My vote is ten minutes in the penalty box for instigating and another player can pick up where he left off and gain exp and loot from the quest until he can return to the ice....err...
katalystikMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Guardian UsersPosts: 0Arc User
edited September 2012
For UGC, what about letting the creator decide what kind of penalties to levy against the players for failure? Within some limits of course. I'd find it far more compelling to know that by failing to achieve my goal of "retrieving Gwen's family heirloom from the haunted manor" by dying, that there are story related consequences instead of "1000 xp of death penalty." Critical mission failure could cause a divergence in the quest line, like your quest updates after a wipe that now says to do something else because you've gone and messed it up.
I find stuff like that more driving to succeed than some arbitrary math penalty levied for no purpose other than punishment for failure.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
iamtruthseekerMember, Moonstars, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
edited September 2012
As noted before, this topic keeps getting Necroed again and again, but it's pointless to discuss unless there is a notable majority that demands support for it or there is some toggle-able optional system. Else the developers make some watered down compromise that nobody likes. Unless the devs discuss one of these two things happening, I'm not bothering going down this path again.
You were given the links for ideas already mentioned the basics of DP ideas (and yet again one of the same ideas was recycled here after the links were listed.) It's just pointless to discuss until there is a demand for said support or toggle and the devs show support for it.
So discuss if you like, but I'm skipping this one until there is actual player support beyond the fringe and devs to back it up. Two years is enough for me.
So discuss if you like, but I'm skipping this one until there is actual player support beyond the fringe and devs to back it up. Two years is enough for me.
I don't really think anybody's making you participate in this discussion, and if it was pointless, why does it keep coming back up? I'm finding it to be a very interesting discussion.
I don't really think anybody's making you participate in this discussion, and if it was pointless, why does it keep coming back up? I'm finding it to be a very interesting discussion.
Just announcing my departure from the thread...of my own free will. No Patty Hearst thing.
There are more threads on death penalties, including why they should be there. The intent of death penelty is not "mind control" but to make the game more immersive and fun. So that if your hp goes down, your heartbeat grows faster with fear and exhileration and you feel some emotion of dread and loss. But of-course, because of connection problems and all the system has to be forgiving too.
Unless you played the game at launch and stopped playing a year later, that was NEVER the DP system - I've played it since a year post-launch and it ALWAYS allowed you to lose DP on any mob that granted XP to your character (so no more than 5 levels under you). The DP loss was based on XP gains. Yes, bosses took away more than regular mobs, but it was by no means the only way to lose XP.
That may be. It's been a while, and I usually cleared trash mobs before handling the boss when I could (wandering patrols were a PITA, so I played "better safe than sorry"). I do remember that defeating a boss would completely clear a -15% debuff but trash mobs wouldn't.
Regardless, it turned out to be the final straw for me. There was a lot I didn't like about that game, and after a few times of running afoul of bosses that the game made it harder for me to defeat without resetting the map, I just lost interest.
There is really no point in discussing specifics until the game is released.
There's only three things I want:
1. There has to be a death penalty
2. The death penalty has to be a penalty for current stats or an overcoming penalty. No "next quest gives 10%+ xp loss" garbage.
3. Specific's aside if I die I should say "I need to do better next time" instead of "well I might as well not care about the next death"
Perfect case in point, actually. Why are #1 and #2 necessary? How would they lead to #3? I understand that we can't get all that specific without more knowledge of game mechanics, but even on this very conceptual level there isn't much more of an argument than "this is what I want."
Again, how and why would 1 and 2 lead to 3 for you? How do they incentivize you to do better, rather than, say, just playing a different game? And perhaps just as importantly, why would they do so for anyone else?
And to link this to what I said to jedidethfreak823 above, would you actually not play this game if it did not have a death penalty of the type you describe? Do you (or anyone else) decide to play a game because of its death penalty?
There are more threads on death penalties, including why they should be there. The intent of death penelty is not "mind control" but to make the game more immersive and fun. So that if your hp goes down, your heartbeat grows faster with fear and exhileration and you feel some emotion of dread and loss. But of-course, because of connection problems and all the system has to be forgiving too.
So you want a death penalty for immersion purposes. Ok, that actually makes sense to me. But, since you're talking about a subjective experience, would you guys be ok with an option or set of options whereby each player could decide for him- or herself what penalties to suffer, if any?
If so, would you be ok with having permadeath be one of those options? After all, there's no greater penalty (and no greater thrill, IMO) than permanently losing your character...
...
If so, would you be ok with having permadeath be one of those options? After all, there's no greater penalty (and no greater thrill, IMO) than permanently losing your character...
PermaD is a concept, not a game setting. It is a playstyle.
In so much as permadeath is a "playstyle," so are most death penalties. Why do the latter get an in-game mechanic, and the former doesn't?
PermaD is never the same for all players. It is for those who want to have them and how to have them. It is a part of roleplay. Death penalty is a part of game mechanics - not roleplay. You cannot let players choose what kind of penalty they want and give same rewards to all.
...says the guy who left more than half of mine unanswered :P
I am not taking part in the discussions to argue. I see no reasons to deny the opinions of others. After all they are just opinions. And if there was any genuine question which was answerable, I have answered it. In fact you seemed confused as to the purpose of death penalty in game and so I put forth the argument which was not even my own but from other people in this very forum.
And it doesn't matter to me who has last say in argument, or who 'wins' argument as all I do here is to discuss about a game I have been following since its announcement - going over topics like death penalty, PvP, alignment, pay2win over and over again; complaining about devs because of continuous delays; and starting off-topic things when running out of topics. So I understand that many people have varied opinion due to valid reasons on both sides and it is not my place to judge any.
Should NW have a death penalty? Why or why not? If so, what kind?
In traditional D&D, when a character dies, the DM takes the character sheet and either destroys it or keeps it for yet-unknown reasons.
In MMO's death penalties serve as time-sinks to slow down players' progress and allow others to belittle the player who died for their perceived lameness. In my opinion a death penalty contributes nothing to the game experience.
If people feel that there must be a death penalty then the worst I'd like to see it be is a debuff on players' DPS/heals that is slowly removed as players gain XP from kills and objectives. Cryptic implemented this in Champions Online and I don't believe NWO should have any worse.
____________________________________________
The poster formerly known as LordOfPit, and his blog.
* Dec 2007 (CO)
* Oct 2008 (STO)
0
zebularMember, Neverwinter Moderator, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 15,270Community Moderator
edited September 2012
Well, in my Campaign which is a High-Level Campaign, there is no death penalty when a player is resurrected. The penalty is the death itself and the toll it takes on the party, e.g. having to carry the corpse somewhere safe or even to a nearby clergy, protect the corpse from being eaten by wild animals or monsters, or even protecting their fallen comrade from being raised by an evil necromancer.
Quite a many years ago, I do remember making those who died and got resurrected loose 1 point of Constitution permanently until restored by via a restoration spell - which could add up and cause permanent death, but they usually got restored right away if they had enough money to pay the temple. I ended up doing away with this and instead, now come up with some mini-plot that surrounds a player's death to make it meaningful and remembered.
For an MMO, I still feel UO's was the best. When you die, you became a ghost and had to find a wandering healer or player to resurrect you. You then had to make it back to your body to loot your belongings back and hope that no thieves or criminal players got to your body first. Even monsters would loot an item from a player's corpse. Ahh, the good old days.
This latter really doesn't fit well into a D&D theme though, as raise dead and resurrection both require a physical body. Something similar would be a welcome downside instead of stat loss or exp penalties. I am 100% against exp penalties as a death penalty. Stat loss until restored however, I can get behind as that is D&D.
So you want a death penalty for immersion purposes. Ok, that actually makes sense to me. But, since you're talking about a subjective experience, would you guys be ok with an option or set of options whereby each player could decide for him- or herself what penalties to suffer, if any?
If so, would you be ok with having permadeath be one of those options? After all, there's no greater penalty (and no greater thrill, IMO) than permanently losing your character...
Bruv i happy for anyone to have what anyones wants for gamestyle of play, but fact is there will have a be a medium if anyone that can be accepted as an eg- Death Penalty, Im an old school WOG man, and our play consisted of the -1 to con for every ressurection, so that when your have 0 con you couldnt be raised anymore, that was permadeath in our eyes, so 18 con gave you 18 lives, unless restored by wish ect. But to fit the online style of gameplay a hardcore mode probably cant be implemented, so the delete option for your toon when dead is probably going to be the 1st option, or keep your stats, on a excel spreadsheet record how many times you drop,(for a disconnect dont lose anyhting) then Self terminate when you get to 0, or however you play.
you will just have to play permadeath, on your own merits, i couldnt see that style implemented actually into the game mechanic, while avoiding death could become the grind itself, most dont want play that style, or some dont want a death penalty at all.
PermaD is never the same for all players. It is for those who want to have them and how to have them. It is a part of roleplay. Death penalty is a part of game mechanics - not roleplay. You cannot let players choose what kind of penalty they want and give same rewards to all.
"Same rewards." First, what rewards? Isn't enhanced immersion and the thrill of extra risk a sufficient reward in it's own right? Second, I'm not at all opposed to scaling rewards to penalties in cases where players can select their own penalties - in fact, I'd expect it (even though it should be unnecessary if one is really after immersion).
Though I threw out permadeath as a side argument (just to see how people would react, TBH :P ), you really haven't explained why a death penalty is a "mechanic" and permadeath is a "playstyle." It should be clear that permadeath can be made an optional in-game mechanic, since it's been done. It should also be clear that death penalties can be self-inflicted the same way permadeath can (delete some gear, or skip training for one level, or whatever). Thus the usual argument against a permadeath toggle (i.e., "do it yourself") can apply to lesser death penalties as well. Why doesn't it?
See, the whole argument of immersion and risk rests on defining an objective mechanic (death penalty) to enhance subjective elements (immersion and risk) and imposing that one objective mechanic on everyone in the game - whether or not they share the same subjective thresholds for immersion and risk. Again, while I can appreciate the general idea, any implementation that flatly mixes the objective and the subjective is neither internally consistent nor fair. Hence my suggestion of being able to select your penalty (or penalties) from an in-game menu.
I am not taking part in the discussions to argue. I see no reasons to deny the opinions of others. After all they are just opinions. And if there was any genuine question which was answerable, I have answered it. In fact you seemed confused as to the purpose of death penalty in game and so I put forth the argument which was not even my own but from other people in this very forum.
Sure, maybe I'm confused - but I kinda feel like I'm stating my points of confusion, and getting very unsatisfactory answers. I've already explained in this thread why the whole idea of "punishing bads" doesn't make sense to me, and I've explained above why I think the immersion argument doesn't justify having the same penalty imposed on everyone. I haven't seen answers that satisfy my criteria - which I've also stated in this thread.
It's fine to state opinions and play with ideas - but by doing so in a public domain, you're opening yourself up to criticism from those of us who do not share your opinions or like your ideas. I'll admit I can be argumentative (hey, it's my idea of fun), but, believe it or not, I am trying to argue constructively -for reasons I won't repeat for fear of sounding like a broken record.
Don't take it personally, and don't read more into what I write than, well, what I write, and we could probably have a healthy and helpful discussion.
____________________
The gorilla formerly known as Kolikos
0
ambisinisterrMember, Neverwinter ModeratorPosts: 10,462Community Moderator
edited September 2012
I wasn't planning on posting on this thread again but I happened to watch something which reitterates my entire point that just because something is renamed to "life bonus" doesn't negate the fact it is a penalty/punishment.
In the latest episode of Extra Credits the show discusses Energy Systems and how they are psychological in nature. Although the actual topic is Energy Systems the entire thing could be re-recorded with only nouns changed (slight exageration) to discuss life bonuses vs death penalties and how they are perceived.
So as always, my view is that life bonuses demotivate me from playing well once they are lost compared to a death penalty that continues to encourage me to not die. Life Bonuses are a penalty masked as a benefit and, as the saying goes, Jedi Mind Tricks only work on the weak minded. No offense intended.
That's my view and an interesting primary source on the subject by a video game developer. Take it or leave it.
:-)
how about this penaltys similar to eq stat damage for a while after res exp losss on death, but if you die again say within a half hour of the first your death penalty is worse
i do not like gear damage as a mechanic if our rich you dont care
res by clerics and such encourages grouping other death mechanics do not
oo and how about this you get a death penalty reduction for a full group
In the latest episode of Extra Credits the show discusses Energy Systems and how they are psychological in nature. Although the actual topic is Energy Systems the entire thing could be re-recorded with only nouns changed (slight exageration) to discuss life bonuses vs death penalties and how they are perceived.
So as always, my view is that life bonuses demotivate me from playing well once they are lost compared to a death penalty that continues to encourage me to not die. Life Bonuses are a penalty masked as a benefit and, as the saying goes, Jedi Mind Tricks only work on the weak minded. No offense intended.
Nice video - might post that on my Facebook page to tick off all the Zynga-heads in my friends list. :P
However, the video does point out that, mind trick or not, players generally respond more positively to a perceived bonus than a perceived penalty. You're the exception, not the rule. Since the ultimate goal of any game is to have fun, why should a penalty that satisfies you prevail over a system that might satsify many others?
Some people are motivated by the carrot; others are motivated by the stick. And yet others are motivated simply by wanting to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. Can you design a single death penalty mechanic that motivates all these people? Personally, I don't think that's possible.
Also, if the mechanic is mathematically the same no matter what you call it, why would calling it one thing make it more palatable to you than calling it something else? Gameplay hasn't changed; immersion hasn't changed; what's different for you? Aren't you just falling for the same Jedi mind trick, turned on its head?
____________________
The gorilla formerly known as Kolikos
0
iamtruthseekerMember, Moonstars, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
edited October 2012
Don't normally Necro threads (and myself back into them,) but found this and thought it was interesting.
Personally I have never found death in these sort of games to be a good game mechanic. It just doesn't make sense unless it is built into the lore. That doesn't mean that I don't believe their should failure in the game, nor that I don't believe that there shouldn't be punishments for failures. I simply believe we need to move beyond the idea that death is a fitting or correct mechanic for these games.
This may seem like semantics, but I think it is an important distinction. Death implies finality, especially in a a DnD setting Death has a much more serious connotation to it, even if death in pnp games is not "final" death it has ramifications that often cannot be recreated in an MMO.
Failure instead is a more flexible term. certainly it implies that there are repercussions for failure, but they by no means have to be tied something as ethereal as death. Thus the results of failure do not required the willing suspension of disbelieve and the deus ex machina mechanics to explain the constant resurrection of one's hero.
So then how do we implement failure in instances where death seems the likely outcome of failure? Failure is obviously easier to employ when you have a group. Say I failed to dodge a Balor's deadly strike. The traditional method (regardless of if I were grouped or not) would call for death, resurrection of some form and penalty. Perhaps failure would imply that while you failed to dodge an attack outright, you missed enough of it to survive and limp away but where incapable of continuing the fight. This is perfect for groups where the party members can continue the fight and or heal you on the fly, but what of solo play then?
One thing I like about STO and the bridge Officer system was that they continued to fight after you were incapacitated. This is one reason I would like to see a similar party system implemented in NW because it would allow for the failure mechanic rather than death. If a solo player fails with a party the NPC party members could ensure the player "survives", but failed. A penalty of some sort would still apply, but the nebulous question of death would not be a problem.
This is of course another form of Deus ex machina, but for me it is an easier one to swallow and is more immersive to my own personal feelings of game/world continuity.
Now the question of punishment. This really is an open question, it can range from (excluding perma-death as this should be a player choice) XP loss/debt, to simple inconvenience of having to start content over. I tend to prefer middle of the road personal, inconvenience plus item damage.
The better question in my opinion is how do you determine what penalty is fitting. I am a firm believer that risk should be matched by reward I don't think you can talk about one without talking about the other, and this is why I like the ability to choose content difficulty levels. If designed properly such a system should not only reward players who succeed on more difficult content, but promote the replay of said content. I know some view content replay as a crutch of games that lack enough content overall, but I think this is bad implementation of the system and not the system itself. A well designed system would not just torque up the difficulty of the content, but increase the complexity of said content. Difficulty sliders should not be limited to "easy", "normal" and "hard". I think this is what leads to lazy design. Instead it should first determine challenge levels based on "solo", "small group", "full group" then it should determine difficulty by "Current Level", "Level +2", "Level +4" and "Level +6". Think of the difficulty setting options as you might the "con" options from other games.
Obviously I believe most content should be accessible to all players, even solo players and so I believe this option is vital, but I also believe the reward needs to match the effort. A solo player should be rewarded in two ways. First being able to complete the story/content is a reward, progression is not only measured in levels in games, but in the actually completion of content. Second, they should be rewarded with xp and loot that is appropriate to the challenge they faced, if the quest called for the killing of 16 Kobolds and 1 boss Kobold, they should get roughly the same kind of rewards for this that they would for doing the same thing outside of a "quest". Likewise the risk should be appropriate to that. So if I pick to do a quest as at a solo level +4 setting I should get a higher reward, but the content is going to be riskier and I should incur a slightly higher penalty.
To me the first key to a good difficulty slider is in the ability to properly promote grouping, one of the biggest problems I find with difficulty sliders is that they often leave the small group (two to three players usually) with few options. "Normal" content modes are often too easy while "Hard" is scaled for a full group. A small group should see more mobs (and more variety) than a solo group, but not as many as a full group. On the flip side the full group setting should be designed to take advantaged of the greater numbers and the likely greater diversity. Both groups should be rewarded more xp and loot than the solo player, because they faced the greater challenge.
The last key to a difficulty slider is that it is not just a way to scale content, but is in fact a mechanism to promote replay of content. This is why any difficulty slider should be multifaceted, the first aspect being party size and the second being level composition of the content. Developers spend a great deal of time designing content, that is often played through once and then never encountered touched again by the player (unless they are altaholics). This is unfortunate, and not exactly cost effective, it is also one of the reasons we often see one end of the spectrum heavier in content than the other, or content gaps at various level ranges. The ability to not only select your party size, but also your content level range means that the life span of content can be extended.
Let us say I did the Kobold quest example from above was a lvl 10 quest. I ran it solo at my level range, I'm now level 15 and my two of my guild mates are logged in, they are levels 13 and 14. We decide to hit the small group Kobold quest at the +4 level. The story is the same, but the content and experience is going to be different, the small group settings increase the number of Kobolds we face and the +4 settings ramp up their difficulty and abilities to a more appropriate level.
Why the great digression above to discuss the "death" penalty mechanics? Because you cannot discussion penalty without understanding how a game approaches difficulty and reward. Clearly the above is my own personal ideal design. More information is needed to see if it would even fit or work in NW, but in the absence of such information I offer my thoughts on the matter, a template for what I think best fits and an alternative to "death" that I find more fitting the subject mater.
TLDR - I don't believe death is an appropriate mechanic and failure (with penalty) is more appropriate. I also believe that penalties need to be determined by risk vs. reward and that a multifaceted system should be in place to allow players to choose their appropriate risk vs. reward matrix.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
iamtruthseekerMember, Moonstars, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
edited October 2012
Rarely to I see wall of text-sized posts outside of my own, but nicely detailed and very complete!
Shorter reply in honor of somebody verbosing first:
There is no difficuylty slider and it appears the game "scales" encounters with enemy options also "adjusted" additionally with "easy" "medium" and "hard" encounter of solo and group versions of said monsters. So a hard group of drow also can scale based on the level and total group level as well, but would be more difficult than the same number of an easy group of drow which would still scale the same way.
Rarely to I see wall of text-sized posts outside of my own, but nicely detailed and very complete!
Shorter reply in honor of somebody verbosing first:
There is no difficuylty slider and it appears the game "scales" encounters with enemy options also "adjusted" additionally with "easy" "medium" and "hard" encounter of solo and group versions of said monsters. So a hard group of drow also can scale based on the level and total group level as well, but would be more difficult than the same number of an easy group of drow which would still scale the same way.
Good point, I'm wondering how that is going to play out personally auto scaling hasn't been done as far as I know I'm just wondering if we are going to be hearing a lot of: "It's too easy" or "It's too hard"?
That will always happen. Never seen a game where that hasn't happened.
Very true, there are always going to be those vocal on both sides that the game is too easy or too hard. Statistically speaking there is just no way to avoid it. I'm not sure there is a good metric to use as a measuring stick aside from counting failures on a certain encounter.
And because of this I don't feel like this system can truly be talked about until the game is at the very least in Beta.
Death penalties have to be designed for each game individually. It should be the last thing worked on and catered to the actual difficulty of the game itself rather than worked on while the game is in development. It is not really feasible for any of us to say what is and is not too much of a penalty at this point other than neither extreme should be considered.
We need to have death penalties...and I do believe death penalties should probably be avoided/reduced by having a cleric with raise dead/resurrection in the party.
The only thing I can absolutely say for sure is we BETTER not get something like DDO which is just god awful. This goes for ALL games when I state any death penalty should be a loss of things already acquired. Not a loss of things yet to be earned.
I've seen a few games cater to this "you don't lose anything for dieing, you just get more for not dieing" and the only thing it does is demotivate me if I die.
this idea is quite good for the dnd forgotten realms settings
lets say you cant be carried back or if there is no cleric
choices party have to slog back town to get a healer to the site of death or ay a must more higher price to b rez without a body
0
nemesis788450Member, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Guardian UsersPosts: 0Arc User
edited October 2012
its very easy...when you die - you can redo the whole level from the beginning OR you can pay a very reasonable fee in $ to get revived immediatly
According to the info we have this is suppose to be very solo friendly isn't it ?
If so how can any kind of punitive death penalty be expected like you all seem to be discussing? Doesn't seem to mesh well together.
I could be wrong but I'm thinking some of you will be disappointed when we find out how death works.
This certainly would fit with most Cryptic games, STO on normal levels effectively has no penalty, just a "rest" of the are basically. On harder levels you incur a type of damage for ships or injuries for group combat that must be repaired to return to full effectiveness.
I don't expect harsh penalties, it doesn't seem to be part of Cryptic's design philosophy.
Yep..which will have the no..ahem "some people" ^^ screaming pay to win. /eyeroll.
Which it is
The death penalty should be the same for everyone regardless of whether you have a fat wallet and a willingness to use it. It's a pretty basic mechanic that shouldn't be played with.
I'll be honest most game with too severe of a death penalty tend to turn off way too many people and you have to factor in PVP and how that will work as well.
Comments
That would be one helluva power play XD
I find stuff like that more driving to succeed than some arbitrary math penalty levied for no purpose other than punishment for failure.
You were given the links for ideas already mentioned the basics of DP ideas (and yet again one of the same ideas was recycled here after the links were listed.) It's just pointless to discuss until there is a demand for said support or toggle and the devs show support for it.
So discuss if you like, but I'm skipping this one until there is actual player support beyond the fringe and devs to back it up. Two years is enough for me.
Just announcing my departure from the thread...of my own free will. No Patty Hearst thing.
BRAVO sir you have just hit the jackpot!!!!
Regardless, it turned out to be the final straw for me. There was a lot I didn't like about that game, and after a few times of running afoul of bosses that the game made it harder for me to defeat without resetting the map, I just lost interest.
Perfect case in point, actually. Why are #1 and #2 necessary? How would they lead to #3? I understand that we can't get all that specific without more knowledge of game mechanics, but even on this very conceptual level there isn't much more of an argument than "this is what I want."
Again, how and why would 1 and 2 lead to 3 for you? How do they incentivize you to do better, rather than, say, just playing a different game? And perhaps just as importantly, why would they do so for anyone else?
And to link this to what I said to jedidethfreak823 above, would you actually not play this game if it did not have a death penalty of the type you describe? Do you (or anyone else) decide to play a game because of its death penalty?
The gorilla formerly known as Kolikos
If so, would you be ok with having permadeath be one of those options? After all, there's no greater penalty (and no greater thrill, IMO) than permanently losing your character...
The gorilla formerly known as Kolikos
PermaD is a concept, not a game setting. It is a playstyle.
Also, you missed last seven words of my post.
...says the guy who left more than half of mine unanswered :P
The gorilla formerly known as Kolikos
I am not taking part in the discussions to argue. I see no reasons to deny the opinions of others. After all they are just opinions. And if there was any genuine question which was answerable, I have answered it. In fact you seemed confused as to the purpose of death penalty in game and so I put forth the argument which was not even my own but from other people in this very forum.
And it doesn't matter to me who has last say in argument, or who 'wins' argument as all I do here is to discuss about a game I have been following since its announcement - going over topics like death penalty, PvP, alignment, pay2win over and over again; complaining about devs because of continuous delays; and starting off-topic things when running out of topics. So I understand that many people have varied opinion due to valid reasons on both sides and it is not my place to judge any.
In MMO's death penalties serve as time-sinks to slow down players' progress and allow others to belittle the player who died for their perceived lameness. In my opinion a death penalty contributes nothing to the game experience.
If people feel that there must be a death penalty then the worst I'd like to see it be is a debuff on players' DPS/heals that is slowly removed as players gain XP from kills and objectives. Cryptic implemented this in Champions Online and I don't believe NWO should have any worse.
The poster formerly known as LordOfPit, and his blog.
* Dec 2007 (CO)
* Oct 2008 (STO)
Quite a many years ago, I do remember making those who died and got resurrected loose 1 point of Constitution permanently until restored by via a restoration spell - which could add up and cause permanent death, but they usually got restored right away if they had enough money to pay the temple. I ended up doing away with this and instead, now come up with some mini-plot that surrounds a player's death to make it meaningful and remembered.
For an MMO, I still feel UO's was the best. When you die, you became a ghost and had to find a wandering healer or player to resurrect you. You then had to make it back to your body to loot your belongings back and hope that no thieves or criminal players got to your body first. Even monsters would loot an item from a player's corpse. Ahh, the good old days.
This latter really doesn't fit well into a D&D theme though, as raise dead and resurrection both require a physical body. Something similar would be a welcome downside instead of stat loss or exp penalties. I am 100% against exp penalties as a death penalty. Stat loss until restored however, I can get behind as that is D&D.
[ Support Center • Rules & Policies and Guidelines • ARC ToS • Guild Recruitment Guidelines | FR DM Since 1993 ]
Bruv i happy for anyone to have what anyones wants for gamestyle of play, but fact is there will have a be a medium if anyone that can be accepted as an eg- Death Penalty, Im an old school WOG man, and our play consisted of the -1 to con for every ressurection, so that when your have 0 con you couldnt be raised anymore, that was permadeath in our eyes, so 18 con gave you 18 lives, unless restored by wish ect. But to fit the online style of gameplay a hardcore mode probably cant be implemented, so the delete option for your toon when dead is probably going to be the 1st option, or keep your stats, on a excel spreadsheet record how many times you drop,(for a disconnect dont lose anyhting) then Self terminate when you get to 0, or however you play.
you will just have to play permadeath, on your own merits, i couldnt see that style implemented actually into the game mechanic, while avoiding death could become the grind itself, most dont want play that style, or some dont want a death penalty at all.
Lvl 60 = 180 hrs = Splat = b:cry
Though I threw out permadeath as a side argument (just to see how people would react, TBH :P ), you really haven't explained why a death penalty is a "mechanic" and permadeath is a "playstyle." It should be clear that permadeath can be made an optional in-game mechanic, since it's been done. It should also be clear that death penalties can be self-inflicted the same way permadeath can (delete some gear, or skip training for one level, or whatever). Thus the usual argument against a permadeath toggle (i.e., "do it yourself") can apply to lesser death penalties as well. Why doesn't it?
See, the whole argument of immersion and risk rests on defining an objective mechanic (death penalty) to enhance subjective elements (immersion and risk) and imposing that one objective mechanic on everyone in the game - whether or not they share the same subjective thresholds for immersion and risk. Again, while I can appreciate the general idea, any implementation that flatly mixes the objective and the subjective is neither internally consistent nor fair. Hence my suggestion of being able to select your penalty (or penalties) from an in-game menu.
Sure, maybe I'm confused - but I kinda feel like I'm stating my points of confusion, and getting very unsatisfactory answers. I've already explained in this thread why the whole idea of "punishing bads" doesn't make sense to me, and I've explained above why I think the immersion argument doesn't justify having the same penalty imposed on everyone. I haven't seen answers that satisfy my criteria - which I've also stated in this thread.
It's fine to state opinions and play with ideas - but by doing so in a public domain, you're opening yourself up to criticism from those of us who do not share your opinions or like your ideas. I'll admit I can be argumentative (hey, it's my idea of fun), but, believe it or not, I am trying to argue constructively -for reasons I won't repeat for fear of sounding like a broken record.
Don't take it personally, and don't read more into what I write than, well, what I write, and we could probably have a healthy and helpful discussion.
The gorilla formerly known as Kolikos
In the latest episode of Extra Credits the show discusses Energy Systems and how they are psychological in nature. Although the actual topic is Energy Systems the entire thing could be re-recorded with only nouns changed (slight exageration) to discuss life bonuses vs death penalties and how they are perceived.
So as always, my view is that life bonuses demotivate me from playing well once they are lost compared to a death penalty that continues to encourage me to not die. Life Bonuses are a penalty masked as a benefit and, as the saying goes, Jedi Mind Tricks only work on the weak minded. No offense intended.
That's my view and an interesting primary source on the subject by a video game developer. Take it or leave it.
:-)
i do not like gear damage as a mechanic if our rich you dont care
res by clerics and such encourages grouping other death mechanics do not
oo and how about this you get a death penalty reduction for a full group
However, the video does point out that, mind trick or not, players generally respond more positively to a perceived bonus than a perceived penalty. You're the exception, not the rule. Since the ultimate goal of any game is to have fun, why should a penalty that satisfies you prevail over a system that might satsify many others?
Some people are motivated by the carrot; others are motivated by the stick. And yet others are motivated simply by wanting to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. Can you design a single death penalty mechanic that motivates all these people? Personally, I don't think that's possible.
Also, if the mechanic is mathematically the same no matter what you call it, why would calling it one thing make it more palatable to you than calling it something else? Gameplay hasn't changed; immersion hasn't changed; what's different for you? Aren't you just falling for the same Jedi mind trick, turned on its head?
The gorilla formerly known as Kolikos
The Perfect Ten: Ways MMOs explain infinite resurrection
This may seem like semantics, but I think it is an important distinction. Death implies finality, especially in a a DnD setting Death has a much more serious connotation to it, even if death in pnp games is not "final" death it has ramifications that often cannot be recreated in an MMO.
Failure instead is a more flexible term. certainly it implies that there are repercussions for failure, but they by no means have to be tied something as ethereal as death. Thus the results of failure do not required the willing suspension of disbelieve and the deus ex machina mechanics to explain the constant resurrection of one's hero.
So then how do we implement failure in instances where death seems the likely outcome of failure? Failure is obviously easier to employ when you have a group. Say I failed to dodge a Balor's deadly strike. The traditional method (regardless of if I were grouped or not) would call for death, resurrection of some form and penalty. Perhaps failure would imply that while you failed to dodge an attack outright, you missed enough of it to survive and limp away but where incapable of continuing the fight. This is perfect for groups where the party members can continue the fight and or heal you on the fly, but what of solo play then?
One thing I like about STO and the bridge Officer system was that they continued to fight after you were incapacitated. This is one reason I would like to see a similar party system implemented in NW because it would allow for the failure mechanic rather than death. If a solo player fails with a party the NPC party members could ensure the player "survives", but failed. A penalty of some sort would still apply, but the nebulous question of death would not be a problem.
This is of course another form of Deus ex machina, but for me it is an easier one to swallow and is more immersive to my own personal feelings of game/world continuity.
Now the question of punishment. This really is an open question, it can range from (excluding perma-death as this should be a player choice) XP loss/debt, to simple inconvenience of having to start content over. I tend to prefer middle of the road personal, inconvenience plus item damage.
The better question in my opinion is how do you determine what penalty is fitting. I am a firm believer that risk should be matched by reward I don't think you can talk about one without talking about the other, and this is why I like the ability to choose content difficulty levels. If designed properly such a system should not only reward players who succeed on more difficult content, but promote the replay of said content. I know some view content replay as a crutch of games that lack enough content overall, but I think this is bad implementation of the system and not the system itself. A well designed system would not just torque up the difficulty of the content, but increase the complexity of said content. Difficulty sliders should not be limited to "easy", "normal" and "hard". I think this is what leads to lazy design. Instead it should first determine challenge levels based on "solo", "small group", "full group" then it should determine difficulty by "Current Level", "Level +2", "Level +4" and "Level +6". Think of the difficulty setting options as you might the "con" options from other games.
Obviously I believe most content should be accessible to all players, even solo players and so I believe this option is vital, but I also believe the reward needs to match the effort. A solo player should be rewarded in two ways. First being able to complete the story/content is a reward, progression is not only measured in levels in games, but in the actually completion of content. Second, they should be rewarded with xp and loot that is appropriate to the challenge they faced, if the quest called for the killing of 16 Kobolds and 1 boss Kobold, they should get roughly the same kind of rewards for this that they would for doing the same thing outside of a "quest". Likewise the risk should be appropriate to that. So if I pick to do a quest as at a solo level +4 setting I should get a higher reward, but the content is going to be riskier and I should incur a slightly higher penalty.
To me the first key to a good difficulty slider is in the ability to properly promote grouping, one of the biggest problems I find with difficulty sliders is that they often leave the small group (two to three players usually) with few options. "Normal" content modes are often too easy while "Hard" is scaled for a full group. A small group should see more mobs (and more variety) than a solo group, but not as many as a full group. On the flip side the full group setting should be designed to take advantaged of the greater numbers and the likely greater diversity. Both groups should be rewarded more xp and loot than the solo player, because they faced the greater challenge.
The last key to a difficulty slider is that it is not just a way to scale content, but is in fact a mechanism to promote replay of content. This is why any difficulty slider should be multifaceted, the first aspect being party size and the second being level composition of the content. Developers spend a great deal of time designing content, that is often played through once and then never encountered touched again by the player (unless they are altaholics). This is unfortunate, and not exactly cost effective, it is also one of the reasons we often see one end of the spectrum heavier in content than the other, or content gaps at various level ranges. The ability to not only select your party size, but also your content level range means that the life span of content can be extended.
Let us say I did the Kobold quest example from above was a lvl 10 quest. I ran it solo at my level range, I'm now level 15 and my two of my guild mates are logged in, they are levels 13 and 14. We decide to hit the small group Kobold quest at the +4 level. The story is the same, but the content and experience is going to be different, the small group settings increase the number of Kobolds we face and the +4 settings ramp up their difficulty and abilities to a more appropriate level.
Why the great digression above to discuss the "death" penalty mechanics? Because you cannot discussion penalty without understanding how a game approaches difficulty and reward. Clearly the above is my own personal ideal design. More information is needed to see if it would even fit or work in NW, but in the absence of such information I offer my thoughts on the matter, a template for what I think best fits and an alternative to "death" that I find more fitting the subject mater.
TLDR - I don't believe death is an appropriate mechanic and failure (with penalty) is more appropriate. I also believe that penalties need to be determined by risk vs. reward and that a multifaceted system should be in place to allow players to choose their appropriate risk vs. reward matrix.
Shorter reply in honor of somebody verbosing first:
There is no difficuylty slider and it appears the game "scales" encounters with enemy options also "adjusted" additionally with "easy" "medium" and "hard" encounter of solo and group versions of said monsters. So a hard group of drow also can scale based on the level and total group level as well, but would be more difficult than the same number of an easy group of drow which would still scale the same way.
Good point, I'm wondering how that is going to play out personally auto scaling hasn't been done as far as I know I'm just wondering if we are going to be hearing a lot of: "It's too easy" or "It's too hard"?
Very true, there are always going to be those vocal on both sides that the game is too easy or too hard. Statistically speaking there is just no way to avoid it. I'm not sure there is a good metric to use as a measuring stick aside from counting failures on a certain encounter.
this idea is quite good for the dnd forgotten realms settings
lets say you cant be carried back or if there is no cleric
choices party have to slog back town to get a healer to the site of death or ay a must more higher price to b rez without a body
If so how can any kind of punitive death penalty be expected like you all seem to be discussing? Doesn't seem to mesh well together.
I could be wrong but I'm thinking some of you will be disappointed when we find out how death works.
Neverwinter Thieves Guild
Yep..which will have the no..ahem "some people" ^^ screaming pay to win. /eyeroll.
This certainly would fit with most Cryptic games, STO on normal levels effectively has no penalty, just a "rest" of the are basically. On harder levels you incur a type of damage for ships or injuries for group combat that must be repaired to return to full effectiveness.
I don't expect harsh penalties, it doesn't seem to be part of Cryptic's design philosophy.
Which it is
The death penalty should be the same for everyone regardless of whether you have a fat wallet and a willingness to use it. It's a pretty basic mechanic that shouldn't be played with.
I'll be honest most game with too severe of a death penalty tend to turn off way too many people and you have to factor in PVP and how that will work as well.
Neverwinter Thieves Guild