Onerous death penalties are worse than none at all. Death Penalties are a stupid "Feature" in most MMOs, only a few make it work and they are very different from NWO.
If you want challenge, perhaps you should look for another game? ToMM is a start for mechanical challenge, since its roughly the same level of mechanics as a FF14 Extreme trial, but until more like that is added you will never find enough challenge in this game.
Until more ToMM style encounters are added, NWO is a game for relaxation and fun with buddies. Not everything has to be hard. Fun and Hard are 2 different concepts, and fun does not need to mean difficult.
If the only way you can enjoy yourself in game is with a stiff challenge, the Dark Souls series says hi.
I played a little bit of Dark Souls and no it is not what I am talking about. This game and many others, battles are won by holding down the left mouse button in battles. There is no thought process, I don't have to "think" just react. Any monkey can mash keys on the keyboard and win. There is a serious lack of thought and strategy in these fights. Go kill 7 spiders, now go kill 7 orcs, now go kill 12 gnomes.... no difference, I don't have to swap out weapons or powers. Whatever... will kill anything.
Removing or having no death penalties (DP) is a poor idea, it makes the content insignificant and the fights become tasteless muggings of dungeon dwellers. Warhammer MMO is probably the worst in this arena. However unlike you did, I will not tell you to go play Warhammer unless you desire to try it for yourself. Death penalty makes players desire to buy items, such as; life scrolls or other buffs that void or reduce the effects of the death penalty. Other MMOs offer easy, normal, and hard modes with the harshest DP and the least on easy mode but with the least reward the DP still present. Fear of death makes the game more enveloping to the player.
This topic was about the difficultly in battles. Part of the difficulty is DP or the player's fear of earning it. When one plays D&D at a table without a computer, the player has no clue what the human dungeon master will do if they die. Will they fudge the numbers and allow the players a win? Will they send in a mysterious hero to save them? Will they all die and have to come back with new characters next week? Playing this on a PC, everyone knows none of that can happen. The computer is locked into a series of events that will never change. Protector's Enclave will always be rebuilding after Valindra's attack.
The challenge for PC games would be to make different strategies for various enemies. What is their weakness? What is their attack style? Can we use a certain class to debuff them, such as a cleric can turn the undead. "People we need a cleric with us before we enter the Crypt of No Return." or "Does anyone know a rogue with excellent wall climbing abilities? They could really help us in the Lost Labyrinth." but none of that exists in these limited PC games.
Scaling has been used as death penalty in other MMOs. Some shut down resurrection shrines in hard mode or they limit their usage. There is a wide area to create a risk for reward feature within any game. Without that risk, you could get the same emotional output from playing Candy Crush on Facebook.
Removing the scrolls would be a decent option, but making the death penalty overpowered is NOT an option at all if the devs know what they are doing.
Maybe in max level group content only they could increase the debuff or remove the ability to decrease it with a boon. maybe both.
20% a stack with a max of 4 stacks would work. ONLY for high level group content.
oh but before that can happen, we need to implement actual rez immunity. most mmos, at least the ones with half decent devs and management which cares, give you a few seconds of total immunity to damage after being rezzed which ends as soon as you attack or use a skill.
NW needs this as it does not have it and if you have a penalty for dying at all this is a required feature. I cant even count the number of times I have been revived directly into my next death with nothing I could do about it, and that is not good design.
I cant even count the number of times I have been revived directly into my next death with nothing I could do about it, and that is not good design.
I would not account this to a design flaw, but more likely a human error. You were revived by someone, without taking into consideration what is happening around you.
That was him killing you on purpose (for reasons why? We dont know), and not a design flaw.
2
Options
greywyndMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 7,093Arc User
I doubt it was "on purpose". I've gone out of my way to revive someone who is down in a dangerous situation only to have them get up and get away, and have myself knocked down in their place.
I'm not looking for forgiveness, and I'm way past asking permission. Earth just lost her best defender, so we're here to fight. And if you want to stand in our way, we'll fight you too.
On purpose = they decided to pick themselves/you up, and that decision ends up killing you.
The system didn't do that to you.
1
Options
greywyndMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 7,093Arc User
On purpose implies the one doing the picking up wanted the fallen to fall again.
I'm not looking for forgiveness, and I'm way past asking permission. Earth just lost her best defender, so we're here to fight. And if you want to stand in our way, we'll fight you too.
On purpose = they decided to pick themselves/you up, and that decision ends up killing you.
The system didn't do that to you.
The system is flawed becuase that is so easily possible. a second or 2 of rez immunity has no downsides if it ends when you use a skill, and therefore the lack of it is a flaw, and not something which should be preserved.
Adding the immunity mechanic would be a straight up increase in the quality of the game experience, with no logical argument against it.
there is no reason why being able to be rezzed by someone else with no input on your part into another death should be a thing in any game.
it is the systems problem becuase the system allows this, and thus is flawed. that is sorta the definition of design flaw itself.
0
Options
thefabricantMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 5,248Arc User
On purpose = they decided to pick themselves/you up, and that decision ends up killing you.
The system didn't do that to you.
The system is flawed becuase that is so easily possible. a second or 2 of rez immunity has no downsides if it ends when you use a skill, and therefore the lack of it is a flaw, and not something which should be preserved.
Adding the immunity mechanic would be a straight up increase in the quality of the game experience, with no logical argument against it.
there is no reason why being able to be rezzed by someone else with no input on your part into another death should be a thing in any game.
it is the systems problem becuase the system allows this, and thus is flawed. that is sorta the definition of design flaw itself.
No immunity frames on resurrection is the opposite of a design flaw actually, its an example of good game design. Why? Well here is a short version:
It rewards good gameplay.
Its believable.
It creates a situation of risk vs reward.
Long version
No immunity frames reward good gameplay because it teaches players situational awareness. Consider this, in a game where there are no immunity frames for resurrection sickness, the player doing the resurrecting needs to wait for a window in which it is safe in order to resurrect someone. In the reverse case, any situation is a "safe" moment to resurrect them, because they are immune briefly after being resurrected. This in turn makes resurrecting a player skill rather than just something you do when you go down.
It is believable because, in no way can you justify in a simulationist universe why someone would be immune briefly on coming back from the dead. They are still just a bundle of organic matter, it stands to reason that matter can be torn apart.
And on a personal note, I recommend you stop saying things like, "no logical argument," and, "this is the objective truth." You can make a logical argument for almost anything. The definition of a logical argument is one where you have a set of actions which lead to an expected outcome. For example, "having no immunity frames on resurrection system teaches players to learn to be more careful when they go about resurrecting someone." You have a very clear line of reason here, with a cause leading to a natural effect.
And its a good idea to not refer to opinions as being objectively true because they are just that: Opinions. By their very nature they are subjective. Unfortunately, objective truths don't make for very good debate material, because they are accepted by most people as being true.
none of those reasons you gave make any sense becuase of how revive in NW works. its not in the dead players control.
it would have SOME kind of reason to it IF you could choose to accept or not when someone tries to revive you.
Seriously try and think a little bit of the consequences of different design choices. rez immunity is a good thing and superior to a lack of it. it does not reward good gameplay when people kill you again and again and you have no say in it, yet that is exactly how NW rez works.
If I die once, the first time is my bad, but if I die as I get rezzed that has nothing to do with me and my own skill. nothing.
0
Options
thefabricantMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 5,248Arc User
none of those reasons you gave make any sense becuase of how revive in NW works. its not in the dead players control.
it would have SOME kind of reason to it IF you could choose to accept or not when someone tries to revive you.
Seriously try and think a little bit of the consequences of different design choices. rez immunity is a good thing and superior to a lack of it. it does not reward good gameplay when people kill you again and again and you have no say in it, yet that is exactly how NW rez works.
If I die once, the first time is my bad, but if I die as I get rezzed that has nothing to do with me and my own skill. nothing.
And why should you being revived be in your control? Think about this for a moment, if you are in hospital, unconscious and nearly terminal, the only people deciding whether you live or die is the doctors and nurses around you. If they make a mistake or if they don't like you enough for them to risk going to jail over it, or if it is beyond their ability, you are dead and there is nothing you can do about it. This is the same kind of situation you are "simulating" here.
You should not be able to decide when you are resurrected and if the player who is resurrecting you does it at an inopportune time, then yes, you should die because of it. It isn't your fault you died the second time, it is the fault of the person reviving you and they are heavily punished for it by you dying 1 moment afterwards. This is the game telling them, that they messed up.
You messing up has already happened and you were punished for it the first time, the second time is the game punishing the player resurrecting you. This is a good form of game design as it teaches situational awareness and encourages good timing. Not every death you incur in a game has to be as a direct result of actions you took. Another easy example of this is the hypothermia mechanic in ToMM. If nobody walks into the hypothermia to support the healers, the healers die. This isn't the fault of the healers, its the fault of their team members, but they are the ones taking the "fall."
arazith07Member, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 1,719Arc User
Having no rez immunity should encourage players to have more coordinated teamwork. This is after all a MMO and you are participating in group content. There have been many who complain about the lack of mechanics in dungeons and trials, and so simply removing one of the few would just make things even more dull for those people.
If it is pugs you are complaining about rezzing and dying in, maybe wait to call for help until it would be safe to come rez you. I find often times the players who aren't as knowledgeable about when to rez would also just ignore you laying there unless you call for help, either due to obviousness or laziness.
0
Options
grogthemagnifMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 1,651Arc User
I doubt it was "on purpose". I've gone out of my way to revive someone who is down in a dangerous situation only to have them get up and get away, and have myself knocked down in their place.
Happened to me dozens of times, but I've also been picked up more dozens of times. That's why I advocate for a 10,000 xp bonus for picking someone up, because the time it takes to do so cost you that much. If two or three ot more try to help someone up -then they all get the bonus. Just my opinion.
Comments
Removing or having no death penalties (DP) is a poor idea, it makes the content insignificant and the fights become tasteless muggings of dungeon dwellers. Warhammer MMO is probably the worst in this arena. However unlike you did, I will not tell you to go play Warhammer unless you desire to try it for yourself. Death penalty makes players desire to buy items, such as; life scrolls or other buffs that void or reduce the effects of the death penalty. Other MMOs offer easy, normal, and hard modes with the harshest DP and the least on easy mode but with the least reward the DP still present. Fear of death makes the game more enveloping to the player.
This topic was about the difficultly in battles. Part of the difficulty is DP or the player's fear of earning it. When one plays D&D at a table without a computer, the player has no clue what the human dungeon master will do if they die. Will they fudge the numbers and allow the players a win? Will they send in a mysterious hero to save them? Will they all die and have to come back with new characters next week? Playing this on a PC, everyone knows none of that can happen. The computer is locked into a series of events that will never change. Protector's Enclave will always be rebuilding after Valindra's attack.
The challenge for PC games would be to make different strategies for various enemies. What is their weakness? What is their attack style? Can we use a certain class to debuff them, such as a cleric can turn the undead. "People we need a cleric with us before we enter the Crypt of No Return." or "Does anyone know a rogue with excellent wall climbing abilities? They could really help us in the Lost Labyrinth." but none of that exists in these limited PC games.
Scaling has been used as death penalty in other MMOs. Some shut down resurrection shrines in hard mode or they limit their usage. There is a wide area to create a risk for reward feature within any game. Without that risk, you could get the same emotional output from playing Candy Crush on Facebook.
PSN Zen AD Exchange - Forecasting Spreadsheet
Maybe in max level group content only they could increase the debuff or remove the ability to decrease it with a boon. maybe both.
20% a stack with a max of 4 stacks would work. ONLY for high level group content.
oh but before that can happen, we need to implement actual rez immunity. most mmos, at least the ones with half decent devs and management which cares, give you a few seconds of total immunity to damage after being rezzed which ends as soon as you attack or use a skill.
NW needs this as it does not have it and if you have a penalty for dying at all this is a required feature. I cant even count the number of times I have been revived directly into my next death with nothing I could do about it, and that is not good design.
That was him killing you on purpose (for reasons why? We dont know), and not a design flaw.
The system didn't do that to you.
Adding the immunity mechanic would be a straight up increase in the quality of the game experience, with no logical argument against it.
there is no reason why being able to be rezzed by someone else with no input on your part into another death should be a thing in any game.
it is the systems problem becuase the system allows this, and thus is flawed. that is sorta the definition of design flaw itself.
- It rewards good gameplay.
- Its believable.
- It creates a situation of risk vs reward.
Long versionIt is believable because, in no way can you justify in a simulationist universe why someone would be immune briefly on coming back from the dead. They are still just a bundle of organic matter, it stands to reason that matter can be torn apart.
And on a personal note, I recommend you stop saying things like, "no logical argument," and, "this is the objective truth." You can make a logical argument for almost anything. The definition of a logical argument is one where you have a set of actions which lead to an expected outcome. For example, "having no immunity frames on resurrection system teaches players to learn to be more careful when they go about resurrecting someone." You have a very clear line of reason here, with a cause leading to a natural effect.
And its a good idea to not refer to opinions as being objectively true because they are just that: Opinions. By their very nature they are subjective. Unfortunately, objective truths don't make for very good debate material, because they are accepted by most people as being true.
it would have SOME kind of reason to it IF you could choose to accept or not when someone tries to revive you.
Seriously try and think a little bit of the consequences of different design choices. rez immunity is a good thing and superior to a lack of it. it does not reward good gameplay when people kill you again and again and you have no say in it, yet that is exactly how NW rez works.
If I die once, the first time is my bad, but if I die as I get rezzed that has nothing to do with me and my own skill. nothing.
You should not be able to decide when you are resurrected and if the player who is resurrecting you does it at an inopportune time, then yes, you should die because of it. It isn't your fault you died the second time, it is the fault of the person reviving you and they are heavily punished for it by you dying 1 moment afterwards. This is the game telling them, that they messed up.
You messing up has already happened and you were punished for it the first time, the second time is the game punishing the player resurrecting you. This is a good form of game design as it teaches situational awareness and encourages good timing. Not every death you incur in a game has to be as a direct result of actions you took. Another easy example of this is the hypothermia mechanic in ToMM. If nobody walks into the hypothermia to support the healers, the healers die. This isn't the fault of the healers, its the fault of their team members, but they are the ones taking the "fall."
If it is pugs you are complaining about rezzing and dying in, maybe wait to call for help until it would be safe to come rez you. I find often times the players who aren't as knowledgeable about when to rez would also just ignore you laying there unless you call for help, either due to obviousness or laziness.