25/2013 - 10:26
Wow you really didn’t have

Wow you really didn’t have much time in higher levels then as there were far more punishing areas than the Hollows. And XP debt was far harsher in the 40’s than anything below it. And I had several level 50’s. At least one of each class except the Defender class. This explains a lot about your views.

Level 50’s:
Tanks 2
Blasters 5
Controllers 1
Scrappers 3
Highest defender I ever got was level 38

And several (dozens) characters in the twenties and thirties.

"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: 16 hours 19 min ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
rookslide wrote:
rookslide wrote:

Wow you really didn’t have much time in higher levels then as there were far more punishing areas than the Hollows. And XP debt was far harsher in the 40’s than anything below it. And I had several level 50’s. At least one of each class except the Defender class. This explains a lot about your views.

Level 50’s:
Tanks 2
Blasters 5
Controllers 1
Scrappers 3
Highest defender I ever got was level 38

And several (dozens) characters in the twenties and thirties.

I had one level 50 and the rest of my characters were usually somewhere in the 30's ish range, at least once I could start doing radio missions. Before radio missions I was hard pressed to bother getting a character above level 20.

In WoW I had I think, two or three characters over level 100 (least when legion was new) most of the rest were kicking around level 20-30 I think, with few exceptions.

In FF14 I had two classes on my main that were close to max level (at least when I played).

In Champions Online I think I had a few characters that were max level... Though I don't recall what death penalties it had, if any.

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

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
One of the biggest downsides

One of the biggest downsides to any failure is the desire to quit, give up, and walk away from the keyboard for a while. I think most people call this rage quit, even if there's not much rage to it at times. We've all done it.

The thing is, whatever it is that pushes us over that edge is never the same, nor is it very predictable. Whatever is going on in our lives at the time, the amount of sleep we've had, how patient we had to be with others that day, how much of a sugar high we're on, how much pride is at stake... all sorts of factors come into play and affect when we feel like we've just had enough for now. And no two people are the same either.

As a result, game developers can never design a failure penalty that will not dissuade people from continuing. Even a failure with no penalty will oftentimes be enough to trip someone's quota of frustration for the day.

So the best thing a game developer can do is give the players a reason to keep playing. Even for players who rage quit, if they end their day feeling the need to get back into the game tomorrow to see their friends, beat that boss, or ambush that ganker, or just to hear the music in Atlas Park one more time, then the game designers have succeeded. Remember that while rage quitting will be inevitable, it does not need to be encouraged. In fact, game designers should try to elevate the threshold as much as possible to delay the urge to rage quit.

Using a reward-removal failure penalty is the antithesis of this game design goal, unfortunately, because every failure actually results in less motivation to keep playing.
Interesting. I hadn't really thought about that until now.

Back up in post #416 I mentioned how as soon as I failed to get the no-defeat achievement, I would quit the mission and restart it. Why? Because continuing the mission after that was a waste of time for me. As soon as I realized I was not going to get my goal, the run was over.

The worst thing a game designer can do is give the players an actual incentive to quit. Reward-reduction as a penalty for failure is just such a mechanic.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't have bonuses and achievements, but I am saying that using them as the means to punish failure will not beget the results we want. Human systems and behavior. Gotta love it.


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: 16 hours 19 min ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
Huckleberry wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:

One of the biggest downsides to any failure is the desire to quit, give up, and walk away from the keyboard for a while. I think most people call this rage quit, even if there's not much rage to it at times. We've all done it.

The thing is, whatever it is that pushes us over that edge is never the same, nor is it very predictable. Whatever is going on in our lives at the time, the amount of sleep we've had, how patient we had to be with others that day, how much of a sugar high we're on, how much pride is at stake... all sorts of factors come into play and affect when we feel like we've just had enough for now. And no two people are the same either.

As a result, game developers can never design a failure penalty that will not dissuade people from continuing. Even a failure with no penalty will oftentimes be enough to trip someone's quota of frustration for the day.

So the best thing a game developer can do is give the players a reason to keep playing. Even for players who rage quit, if they end their day feeling the need to get back into the game tomorrow to see their friends, beat that boss, or ambush that ganker, or just to hear the music in Atlas Park one more time, then the game designers have succeeded. Remember that while rage quitting will be inevitable, it does not need to be encouraged. In fact, game designers should try to elevate the threshold as much as possible to delay the urge to rage quit.

Using a reward-removal failure penalty is the antithesis of this game design goal, unfortunately, because very failure actually results in less motivation to keep playing.
Interesting. I hadn't really thought about that until now.

Back up in post #416 I mentioned how as soon as I failed to get the no-defeat achievement, I would quit the mission and restart it. Why? Because continuing the mission after that was a waste of time for me. As soon as I realized I was not going to get my goal, the run was over.

The worst thing a game designer can do is give the players an actual incentive to quit. Reward-reduction as a penalty for failure is just such a mechanic.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't have bonuses and achievements, but I am saying that using them as the means to punish failure will not beget the results we want. Human systems and behavior. Gotta love it.

Although, by your statement here you restarted the mission. So retention was achieved here.

Missing out on a reward can foster a "one more try" mentality where a player feels that they almost had it that time and will try again.

I don't see penalties for failing having this effect. You can only gain so much XP debt, lose so much money to repairs before you say "this isn't worth it, screw this."

When you have little to lose and lots to gain continuing to try seems like the obvious choice. And it'll be far more likely for repeated failure to get the bonus to result in the person trying another mission, rather than stop playing the game altogether.

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

Atama
Atama's picture
Online
Last seen: 3 min 7 sec ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/09/2013 - 22:32
Project_Hero wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

In Champions Online I think I had a few characters that were max level... Though I don't recall what death penalties it had, if any.

In CO you have a “stars” system. On your nameplate you have little star icons. If you have 5 stars you’re at full strength. If you are defeated you begin to lose stars. The more stars you lose the weaker you are, which of course is a vicious cycle because the weaker you are the more likely you are to die. You regenerate stars naturally over time by playing and not dying, or you can go to an NPC at a quest hub who represents an in-game charity and you can spend resources to regenerate stars. So death becomes a money sink just like equipment repair costs in other games.

And just a reminder, though I disagree with a number of your points I’m totally on your side about preferring a reward system for completing tasks without dying rather than a penalty system for dying. We come at it from different perspectives but I’m in agreement that I like having that option in CoT.

rookslide
rookslide's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 41 min ago
kickstarter
Joined: 09/25/2013 - 10:26
The problem with that logic

The problem with that logic is it is strictly a matter of semantics. “Penalty”and “not achieving a reward” are synonymous. It is literally a matter of how one “feels” about the terminology used. And at least a couple of folks have commented I this thread that to them losing out on a reward is just as demoralizing as getting a penalty.

"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: 16 hours 19 min ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
Atama wrote:
Atama wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

In Champions Online I think I had a few characters that were max level... Though I don't recall what death penalties it had, if any.

In CO you have a “stars” system. On your nameplate you have little star icons. If you have 5 stars you’re at full strength. If you are defeated you begin to lose stars. The more stars you lose the weaker you are, which of course is a vicious cycle because the weaker you are the more likely you are to die. You regenerate stars naturally over time by playing and not dying, or you can go to an NPC at a quest hub who represents an in-game charity and you can spend resources to regenerate stars. So death becomes a money sink just like equipment repair costs in other games.

And just a reminder, though I disagree with a number of your points I’m totally on your side about preferring a reward system for completing tasks without dying rather than a penalty system for dying. We come at it from different perspectives but I’m in agreement that I like having that option in CoT.

Huh. I don't think I ever noticed or worried about the stars.

And yeah the vicious cycle thing is prevalent in any game that has a weakened state after defeat. Your options are deal with it or wait, neither of which are appealing.

We have different experiences from our time gaming it's only natural we have differing perspectives.

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

Atama
Atama's picture
Online
Last seen: 3 min 7 sec ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/09/2013 - 22:32
rookslide wrote:
rookslide wrote:

The problem with that logic is it is strictly a matter of semantics. “Penalty”and “not achieving a reward” are synonymous. It is literally a matter of how one “feels” about the terminology used. And at least a couple of folks have commented I this thread that to them losing out on a reward is just as demoralizing as getting a penalty.

In my experience it’s actually harsher, but I prefer a strong motivation so I support it. :)

As long as it’s not too harsh, like “fail once and you can never try again on this character” which I’ve seen before in other games. That goes too far.

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 16 hours 19 min ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
rookslide wrote:
rookslide wrote:

The problem with that logic is it is strictly a matter of semantics. “Penalty”and “not achieving a reward” are synonymous. It is literally a matter of how one “feels” about the terminology used. And at least a couple of folks have commented I this thread that to them losing out on a reward is just as demoralizing as getting a penalty.

Yes, it is just semantics. I keep going back to the WoW rest XP example. When it was a penalty for not doing a thing, people disliked it. When it was a reward for doing a thing, people liked it. It amounted to the same thing just one felt better to players.

It ends up just being a case of what feels better to the largest number of people.

I think most people will agree they'd rather be rewarded for doing something right than punished for doing something wrong.

Though this doesn't necessarily translate easily into gaming. It's an interesting discussion nevertheless.

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

rookslide
rookslide's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 41 min ago
kickstarter
Joined: 09/25/2013 - 10:26
Atama wrote:
Atama wrote:
rookslide wrote:

The problem with that logic is it is strictly a matter of semantics. “Penalty”and “not achieving a reward” are synonymous. It is literally a matter of how one “feels” about the terminology used. And at least a couple of folks have commented I this thread that to them losing out on a reward is just as demoralizing as getting a penalty.

In my experience it’s actually harsher, but I prefer a strong motivation so I support it. :)

As long as it’s not too harsh, like “fail once and you can never try again on this character” which I’ve seen before in other games. That goes too far.

Agreed

"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

Empyrean
Empyrean's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 47 min ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 03/16/2014 - 07:51
Arguing without clearly

Arguing without clearly defining the terms you are using in the argument can be like playing tennis without a net or lines. Just FYI in case it's helpful, if you really want to break it down accurately into behavioral categories, it's "positive reinforcement", "negative reinforcement", "positive punishment", "negative punishment."

https://bcotb.com/the-difference-between-positivenegative-reinforcement-and-positivenegative-punishment/

FIGHT EVIL! (or go cause trouble so the Heroes have something to do.)

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 2 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Project_Hero wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

I think most people will agree they'd rather be rewarded for doing something right than punished for doing something wrong.

But you have to balance this concept with the expectations of how often you expect those right and wrong things to happen.

For example it's a "right thing" for a person to keep breathing because it tends to keep that person alive but do you need to "reward" that person anything extra (beyond the benefit of remaining alive) for doing the "right thing" in that case? In MMO terms it's the "right thing" to employ tactics that prevent you from dying. Likewise because dying in a MMO is usually taken to be the "wrong thing" to do is it not perfectly acceptable to punish a player for the actions that led to the death since that tends to be the unusual exception, not the rule?

Punishments are simply not "bad" or "unusual" when applied against atypical unacceptable behaviors. If people died in MMOs every 5 seconds then death penalties could easily be considered "cruel/excessive". But since people typically only die "once in a while" death penalties are simply constructive reminders to try not do whatever it was that killed you in the first place.

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

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 14 hours 31 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
Huckleberry wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:

Using a reward-removal failure penalty is the antithesis of this game design goal, unfortunately, because very failure actually results in less motivation to keep playing.
Interesting. I hadn't really thought about that until now.

Back up in post #416 I mentioned how as soon as I failed to get the no-defeat achievement, I would quit the mission and restart it. Why? Because continuing the mission after that was a waste of time for me. As soon as I realized I was not going to get my goal, the run was over.

The worst thing a game designer can do is give the players an actual incentive to quit. Reward-reduction as a penalty for failure is just such a mechanic.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't have bonuses and achievements, but I am saying that using them as the means to punish failure will not beget the results we want. Human systems and behavior. Gotta love it.

Told you.


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 16 hours 19 min ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
Lothic wrote:
Lothic wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

I think most people will agree they'd rather be rewarded for doing something right than punished for doing something wrong.

But you have to balance this concept with the expectations of how often you expect those right and wrong things to happen.

For example it's a "right thing" for a person to keep breathing because it tends to keep that person alive but do you need to "reward" that person anything extra (beyond the benefit of remaining alive) for doing the "right thing" in that case? Likewise because dying in a MMO is usually taken to be a "wrong thing" to do is it not fine to punish a player for that since that tends to be the unusual exception, not the rule?

Punishments are simply not "bad" or "unusual" when applied against atypical unacceptable behaviors. If people died in MMO every 5 seconds then death penalties could easily be considered "cruel". But since people typically only die "once in a while" they are constructive reminders to not do that.

Duh.

But for this discussion asking people if they'd rather take a penalty each time they're defeated, or be rewarded for doing a thing and not getting defeated, most would probably take the reward. Both ways encourage not dying, but people would likely want the reward for doing well vs the punishment for doing badly.

Switching the penalties with rewards for something like XP debt would work by having the "Normal" amount of XP you earn being equivalent to having XP debt. Clearing missions without dying would give your XP a multiplier till your up to gaining XP at the "regular" rate. In essence this does the exact same thing as XP debt but from a player perspective they're getting rewarded for playing well. As from a player perspective they don't know their base XP has been tampered with in the first place.

It's just changing a player's perspective on what is happening, and as it'd be all behind the scenes the players aren't any the wiser that technically penalization is the norm.

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

rookslide
rookslide's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 41 min ago
kickstarter
Joined: 09/25/2013 - 10:26
Project_Hero wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:
Lothic wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

I think most people will agree they'd rather be rewarded for doing something right than punished for doing something wrong.

But you have to balance this concept with the expectations of how often you expect those right and wrong things to happen.

For example it's a "right thing" for a person to keep breathing because it tends to keep that person alive but do you need to "reward" that person anything extra (beyond the benefit of remaining alive) for doing the "right thing" in that case? Likewise because dying in a MMO is usually taken to be a "wrong thing" to do is it not fine to punish a player for that since that tends to be the unusual exception, not the rule?

Punishments are simply not "bad" or "unusual" when applied against atypical unacceptable behaviors. If people died in MMO every 5 seconds then death penalties could easily be considered "cruel". But since people typically only die "once in a while" they are constructive reminders to not do that.

Duh.

But for this discussion asking people if they'd rather take a penalty each time they're defeated, or be rewarded for doing a thing and not getting defeated, most would probably take the reward. Both ways encourage not dying, but people would likely want the reward for doing well vs the punishment for doing badly.

Switching the penalties with rewards for something like XP debt would work by having the "Normal" amount of XP you earn being equivalent to having XP debt. Clearing missions without dying would give your XP a multiplier till your up to gaining XP at the "regular" rate. In essence this does the exact same thing as XP debt but from a player perspective they're getting rewarded for playing well. As from a player perspective they don't know their base XP has been tampered with in the first place.

It's just changing a player's perspective on what is happening, and as it'd be all behind the scenes the players aren't any the wiser that technically penalization is the norm.

Semantics... how do I feel about it... it shouldn’t feel any different either way... and doesn’t. But one way is more transparent while the other is more covert and “feels” deceptive to me.

"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

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 2 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Project_Hero wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:
Lothic wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

I think most people will agree they'd rather be rewarded for doing something right than punished for doing something wrong.

But you have to balance this concept with the expectations of how often you expect those right and wrong things to happen.

For example it's a "right thing" for a person to keep breathing because it tends to keep that person alive but do you need to "reward" that person anything extra (beyond the benefit of remaining alive) for doing the "right thing" in that case? Likewise because dying in a MMO is usually taken to be a "wrong thing" to do is it not fine to punish a player for that since that tends to be the unusual exception, not the rule?

Punishments are simply not "bad" or "unusual" when applied against atypical unacceptable behaviors. If people died in MMO every 5 seconds then death penalties could easily be considered "cruel". But since people typically only die "once in a while" they are constructive reminders to not do that.

Duh.

But for this discussion asking people if they'd rather take a penalty each time they're defeated, or be rewarded for doing a thing and not getting defeated, most would probably take the reward. Both ways encourage not dying, but people would likely want the reward for doing well vs the punishment for doing badly.

Switching the penalties with rewards for something like XP debt would work by having the "Normal" amount of XP you earn being equivalent to having XP debt. Clearing missions without dying would give your XP a multiplier till your up to gaining XP at the "regular" rate. In essence this does the exact same thing as XP debt but from a player perspective they're getting rewarded for playing well. As from a player perspective they don't know their base XP has been tampered with in the first place.

It's just changing a player's perspective on what is happening, and as it'd be all behind the scenes the players aren't any the wiser that technically penalization is the norm.

Game Devs can't always design the mechanics of their games based on what players would "rather" have. If that were the case I'd rather have instant level 50 characters with every costume item reward unlocked as soon as I started playing.

Strangely enough games sometimes have to have RULES that players have to follow regardless of what they'd "rather" do.

P. S. Frankly I'm amazed this thread is still lingering on - hasn't everyone already made the same points here 10 times already?

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

Atama
Atama's picture
Online
Last seen: 3 min 7 sec ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/09/2013 - 22:32
Lothic wrote:
Lothic wrote:

P. S. Frankly I'm amazed this thread is still lingering on - hasn't everyone already made the same points here 10 times already?

I don’t know about you Lothic but I’m killing time until the avatar builder is released. :D

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 16 hours 19 min ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
Lothic wrote:
Lothic wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:
Lothic wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

I think most people will agree they'd rather be rewarded for doing something right than punished for doing something wrong.

But you have to balance this concept with the expectations of how often you expect those right and wrong things to happen.

For example it's a "right thing" for a person to keep breathing because it tends to keep that person alive but do you need to "reward" that person anything extra (beyond the benefit of remaining alive) for doing the "right thing" in that case? Likewise because dying in a MMO is usually taken to be a "wrong thing" to do is it not fine to punish a player for that since that tends to be the unusual exception, not the rule?

Punishments are simply not "bad" or "unusual" when applied against atypical unacceptable behaviors. If people died in MMO every 5 seconds then death penalties could easily be considered "cruel". But since people typically only die "once in a while" they are constructive reminders to not do that.

Duh.

But for this discussion asking people if they'd rather take a penalty each time they're defeated, or be rewarded for doing a thing and not getting defeated, most would probably take the reward. Both ways encourage not dying, but people would likely want the reward for doing well vs the punishment for doing badly.

Switching the penalties with rewards for something like XP debt would work by having the "Normal" amount of XP you earn being equivalent to having XP debt. Clearing missions without dying would give your XP a multiplier till your up to gaining XP at the "regular" rate. In essence this does the exact same thing as XP debt but from a player perspective they're getting rewarded for playing well. As from a player perspective they don't know their base XP has been tampered with in the first place.

It's just changing a player's perspective on what is happening, and as it'd be all behind the scenes the players aren't any the wiser that technically penalization is the norm.

Game Devs can't always design the mechanics of their games based on what players would "rather" have. If that were the case I'd rather have instant level 50 characters with every costume item reward unlocked as soon as I started playing.

Strangely enough games sometimes have to have RULES that players have to follow regardless of what they'd "rather" do.

P. S. Frankly I'm amazed this thread is still lingering on - hasn't everyone already made the same points here 10 times already?

They do however try to design games based on what feels best in play. And just because some players would rather skip to the end with everything unlocked doesn't mean that -all- players would do that.

I don't know why people keep bringing up "games have rules" as a counter point. As the rules for any game are made up and can be whatever the designers want them to be. They can have as many or as little as they want (within the limits of programming anyway when it comes to video games). It's not really an argument against to say games have rules, when the rules could be that everyone starts at max level with everything unlocked.

I'd be pretty interested in seeing a super hero game without levels or progression. It would have to be mainly about teamwork and strategy, rather than the traditional numbers game. But that's besides the point.

And the thread is lingering on because we're having an interesting discussion about the nature of rewards and penalties and how they are implemented in video games? I mean if that's not something that interests you, you don't have to come in here and post.

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

rookslide
rookslide's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 41 min ago
kickstarter
Joined: 09/25/2013 - 10:26
Actually, I always believed a

Actually, I always believed a large part of superhero games was the teamwork and strategy aspect...

"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

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 2 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Project_Hero]I don't know why
Project_Hero wrote:

I don't know why people keep bringing up "games have rules" as a counter point. As the rules for any game are made up and can be whatever the designers want them to be. They can have as many or as little as they want (within the limits of programming anyway when it comes to video games). It's not really an argument against to say games have rules, when the rules could be that everyone starts at max level with everything unlocked.

Sure the "rules" can be whatever the Devs want them to be. But a GOOD game has rules that are there to balance the game in such a way as to make the game work as well as possible. Rules aren't there just to make players happy or unhappy - rules exist to make a game playable.

A game that has "rules" like "everyone starts at max level with everything unlocked" would be likely be poorly conceived and be a flop. Likewise games that let their players have TOO MUCH freedom from consequences also tend to be weak and pointless.

Project_Hero wrote:

And the thread is lingering on because we're having an interesting discussion about the nature of rewards and penalties and how they are implemented in video games? I mean if that's not something that interests you, you don't have to come in here and post.

Actually it's just semi-infuriating that you'd like to see this game be so "causal player oriented" that it's going to encourage everyone to play badly just because you think "no death penalties" are a "good idea". I don't like to play on teams where people know they can get away with playing stupidly - that'll end up hurting MY enjoyment of the game.

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

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 16 hours 19 min ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
rookslide wrote:
rookslide wrote:

Actually, I always believed a large part of superhero games was the teamwork and strategy aspect...

With a lot of MMOs though it usually comes down to numbers and having more of the relevant numbers. That's why when some classes are "built right" they can solo content not meant to be soloed.

Granted there is strategy in how a character is built but I was thinking more combat strategy. Which most MMOs tends to be spamming your biggest attacks as much as possible. There is strategy in when to use abilities but they're usually simple strategies like "when the tank gets low on hp use this thing".

Though having a game require a lot of strategy to win a fight would probably just end up being "there is only one way to actually do this" which would suck.

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

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 16 hours 19 min ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
Lothic wrote:
Lothic wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

I don't know why people keep bringing up "games have rules" as a counter point. As the rules for any game are made up and can be whatever the designers want them to be. They can have as many or as little as they want (within the limits of programming anyway when it comes to video games). It's not really an argument against to say games have rules, when the rules could be that everyone starts at max level with everything unlocked.

Sure the "rules" can be whatever the Devs want them to be. But a GOOD game has rules that are there to balance the game in such a way as to make the game work as well as possible. Rules aren't there just to make players happy or unhappy - rules exist to make a game playable.

A game that has "rules" like "everyone starts at max level with everything unlocked" would be likely be poorly conceived and be a flop. Likewise games that let their players have TOO MUCH freedom from consequences also tend to be weak and pointless.

Project_Hero wrote:

And the thread is lingering on because we're having an interesting discussion about the nature of rewards and penalties and how they are implemented in video games? I mean if that's not something that interests you, you don't have to come in here and post.

Actually it's just semi-infuriating that you'd like to see this game be so "causal player oriented" that it's going to encourage everyone to play badly just because you think "no death penalties" are a "good idea". I don't like to play on teams where people know they can get away with playing stupidly - that'll end up hurting MY enjoyment of the game.

Chess is a game that starts everyone max level and everything unlocked. Most forms of competitive games don't have anything like levels to even worry about (at least nothing like levels in MMOs).

I have never said I'd like to see this game be casual oriented. I have never stated anything I've said as something I'd like to see in the game. I would like the game to be casual inclusive, but not casual oriented. I don't think having no death penalties would encourage people to play badly, there are lots of examples of games that have no penalty beyond "you lose" and those games are often played competitively. The desire to do well drives them more than the cost of losing. If I'm on a team with someone who plays stupidly and will not learn or is willfully sabotaging the team... I kick them from the team. It's not really much of a hassle.

All I have done is question the validity of having death penalties, I have never stated that I wanted CoT to not have them.

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

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 2 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Project_Hero wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:
Lothic wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

I don't know why people keep bringing up "games have rules" as a counter point. As the rules for any game are made up and can be whatever the designers want them to be. They can have as many or as little as they want (within the limits of programming anyway when it comes to video games). It's not really an argument against to say games have rules, when the rules could be that everyone starts at max level with everything unlocked.

Sure the "rules" can be whatever the Devs want them to be. But a GOOD game has rules that are there to balance the game in such a way as to make the game work as well as possible. Rules aren't there just to make players happy or unhappy - rules exist to make a game playable.

A game that has "rules" like "everyone starts at max level with everything unlocked" would be likely be poorly conceived and be a flop. Likewise games that let their players have TOO MUCH freedom from consequences also tend to be weak and pointless.

Project_Hero wrote:

And the thread is lingering on because we're having an interesting discussion about the nature of rewards and penalties and how they are implemented in video games? I mean if that's not something that interests you, you don't have to come in here and post.

Actually it's just semi-infuriating that you'd like to see this game be so "causal player oriented" that it's going to encourage everyone to play badly just because you think "no death penalties" are a "good idea". I don't like to play on teams where people know they can get away with playing stupidly - that'll end up hurting MY enjoyment of the game.

Chess is a game that starts everyone max level and everything unlocked. Most forms of competitive games don't have anything like levels to even worry about (at least nothing like levels in MMOs).

I have never said I'd like to see this game be casual oriented. I have never stated anything I've said as something I'd like to see in the game. I would like the game to be casual inclusive, but not casual oriented. I don't think having no death penalties would encourage people to play badly, there are lots of examples of games that have no penalty beyond "you lose" and those games are often played competitively. The desire to do well drives them more than the cost of losing. If I'm on a team with someone who plays stupidly and will not learn or is willfully sabotaging the team... I kick them from the team. It's not really much of a hassle.

All I have done is question the validity of having death penalties, I have never stated that I wanted CoT to not have them.

If you seriously want to question why a game like CoH had death penalties (and why many other games still use them) then you need to genuinely understand the PURPOSE they serve. Once you accept the purpose then it's almost obvious why they are NEEDED.

You keep coming at this concept like it's an arbitrary anachronism that Devs just tossed into their games to piss players off. In reality it's an effective mechanic to REINFORCE acceptable play. Nothing that has been suggested in this thread thus far satisfies the purpose death penalties serve as directly or as simply.

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

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 16 hours 19 min ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
Having a reward for

Having a reward for acceptable play seems like a good way to encourage acceptable play. If they're so needed how come a lot of games, many different types of games, can be rid of them and not suffer? A game's outcomes for success and failure can be nothing more than "you win" and "you lose" and people will want to win and not to lose, even when there is nothing to win or lose.

People have often found ways to reduce or completely negate death penalties and yet still play the games competently.

So how can they be so necessary and yet so superfluous?

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

jtpaull
jtpaull's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 weeks 5 days ago
Joined: 01/27/2015 - 15:00
Project_Hero wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

People have often found ways to reduce or completely negate death penalties and yet still play the games competently.

So how can they be so necessary and yet so superfluous?

Not dying is a great way to reduce or completely negate death penalties. To not die, I play better and smarter. All the time I now spend playing and not dying I enjoy more because I know there is a penalty hanging out there for me if I do die. Your point is kind of proving everyone else's point that death penalties can be a good thing. Also, if there is no death penalty, that would mean that you either can't die or you immediately resurrect at your corpse and keep fighting. Any delay in resurrection time, or distance of resurrection from corpse, is a death penalty.

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

rookslide
rookslide's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 41 min ago
kickstarter
Joined: 09/25/2013 - 10:26
I think p hero gives far too

I think p hero gives far too much weight to the WOW experience. COH is a very different MMO. And most of the COH crowd was ok with death penalties. They understood the need for them. They weren’t as dramatic as you make them out to be. In my experience the people that complained about them excessively didn’t recognize their tactics were poor...

"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: 16 hours 19 min ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
jtpaull wrote:
jtpaull wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

People have often found ways to reduce or completely negate death penalties and yet still play the games competently.

So how can they be so necessary and yet so superfluous?

Not dying is a great way to reduce or completely negate death penalties. To not die, I play better and smarter. All the time I now spend playing and not dying I enjoy more because I know there is a penalty hanging out there for me if I do die. Your point is kind of proving everyone else's point that death penalties can be a good thing. Also, if there is no death penalty, that would mean that you either can't die or you immediately resurrect at your corpse and keep fighting. Any delay in resurrection time, or distance of resurrection from corpse, is a death penalty.

Would you not also play better knowing there's a reward for you to do so? If not dying got you something rather than dying taking something away?

And yes, any time seemingly wasted after death in a game is in essence a death penalty. Though some of those are built into the game (having to respawn at a certain location) and some aren't (having to wait for the game to load).

But most don't often view respawn times as a death penalties. Usually they're just taken as something intrinsic to games and don't really think about them.

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

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 16 hours 19 min ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
rookslide wrote:
rookslide wrote:

I think p hero gives far too much weight to the WOW experience. COH is a very different MMO. And most of the COH crowd was ok with death penalties. They understood the need for them. They weren’t as dramatic as you make them out to be. In my experience the people that complained about them excessively didn’t recognize their tactics were poor...

WoW was/is one of the biggest MMOs and has influenced MMOs since it's creation.

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

Atama
Atama's picture
Online
Last seen: 3 min 7 sec ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/09/2013 - 22:32
Project_Hero wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:
rookslide wrote:

Actually, I always believed a large part of superhero games was the teamwork and strategy aspect...

With a lot of MMOs though it usually comes down to numbers and having more of the relevant numbers. That's why when some classes are "built right" they can solo content not meant to be soloed.

Granted there is strategy in how a character is built but I was thinking more combat strategy. Which most MMOs tends to be spamming your biggest attacks as much as possible. There is strategy in when to use abilities but they're usually simple strategies like "when the tank gets low on hp use this thing".

Though having a game require a lot of strategy to win a fight would probably just end up being "there is only one way to actually do this" which would suck.

Games that have you spam a big attack are bad games I don’t play. Decent games have more strategy. Often there is a particular rotation and/or resource balance that you have to manage to do well. There are also strategies between players, such as stunning or otherwise interrupting an enemy’s heavy attack that you need to take turns on because cooldowns, positioning an enemy a tank has to do, heck some games let you position other players with long distance “grab” abilities (WoW priests do this).

This is just scratching the surface. But again, a game that has you spamming a button and you win if a number is big enough is a lazy design. I know those games are out there, I’ve played them, but those are examples of poor design and I have confidence that MWM won’t emulate them.

rookslide
rookslide's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 41 min ago
kickstarter
Joined: 09/25/2013 - 10:26
Project_Hero wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:
rookslide wrote:

I think p hero gives far too much weight to the WOW experience. COH is a very different MMO. And most of the COH crowd was ok with death penalties. They understood the need for them. They weren’t as dramatic as you make them out to be. In my experience the people that complained about them excessively didn’t recognize their tactics were poor...

WoW was/is one of the biggest MMOs and has influenced MMOs since it's creation.

But still very different! And a different player expectation and experience. And has little bearing on your argument.

"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

ivanhedgehog
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 8 min ago
kickstarter
Joined: 11/04/2013 - 12:46
Lothic wrote:
Lothic wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:
Lothic wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

I think most people will agree they'd rather be rewarded for doing something right than punished for doing something wrong.

But you have to balance this concept with the expectations of how often you expect those right and wrong things to happen.

For example it's a "right thing" for a person to keep breathing because it tends to keep that person alive but do you need to "reward" that person anything extra (beyond the benefit of remaining alive) for doing the "right thing" in that case? Likewise because dying in a MMO is usually taken to be a "wrong thing" to do is it not fine to punish a player for that since that tends to be the unusual exception, not the rule?

Punishments are simply not "bad" or "unusual" when applied against atypical unacceptable behaviors. If people died in MMO every 5 seconds then death penalties could easily be considered "cruel". But since people typically only die "once in a while" they are constructive reminders to not do that.

Duh.

But for this discussion asking people if they'd rather take a penalty each time they're defeated, or be rewarded for doing a thing and not getting defeated, most would probably take the reward. Both ways encourage not dying, but people would likely want the reward for doing well vs the punishment for doing badly.

Switching the penalties with rewards for something like XP debt would work by having the "Normal" amount of XP you earn being equivalent to having XP debt. Clearing missions without dying would give your XP a multiplier till your up to gaining XP at the "regular" rate. In essence this does the exact same thing as XP debt but from a player perspective they're getting rewarded for playing well. As from a player perspective they don't know their base XP has been tampered with in the first place.

It's just changing a player's perspective on what is happening, and as it'd be all behind the scenes the players aren't any the wiser that technically penalization is the norm.

Game Devs can't always design the mechanics of their games based on what players would "rather" have. If that were the case I'd rather have instant level 50 characters with every costume item reward unlocked as soon as I started playing.

Strangely enough games sometimes have to have RULES that players have to follow regardless of what they'd "rather" do.

P. S. Frankly I'm amazed this thread is still lingering on - hasn't everyone already made the same points here 10 times already?

what are your feelings as to when this penalty should be applied?

environmental damage?....
pvp deaths?
raid damage?
story line, bam your dead wake up in the hospital damage?

Do you feel that all of these should produce death penalties or just some?

jtpaull
jtpaull's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 weeks 5 days ago
Joined: 01/27/2015 - 15:00
Project_Hero wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:
jtpaull wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

People have often found ways to reduce or completely negate death penalties and yet still play the games competently.

So how can they be so necessary and yet so superfluous?

Not dying is a great way to reduce or completely negate death penalties. To not die, I play better and smarter. All the time I now spend playing and not dying I enjoy more because I know there is a penalty hanging out there for me if I do die. Your point is kind of proving everyone else's point that death penalties can be a good thing. Also, if there is no death penalty, that would mean that you either can't die or you immediately resurrect at your corpse and keep fighting. Any delay in resurrection time, or distance of resurrection from corpse, is a death penalty.

Would you not also play better knowing there's a reward for you to do so? If not dying got you something rather than dying taking something away?

And yes, any time seemingly wasted after death in a game is in essence a death penalty. Though some of those are built into the game (having to respawn at a certain location) and some aren't (having to wait for the game to load).

But most don't often view respawn times as a death penalties. Usually they're just taken as something intrinsic to games and don't really think about them.

You are already getting rewards for not dying; no death penalty, in-game rewards (xp, items, etc etc etc). It's really not a difficult concept to grasp.

Even if respawn location is built into the game it's still a death penalty if it is in any way an inconvenience. Even in WoW their respawn locations can be long distances from where you died, taking minutes to run back. They have the ability to change that if they wanted, to give you the option to rez, without rez sickness, at your character instantly, but they won't change it to that because it's a penalty for dying to encourage better play. Durability damage in WoW is another death penalty that I've never heard complaints about because it makes sense. I will even go so far as to relate durability damage to xp debt in CoH since items/item damage wasn't a thing. Not a 1:1 but close enough to be cousins yet they give the same 'goal' - don't die and this bad thing won't happen...which you can view as the 'thing' you get for not dying.

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

ivanhedgehog
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 8 min ago
kickstarter
Joined: 11/04/2013 - 12:46
Project_Hero wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:
rookslide wrote:

Actually, I always believed a large part of superhero games was the teamwork and strategy aspect...

With a lot of MMOs though it usually comes down to numbers and having more of the relevant numbers. That's why when some classes are "built right" they can solo content not meant to be soloed.

Granted there is strategy in how a character is built but I was thinking more combat strategy. Which most MMOs tends to be spamming your biggest attacks as much as possible. There is strategy in when to use abilities but they're usually simple strategies like "when the tank gets low on hp use this thing".

Though having a game require a lot of strategy to win a fight would probably just end up being "there is only one way to actually do this" which would suck.

I actually feel that MIDS and real numbers had more to do with people making more effective characters and being better players. Games like SWTOR you have to rely on 3rd party sites and addons to have any idea what your character is actually doing. In COH you could see what effect things would have and people learned to build better characters instead of everyone going to a site that gave you the "right" build.

rookslide
rookslide's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 41 min ago
kickstarter
Joined: 09/25/2013 - 10:26
Isn’t it a pretty solid point

Isn’t it a pretty solid point in the comic book game genre that dying nearly always carries a penalty? Sure there are a few characters that it doesn’t apply to the same but they are outliers, exceptions not the rule. Death always carries a weight inevery comic book I’ve cared to read. I would expect the game to uphold the same notion.

"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
Online
Last seen: 3 min 7 sec ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/09/2013 - 22:32
In my experience, games with

In my experience, games with death penalties have two flavors, one for PvE death and one for PvP death. The PvE death can come from enemies or the environment. Doesn’t matter if it’s a group, a full raid, or solo. It’s the same. The PvP deaths usually don’t impose a penalty like XP slowdowns or gear damage, you just get sent back to a spawn point.

Dying as part of a plot point can go either way. The Secret World, for example, has missions where you have to be dead and in a ghost form to complete them and you suffer the same penalty as always in the process. Usually if you have an actual defeat as part of a quest it’s treated like a regular death. If you don’t actually die, you just see it in a cut scene for example, there’s no consequence.

Anyway that’s how I’ve seen these penalties applied and from what I can tell it works, so if you are going to use them stick with that.

rookslide
rookslide's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 41 min ago
kickstarter
Joined: 09/25/2013 - 10:26
Atama wrote:
Atama wrote:

In my experience, games with death penalties have two flavors, one for PvE death and one for PvP death. The PvE death can come from enemies or the environment. Doesn’t matter if it’s a group, a full raid, or solo. It’s the same. The PvP deaths usually don’t impose a penalty like XP slowdowns or gear damage, you just get sent back to a spawn point.

Dying as part of a plot point can go either way. The Secret World, for example, has missions where you have to be dead and in a ghost form to complete them and you suffer the same penalty as always in the process. Usually if you have an actual defeat as part of a quest it’s treated like a regular death. If you don’t actually die, you just see it in a cut scene for example, there’s no consequence.

Anyway that’s how I’ve seen these penalties applied and from what I can tell it works, so if you are going to use them stick with that.

This all sounds reasonable!

"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: 2 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
rookslide wrote:
rookslide wrote:

Isn’t it a pretty solid point in the comic book game genre that dying nearly always carries a penalty? Sure there are a few characters that it doesn’t apply to the same but they are outliers, exceptions not the rule. Death always carries a weight inevery comic book I’ve cared to read. I would expect the game to uphold the same notion.

Dammit Rookslide, you just gave me an interesting idea that is going to buzz around in my head for a while and bug the crap out of me.

I'll put the rough idea down here, in hopes of infecting someone else to see what becomes of it:

The idea is that in character creation, we get to pick a custom death mechanic that fits our character. This would be kind of similar to building reputations with emergency services providers that was in an earlier death thread; with the difference being that this is part of our character's powers and not a relationship we build.

There could be a few options.

  1. We need a hospital to rez. The death penalty would consist of time to return.
  2. You can rez yourself in place. The death penalty would consist of a respawn timer. There could be a number of different animations to pick from and in the cash shop.
  3. You rez in another dimension and have to planeshift back to Titan City (basically you appear in a portal in the atmosphere above the city, or you appear from the water near the coast)
  4. You never need rezzing, but you can continue to be attacked and stunned almost indefinitely in place until you can slowly crawl out of combat or out of the leash length of the enemies. (in instances, you would need to leave the instance if you have aggro) Crawl speed would be about what it is in Blade & Soul.

Of course there would still be a common penalty applicable to all, such as XP debt, loss of reputation, and the like; if applicable. Also, none of these would prevent using a "wakie" or having a teammate rez you with powers.

I'm not convinced this is a good idea, but it is an idea nonetheless.


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.
rookslide
rookslide's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 41 min ago
kickstarter
Joined: 09/25/2013 - 10:26
I really like the idea of

I really like the idea of picking a death animation/mechanic! There is some cool creativity going on there Huck!

I know he doesn’t die but I keep picturing the pawnshop guy in MIB getting his head blown off and growing it back...

"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

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 14 hours 31 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
Project_Hero wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

Chess is a game that starts everyone max level and everything unlocked.

Not an MMORPG. You're comparing apples to rocks. This is yet another example of arguing in Bad Faith.
Also yet another example of your habit of saying "Look over there!" in order to avoid conceding the validity of any points made against you.

Project_Hero wrote:

I have never said I'd like to see this game be casual oriented. I have never stated anything I've said as something I'd like to see in the game. I would like the game to be casual inclusive, but not casual oriented.

Project_Hero wrote:

All I have done is question the validity of having death penalties, I have never stated that I wanted CoT to not have them.

Correction.
All you've ever done is resolutely refused to accept the validity of any of the arguments or historical evidence that argues in favor of having death penalties. Heads I win, tails you lose. We see what you've done there, and you have long since stopped being subtle about it.

Project_Hero wrote:

I was using WoW as a comparison to a casual game.

No, you were using WoW as your trademark "Look over there!" move whenever the argument starts going against you and people start wising up to what you're doing.

Project_Hero wrote:

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

No.
It's not about that.
It's about you cherry picking the evidence you like and refusing to accept the evidence that you don't like.

The only thing that you've dispelled is the notion that you're open minded enough to have an honest discussion with. All you've proven is that you're a Lost Cause on this front because no matter what anyone says, you'll NEVER BE CONVINCED about anything they have to say if it contradicts what you're asserting.

Lothic wrote:

If you seriously want to question why a game like CoH had death penalties (and why many other games still use them) then you need to genuinely understand the PURPOSE they serve. Once you accept the purpose then it's almost obvious why they are NEEDED.

You keep coming at this concept like it's an arbitrary anachronism that Devs just tossed into their games to piss players off. In reality it's an effective mechanic to REINFORCE acceptable play. Nothing that has been suggested in this thread thus far satisfies the purpose death penalties serve as directly or as simply.

But if Project_Hero did that, he'd lose his case!
Since that outcome is intolerable, it is much easier to simply refuse to accept the obvious and continue arguing in Bad Faith.

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
- Upton Sinclair

Or as I prefer to say ... You can lead a man to water, but you cannot make him THINK.

rookslide wrote:

I think p hero gives far too much weight to the WOW experience.

He's just using it to distract people from recognizing he hasn't got a leg to stand on and he knows it, but resolutely refuses to admit it. It's just yet more "Look over there!" behavior.


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
Atama
Atama's picture
Online
Last seen: 3 min 7 sec ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/09/2013 - 22:32
Custom respawn method sounds

Custom respawn method sounds good if it’s just cosmetic. Let’s say in one you teleport, in another you’re transported by a vehicle, in another you see a grave you climb out of, etc. Sounds cool and maybe they could sell “premium” animations in the cash shop, like the Transmat Effects you can buy/loot/earn in the Destiny games.

Just don’t change the mechanics. Because no matter how hard you try one method will be “best” or perceived as such, and just about everyone will pick it, so you might as well just have one method. And then players will complain about the other methods as “broken”.

Cobalt Azurean
Cobalt Azurean's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 55 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/03/2013 - 16:39
XP Debt isn't a death penalty

XP Debt isn't a death penalty; it's a life-style. #IfYouDontHaveXPDebtThenYouArentTrying #Blaster4Life

MeSoSollyWan
MeSoSollyWan's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 7 hours ago
kickstarter
Joined: 07/18/2014 - 00:54
Cobalt Azurean wrote:
Cobalt Azurean wrote:

XP Debt isn't a death penalty; it's a life-style. #IfYouDontHaveXPDebtThenYouArentTrying #Blaster4Life

Then Good Guy Patrol XP comes around to help you out~

Cobalt Azurean
Cobalt Azurean's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 55 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/03/2013 - 16:39
MeSoSollyWan wrote:
MeSoSollyWan wrote:
Cobalt Azurean wrote:

XP Debt isn't a death penalty; it's a life-style. #IfYouDontHaveXPDebtThenYouArentTrying #Blaster4Life

Then Good Guy Patrol XP comes around to help you out~

I see you've been initiated in already. I'm surprised I haven't seen you at the meetings. #DatPewPewLife

MeSoSollyWan
MeSoSollyWan's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 7 hours ago
kickstarter
Joined: 07/18/2014 - 00:54
Cobalt Azurean wrote:
Cobalt Azurean wrote:
MeSoSollyWan wrote:
Cobalt Azurean wrote:

XP Debt isn't a death penalty; it's a life-style. #IfYouDontHaveXPDebtThenYouArentTrying #Blaster4Life

Then Good Guy Patrol XP comes around to help you out~

I see you've been initiated in already. I'm surprised I haven't seen you at the meetings. #DatPewPewLife

Yes my friend, The Floor, and I have become very close over the years.

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 16 hours 19 min ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
jtpaull wrote:
jtpaull wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:
jtpaull wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

People have often found ways to reduce or completely negate death penalties and yet still play the games competently.

So how can they be so necessary and yet so superfluous?

Not dying is a great way to reduce or completely negate death penalties. To not die, I play better and smarter. All the time I now spend playing and not dying I enjoy more because I know there is a penalty hanging out there for me if I do die. Your point is kind of proving everyone else's point that death penalties can be a good thing. Also, if there is no death penalty, that would mean that you either can't die or you immediately resurrect at your corpse and keep fighting. Any delay in resurrection time, or distance of resurrection from corpse, is a death penalty.

Would you not also play better knowing there's a reward for you to do so? If not dying got you something rather than dying taking something away?

And yes, any time seemingly wasted after death in a game is in essence a death penalty. Though some of those are built into the game (having to respawn at a certain location) and some aren't (having to wait for the game to load).

But most don't often view respawn times as a death penalties. Usually they're just taken as something intrinsic to games and don't really think about them.

You are already getting rewards for not dying; no death penalty, in-game rewards (xp, items, etc etc etc). It's really not a difficult concept to grasp.

Even if respawn location is built into the game it's still a death penalty if it is in any way an inconvenience. Even in WoW their respawn locations can be long distances from where you died, taking minutes to run back. They have the ability to change that if they wanted, to give you the option to rez, without rez sickness, at your character instantly, but they won't change it to that because it's a penalty for dying to encourage better play. Durability damage in WoW is another death penalty that I've never heard complaints about because it makes sense. I will even go so far as to relate durability damage to xp debt in CoH since items/item damage wasn't a thing. Not a 1:1 but close enough to be cousins yet they give the same 'goal' - don't die and this bad thing won't happen...which you can view as the 'thing' you get for not dying.

The death penalty vs rewards for not dying is really a six of one half dozen of the other.

Not suffering a penalty doesn't feel the same as getting rewarded for something. Especially when wrapped up in all sorts of pizzazz. Like think of any game that has a results screen that adds up your score or whatever and you see all those bonuses, it feels great to know you did the thing with taking no damage and hey look I got a reward for that. Feels much better than all that stuff being guaranteed, but they take something from you if you fail something.

Durability damage in WoW makes sense. But not having it would also make sense. This is a world with magic and dragons and steam punk technology, I think people would be able to suspend their disbelief that their items don't degrade.

Equating item degradation to XP debt is a little rough. Item degradation you just pay for it and it's gone. XP debt lingers over you sapping your XP till it's gone. You can hang on to that junk for multiple levels IIRC.

Honestly both death penalties and rewards for success do the exact same thing when built right. Take out item degradation, lower the amount of money people get. Now people end up with the same amount of money (roughly) but don't have to repair their gear or run the risk of it breaking (or in some cases leave the dungeon/whatever to go get it repaired because it broke).

Yes, there'll likely be types of death penalties in games, respawn times are one of those things that probably need to exist (though mostly so things aren't super hectic). But games don't need anything more than that, especially if you take those penalties, move them to the other side of the equation, and wrap them up to look like bonuses.

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

Brand X
Brand X's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 3 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/01/2013 - 00:26
Myri wrote:
Myri wrote:

Pulling ideas from Final Fantasy 14 is not necessarily a good thing.

The game itself is designed for player churn with little thought to retaining mid core or veteran players. Minimal challenge aside from savage raids, weekly loot lockouts when gear is relevant to current patch, no general sense of "danger" in game. Cookie cutter combat mechanics and a ridiculous upwards gear grind. To stay at the gear forefront you are literally spending 6 weeks of currency grinding , just to start over 6 weeks after completing the gear set. The FF14 project received an increased budget for their latest expansion yet they continue to reduce producing all forms of content. Yosheep himself essentially said he's not designing the game to keep players wanting to log in. That's not even touching on an increasing cash shop presence in a subscription based game.

Due to stellar design decisions the game is hemorrhaging players.

Yeah, lets not take too many queues from FF14.

There's things it has done well though. Like how they got people to redo past content that newer players need done, by making them weeklies. Sure, I believe the rewards were considered lacking by some who did the math, but I always had fast time in queue even as a dps.

Yes, it does tend to do the gear bit, most mmos did.

ZeeHero
ZeeHero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 months 5 days ago
Joined: 04/27/2018 - 20:08
Only plenty of games do FINE

Only plenty of games do FINE without a death penalty. CO's "Death penalty" is so light it may as well not exist, and nobody dies on purpose to exploit game mechanics or to farm anything. theres no reward in it. FFXIV has no death penalty, and is the 2nd most successful MMO on the planet.

Foradain
Foradain's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 50 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/25/2013 - 21:06
ZeeHero wrote:
ZeeHero wrote:

CO's "Death penalty" is so light it may as well not exist...

Oh, have they nerfed the Hero Points in the last few years? I haven't played CO for a bit lately. Or maybe they got rid of the lockouts of characters that die fighting the Big Boss in certain instances?

Foradain, Mage of Phoenix Rising.
Foradain's Character Conclave
Millennium City Refugee.
Avatar courtesy of Satellite9

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
ZeeHero wrote:
ZeeHero wrote:

Only plenty of games do FINE without a death penalty. FFXIV has no death penalty, and is the 2nd most successful MMO on the planet.

I beg to disagree.

By default, getting KO'd in FFXIV:ARR means that you get an 8% durability hit against your gear first. Any spells/abilities/status changes are also removed.

Furthermore while knocked out, you can choose to return to your home point for free, or wait for a revive. And you could be waiting for a long time unless you're in a party with someone who can revive you. Oh, and you'd better have set your home respawn point someplace nearby, or you'll have to travel across three continents like I always seem to have to do.

If you're in a Duty (Instanced Dungeon or Leve), you can chose to return to the start of the map. This doesn't cost too much beside running time, but if you "return to start" in the middle of event battle (One where walls are created to block people from running away) then you cannot return to that battlefield until the battle is concluded. (Either the rest of the party falls or the boss is taken down) So you're out of that battle permanently.

If you accept a revive while KO'd, you'll return with a 1 minute "Weakness" debuff that reduces all of your stats by 15%. (Max HP/Max MP/and physical stats like STR and MND)

If you happen to get KO'd again while under the weakness Debuff, then "Brink of Death" will be applied when you're revived again. (This replaces the "Weakness" debuff from here on out.) Brink of Death reduces all of your stats by 30% for 1 minute, and getting KO'd while under Brink of Death will just reapply the same debuff over again. (So if you have 30 seconds left on BoD and get KO'd again, the BoD debuff goes back to 60 seconds on reviving)


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.
ZeeHero
ZeeHero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 months 5 days ago
Joined: 04/27/2018 - 20:08
Weakness and Brink of death

Weakness and Brink of death last only a minute. it's a much lighter death penalty than something stupid like XP debt. and it only exists to make sure people dont force their way through duties and have to avoid dying while IN the duty.

ZeeHero
ZeeHero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 months 5 days ago
Joined: 04/27/2018 - 20:08
Lockouts are not death

Lockouts are not death penalties, they are a mechanic of certain boss fights and content. Hero points are a tiny increase to a well built character's effectiveness.

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 16 hours 19 min ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
Huh. Champions Online stars

Huh. Champions Online stars -are- a bonus that counts up, just looked it up.

So, there's your proof that the bonus for not dying works in an MMORPG format.

They also have the respawn mechanic but some mission areas are so small they might as well spawn you right back where you dropped.

One point for both, I guess.

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

blacke4dawn
blacke4dawn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 hours 52 min ago
Joined: 03/28/2015 - 03:02
Project_Hero wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

Huh. Champions Online stars -are- a bonus that counts up, just looked it up.

While it is technically implemented (and framed) that way I seriously doubt many CO players think of it that way, if they are even aware of it. If you run around with a bonus 99.9999% of your time then I wouldn't consider it a bonus, it's rather the normal level.

This is the danger with making almost everything have a "bonus reward", they start to loose their appeal depending on how easy they are to get. Especially if they are not a one time unique thing for each dungeon/instance.

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 16 hours 19 min ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
blacke4dawn wrote:
blacke4dawn wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

Huh. Champions Online stars -are- a bonus that counts up, just looked it up.

While it is technically implemented (and framed) that way I seriously doubt many CO players think of it that way, if they are even aware of it. If you run around with a bonus 99.9999% of your time then I wouldn't consider it a bonus, it's rather the normal level.

This is the danger with making almost everything have a "bonus reward", they start to loose their appeal depending on how easy they are to get. Especially if they are not a one time unique thing for each dungeon/instance.

Framing and perception are always necessary, and a lot of death penalties can be re-framed as bonuses.

WoWs rest XP was reframed from a penalty to a bonus and was better received.

Having the stars have more impact would be nice. Like having them degrade outside of combat making it more of like a momentum kind of system, then selling items that restock them to full. Dying would of course get rid of them, or possibly respawning would and being down waiting for a revive would just make them decay at a faster rate than normal.

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

Darth Fez
Darth Fez's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 months 1 week ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/20/2013 - 07:53
blacke4dawn wrote:
blacke4dawn wrote:

If you run around with a bonus 99.9999% of your time then I wouldn't consider it a bonus, it's rather the normal level.

Indeed. Even the normal state can look like a bonus if you spent the majority of your time in a "penalty" state. Reportedly in WoW, early on (perhaps even in beta), the so-called called the "rest state" was supposed to be the normal (progress) state. The devs didn't think anyone would - or perhaps should - play for more than a few hours a day. If anyone did, they figured their progress should be slowed. When they saw that most people did play for long stretches they flipped the terminology and made the rest state a bonus.

- - - - -
Hail Beard!

Support trap clowns for CoT!

blacke4dawn
blacke4dawn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 hours 52 min ago
Joined: 03/28/2015 - 03:02
Project_Hero wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

WoWs rest XP was reframed from a penalty to a bonus and was better received.

You keep using this as some form of Holy Grail argument that rewards are always better than penalties but the simple fact is that that penalty wasn't tied to any failing of a players performance inside the game but rather just the area you were in when you logged out. Regardless of how one generally feels about penalties and rewards in games I'm sure hardly anyone would find that acceptable since it's not really part of the game.

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 16 hours 19 min ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
blacke4dawn wrote:
blacke4dawn wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

WoWs rest XP was reframed from a penalty to a bonus and was better received.

You keep using this as some form of Holy Grail argument that rewards are always better than penalties but the simple fact is that that penalty wasn't tied to any failing of a players performance inside the game but rather just the area you were in when you logged out. Regardless of how one generally feels about penalties and rewards in games I'm sure hardly anyone would find that acceptable since it's not really part of the game.

The players failed to perform the actions the devs wanted them to take and were punished for it.

How is throttling XP gain unless you do a certain task not part of the game?

It is in essence the same as XP debt; you failed to (log out at an inn/not die) as such you now earn less XP.

It's pretty much the same principle, only a player has more control over the log out one than the dying one.

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

Darth Fez
Darth Fez's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 months 1 week ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/20/2013 - 07:53
Heh. My bad. Admittedly, I

Heh. My bad. Admittedly, I did a very fleeting search of the thread to see if that WoW example had been mentioned.

- - - - -
Hail Beard!

Support trap clowns for CoT!

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 2 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Huckleberry wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:

The idea is that in character creation, we get to pick a custom death mechanic that fits our character. This would be kind of similar to building reputations with emergency services providers that was in an earlier death thread; with the difference being that this is part of our character's powers and not a relationship we build.

Atama wrote:

Custom respawn method sounds good if it’s just cosmetic. Let’s say in one you teleport, in another you’re transported by a vehicle, in another you see a grave you climb out of, etc. Sounds cool and maybe they could sell “premium” animations in the cash shop, like the Transmat Effects you can buy/loot/earn in the Destiny games.

Just don’t change the mechanics. Because no matter how hard you try one method will be “best” or perceived as such, and just about everyone will pick it, so you might as well just have one method. And then players will complain about the other methods as “broken”.

One of the more uniquely interesting powers CoH provided was the Self Destruction power from the Cyborg Super Booster. It was intended to be used by robot/cyborg characters and it allowed you to have this flashy explosive death sequence that provided a big PBAoE attack in exchange for your instant death.

The reason I mention it here is that as a "side effect" of the PBAoE attack this power basically provided for the "customized death mechanic" that Huckleberry was looking for. Perhaps instead of providing multiple post-death mechanisms that (as Atama pointed out) would likely just get min/maxed for the easiest outcome maybe the game could provide for multiple pre-death "self destruction" powers instead.

So for example they could obviously re-create the Cyborg version of Self Destruction but then they could also provide a magical supernova equivalent and maybe a version where a guy pops out grenades, pulls the pins and blows himself up. The idea then becomes providing each character an appropriately "thematic version" of the same basic self destruct power. All of these variants of self destruct would be set to do the equivalent PBAoE attack damage - the main difference would be the "cosmetic" animations involved.

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

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 16 hours 19 min ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
I used the cyborg explosion

I used the cyborg explosion pretty much on any character when I was about to die. Good times.

Sometimes the XP gained from the explosion would level me up, reviving me :D

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

blacke4dawn
blacke4dawn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 hours 52 min ago
Joined: 03/28/2015 - 03:02
Project_Hero wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:
blacke4dawn wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

WoWs rest XP was reframed from a penalty to a bonus and was better received.

You keep using this as some form of Holy Grail argument that rewards are always better than penalties but the simple fact is that that penalty wasn't tied to any failing of a players performance inside the game but rather just the area you were in when you logged out. Regardless of how one generally feels about penalties and rewards in games I'm sure hardly anyone would find that acceptable since it's not really part of the game.

The players failed to perform the actions the devs wanted them to take and were punished for it.

How is throttling XP gain unless you do a certain task not part of the game?

It is in essence the same as XP debt; you failed to (log out at an inn/not die) as such you now earn less XP.

It's pretty much the same principle, only a player has more control over the log out one than the dying one.

While it is technically part of the game it is not so in essence since where you log out has absolutely no impact (or at least should not) on your performance in the game.

The essence of a game, at least to me, is the game play and where I log out is not part of that.

Besides, the details around it all are a bit different than how you present it.
It originally was that after some time you started to gain lower and lower amounts of XP (down to half) and the only way to get rid of this penalty was to log out at an inn. The sole reason for this was to get players to have shorter gameplay sessions. So of course players railed against it since they felt the penalty had nothing to do with the game itself but rather a fairly overt attempt at manipulating the players themselves. That they then gobbled it up when the changed which XP level was the normal one and just gave it a new name, well that's just human psychology.
Not sure why Blizzard chose to only have inns for "replenishing" XP rate since one can have almost as good a rest out in the wild.
Source

Regardless of if it's a penalty or reward player will receive it better if they don't feel manipulated. There is also the psychology of that bonuses are easier to disregard than penalties in general.

What I'm trying to say is that loosing a bonus that effectively always have has noway near the motivating factor as receiving the very rare penalty will have.

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 16 hours 19 min ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
Using inns for the rest XP

Using inns for the rest XP puts players in social hubs, also soft beds, less danger than sleeping in the wilds where various monsters exist. I wouldn't be able to rest very easy knowing there are horrible and deadly monsters around.

Untill Fez's post I wasn't aware of the old version of rest XP's exhaustion mechanic, which is why I didn't mention it.

And yeah, you have to hide any player manipulation. Some games with micro transactions don't do so well because they're so obvious (dungeon keeper mobile, and that new Harry Potter mobile game).

Losing a bonus you almost always have doesn't seem like that big of a deal (unless it can get up to a bananas level of bonus, anyway) and therefore losing it usually just constitutes an "Oh well" from the player, but this keeps player's playing. Oh well, I can just get it again. Where as I'd say that penalty can often cause people to stop playing.

Die multiple times on the same mission? With bonus, oh well, I'll just keep at it.
With a penalty, now all my stuff is broken or breaking screw this, it isn't worth it. Or Now I have a crap ton of XP debt, eff this mission/game.

Maximizing player base and player retention should be paramount in MMO design, you want as many people in, and as many people to continue to play as possible.

Likely the best path lies with a mix of both penalties and rewards, and the current system that CoT has planned (from what we know of it so far, subject to change) seems fine.

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

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
Atama wrote:
Atama wrote:

Custom respawn method sounds good if it’s just cosmetic. Let’s say in one you teleport, in another you’re transported by a vehicle, in another you see a grave you climb out of, etc. Sounds cool and maybe they could sell “premium” animations in the cash shop, like the Transmat Effects you can buy/loot/earn in the Destiny games.

Just don’t change the mechanics. Because no matter how hard you try one method will be “best” or perceived as such, and just about everyone will pick it, so you might as well just have one method. And then players will complain about the other methods as “broken”.

I have no problem with some mechanics being better for some situations than for others. I think that adds more to the flavor of the game. So what if min/maxers decide that out of the four selections available, one is better 27% of the time instead of an even 25%? For certain specific raids and missions, however, there might be a better method. But good game/raid design could actively provide a means to balance them out so the ultra-competitive types don't make a particular death penalty choice mandatory for membership in that raid.

For example, if you are a water character who respawns with no penalty other than the fact that you have to respawn in the nearest body of water, then you might be the best choice for missions near water, but the worst at inland missions. The point would be for no death penalty to be the best across the board.

I'm still not convinced this is a good idea, but I'll keep arguing for it until I can't find any more good arguments, and then decide if I like it or not.


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: 16 hours 19 min ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
Huckleberry wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:
Atama wrote:

Custom respawn method sounds good if it’s just cosmetic. Let’s say in one you teleport, in another you’re transported by a vehicle, in another you see a grave you climb out of, etc. Sounds cool and maybe they could sell “premium” animations in the cash shop, like the Transmat Effects you can buy/loot/earn in the Destiny games.

Just don’t change the mechanics. Because no matter how hard you try one method will be “best” or perceived as such, and just about everyone will pick it, so you might as well just have one method. And then players will complain about the other methods as “broken”.

I have no problem with some mechanics being better for some situations than for others. I think that adds more to the flavor of the game. So what if min/maxers decide that out of the four selections available, one is better 27% of the time instead of an even 25%? For certain specific raids and missions, however, there might be a better method. But good game/raid design could actively provide a means to balance them out so the ultra-competitive types don't make a particular death penalty choice mandatory for membership in that raid.

For example, if you are a water character who respawns with no penalty other than the fact that you have to respawn in the nearest body of water, then you might be the best choice for missions near water, but the worst at inland missions. The point would be for no death penalty to be the best across the board.

I'm still not convinced this is a good idea, but I'll keep arguing for it until I can't find any more good arguments, and then decide if I like it or not.

I'd love to have custom death animations. Even custom revive animations. But I feel that they shouldn't be intrinsically linked to mechanics. Having mechanics that you can link to them would be fine (self revive powers, being revived, respawning, etc)

Having an option of respawn points would also be neat, more than just hospital or base, anyway. Probably would need to have them either take a while to set up, or takes a while to be able to change them, or something to lower the likelihood of abuse.

Just my thoughts on it.

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

jtpaull
jtpaull's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 weeks 5 days ago
Joined: 01/27/2015 - 15:00
Project_Hero wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

The death penalty vs rewards for not dying is really a six of one half dozen of the other...

Not suffering a penalty doesn't feel the same as getting rewarded for something...

Honestly both death penalties and rewards for success do the exact same thing when built right....

I don't really disagree with most of what you said, just this part. During play, if I know there is a penalty if I die makes the actual gameplay more exciting and fun because I am forced to think a little more about my tactics and the risk vs reward. With no death penalty I would probably just keep running in, time after time, into I've chipped away at the enemy enough to win. I'm not saying that wouldn't be fun and I'm not saying it would, but it wouldn't. With that 'noose' hanging over my head (the death penalty(s)), each 'win' in-game is just a little bit sweeter if I don't die.

I agree it would also be fun to have a little extra bonus if we complete a mission or quest or whatever without dying, as you mentioned.

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

ZeeHero
ZeeHero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 months 5 days ago
Joined: 04/27/2018 - 20:08
A small "Bonus" for not dying

A small "Bonus" for not dying is different from penalizing XP or something dumb like that. it is a fact players dislike defeat. theres no reason to further punish it. Especially not with onerous penalties to anything like XP, or heaven forbid the HUGE debuff wow gives you for dying and respawning.

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
ZeeHero wrote:
ZeeHero wrote:

Weakness and Brink of death last only a minute. it's a much lighter death penalty than something stupid like XP debt. and it only exists to make sure people dont force their way through duties and have to avoid dying while IN the duty.

First, you state that the game doesn't have any death penalties. Then when I show you that it does, your argument becomes this. It is very difficult to have this discussion if you keep changing your stance.

Besides, when you state "it only exists to make sure people dont force their way through duties and have to avoid dying while IN the duty" isn't that the entire point we have been trying to make as to why games impose death penalties to begin with? Thank you for making the point for us.


I like to take your ideas and supersize them. This isn't criticism, it is flattery. I come with nothing but good will and a spirit of team-building. If you take what I write any other way, that is probably just because I wasn't very clear.
Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 2 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Huckleberry wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:
Atama wrote:

Custom respawn method sounds good if it’s just cosmetic. Let’s say in one you teleport, in another you’re transported by a vehicle, in another you see a grave you climb out of, etc. Sounds cool and maybe they could sell “premium” animations in the cash shop, like the Transmat Effects you can buy/loot/earn in the Destiny games.

Just don’t change the mechanics. Because no matter how hard you try one method will be “best” or perceived as such, and just about everyone will pick it, so you might as well just have one method. And then players will complain about the other methods as “broken”.

I have no problem with some mechanics being better for some situations than for others. I think that adds more to the flavor of the game. So what if min/maxers decide that out of the four selections available, one is better 27% of the time instead of an even 25%? For certain specific raids and missions, however, there might be a better method. But good game/raid design could actively provide a means to balance them out so the ultra-competitive types don't make a particular death penalty choice mandatory for membership in that raid.

For example, if you are a water character who respawns with no penalty other than the fact that you have to respawn in the nearest body of water, then you might be the best choice for missions near water, but the worst at inland missions. The point would be for no death penalty to be the best across the board.

I'm still not convinced this is a good idea, but I'll keep arguing for it until I can't find any more good arguments, and then decide if I like it or not.

Well I guess part of "selling" this specific idea would involve just how "customized" each version of this could be. For example you mentioned having a water-based guy needing to pop up in the nearest body of water. Could they make that be "the nearest open flame" or maybe "the nearest open sky" (for sun-based people who get killed underground).

I think the "details" would make or break this idea.

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

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 16 hours 19 min ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
jtpaull wrote:
jtpaull wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

The death penalty vs rewards for not dying is really a six of one half dozen of the other...

Not suffering a penalty doesn't feel the same as getting rewarded for something...

Honestly both death penalties and rewards for success do the exact same thing when built right....

I don't really disagree with most of what you said, just this part. During play, if I know there is a penalty if I die makes the actual gameplay more exciting and fun because I am forced to think a little more about my tactics and the risk vs reward. With no death penalty I would probably just keep running in, time after time, into I've chipped away at the enemy enough to win. I'm not saying that wouldn't be fun and I'm not saying it would, but it wouldn't. With that 'noose' hanging over my head (the death penalty(s)), each 'win' in-game is just a little bit sweeter if I don't die.

I agree it would also be fun to have a little extra bonus if we complete a mission or quest or whatever without dying, as you mentioned.

If the penalty is so high that it's a concern of mine while playing likely the game would be frustrating to me when I die.

If it's insignificant I won't think about it until the game forces me to (showing or telling me my gear is breaking).

I never felt that the penalties were a noose over my head in CoH, they were an annoyance at best and demoralizing at worst. I didn't avoid dying because of the penalties, I avoided death because I wanted to not die. The penalties were an additional insult to injury, which I'd have been happier without (and likely I would have kept playing some of my characters longer without it).

Honestly, thinking about it, getting back to a place I died was the harsher penalty for me in CoH, which is why I always tried to keep at least 2 wakies on me at all times, but I didn't fear dying because of it. It was just something that made me go "Ugggh..." It was like, eye rolling.

But different strokes for different folks and all that.

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

Darth Fez
Darth Fez's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 months 1 week ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/20/2013 - 07:53
Project_Hero wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

I never felt that the penalties were a noose over my head in CoH, they were an annoyance at best and demoralizing at worst. I didn't avoid dying because of the penalties, I avoided death because I wanted to not die. The penalties were an additional insult to injury, which I'd have been happier without (and likely I would have kept playing some of my characters longer without it).

Honestly, thinking about it, getting back to a place I died was the harsher penalty for me in CoH...

That's essentially my stance, as well. I don't need a death penalty to make me want to avoid having my character die. I don't want to die because I don't want to die. When I play, I want to think, "Do I want to risk dying here?" I don't want to have to think, "Do I want to risk the death penalty?" Dying and having to run back so I could get back into the fight, and continue helping my team mates, was the real penalty.

- - - - -
Hail Beard!

Support trap clowns for CoT!

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
Darth Fez wrote:
Darth Fez wrote:

That's essentially my stance, as well. I don't need a death penalty to make me want to avoid having my character die. I don't want to die because I don't want to die. When I play, I want to think, "Do I want to risk dying here?" I don't want to have to think, "Do I want to risk the death penalty?" Dying and having to run back so I could get back into the fight, and continue helping my team mates, was the real penalty.

Time to return is actually a death penalty. It can take many forms. Respawn timers, corpse runs, or hospital runs. They all serve the same function: Make the player pay for their character dying by putting the player in a penalty box for a certain amount of time.

I really think we all need to re-synchronize. It seems the more people get involved in this discussion, the more subjective interpretations of the vocabulary are brought into the mix and the more convoluted the discussion becomes.


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: 16 hours 19 min ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
Huckleberry wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:
Darth Fez wrote:

That's essentially my stance, as well. I don't need a death penalty to make me want to avoid having my character die. I don't want to die because I don't want to die. When I play, I want to think, "Do I want to risk dying here?" I don't want to have to think, "Do I want to risk the death penalty?" Dying and having to run back so I could get back into the fight, and continue helping my team mates, was the real penalty.

Time to return is actually a death penalty. It can take many forms. Respawn timers, corpse runs, or hospital runs. They all serve the same function: Make the player pay for their character dying by putting the player in a penalty box for a certain amount of time.

I really think we all need to re-synchronize. It seems the more people get involved in this discussion, the more subjective interpretations of the vocabulary are brought into the mix and the more convoluted the discussion becomes.

Respawn times and respawning are a death penalty, yes. But they don't often feel like one. Probably because they're just something players accept are a thing that happens.

In CoH the only time I really felt it was a penalty was in the hollows as that place was brutal before they fixed it. You'd hover from one end of the map to the other o ly to get sniped by a homing rock from nowhere and die again. Classic Hollows is where dreams go to die.

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

rookslide
rookslide's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 41 min ago
kickstarter
Joined: 09/25/2013 - 10:26
Project_Hero wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:
jtpaull wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

The death penalty vs rewards for not dying is really a six of one half dozen of the other...

Not suffering a penalty doesn't feel the same as getting rewarded for something...

Honestly both death penalties and rewards for success do the exact same thing when built right....

I don't really disagree with most of what you said, just this part. During play, if I know there is a penalty if I die makes the actual gameplay more exciting and fun because I am forced to think a little more about my tactics and the risk vs reward. With no death penalty I would probably just keep running in, time after time, into I've chipped away at the enemy enough to win. I'm not saying that wouldn't be fun and I'm not saying it would, but it wouldn't. With that 'noose' hanging over my head (the death penalty(s)), each 'win' in-game is just a little bit sweeter if I don't die.

I agree it would also be fun to have a little extra bonus if we complete a mission or quest or whatever without dying, as you mentioned.

If the penalty is so high that it's a concern of mine while playing likely the game would be frustrating to me when I die.

If it's insignificant I won't think about it until the game forces me to (showing or telling me my gear is breaking).

I never felt that the penalties were a noose over my head in CoH, they were an annoyance at best and demoralizing at worst. I didn't avoid dying because of the penalties, I avoided death because I wanted to not die. The penalties were an additional insult to injury, which I'd have been happier without (and likely I would have kept playing some of my characters longer without it).

Honestly, thinking about it, getting back to a place I died was the harsher penalty for me in CoH, which is why I always tried to keep at least 2 wakies on me at all times, but I didn't fear dying because of it. It was just something that made me go "Ugggh..." It was like, eye rolling.

But different strokes for different folks and all that.

Again wow. You just argued that the return trip penalty was worse than the debt penalties which weren’t really that bad when you think about it. So now the real issue is at hand...

"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

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 2 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Project_Hero wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:

Time to return is actually a death penalty. It can take many forms. Respawn timers, corpse runs, or hospital runs. They all serve the same function: Make the player pay for their character dying by putting the player in a penalty box for a certain amount of time.

I really think we all need to re-synchronize. It seems the more people get involved in this discussion, the more subjective interpretations of the vocabulary are brought into the mix and the more convoluted the discussion becomes.

Respawn times and respawning are a death penalty, yes. But they don't often feel like one. Probably because they're just something players accept are a thing that happens.

In CoH the only time I really felt it was a penalty was in the hollows as that place was brutal before they fixed it. You'd hover from one end of the map to the other o ly to get sniped by a homing rock from nowhere and die again. Classic Hollows is where dreams go to die.

I find it interesting that you seem to be basing much of your angst over having a death penalty in relation to your specific experiences in CoH's Hollows. Did you ever stop to think that CoT might not have a zone like the Hollows or that it's possible the CoT Devs learned the lessons to make a "Hollows-like" experience less likely in CoT?

What if, to put it incredibly simply, having a death penalty in CoT won't be as annoying as it was in CoH by design?

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

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 16 hours 19 min ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
rookslide wrote:
rookslide wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:
jtpaull wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

The death penalty vs rewards for not dying is really a six of one half dozen of the other...

Not suffering a penalty doesn't feel the same as getting rewarded for something...

Honestly both death penalties and rewards for success do the exact same thing when built right....

I don't really disagree with most of what you said, just this part. During play, if I know there is a penalty if I die makes the actual gameplay more exciting and fun because I am forced to think a little more about my tactics and the risk vs reward. With no death penalty I would probably just keep running in, time after time, into I've chipped away at the enemy enough to win. I'm not saying that wouldn't be fun and I'm not saying it would, but it wouldn't. With that 'noose' hanging over my head (the death penalty(s)), each 'win' in-game is just a little bit sweeter if I don't die.

I agree it would also be fun to have a little extra bonus if we complete a mission or quest or whatever without dying, as you mentioned.

If the penalty is so high that it's a concern of mine while playing likely the game would be frustrating to me when I die.

If it's insignificant I won't think about it until the game forces me to (showing or telling me my gear is breaking).

I never felt that the penalties were a noose over my head in CoH, they were an annoyance at best and demoralizing at worst. I didn't avoid dying because of the penalties, I avoided death because I wanted to not die. The penalties were an additional insult to injury, which I'd have been happier without (and likely I would have kept playing some of my characters longer without it).

Honestly, thinking about it, getting back to a place I died was the harsher penalty for me in CoH, which is why I always tried to keep at least 2 wakies on me at all times, but I didn't fear dying because of it. It was just something that made me go "Ugggh..." It was like, eye rolling.

But different strokes for different folks and all that.

Again wow. You just argued that the return trip penalty was worse than the debt penalties which weren’t really that bad when you think about it. So now the real issue is at hand...

"Not that bad" can also be read as "superfluous" in this instance.

And I wasn't really arguing anything, just stating my feelings in the death penalties that CoH had. Neither really colored my play style much at all (bringing wakies around is always a good idea, especially if, like me, you teamed a lot) except for possibly making me not want to bother continuing to play content.

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

ZeeHero
ZeeHero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 months 5 days ago
Joined: 04/27/2018 - 20:08
Many people simply feel that

Many people simply feel that dying in a game is punishment enough. Failure does not feel good or rewarding. Why punish it even further? all this does is make sure everyone plays tanky characters with plenty of self sustain and never tries blaster types.

jtpaull
jtpaull's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 weeks 5 days ago
Joined: 01/27/2015 - 15:00
ZeeHero wrote:
ZeeHero wrote:

Many people simply feel that dying in a game is punishment enough. Failure does not feel good or rewarding. Why punish it even further? all this does is make sure everyone plays tanky characters with plenty of self sustain and never tries blaster types.

That was never a problem in CoH. I never played a tank, ever. The death penalty in no way decided what I played.

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

Pages