Porygon said:Raidan said:While this topic has derailed a bit from Nostalgia - I wanted to link this Wolfshead article again as its extremely relevant to the back and forth on risk, death penalties, etc. which many argue as nostalgic mechanics and why I and others feel they are absolutely necessary.
http://www.wolfsheadonline.com/the-death-penalty-mechanic-and-loss-aversion-in-mmo-design/
He summarizes my thoughts on it much better than I could write. Well worth the read if you haven’t read it (or his other articles).
I enjoyed that article. Thanks for sharing that.
This is my question. According to this article the amount of "loss aversion" is directly correlated to the penalties for death. And I agree 100% with this. But how do we measure this? At some point, there's going to start being death mechanics that lower "loss aversion" (significant exp loss, level loss [complete levels], loss of gear, permanent death).
So how do we determine whether the eq1 equation for loss aversion based on death penalties is the best one. We know it's better than wow, and most other modern mmos. But would it be better or worse if, per say, you didn't spawn naked. Still have the exp loss return to bind, the need to retrieve your corpse... but you get to do all of that as your full character.
Or what if there isn't an exp loss. But you do spawn naked...
We all know that they are toying with the difference between being able to lose levels vs exp debt, so there's already going to be some potential differences between pantheons death penalties and everquests.
So I mean, what would be the best "amount" of penalties for death that would create the most excitement, but also not deter players from tasks?
I don't have an answer to that question, but I do have a question of my own -
Who didn't do things in EQ just because they were afraid of the consequences?
What I mean is, there were absolutely zones that weren't visited because the risk wasn't worth the reward. But that's not because it was too hard - I'd say it was because the ZEM was bad, or itemization wasn't comparable to other level appropriate zones. Change those things, and no amount of XP loss or naked corpse runs would keep people away. They didn't keep me away, and they probably didn't keep you away.
Where is this large population of players that simply didn't visit areas because they were too afraid of dying and losing XP? When I ask people if they'd like to join me in X zone, sometimes I get declined. They're going to bed. They're already in a group. They just want to solo. But "It's too hard" or "what if we die?" was never, not once, a reason or an excuse.
It sounds like you're asking, "at what point would the loss aversion equation tip the scale the other direction? At what point would the challenge not equal the real or imagined rewards? At what point would the death penalties cause people to quit, rather than be a proponent of excitement and enjoyement?" It's true that we don't know the perfect equation yet - but the simple fact that I (and most of us?) never ran into this population of gamers in EQ that wouldn't visit a zone because they were afraid of dying - that leads me to believe that EQ could have even taken it FARTHER before the scales were tipped the other direction.
Or maybe it was just far enough. Maybe EQ was perfect?
Ok, it wasn't. But I still find myself confused. There's always this talk about how EQ took things too far. How the corpse runs and the XP loss caused people to not visit X place, or caused people to stop playing. But where are all these people? Where are the articles about the large exodus that stopped playing EQ because it was too punishing? We see plenty of articles out there that say the opposite, but where is the other side? Do they even exist? These are genuine questions.
That article was amazing and I couldn't agree more. I hate a corpse run today as much as I did 19 years ago but feel it's a necessary penalty that makes me enjoy the game more.
@Porygon I don't know what the "right" answer is for a death penalty. It's certainly capable of question but I think the best starting point is EverQuest where you lose a significant chunk of XP, spawn buck naked somewhere (possibly) far away, and have to hike back to get your corpse and possibly fight your way there.
That isn't a real penalty in raids since you have a few dozen folks involved who can invis & drag & rez and you'll do the recovery. You won't see dozens of folks log off and quit.
If all 3 healers can resurrect then frankly it's already much more lenient than it was in EQ where you needed a Cleric (or Paladin) for that. Any real group is going to have some kind of healer so rez would be available which takes the sting out of death. If they give necromancer & dire lord something similar that really proliferates the ability to mitigate death. I'd like to see it done that way, where you put the power into the players hands and in social interactions to reduce the death penalty. Don't dumb down the penalty, simply provide some avenues to reduce it even if some classes are better at easing death's pain.
If you haven't played recently, I STRONGLY suggest you log onto a progression server in Everquest, and try to play through a situation where your group repeatedly wipes, and your cleric friend's max rezz is 35%. Or where you don't have a cleric at all!
Watch as the hours that you just spent exping disappear, through no fault of your own! And then the group breaks up.
There is nothing fun about losing xp when you die. It's just frustrating. And disrespectful of the time of the people who have busy lives.
And if a 96% rezz is just going to wipe away the majority of xp loss at high levels ANYWAY, then it serves no purpose at all. Either a) remove xp loss, or b) make all rezzes heal back xp loss (from a low level). Otherwise, you're just punishing lower level characters.
I just lived through the above situation. Inevitably, someone goes AFK during the gods-awful mess. The only time this is prevented is if you're with all Real Life Friends, and even that isn't foolproof.
If you (somehow) fondly remember xp loss from death, you're definitely too nostalgic. Illogically so. Why make a game frustrating? I know I've played games where your items can break on death, as well. That's just awful. Every time something like that happens, people stop playing the game, and who knows if they'll come back?
I'm doing that right now on P99. I hate the death penalty, the xp loss, the corpse runs and time wasted. But I wouldn't play it without that. Sorry - read this article first. If you want mindless fun play the lottery, or a slot machine. It's not a game if you always win.
Lyaelan said:If you haven't played recently, I STRONGLY suggest you log onto a progression server in Everquest, and try to play through a situation where your group repeatedly wipes, and your cleric friend's max rezz is 35%. Or where you don't have a cleric at all!
Watch as the hours that you just spent exping disappear, through no fault of your own! And then the group breaks up.
There is nothing fun about losing xp when you die. It's just frustrating. And disrespectful of the time of the people who have busy lives.
And if a 96% rezz is just going to wipe away the majority of xp loss at high levels ANYWAY, then it serves no purpose at all. Either a) remove xp loss, or b) make all rezzes heal back xp loss (from a low level). Otherwise, you're just punishing lower level characters.
I just lived through the above situation. Inevitably, someone goes AFK during the gods-awful mess. The only time this is prevented is if you're with all Real Life Friends, and even that isn't foolproof.
If you (somehow) fondly remember xp loss from death, you're definitely too nostalgic. Illogically so. Why make a game frustrating? I know I've played games where your items can break on death, as well. That's just awful. Every time something like that happens, people stop playing the game, and who knows if they'll come back?
I've been playing P99 for the past year, going through those exact things. Wouldn't have it any other way.
Iksar said:Of course fear of punishment isn't enjoyable but it isn't supposed to be. There is a distinct difference when there is some sort of risk involved when it comes to feeling reward and accomplished though, putting it on the line and pulling through. I could play a million League of Legends or Overwatch casual matches without a care in the world and half asleep if I wanted, but going into ranked play changes the whole dynamic and things get "real." The fear of loss is there sure but it fuels the drive to perform and win, and those wins feel waaaay better than any casual match.
This is a video game. It should be enjoyable. I think the comparison with ranked matches in LoL or OW is not quite comparable, as the time commitment for any given play session is extremely loose. I also know that OW has protections in place that take into account your own play when determining ranking points or losses, as well as a matchmaking system that attempts to put you up against teams that will, ultimately give you a 50:50 win:loss ratio. It's a completely different system from a persistent world MMORPG.
This is just something I'm never going to agree upon, though. I've played games with harsh death penalties, and it seriously damaged my ability to enjoy the game. I much prefer being able to spend my time actually playing the game that I enjoy and not having to spend an hour to get back to my body, or farming mobs to regain XP I lost, or scrounging up gold to rebuy/craft the gems that broke on my death.
Tralyan said:Ok, it wasn't. But I still find myself confused. There's always this talk about how EQ took things too far. How the corpse runs and the XP loss caused people to not visit X place, or caused people to stop playing. But where are all these people? Where are the articles about the large exodus that stopped playing EQ because it was too punishing? We see plenty of articles out there that say the opposite, but where is the other side? Do they even exist? These are genuine questions.
I would posit that players didn't really "know better" back then. The realm of MMOs was a very different beast back then. Players - myself included - have since seen improvements made upon systems and features, and we now know how it can be a more enjoyable experience.
Lyaelan said:There is nothing fun about losing xp when you die. It's just frustrating. And disrespectful of the time of the people who have busy lives.
Agree. 100%.
I still feel like you can have a meaningful death penalty (exp loss without losing a level, the need to retrieve your corpse while NOT being naked (bags, food etc..) without requiring naked corpse runs.
The exp loss (or debt) alone would prompt people to want to get back to their corpse (in order to retrieve their bags and such as well).
Porygon said:I still feel like you can have a meaningful death penalty (exp loss without losing a level, the need to retrieve your corpse while NOT being naked (bags, food etc..) without requiring naked corpse runs.
The exp loss (or debt) alone would prompt people to want to get back to their corpse (in order to retrieve their bags and such as well).
I've always been for the old EQ style death penalties. But if I had to compromise, I always thought keep the exp loss and leave inv on the corpse. You leave your bags, items, and money on your corpse, but you respawn with what you were wearing like armor and weapons so you had the means to fight your way back to your corpse if needed. I think there's room for compromise myself.
streeg said:Porygon said:I still feel like you can have a meaningful death penalty (exp loss without losing a level, the need to retrieve your corpse while NOT being naked (bags, food etc..) without requiring naked corpse runs.
The exp loss (or debt) alone would prompt people to want to get back to their corpse (in order to retrieve their bags and such as well).
I've always been for the old EQ style death penalties. But if I had to compromise, I always thought keep the exp loss and leave inv on the corpse. You leave your bags, items, and money on your corpse, but you respawn with what you were wearing like armor and weapons so you had the means to fight your way back to your corpse if needed. I think there's room for compromise myself.
As someone who has never played an mmo that had corpse runs or xp loss, but has played mmos that featured xp debt, I can say that debt is definitely enough of a consequence to make people fear death. That said, I won't condemn the other mechanics without trying them, especially corpse runs. But I'm pretty sure I would end up feeling like actual xp loss is a bit too extreme for my personal tastes. And I know permanent item loss would not be something I would enjoy. Just my personal opinion, but again, I know that debt all by itself was enough to make people try to avoid death back in the day.
One more point about debt as opposed to xp loss is that it gave you something to work for when it occurred. Many was the time my group wiped and incurred xp debt and said "Let's grind off this debt before we call it quits!" It was a setback, but one that gave another sense of accomplishment when it was overcome. This is another reason I'd probably be partial to debt over actual xp loss.
I'm glad others enjoyed the Wolfshead Loss Aversion article as much as I did. And, I realize this discussion is drifting away from Nostalgia and favoring the good memories... but I'll try to thread it back in the discussion.
@Porygon
For me, EQ's death penalty isn't a nostalgic memory of it being successful, but more years later a reflection looking back of why it worked (and more recently why I still think it works when playing P99). And, the easiest definition of why it worked in my opinion is it affected the one finite resource everyone has - time. And, for me, the one loss that I wanted to avoid more than anything is time loss. Now, an argument can be made of how much time loss is too much, but I do think Traylan above laid out that argument well in that I never had people telling me they didn't want to group in X zone due to the possibility of death in EQ, so I don't think EQ's penalty was too harsh. Now, one aspect I could be more lenient on is permanent gear loss as I do think that could be overly punitive.
@Naunet and Lyaelan
I would agree that there is nothing fun about losing exp when you die, and it is frustrating - but that is why the system is called the "death penalty." A punishment is worthless if it isn't meaningful or it isn't a removal of something extremely important (time loss) that a player would want to avoid. As the Wolfshead article I previously linked stated, it is a loss that I wanted to avert - if death has no meaning, then I have no incentive to avoid it. But, ultimately, we will probably agree to disagree here - I think the penalty is absolutely necessary for the risk/reward necessary to re-capture the old magic and create nostalgic memories ultimately for Pantheon. I really think the nostalgic memories were amplified because I was so invested (time-wise) in my character between EQlaunch - Velious.
@Lyaelan
And, no offense meant, but on a progression server (especially with a game approaching 20 years old with most players having a vast knowledge base of the game), if multiple group wipes continue to happen at that level range, then I would argue it's poor group composition, player skill, or tackling content too hard for your group. I haven't played much on the TLP servers, but if I remember correctly, the 35 res was somewhere around level 27ish - wipes shouldn't be happening consistently then. And, those saying they favor harsher penalties are definitely not being nostalgic especially when referencing P99 as the first res spell there that offers any sort of exp recovery isn't till level 39.
However, one point I could get behind is changing EQ's death penalty if it was decided to be the baseline for Pantheon (GASP - read on). I do think EQ's death penalty was ultimately meaningless with 96% resses, res sticks, etc, and I would argue I would be nostalgic towards its vanilla mechanics if I wanted it exactly the same. I'd agree higher level players should be punished more by the penalty - not less than new players. Much like another one of my favorite Wolfshead articles: The Everquest Paradox, where he describes in EQ you were never stronger than you were at level 1 - I do believe it makes more sense that lower level players could be "eased" in to the penalty and there could be one res spell - it starts closer to 100% as a newbie and then it reduces to 50% towards max level, if corpse runs were in (especially naked), it would amount to plenty of time loss at low levels (don't focus on the #s, just throwing out the idea). Then, once they're "hooked," invested, and more skilled with their character, it would be much less likely they'd /ragequit once the penalties were more meaningful.
So, again, for me, it's not so much at looking fondly back at older game mechanics with nostalgia, but trying to decipher why they may have worked (or not), and how they could be improved on - sometimes at my own expense, like with the death penalty, as I don't have the playtime I used too, but I wouldn't want to sacrifice the overall experience of others, or water down the virtual world selfishly to cater to my schedule - I'll enjoy Pantheon at my own slower pace now.
We have a few different player types talking here. The new MMO's players brought up on the current status quo corpse runs that are safe and easy, and the old school MMO's players who like it difficult and are fine with having penalties and then we have everyone in between who wants some variation of both. I'm probably in the third group, but I do favor more difficult over watered down and easy. Aka the safe ghost run back to corpse ala WoW.
Sad truth is you're going to forget to bind or not have a place to bind at some point and then die FAAAAAAAAAR..... away from your last bind spot. Maybe you'll have a friend to rez you, maybe you'll have to talk in general chat or local chat and ask a stranger to rez you for some gold or maybe you'll just have to run all....the...way....back. I don't see the problem. There seem to be a number of many ways out of the situation besides running back. The xp penalty does seem harsh, but its not there to make you feel good. Its there to make you appreciate better decision making. Current WoW and games like it do not. They encourage reckless behavior and reward you for it most of the time.
Visionary Realms is clearly trying to bring back the best elements of older MMO's and make something that stands out from all the failed cookie cutter WoW clones on the market and even WoW itself. Current MMO's have all done away with these older and difficult game designs not because they drove players away, but because they wanted more money. So they made the games simpler to play and understand. Thats fine, but lets be honest that wasn't EQ and never will be. I love the idea of Pantheon being a EQ " like game " with updated graphics and a ton of added features. Pantheon sounds like the perfect game for me.
BTW, VS has said they will listen to the community and make adjustments as they can so that as many people as possible feel satisfied. We all know that we can't please everyone. I get that everyone wants their voices heard myself included, but I don't want all our voices to sway VS from their core vision. Too many chefs in the kitchen and all that. At least until we've given the game a chance and can truly speak more accurately on these subjects.
All that said, I'm pretty sure we can find some middle ground here.
I definitely agree that a spell that gives back almost all lost xp at high level and very little at low level is ...ridiculous.
Death shouldn't be almost free at high level.
On the other hand death probably should be relatively inexpensive at lower level so as not to drive newer players away. Give them an idea of the game philosophy but don't demoralize them and particularly don't discourage them from grouping. As is well known PUGs are deadly - solo play by a careful player that knows the ropes is rather safe. We don't want to prevent or overly discourage solo play but we *do* want to encourage PUGs - its the best way to meet people and make friends.
Kilsin said:Nostalgia - Are we favouring the good memories while suppressing the bad memories we had of past MMORPGs and is that hurting the genre or is this what the genre needs? #PRF #MMORPG #MMO #communitymatters
For the first part, I would say everyone treats memories differently, but for the most part I think I am favoring good memories. However, that may be because EQ was literally a better game than all that came after it. My desire for such a game has increased the importance of those good memories and moved them to the front.
As for whether this is hurting the genre or is it what it needs... After reading all of the above posts, It appears to me that much of a players thoughts on this will be determined by how they define the game and what their goals are. If someone is playing the game because they want to hack-n-slash with a party in a dungeon, the CR and the WC tunnel will not appeal to them. The CR and the tunnel will appear to be obstacles, or poorly coded areas of the game that needed to be corrected. For someone who is playing the game with the idea of joining a community to accomplish goals, the CR and the tunnel may be excellent features. There was one player way back that commented that they looked at every CR as a quest. And that it was the most played quest they ever went on.
EQ was a very deep game. The lore, the mechanics, ect... had so much depth at the time. What many people fail to look at though was it's breadth. EQ was like 40 games all in one. One day you were a group memeber working through a dungeon, and the next you were soloing in a field. Later on you were selling loot, and then crafting, socializing, traveling... the list goes on. There was so much to do, and so much to learn.
Speaking of learning, I was always learning when I was playing EQ. 6 years after I started, I was still learning. I really did not like CRs. I still do not like them. But I learned more about the various skills, spells and abilities my charaters had doing CRs than in any other aspect of the game. I also learned more about my fellow guild mates and party members.
Despite a dislike for the crowd and the spam, I felt obliged to go to the tunnel. I did not want to get ripped off for the gear I spent so long acquiring and I wanted to get better gear. As time went on, I learned how to play that game as well. I learned how to get a premium on gear I sold, and how to find gear I wanted. I would not waste time there, but the experiences I made taught me a great deal about understanding supply, demand, peoples motiviations, and the importance of knowing the value of a commodity.
I love to learn. Even in real life. For me, Terminus needs to be open. Open to learning. Open to emergent gameplay. Only a combination of difficulties, freedom, and variety will keep my interest for the very long term. EQ had these. Lets do them again, only better.
dorotea said:I definitely agree that a spell that gives back almost all lost xp at high level and very little at low level is ...ridiculous.
Death shouldn't be almost free at high level.
On the other hand death probably should be relatively inexpensive at lower level so as not to drive newer players away. Give them an idea of the game philosophy but don't demoralize them and particularly don't discourage them from grouping. As is well known PUGs are deadly - solo play by a careful player that knows the ropes is rather safe. We don't want to prevent or overly discourage solo play but we *do* want to encourage PUGs - its the best way to meet people and make friends.
I think the balance in this, was that at lower level it was much much much easier to get exp. It was very plentiful, mobs died quickly, and there were 15 different options of zones for you to go.
At higher level. You had limited zones, mobs were less plentiful and they were much much stronger. Dying at level 30, was almost free, when it comes to the time it took to gain that exp back even without a rez. But at 50, or 60... there was NO WAY you were going without a rez you would have lost hours of work.
Couple that with the idea of raiding. If the death penalty is too severe at max level, you're going to see even a bigger discrepancy in who able to kill raid mobs. The more casual a guild the less attempts they might even make on a mob. Which in turn hurts them and their chance to kill it.
Porygon said:Couple that with the idea of raiding. If the death penalty is too severe at max level, you're going to see even a bigger discrepancy in who able to kill raid mobs. The more casual a guild the less attempts they might even make on a mob. Which in turn hurts them and their chance to kill it.
I think 50% should be the max restored. At that percent it would mean raid guilds who were maxed out on exp could get a good +/- 20 attempts (assuming 10% exp loss on death) in before having to call it for the night/week while everyone worked on regaining what was lost to give it another night of 20 attempts. The more hardcore would likely be able to try again within a couple days while others might take a few days to a week.
Or maybe no exp is restored from a rez but instead players get a 50% bonus experience boost until they reach the highest point of exp their character has ever attained.
Iksar said:Porygon said:Couple that with the idea of raiding. If the death penalty is too severe at max level, you're going to see even a bigger discrepancy in who able to kill raid mobs. The more casual a guild the less attempts they might even make on a mob. Which in turn hurts them and their chance to kill it.
I think 50% should be the max restored. At that percent it would mean raid guilds who were maxed out on exp could get a good +/- 20 attempts (assuming 10% exp loss on death) in before having to call it for the night/week while everyone worked on regaining what was lost to give it another night of 20 attempts. The more hardcore would likely be able to try again within a couple days while others might take a few days to a week.
Or maybe no exp is restored from a rez but instead players get a 50% bonus experience boost until they reach the highest point of exp their character has ever attained.
It's definitely going to be interesting to see how it gets balanced. But I still think the harsher the penalty the bigger gap between guilds you'll see.
Depending on if that gap is intended or not will be the important part.
Lyaelan said:If you haven't played recently, I STRONGLY suggest you log onto a progression server in Everquest, and try to play through a situation where your group repeatedly wipes, and your cleric friend's max rezz is 35%. Or where you don't have a cleric at all!
You're cherry picking.
Lyaelan said:There is nothing fun about losing xp when you die. It's just frustrating. And disrespectful of the time of the people who have busy lives.
No doubt. The fun is in staying alive, and feeling that sense of achievement and satisfaction that comes through risk that would otherwise not exist. That's why penalties in games, whatever the mechanic, can be not only an okay thing, but a necessity to truly have a world where what you do matters.
Porygon said:
Couple that with the idea of raiding. If the death penalty is too severe at max level, you're going to see even a bigger discrepancy in who able to kill raid mobs. The more casual a guild the less attempts they might even make on a mob. Which in turn hurts them and their chance to kill it.
Is this a bad thing? Not everbody "deserves" everything.
While i do agree with the idea having your armor transfer through death. I would rather utilize a soulbound armor system for corpse runs (maybe raid loot armor will be soulbound?) What it comes down to is meaningful exp loss to prevent abuse of the armored respawn mechanic. In EQ TLP most people will take a death with full gear just so they can bank/sell since it only takes a small amount of time to regain the exp lost. Now in a game where exp gain is difficult that mechanic abuse would be less utilized, but still utilized in certain instances. This is why the naked corpse run was the perfect solution. You can have a smaller exp penalty or raise the rez % potential, but the naked corpse run was the true barrier. So if i were offered a choice i would say day one on launch day, put in naked corpse runs with exp penalties, but as we progress into the game allow certain high end armor to become soulbound so that we can die and keep that armor for the corpse run. They could even utilize a function where no rent items are soulbound but disappear once you camp or otherwise log off the server. This would make those no rent items more valuable in the short term gaming spectrum. Just some thoughts, not trying to dictate.
Iksar said:I think 50% should be the max restored. At that percent it would mean raid guilds who were maxed out on exp could get a good +/- 20 attempts (assuming 10% exp loss on death) in before having to call it for the night/week while everyone worked on regaining what was lost to give it another night of 20 attempts. The more hardcore would likely be able to try again within a couple days while others might take a few days to a week.
I don't really get what's appealing about working on a raid boss or whatever, deleveling, and then having to grind mobs to get back up to where you were.
I just, like... This is a game. I'm not playing a game so that half of the nights I'm able to play are spent being punished by grinding mobs to get XP back because we were fighting a challenging boss where dying should be expected when learning an encounter.
Keno Monster said:No doubt. The fun is in staying alive, and feeling that sense of achievement and satisfaction that comes through risk that would otherwise not exist. That's why penalties in games, whatever the mechanic, can be not only an okay thing, but a necessity to truly have a world where what you do matters.
Not a necessity. I think it's pretty clear there are folk here who do not find it rewarding in any sense when faced with those kinds penalties. xD
Naunet said:I don't really get what's appealing about working on a raid boss or whatever, deleveling, and then having to grind mobs to get back up to where you were.
I just, like... This is a game. I'm not playing a game so that half of the nights I'm able to play are spent being punished by grinding mobs to get XP back because we were fighting a challenging boss where dying should be expected when learning an encounter.
Keno Monster said:No doubt. The fun is in staying alive, and feeling that sense of achievement and satisfaction that comes through risk that would otherwise not exist. That's why penalties in games, whatever the mechanic, can be not only an okay thing, but a necessity to truly have a world where what you do matters.Not a necessity. I think it's pretty clear there are folk here who do not find it rewarding in any sense when faced with those kinds penalties. xD
Dark Souls is a game too and if you can't make it back to where you died before you die again you lose all of your experience/currency with no way to get even a portion of it back. It has become an extremely popular game. Saying "it's a game" is not particularly compelling argument, there are all kinds of games with all sorts of different mechanics/penalties within.
Having to work your way back up to attempting a raid boss is part of the punishment for dying too many times attempting it, and a mechanic that stops players from endlessly zerging a boss until dumb luck hands them a victory.
Dying sucks, it's not that I enjoy dying or losing experience (time) but I recognize the value having the penatly brings in terms of sense of accomplishment and reward when overcoming the PvE challenges in the game. If one were dying half the nights they were playing then I would guess it to indicate they aren't learning from their experience. Close encounters with death and overcoming an obstacle in the game that has beat a group down in the past is far more rewarding to me than being able to just bash one's head against a wall knowing that wall will break before they ever do (and without even a scratch to show for it). It encourages buckling down and learning the all aspects of the game and player classes, on good habits and skillful cooperation/teamwork. There is little to no room for dumb luck to carry a player to the higher reaches.
I get that there are people who don't like it or find it rewarding, and there are plenty of games catering to the crowd that doesn't want any penalties or challenge or potential hardship, but next to none for those of us that enjoy overcoming challenges or commiserating with other players swapping tales of woe.
Even if they had a 10% exp penalty and a max 50% rez things wouldn't be as doom and gloom as they are made out to be. Even if it were 10 hours to level and a player died, with a rez they would lose a whole 30 minutes worth of experience. Not the end of the world or a particularly harsh thing, it just stings a bit.
Gyldervane said:One more point about debt as opposed to xp loss is that it gave you something to work for when it occurred. Many was the time my group wiped and incurred xp debt and said "Let's grind off this debt before we call it quits!" It was a setback, but one that gave another sense of accomplishment when it was overcome. This is another reason I'd probably be partial to debt over actual xp loss.
Can you elaborate what the difference is between debt and loss? I only mentioned debt in the sense that you wouldn't be able lose a level.
Keno Monster said:Porygon said:
Couple that with the idea of raiding. If the death penalty is too severe at max level, you're going to see even a bigger discrepancy in who able to kill raid mobs. The more casual a guild the less attempts they might even make on a mob. Which in turn hurts them and their chance to kill it.
Is this a bad thing? Not everbody "deserves" everything.
No, I agree. But I also know that when people feel that they don't have a decent chance at something... they complain... which leads to changes. I just hope VR sticks to their guns.