LOTRO has the "Challenge" modes(often referred to as Hard Mode)where you get extra rewards for completing an instance in a specific way. Interestingly, sometimes it's a reward for playing strategically better(Forges of Khazad Dum, Fil Gashan, Halls of Crafting), but more often it's a reward for taking on *additional* difficulty. This kind of difficulty varies, but usually involves killing the boss while not killing certain other creatures, such as letting the Adds beat on you while you're trying to take the boss down instead of cleaning them up first. Either way, it's rewarding you for being better players.Belladonnah said:
The Crime of Punishment
- Thread starter Shamus Young
- Start date
Sorry, I should have said more people will try to cheat. If you have more to lose by doing it legally than cheating (ex: permanent death; it's like starting a new account), more people will try to cheat, so you'll need more GMs to regulate than and stop people from paying for your game. Not really a good way to make money.chaosfact said:
WoW in cataclysm is a good example. There's a good challenge in heroic dungeons but the death penalty isn't too harsh. You'll die, but you can always try again. When the game is way too easy like in WotLK, people unsub. If the punishment was harsher, like losing gear when you die, people won't do heroics, so they won't be able to raid, they'll complain that there's not enough stuff to do and unsub.
I think punishment is inferior to difficulty to motivate people to improve. It's better to teach with a carrot instead of a stick. There should be a stick, but it doesn't have to be a baseball bat to be effective.
Frustration is an emotion I for one do not enjoy. I agreed with the article. There is a difference between challenge and frustration. When you get to frustration you're officially not having fun. That's something most game companies are keen on avoiding.chaosfact said:
Keep your gay ass harsh death penalties away from my MMO! D:<
Monetary punishment is the only thing i'll except! y because u make those over time, if you are careful you will have lots, if you are reckless you will have none. But death wiping progress and experience points is just draconian!
not to mention it teaches you about real world risk and reward with money! (granted you don't go dying to lose money XD)
Monetary punishment is the only thing i'll except! y because u make those over time, if you are careful you will have lots, if you are reckless you will have none. But death wiping progress and experience points is just draconian!
not to mention it teaches you about real world risk and reward with money! (granted you don't go dying to lose money XD)
I understand that an easy game sucks. But a frustrating game sucks more.
I have read lots of comments about people disliking a non challenging game. But, really, with rare exceptions, there aren't that many "challenging" games out there. I like how Shamus offered up Demon's souls, that game was super challenging, and it had a pretty severe death penalty (not necessarily a good point). But, that game was completely skill based. You had to KNOW how to play your character and how to move and how to used the environment to your advantage, this kind of challenge made the game fun. That is why I played that game for well over 100 hours. And that is why the game was still worth it, even though the death penalty was overly severe. It's the other elements that made up for it's shortcomings.
A few other points:
-Even if the death penalty is not severe, NO ONE wants to die in a game. It stops progress in a game. So, having a severe death penalty is not a positive point in the game. It's mostly good enough that you died and lost some time. The penalty becomes annoying after that, and will not increase your overall skill in a game.
-These games are created and published by FOR PROFIT companies. To assume that they are going to want to produce games for a SMALL niche in the videogame community is just ludicrous. The most successful companies cater to the most common denominator. Look at CoD:BlOps success, and the game is mediocre at best.
Challenging is making an opponent hard to beat. It's not, making an opponent hard to beat and kicking the player in face for failing to beat an already hard opponent. If your not motivated to learn about the game your playing, you should simply not be playing it.
I have read lots of comments about people disliking a non challenging game. But, really, with rare exceptions, there aren't that many "challenging" games out there. I like how Shamus offered up Demon's souls, that game was super challenging, and it had a pretty severe death penalty (not necessarily a good point). But, that game was completely skill based. You had to KNOW how to play your character and how to move and how to used the environment to your advantage, this kind of challenge made the game fun. That is why I played that game for well over 100 hours. And that is why the game was still worth it, even though the death penalty was overly severe. It's the other elements that made up for it's shortcomings.
A few other points:
-Even if the death penalty is not severe, NO ONE wants to die in a game. It stops progress in a game. So, having a severe death penalty is not a positive point in the game. It's mostly good enough that you died and lost some time. The penalty becomes annoying after that, and will not increase your overall skill in a game.
-These games are created and published by FOR PROFIT companies. To assume that they are going to want to produce games for a SMALL niche in the videogame community is just ludicrous. The most successful companies cater to the most common denominator. Look at CoD:BlOps success, and the game is mediocre at best.
That literally opens up a whole other argument. It's not a positive point in the industry to ban people for using the software they purchased. This literally creates more problems for the entire industry than it solves. Then the measures taken to stop cheaters starts effecting the legitimate game players. I have been accused of buying/selling gold by Blizzard, then another time of trying to sell my account. I almost quit the game for good after that. I didn't say to myself, "It's ok this is happening because it's better for everyone". My thoughts immediately went with, I am never gonna invest money into this game again.chaosfact said:
Death and the inability to pass an area IS showing someone they need to improve their tactics. You don't need to be set back to know you didn't pass, it just makes it far more annoying to keep playing. Thy person may be able to go right back and try again, but that is like someone throwing themselves against a brick wall again and again. The argument should not go, "we should put spikes on the wall to get him to stop". The right argument is, "we should show him where the door is if he wants to come in so much".chaosfact said:
Challenging is making an opponent hard to beat. It's not, making an opponent hard to beat and kicking the player in face for failing to beat an already hard opponent. If your not motivated to learn about the game your playing, you should simply not be playing it.
They literally use this mechanic in DCUO and the achievements. They offer up achievements and legend points for not using healing items, and/or not dying fighting the boss of the instance. I find that I play extra hard with these potential rewards at stake.Belladonnah said:
I do think death in an MMO should mean more than it does in, say, WoW. I've been playing Eve Online for years, and I really like how death is handled in that. I especially like how any surviving modules from your ship can be taken from the wreck by anyone who gets to it. This means most players will be using generic equipment which can be purchased easily and how you use your gear is more important than how big it's bonuses are.
It also makes additional playstyles valid, such as trying to make a living as a pirate preying on other players. This in turn can lead to deeper emergent gameplay, where other players might band together to clear pirates out of a region to make it safer for a while or they might take a different & longer route, leading to different encounters and scenery.
I'd like to see more games treat your gear as throwaway, so it's more player skill and group planning that will matter in a fight, not simply how long you've spent grinding. I would also like to see death in an MMO mean you haven't lost everything, but you've definitely lost something. It gets adrenaline pumping in a tough fight, and forces you to plan your actions a little more. A harsher death penalty than you'll find in most MMOs can lead to a deeper and more complex game, provided (and this is important) the other mechanics in the game support it, such as the ability to loot other players, the reduced need for high-end equipment, and the ability to interact with your fellow players in more complex ways.
It also makes additional playstyles valid, such as trying to make a living as a pirate preying on other players. This in turn can lead to deeper emergent gameplay, where other players might band together to clear pirates out of a region to make it safer for a while or they might take a different & longer route, leading to different encounters and scenery.
I'd like to see more games treat your gear as throwaway, so it's more player skill and group planning that will matter in a fight, not simply how long you've spent grinding. I would also like to see death in an MMO mean you haven't lost everything, but you've definitely lost something. It gets adrenaline pumping in a tough fight, and forces you to plan your actions a little more. A harsher death penalty than you'll find in most MMOs can lead to a deeper and more complex game, provided (and this is important) the other mechanics in the game support it, such as the ability to loot other players, the reduced need for high-end equipment, and the ability to interact with your fellow players in more complex ways.
Well, I think a lot of the problem is that the lack of any real loss on the party of players when they die contributes to the game becoming top heavy. You tend to see the entire player base getting to the top of the game and "racing" for increasing qualities of loot.
I also think it leads to really bad design, to be honest, I think the bosses in a lot of MMORPGs are increasingly stupid. The penelty free deaths lead to obtuse fight mechanics as the developers don't bother to consider what's reasonable or even fun, since they know that people can just respawn and go again, making ten or twelve boss attempts in an hour in a lot of cases if things don't go their way.
To be entirely honest, I fail to see how a lot of these bosses could be defeated without tons of deaths... even if you know what your doing from having read about the fight mechanics online (which are leaked from Beta Testers who were told what to do, so they could test the fight mechanics).
A more meaningful death mechanic would slow down the time it took for the game to become top heavy, and probably help to balance out the ever-increasing game economy. The risk-reward factor given the time investment in death recovery also means that there is going to be increasing value placed on lower-end items, and the best equipment is also going to be rare, rather than pretty much every player who cares being able to more or less zerg their way to fight mastery and get all their "best in slot" items.
The penelty free death system exists in part to coddle casual players. I think a lot of it is born from the whole "I have a life, I can't play that much" attitude along with the attitude (even among designers) that anyone who pays a subscription is entitled to all of the game content. I'm one of those people who thinks that there should be substantial rewards to putting the time into an MMORPG, people can make whatever cracks about "not having a life" aside, but the point is if that's what someone chooses to do with their time as a hobbyist they should be entitled to the pay offs. The easy deaths pretty much mean that your casual players are going to get all the same stuff as the dedicated ones, they are just going to get there slower.
As I've said before, my opinion here might change at some point, however where I am right now makes me think that games like "World Of Warcraft" where pretty much the entire population base are endgame raiders and feel entitled to this (leading to a lot of complaints about the slight difficulty spike in heroic dungeons and raids since Liche King) is not a good thing.
What's more I think one of the thing that is killing a lot of developing MMORPGs is that even the casuals are familiar with the genere now, and have some idea of what they are doing. When you see games developed with an "everyone who wants to can do it" attitude similar to WoW, you wind up with even the casuals blazing through the content within a month or two tops (people who are very casual and might only play a few hours a week are still maxxing out their levels in a couple of months in many cases).
Increased difficulty, depth, and learning curve combined with a more meaningful (if not crippling) death penelty would do the industry good right now. "Difficulty" does not mean "Forced grouping" though as that just means teams of people will proceed just as quickly, and to be fair MMORPGs have to be as much single player games as multiplayer ones today because there just aren't that many single player RPGs out there (as I've read in the past, an MMO takes a similar amount of effort and development as a single player RPG, but has a potentially higher profit yield. While single player CRPGs exist, they are an increasingly rare beast, and when you see ones like "Dragon Age" it's a big deal now. A lot was said on the subject when they killed the idea of making any more single player Ultima games in favor of putting all the effort into UO many years ago).
To put it bluntly, what we need is MMOs to follow in the example of things like "Demon's Souls", not in the play style exactly, so much as the general attitude on progression.
I also think it leads to really bad design, to be honest, I think the bosses in a lot of MMORPGs are increasingly stupid. The penelty free deaths lead to obtuse fight mechanics as the developers don't bother to consider what's reasonable or even fun, since they know that people can just respawn and go again, making ten or twelve boss attempts in an hour in a lot of cases if things don't go their way.
To be entirely honest, I fail to see how a lot of these bosses could be defeated without tons of deaths... even if you know what your doing from having read about the fight mechanics online (which are leaked from Beta Testers who were told what to do, so they could test the fight mechanics).
A more meaningful death mechanic would slow down the time it took for the game to become top heavy, and probably help to balance out the ever-increasing game economy. The risk-reward factor given the time investment in death recovery also means that there is going to be increasing value placed on lower-end items, and the best equipment is also going to be rare, rather than pretty much every player who cares being able to more or less zerg their way to fight mastery and get all their "best in slot" items.
The penelty free death system exists in part to coddle casual players. I think a lot of it is born from the whole "I have a life, I can't play that much" attitude along with the attitude (even among designers) that anyone who pays a subscription is entitled to all of the game content. I'm one of those people who thinks that there should be substantial rewards to putting the time into an MMORPG, people can make whatever cracks about "not having a life" aside, but the point is if that's what someone chooses to do with their time as a hobbyist they should be entitled to the pay offs. The easy deaths pretty much mean that your casual players are going to get all the same stuff as the dedicated ones, they are just going to get there slower.
As I've said before, my opinion here might change at some point, however where I am right now makes me think that games like "World Of Warcraft" where pretty much the entire population base are endgame raiders and feel entitled to this (leading to a lot of complaints about the slight difficulty spike in heroic dungeons and raids since Liche King) is not a good thing.
What's more I think one of the thing that is killing a lot of developing MMORPGs is that even the casuals are familiar with the genere now, and have some idea of what they are doing. When you see games developed with an "everyone who wants to can do it" attitude similar to WoW, you wind up with even the casuals blazing through the content within a month or two tops (people who are very casual and might only play a few hours a week are still maxxing out their levels in a couple of months in many cases).
Increased difficulty, depth, and learning curve combined with a more meaningful (if not crippling) death penelty would do the industry good right now. "Difficulty" does not mean "Forced grouping" though as that just means teams of people will proceed just as quickly, and to be fair MMORPGs have to be as much single player games as multiplayer ones today because there just aren't that many single player RPGs out there (as I've read in the past, an MMO takes a similar amount of effort and development as a single player RPG, but has a potentially higher profit yield. While single player CRPGs exist, they are an increasingly rare beast, and when you see ones like "Dragon Age" it's a big deal now. A lot was said on the subject when they killed the idea of making any more single player Ultima games in favor of putting all the effort into UO many years ago).
To put it bluntly, what we need is MMOs to follow in the example of things like "Demon's Souls", not in the play style exactly, so much as the general attitude on progression.
How harsh the death penalty is should be a player selectable option.
I'm fine with minor death punishments in a game. In an MMO (especially) I think that for the most part it's vital that dying doesn't smack you back too hard. I'm sure we've all (well most of us) been in a group that's wiped. Cue large amounts of players blaming each other, rage quits and the healer or tank getting kicked from the group. Can you imagine how vicious it would be if death meant more than just having to run back to your body?
However...
Harsher death penalties do make a game more challenging, just not in the same way as upping the difficulty. If death is minor then you're more willing to take risks, if death is a huge ball ache then you are much more careful. Look at Dead Space 2. There is a difficulty setting which does the traditional "make the monsters harder to kill" as well as Hard Core mode. In Hard Core you don't get check points, if you die you have to go back to your last save, and to make it extra annoying you only have 3 save slots. I have completed the game on the hardest setting and I'm not a particularly good player. I died an absolute shed load, and did some sections 5 or 6 times before I got through them, but succeed I did (eventually...). This is possible due to unlimited saves and checkpoints. When they aren't there I got about an hour and a half in before I died and that was game over. It takes someone MUCH more skilled than me to beat it in Hard Core despite the fact that the enemies are of equal difficulty.
Also...
Harsher death penalties change the way you play. Again using DS2 as an example: When I was playing with unlimited saves I would often be running around with red health trying to save my medpacks so I could flog them. In Hard Core mode? Hell no, I used them as soon as I got them so I was constantly on blue health and could survive being hit more than once. Because dying meant my game was finished I was much more careful about how I played.
There are points in favour of both mild and harsh death penalties so why not have both? Diablo 2 had it as an option (Hard Core meant when you character died it was tough buns) as does Dead Space 2. You could even apply it to an MMO, we already have Role Playing servers in WoW where you can't call your character anything silly so why not have Hard Core servers where if you die bad things happen?
Death penalty harshness as an option. That way those of us who just want to play the game and enjoy it on a more casual level can and those of us who need the threat of true loss to really get into an experience can have the sense danger they need.
Think gambling: Is it more fun to play with limited real money or unlimited fake?
I'm fine with minor death punishments in a game. In an MMO (especially) I think that for the most part it's vital that dying doesn't smack you back too hard. I'm sure we've all (well most of us) been in a group that's wiped. Cue large amounts of players blaming each other, rage quits and the healer or tank getting kicked from the group. Can you imagine how vicious it would be if death meant more than just having to run back to your body?
However...
Harsher death penalties do make a game more challenging, just not in the same way as upping the difficulty. If death is minor then you're more willing to take risks, if death is a huge ball ache then you are much more careful. Look at Dead Space 2. There is a difficulty setting which does the traditional "make the monsters harder to kill" as well as Hard Core mode. In Hard Core you don't get check points, if you die you have to go back to your last save, and to make it extra annoying you only have 3 save slots. I have completed the game on the hardest setting and I'm not a particularly good player. I died an absolute shed load, and did some sections 5 or 6 times before I got through them, but succeed I did (eventually...). This is possible due to unlimited saves and checkpoints. When they aren't there I got about an hour and a half in before I died and that was game over. It takes someone MUCH more skilled than me to beat it in Hard Core despite the fact that the enemies are of equal difficulty.
Also...
Harsher death penalties change the way you play. Again using DS2 as an example: When I was playing with unlimited saves I would often be running around with red health trying to save my medpacks so I could flog them. In Hard Core mode? Hell no, I used them as soon as I got them so I was constantly on blue health and could survive being hit more than once. Because dying meant my game was finished I was much more careful about how I played.
There are points in favour of both mild and harsh death penalties so why not have both? Diablo 2 had it as an option (Hard Core meant when you character died it was tough buns) as does Dead Space 2. You could even apply it to an MMO, we already have Role Playing servers in WoW where you can't call your character anything silly so why not have Hard Core servers where if you die bad things happen?
Death penalty harshness as an option. That way those of us who just want to play the game and enjoy it on a more casual level can and those of us who need the threat of true loss to really get into an experience can have the sense danger they need.
Think gambling: Is it more fun to play with limited real money or unlimited fake?
I think you've hit the nail on the head.
If there's one thing I can't stand, it's artificial-difficulty curves, where checkpoints are placed after several difficult encounters instead of after each, or enemies are just over-loaded with abilities for the hell of it.
If there's one thing I can't stand, it's artificial-difficulty curves, where checkpoints are placed after several difficult encounters instead of after each, or enemies are just over-loaded with abilities for the hell of it.
I really like how you put this. It is like how mastering Super Mario Brothers will not make you a master at Super Mario Brothers 3. Even within the game, mastering one level won't make you better for the next. You might pick up a few techniques and a sense of timing but, for the most part, you still have to learn each level in of itself.Centrophy said:
One thing I wonder about is PVP, though. I was talking to a friend about the merits of a PVP server versus a PVE server. He argued that the problem with WoW's PVP servers is that because the death penalties are so light, and dieing isn't a big deal, people don't really stop to help each other. He says that is there were a harsher penalty to death then people would have more incentive to prevent others from dieing. I countered with an argument about the famous PVP issues in UO. Would a harsher death penalty make people more likely to work together?
It's an old mistake--confusing the feeling of challenge with the method of challenge. Here's how the thinking goes:Shamus Young said:
"When I find a game that is challenging, it occasionally--or often--causes me to feel frustrated when I don't get it right. Therefore, games that cause the player to feel frustrated are challenging games."
There's a major disconnect in there. While it is true that a particularly hard level will leave you feeling frustrated when you fail, your frustration is just your emotional response--which can come from a number of sources. Not everything that causes that same emotional response is necessarily an example of "challenge." Designers and developers have to look into the "why" of the emotional response. They have to trace the frustration back to its source and make sure it's for good reasons.
Why do we get frustrated during challenging games? By and large, it's the sense of, "Dammit! I almost had it that time!" There's a line your skill has to cross before you succeed, and the frustration comes from falling just short of that line. The important thing here is your frustration is a reaction to what you are doing, not to what happens afterward. The challenge has nothing to do with punishment. The same task is just as challenging if you have one attempt or unlimited attempts. All punishment does is affect the likelihood you'll even attempt the challenge.
While frustration often results from challenge, frustration is not a requirement for challenge.
Memorizing exactly what's going to happen in a game is skill? Memorizing what to do in certain situations is certainly a part of skill, i.e. use fire on enemies made of wood, but memorizing a bunch of rooms because they don't change every time you die almost seems like cheating. You're basically getting a preview of what you need to do. If I barely scrape past a section and then get a checkpoint I think, wow, that was close and exciting. If I barely scrape past a section and then replay it several more times because I keep dying later, my memory of that section becomes a monotonous muscle-memorized layout of exactly what to do to avoid damage and better prepare for later sections. You still need actual skill at the game, but when I think of skill I think of the ability to perform well in any situation, for instance having such a command of platforming skill that you can make all the weird jumps they throw at you, as opposed to being skilled at doing an identical thing infinite times, for instance being an expert at landing one particular jump.poiumty said:
"I understand that challenge-based players are frustrated by their position as a niche group. (Welcome to my world. Do you know hard it is being a fan of good, coherent storytelling these days?) "
I believe at this point, you sir, are entitled to a "Bazinga"..
just sayin'
I believe at this point, you sir, are entitled to a "Bazinga"..
just sayin'
THANK YOU.
I'm tired of people constantly equating penalties with challenge. For an example of where this doesn't work, Mass Effect 1. When you died you went back to your last save, and there weren't many auto-saves where you would have otherwise liked them (like on entering an enemy base). On numerous occasions I would be killed while exploring some random planet and I would end up back when I first landed there. This meant any resources or collectibles I had found I had to go back and get again, and if you played Mass Effect you know how awful the Mako handles.
Otherwise the game was pretty simple, not much difficulty for most fights except the occasional cheap one-shots by Colossi. But dying was an exercise in frustration.
I'm tired of people constantly equating penalties with challenge. For an example of where this doesn't work, Mass Effect 1. When you died you went back to your last save, and there weren't many auto-saves where you would have otherwise liked them (like on entering an enemy base). On numerous occasions I would be killed while exploring some random planet and I would end up back when I first landed there. This meant any resources or collectibles I had found I had to go back and get again, and if you played Mass Effect you know how awful the Mako handles.
Otherwise the game was pretty simple, not much difficulty for most fights except the occasional cheap one-shots by Colossi. But dying was an exercise in frustration.
I think a game with Death as a punishment is basically moving the game into another element, a whole new genre. A game where risks are only taken with people you can depend on. Where your reputation on the locale will really effect how and what you are able to do in game.
I really want punishments for dieing. If anything to just to make an achievement exactly that.
Do you know the number of people that would have frostmourn if there was a penalty. The release of new higher content would slow and we would be left with more middle content left to develop story and activities instead of just 'NEW HIGHER TIER RAIDS'.
Frankly, I look forward to that FFA game that pushes the boundries on what a more 'real' game could be.
I really want punishments for dieing. If anything to just to make an achievement exactly that.
Do you know the number of people that would have frostmourn if there was a penalty. The release of new higher content would slow and we would be left with more middle content left to develop story and activities instead of just 'NEW HIGHER TIER RAIDS'.
Frankly, I look forward to that FFA game that pushes the boundries on what a more 'real' game could be.
... would saying "I love you" be too much?mythgraven said:
But anyways, like his first point, WOW isnt truely skill, its numbers and repetition.
*Edit*
I just had a feeling of Deja vu, and freaked out a little bit... anyways...
This idea came to me a while ago, and reading through some of the comments, I thught of it again. Insurance.
You buy yourself a car for $3000, and you buy insurance for that car, so if it gets totaled, you get $3000 back. You buy the insurance, thats it. Now a few months later, your car gets totaled. No problem, you get a check, and you can buy a new car... but of course you now have to pay more for you incsurance this time around, as you are high risk.
If a developer was to make a game where if you die, your body can be looted, and you could loose all your items and gear, I doubt many people would play for too long, or atleast, treat that Breastplate of not Dying-ness as a collecters item, instead of a piece of armor to use, for fear of loosing it.
Now, if that same developer added an insurance feature, where you could have gear and items that you use be "insured", so if you die and someone does loot your body, you're not completely SOL. I would also add to manners of payment:
1) Cash- all the gear you had insured that was taken has a value, and you get that exact value, so if you loose all your equiped gear, you get money that can be used to either buy new gear, or prepare for re-venturing to get new gear.
2) Gear replacement- This would be more expensive, but worth it to some. Instead of getting a payment for your gear, you get the same stuff that was taken from you (lore wise, lets say there is a high chance the guy that killed you took the gear and sold it, and the insurance company baught it back). This would obviously cost more than a simple cash payment, but if the item in question was rare and near impossible to find, it would be the most likely choice for anybody wanting to play it safe.
What I view as the beauty to this system, is that there is that challeng of loosing all the gear, but it can be negated for a specific cost. Thus players who want a challenge could go without insuring their gear, while those who dont feel like loosing all their stuff can opt for the insurance.
Guild wars handled PVE death fairly well, you incurred a relatively minor stacking death penalty that made the rest of the mission harder to complete. Too many deaths and your character was too ineffective to continue and you had to start over.
There was a disincentive for death but a single screw up didn't break the flow, just made you work a bit harder which is the way things should be.
That said one of the major accomplishments of my childhood was actually beating super mario brothers, ninja gaiden, mega man 1 and all of the other super hard nintendo games.
There was a disincentive for death but a single screw up didn't break the flow, just made you work a bit harder which is the way things should be.
That said one of the major accomplishments of my childhood was actually beating super mario brothers, ninja gaiden, mega man 1 and all of the other super hard nintendo games.