I think we accept that the market has spoken, that games mired in the design of "constant repetition of the same content, until you get it 100% right", are starting to wither and die. Games that rely on collaboration and are becoming more focused on exploration, story and interaction are slowly gaining.
You can call that "Carebear" if you want. I am personally, quite comfortable with that term.
But I always kind of gagged on the idea that all games, even RPGs are competitive. When RPGs first splashed onto the gaming scene in the 70's, their unique quality was that they were NOT competitive.
You ask why a Carebear would play an "action MMO"? I ask why a competitive gamer would play an RPG. I mean, surely, there's a plethora of FPS games, that are all about "my ePeen is greater than yours".
Obviously, there's a myriad of taste and play styles out there. I don't contend mine is superior to anyone's. I am a lollygag role player. I have no business claiming I'm superior to anyone.
I can log in for hours and hours and not accrue a single penny of XP. In fact, as I tire of the mechanics, this becomes more and more what I tend to do. The mechanics of video games generally bore me after a while. I can generally only manage a few hours before my eyes glaze. For me, it's repetitive, it's not very challenging and usually it's only "challenge" is to twitch a thumb or a finger slightly faster than you did the first time you tried it. YAWN.
But some gamers get off on power-gaming, ascending to cap as fast as possible, then collecting all the best gear at cap, as fast as possible. Goody for those power-gamers!
My only criticism of power-gaming philosophy is two-fold. The first is, they sometimes consider themselves superior to all other gamers. The second is, given that superiority, they tend to believe they are the only kind of gamer that matters, going so far as to believe all other gaming styles "aren't playing the game right".
Which tends to lead to phrases like, "Why are you even playing this game? Go play this other game, that I have a great deal of disdain for!"
Not all of us play MMOs to be "uber". It's not that we're "uber" enough in real life, it's just that we value escapism more than competitive zeal.
And quite frankly, what the video market is learning, is that there are far, far more of us than previously realized. In fact, I'd say the common theme of video game culture these last few years, is a slow migration away from ePeen, alpha-male competitions, (the slow erosion of 4chan culture along with it), and a general inclusion of all kinds of gamers, old, young, male, female and across the globe.
That means games have to cater to all kinds of play styles. Good games do that and I believe that NO has found a superb balance. The Foundry, is a clear example, that some of us don't just play these games to become "uber". Some of us view these games as creative expression. That doesn't make us superior, not one little iota, but we're also a vital part of the gaming industry today. We spend money just like everyone else, in fact, I think TSW proved nicely, that role players are excellent cash cows. Give them a new, groovy hate to wear and a RPers tend to cough up their debit cards with reckless abandon.
Yeah, I think the community is ageing heh. I'm only 40, but I've been playing video games since they were first created, and even used to create (TRS 80 was my first comp), and I started programing my own games back on the Apple 2c.
Started off with Zork, Wizardry etc early on. Wizardy was AWESOME to me when it came out, first real RPG on a computer for me. Video gaming has often been aimed both at kids, and young adults (mostly young men), but I think that is changing more and more. The ratio of gamers in their 20's to those 30+ has drastically changed in the last decade and games (and MMO's) are changing along with it.
I do like a challenge though, but I certainly have never "rushed" to be the first to do something (at least since my days mudding on 3 kingdoms heh) in an RPG or MMO. My aim/goal has always been to enjoy myself, and to help others enjoy themselves as well.
Challenge is a part of that, and I am a bit...worried...by the prevalence of casual games with little challenge lately. They are great for my wife (she really enjoys games with no challenge) but long term gamers, even those of us a bit older, still want/need a good challenge from a game.
I prefer Dynastic game in a way. You die and start a new charater that inherit stuff and social status. Btw they implement a game with perma-death.
Well, the real question is do we want to be part of the world we are playing in (this means death is serious) or do we want an online thema-park? a MMORPG or a MMOTP?
PnP RPG are cooperative in nature but death is real both for the PC (rare though) AND the NPC (something is at stake). In a MMOTP you have neither so they stop being cooperative to be competitive (about stuff and so) to have something at stake.
I am not trolling. Carebear started as an insult, and power-gaming did as well. Now they are NOT insults, atleast I did not intend them as such. I think we have a failure to communicate.
If we all could just return to the issue at hand, and stop reading insults in each post. I used carebear because ryger5 called himself one.
As for rpg's not being competetive when they came on the scene. While this is true, they where not easy. I am not talking about time-sinks, nor xp-sinks, or any of that kind. I seriously cannot understand how you can miss this.
One poster in this thread (can't remember the name now) stated basically what I was looking for. When dead, you have to start the bossfight over again. However, there is something of a discrepancy here. From the videos I have seen people die, respawn, and run back into the boss-fights. I am not talking about solo-content here.
You do not need to do content over and over and over again. That is the beuty of RPG's. If it is too hard, you go and level, return, and the encounter will be ALOT easier. Problem solved.
And yes, I can impose limitations on myself. But that will mean noone will group with me. I wanted to be a glass-cannon in D3, so people left the game because I was running a fun to play build, not abusing the combat-mechanic. And I am not looking for a single-player experience. There are games already for that (D1 mage comes to mind, and I do still play that).
I prefer Dynastic game in a way. You die and start a new charater that inherit stuff and social status. Btw they implement a game with perma-death.
Well, the real question is do we want to be part of the world we are playing in (this means death is serious) or do we want an online thema-park? a MMORPG or a MMOTP?
PnP RPG are cooperative in nature but death is real both for the PC (rare though) AND the NPC (something is at stake). In a MMOTP you have neither so they stop being cooperative to be competitive (about stuff and so) to have something at stake.
You can choose what you prefer.
Death may be permanent for a character, without being permanent for a player if that makes any sense.
In NWO for instance you the player may die....and get sent back to the nearest save point. The character itself did not die though, you just warped back in time and are forced to replay the fight (or give up I guess heh). That isn't exactly what happens in NWO though since you lose anything you used in the fight, but my point is that just because you the player die, does not mean your character had to.
Death should have consequences, but as long as you gain nothing from the death and are still forced to go through a skill checkpoint to accomplish your goals, it doesn't hurt anything really to not have any. I wouldn't mind seeing a hardcore option (or even options) added to the game though later on.
They could look something like this:
Basic character: On death you warp back to last hearthfire. No other penalties apply.
Mortal character: On death you lose 10% of your accumulated experience towards your next level. No exp is lost if you have no accumulated experience towards your next level. You also lose 10% of all gold currently carried on you (no gold is lost if stored in a bank).
Hardcore character: On death you....die. The character becomes a ghost with only the ability to mail items, gold to other accounts (similar to leaving it to them in a will). The character can no longer interact with any other NPCs, fight monsters or join quests. All exp is increased by 50% for Hardcore characters and players gain 1 bonus stat choice per level.
I am not trolling. Carebear started as an insult, and power-gaming did as well. Now they are NOT insults, atleast I did not intend them as such. I think we have a failure to communicate.
If we all could just return to the issue at hand, and stop reading insults in each post. I used carebear because ryger5 called himself one.
As for rpg's not being competetive when they came on the scene. While this is true, they where not easy. I am not talking about time-sinks, nor xp-sinks, or any of that kind. I seriously cannot understand how you can miss this.
One poster in this thread (can't remember the name now) stated basically what I was looking for. When dead, you have to start the bossfight over again. However, there is something of a discrepancy here. From the videos I have seen people die, respawn, and run back into the boss-fights. I am not talking about solo-content here.
You do not need to do content over and over and over again. That is the beuty of RPG's. If it is too hard, you go and level, return, and the encounter will be ALOT easier. Problem solved.
And yes, I can impose limitations on myself. But that will mean noone will group with me. I wanted to be a glass-cannon in D3, so people left the game because I was running a fun to play build, not abusing the combat-mechanic. And I am not looking for a single-player experience. There are games already for that (D1 mage comes to mind, and I do still play that).
I never saw anyone die in the Cloak Tower sadly, but supposedly you get locked out when you die on a boss fight. For general fights well, the hearthfire might be a long way back or something I guess. For boss fights though you SHOULD be locked out if you die...I saw someone say they actually had all the other party members kill themselves so they could do the fight with a full party or something. I figured this was already in effect....if it is not, it needs to be.
There does need to be some challenge to the fights and if you can just keep running back and keeping a boss fight going like throwing lemmings at it...there would be no fun at all.
Solo at least the system works great. In a party, they need to restrict access back into the boss fight for anyone who has died and not been saved/ressurected etc in time. I thought that was already in effect, but if it isn't, it really needs to be. That makes everything perfect in my opinion. It's all skill based...which is awesome.
wulfster: Agreed. but not what I am talking about. If you singleplay this game, sure, that is what happens. But when you multiplay another aspect comes in.
normal character: When you die, you are teleported to a save-point, no penalties. You then run back to your team who has continued beating on the boss. Which means that eventually you will take it down by sheer force of numbers. You can die 40-100 times on a boss, and eventually take it down.
THIS is what I am talking about. Can we talk about this instead? the reason why I created the thread? I know, I failed in my effort to communicate, but I am trying to steer back to topic here, please help me
May be if the boss can win, then even with no death you would not be able to come back again and again. After all, if a boss regenerate its life when someone teleport from combat (preventing dead character to respawn) or if there is a timer or a goal that the boss want to reach then I think you will have to have skill to defeat the boss and not simple zerg-rush him.
So actually Death penalty and quest gameplay are related but not corelated.
Challenge is a part of that, and I am a bit...worried...by the prevalence of casual games with little challenge lately. They are great for my wife (she really enjoys games with no challenge) but long term gamers, even those of us a bit older, still want/need a good challenge from a game.
Yeah, casual gaming has way to many different meanings to to many different people. I say we start a new one for people who want to play games with no challenge. I say we call it Couch Potato Gamer, CPG for short.
-1 No thank you. As a perfectionist, I usually re-roll a character after I die anyway, but sometimes you die due to reasons beyond your own control (poor party member or game lag, as two examples).
For me, I like the way NW currently does dying EXCEPT, I would like there to be some STORY element that explains why I am re-spawning. Maybe the deity I have chosen to follow "visits" me, scolds me or tells me how I'm needed in the world, and then returns me to life/health at a safe place. The story is more important to me than combat so that's what I would like to see in the game.
More people crying they want hello kitty mode. you should know what generation they come from *cough* wow *cough*
In my experience, gaming styles cross all demographics. I am old to be sure, like a previous poster, I bought Zork when it first released and loved it (Wizardry too).
But I also work a little with DigiPen (a college for gaming design and gaming programming) and I see all kinds of young kids, designing and playing all kinds of games. I also have kids that game. I see what they can do and I see they each have their own style and preferences.
And I can tell you, I know a 40-something that pwns in Halo and other FPS games, he's VICIOUS.
So let's try to avoid the slippery-slope of assumption that all women like Carebear games or as you get older, you lose your desire to have hard competition. In short, let's stow the ePeen thing, I mean again, bragging about how "good" you are in vide games is like bragging how good you jerk off, this things are amusments, not career tracks. You don't have "skills" you have "skilz", this is amusement, nothing more. It reminds me of people who brag about how much alcohol they consumed the night before. This isn't really an accomplishment, and indeed, so often it seems to come across as compensating for actual regret that you consumed so much alcohol.
And also, let's admit, that grinding games for XP as fast as possible, isn't really all that challenging, in just about any MMO you can mention. It's fun to be sure, a great way to experience a MMO, but MMOs aren't really that hard. Even EQ1 with its draconian penalties wasn't hard. EQ's flawed design was that in order to mitigate risk, you had to repeat certain grind alleyways ENDLESSLY until you drained them and your level forced you to "fish" someone else. (Well that and some idiot would pull a train on you and wipe your party) It was an endless cycle of pulling mobs back to a "safe spot", splattering them as fast as possible and then repeating that for HOURS AND HOURS. Not hard...it just required patience and a great deal of time.
I kind of gag on the idea that what gamers really want are "super hard, super challenge" games. Because right now, the market is making it quite clear, this isn't the case. Games are moving past the "arcade" mentality of the "high score" and many of the industry's best games are moving further and further away from arcade design.
Just to be clear, I don't consider power-gaming an insult. It's a term that's been embedded in gaming, particularly RPGs for decades. It's a perfectly valid style of play. Indeed, most gamers ARE power-gamers, that's the "buzz" for them, to accrue power within a game as efficiently as possible. It's a cool way to play, it's just that it isn't one demographic that prefers to play this way.
As for Carebear, it's a funny term for role players, I wear it with a badge of honor. I get why the term was invented, but I am happy to label myself that way, because RP is such a great thing. It's like when you drive a really great automobile. you're more than happy to deride it as a "jalopy".
But let me be clear, I've seen middle school kids PWN in PVP in Warcraft and Warhammer. Like destroy. But I also know 40-somethings that destroy most players on a PVP server and loves to do it. The idea that only men in the 20-something range can dominate games is false. Middle school kids tear that notion apart all the time. And there's even more proof these games are rarely (if ever) truly about "skill", because 7th graders can dominate them.
These games are easy. They are made easy so that they can access and exploit as wide a customer-base as possible. It's why most blockbusters movies don't ask you to think much and pretty much plot a safe, predictable course right from the opening credits.
In my opinion, there's far, far more bravado than actual "skill" in gaming. Now bravado is a great thing...and certainly in PVP, bravado is a large part of the fun. But let's admit it, gaming isn't about skill. Anyone can "pwn" in these games, it just requires a great deal of time and patience.
Similarly, anyone can RP if they want to. It's not hard. It isn't some "rich art" or some "subtle process". It doesn't require you to read endless articles on how to perfect RP. In fact, the more you insist there's only one right way to RP, the more I begin to suspect you don't really get the point of the hobby at all.
SHADOW - A secret cabal for those who thirst for wealth and power. Check out SHADOW on YouTube!
D&D is RP regardless of what system you put it into.
If you die you should lose, at the very minimum, all your wealth and at least 1/3 of a level.
I am saying 1/3 of a level as that is about the max exp a "power gamer" can get in about 4 hours of play in most NWN PW modules.
The penalty should be stiffer but that is about the max that emotionally immature people can handle.
If the world is well developed people will stick around even if penalties are high.
// here be dragons
CRect HAMSTER; // darn near killed'em
my $search_key = $something_else;
foreach (keys %some_hash) {
if ($_ eq $search_key) {
do_something($_);
}
else();
} locked byNullUserException
0
drwarpeffectMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 71Arc User
Ryger5. you are reading WAY to much into what I am saying. Besides, we should do this as we do in psychology-papers. It is clear that we have very different definitions of the labels.
Carebear: Someone who seeks an experience without challenge. they are in it for the story. Like watching an interactive movie
Rollplayer: Somone looking for escapism and immersion. They want to feel part of the world
Power-gamer: Someone who wants to beat the game as efficiently as possible. Someone who likes finding exploits, using any and all tools in their arsenal to finnish the game and move on.
Hello-kitty gamer: Someone who wants to be over-powerd and whines about it in every forum. Definitily derogatory
Grinder: Someone who want to collect things. Time spend, is the effort.
I am none of these. I am a gamer. I want to find a challenge, try to over-come it. Take that feel-good energy into the other parts of my life. But I do not want to spend more than 10 to 20 hours a week on this. I work, I study, and I sometimes get tricked into relationships.
0
bluesteel8Member, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Hero UsersPosts: 0Arc User
edited February 2013
Remember that MMO that used to charge more for repairing the heavier armor you had lol Poor plate wearers.
The problem here is the classic forum-issue. This thread is hijacked. But I will try once more.
One poster has stated that you had to redo boss fights if you die. Compleatly start from the begining. This is what I want, but I do not know if this is the singleplayer experience only.
Just to be annoying, I cannot find the video that I remember people rejoining the fights before they where over (after they died). But I know that mini-bosses, for sure, suffers from this mechanic.
Please people, don't suggest that they make major changes. That is what different games are for. Make small changes to increase the enjoyment, or avoide pit-falls. If you cannot understand what I mean, I will try to give an example.
0
chaddiwickerMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Hero Users, Neverwinter Guardian Users, Neverwinter Knight of the Feywild UsersPosts: 0Arc User
Ryger5. you are reading WAY to much into what I am saying. Besides, we should do this as we do in psychology-papers. It is clear that we have very different definitions of the labels.
Carebear: Someone who seeks an experience without challenge. they are in it for the story. Like watching an interactive movie
Rollplayer: Somone looking for escapism and immersion. They want to feel part of the world
Power-gamer: Someone who wants to beat the game as efficiently as possible. Someone who likes finding exploits, using any and all tools in their arsenal to finnish the game and move on.
Hello-kitty gamer: Someone who wants to be over-powerd and whines about it in every forum. Definitily derogatory
Grinder: Someone who want to collect things. Time spend, is the effort.
I am none of these. I am a gamer. I want to find a challenge, try to over-come it. Take that feel-good energy into the other parts of my life. But I do not want to spend more than 10 to 20 hours a week on this. I work, I study, and I sometimes get tricked into relationships.
By your definition, I would probably be a Carebear Grinder. I do like a challenge, however. I just don't like a game that's geared towards hardcore/power gamers that are focused on PvP and group play. Different strokes...
By your definition, I'd also be a role player. I like feeling part of the world. I'm here for escapism. My definition of a role player, though, would be someone who is social and is always in-character. Someone who plays their character as if they were a real person. Me... I'm anti-social.
As to your point about preventing someone from rejoining a battle after they've died unless/until everyone wipes or wins, I would probably lean towards the side of letting them back into the battle after they've re-spawned and run back in. Otherwise, it penalizes the other group members who may be playing their characters just fine.
wulfster: Agreed. but not what I am talking about. If you singleplay this game, sure, that is what happens. But when you multiplay another aspect comes in.
normal character: When you die, you are teleported to a save-point, no penalties. You then run back to your team who has continued beating on the boss. Which means that eventually you will take it down by sheer force of numbers. You can die 40-100 times on a boss, and eventually take it down.
THIS is what I am talking about. Can we talk about this instead? the reason why I created the thread? I know, I failed in my effort to communicate, but I am trying to steer back to topic here, please help me
I mentioned above that if this is the case it needs to be changed ASAP to restrict players from getting back into the boss fight. I thought this was already the case though, and have heard reports that it is. Sadly, nobody died fighting the boss in the cloak tower any of the times I ran through it (4 times) so I don't have any personal experience with this.
What we really need is for someone to say one way or another if you do get locked out of boss battles after you die (and nobody helps you before it's final).
If that is the case, then yes, it's a big deal and we need to address it before the game launches.
That of course is saying that any of the dungeons actually have enough difficulty to kill a group of random players let along a team of them that are working together. There was no team work really in any of my runs on the Cloak tower and no danger either, heck, with my rogue I ran ahead most of the time and just wasted everything since the party was taking so long to do anything.
For solo work it's perfect right now. If you can just constantly zerg a boss with 2 or more players....that is a problem I agree.
The problem here is the classic forum-issue. This thread is hijacked. But I will try once more.
One poster has stated that you had to redo boss fights if you die. Compleatly start from the begining. This is what I want, but I do not know if this is the singleplayer experience only.
Just to be annoying, I cannot find the video that I remember people rejoining the fights before they where over (after they died). But I know that mini-bosses, for sure, suffers from this mechanic.
Please people, don't suggest that they make major changes. That is what different games are for. Make small changes to increase the enjoyment, or avoide pit-falls. If you cannot understand what I mean, I will try to give an example.
I think the thread has stayed mostly on topic, dealing with death penalties at least. It's hard to ever keep a thread exactly on topic though (just a specific aspect of death penalty in a game). I know death works with the whole reset thing for solo play...but no clue on the party setup (we really didn't have much of a chance to try the party mechanic so far in the Beta).
I guess part of the problem is we don't have enough information yet to really discuss the issue...since we don't know for sure one way or another if players are going to be let back into boss fights after death. That is probably why the thread has devolved into discussing death penalties.
I still strongly stand behind the current system as long as death vs bosses is permanent. I'd even like to see rooms locked down in quests with a party (so you can't run back into the room even, until all enemies in it are killed). Without that, parties will have no difficulty running through quests at all.
To be honest though (and this is way off topic), NWO has seemed far more like a solo MMO experience (where you trade with other players etc, but mainly kill by yourself) so far to me. That will hopefully change in later content though.
What we really need is for someone to say one way or another if you do get locked out of boss battles after you die (and nobody helps you before it's final).
Seconded.
I was certain that I had seen a video of this happening in Cloak Tower. But now I cannot find it. But I would love if this was the case for any special mob. However, if I get one encounter a dungeon, I am fine with that. There is always the foundry to make my own encounters
I hope they avoid instanced bosses completely.
I want to pick up a PUG and roll on. I don't want to hang in the wings and wait while some clan camps instances.
The whole idea of camping RNG boss drops is a total turnoff and will run me off in a heartbeat.
Also, figure out something to keep PUG soakers the boot. You know what I'm talking about. That jerk that joins for the boss loot roll and does nothing else the whole instance.
With that said. If the party cleric doesn't like you I say lock out on respawn.
// here be dragons
CRect HAMSTER; // darn near killed'em
my $search_key = $something_else;
foreach (keys %some_hash) {
if ($_ eq $search_key) {
do_something($_);
}
else();
} locked byNullUserException
Ryger5. you are reading WAY to much into what I am saying. Besides, we should do this as we do in psychology-papers. It is clear that we have very different definitions of the labels.
Carebear: Someone who seeks an experience without challenge. they are in it for the story. Like watching an interactive movie
Rollplayer: Somone looking for escapism and immersion. They want to feel part of the world
Power-gamer: Someone who wants to beat the game as efficiently as possible. Someone who likes finding exploits, using any and all tools in their arsenal to finnish the game and move on.
Hello-kitty gamer: Someone who wants to be over-powerd and whines about it in every forum. Definitily derogatory
Grinder: Someone who want to collect things. Time spend, is the effort.
I am none of these. I am a gamer. I want to find a challenge, try to over-come it. Take that feel-good energy into the other parts of my life. But I do not want to spend more than 10 to 20 hours a week on this. I work, I study, and I sometimes get tricked into relationships.
So there is a negative connotation to every group of people who play games? Interesting I find your definitions lacking. Oh and Role player is spelled that way. Like playing a role. Not eating a roll or rolling a guy for his cash and sneakers.
I wasn't reading anything that deeply, I merely contend that different styles of gaming are all relevant and worthy and this game is designed to accommodate all styles. I also am perfectly fine with the designation "Carebear", it's amusing and funny, so I have no problem with it.
Specifically, when it comes to death rules, I believe it's been rightly pointed out that players can self-penalize themselves if they find the "punishment" for death too convenient.
I think labels can be dangerous and over-simplified, but the term "power-gamer" is one you can trace in articles dating back to the 80's. I specifically read an article Wizards wrote about the different kinds of gamers it has in D&D and how to cater to them and the term "power gamer", "social gamer" and "role player" were the terms and categories they used. So it can be useful to categorize gaming styles and try to cater to them, but they can, of course, over-simplify, as all generalization tend to do.
Again, when it comes to the death rules, I favor a small delay or "cooldown", then not much fuss after that. In general most MMOs handle death really well, because they've moved away from draconian things like XP loss.
In general, the more a game values my time and tries to ensure I am entertained, rather than frustrated, the more I appreciate it. I am not here to conquer some super-human feat of dexterity with my digits, nor dig deep into google to find the right solution to a puzzle that could stump Archimedes, (or worse pretty much expects you to take the time to look up the solution on the net *cough TSW cough*)
I submit if you like "dextrous thumb-twitching to win" games, that Nintendo has a deluge of games for you. If you like puzzle/cerebral games, there's a myriad of them and ultimately chess should probably be your final destination. MMOs are mass-media games, that involve story and simple adventure/combat. Their strength is the environments are massive, there is much to explore and do and there's a vast community you can play with in which to experience these things together, ultimately making all MMOs a social endeavor as much as an exercise in hand-eye dexterity.
I am okay with being punished for not paying attention or being stupid, but beyond that, I see no particular "valor" in games that aim to frustrate and hold back its players just for the illusion the game requires "skill". Usually barriers like this just lengthen the amount of time I spend in specific content, which means gaming companies win and I lose, because they can produce less content and exploit it further, under the illusion it makes the game a "challenge". It just means less creative content, less things to see and explore and a lot of mind-crushing, soul-numbing repetition to get a particular segment of content "perfect" before you can progress.
SHADOW - A secret cabal for those who thirst for wealth and power. Check out SHADOW on YouTube!
So there is a negative connotation to every group of people who play games? Interesting I find your definitions lacking. Oh and Role player is spelled that way. Like playing a role. Not eating a roll or rolling a guy for his cash and sneakers.
that is a modern spelling. The word comes from recieving a roll, as in rolled together sheets with information on the character and what lines the actor plays. If you find my definitions lacking is beside the point. They are my defenitions, and I wrote them to simplify communication to indicate that never meant to be derogatory.
Jag avskyr verkligen spraaknassar po forumsidor. bilingual som man e, so irriterar sodan argumentation. Men so aer det.
There are always stereotypes. You cannot avoide it, it is so ingrained in your thinking that we all use it heuristically. The difference is knowing about the cognetive process, or if you supress them (which gives a rebound effect in many cases, but enough about that).
I wasn't reading anything that deeply, I merely contend that different styles of gaming are all relevant and worthy and this game is designed to accommodate all styles. I also am perfectly fine with the designation "Carebear", it's amusing and funny, so I have no problem with it.
Specifically, when it comes to death rules, I believe it's been rightly pointed out that players can self-penalize themselves if they find the "punishment" for death too convenient.
I think labels can be dangerous and over-simplified, but the term "power-gamer" is one you can trace in articles dating back to the 80's. I specifically read an article Wizards wrote about the different kinds of gamers it has in D&D and how to cater to them and the term "power gamer", "social gamer" and "role player" were the terms and categories they used. So it can be useful to categorize gaming styles and try to cater to them, but they can, of course, over-simplify, as all generalization tend to do.
Again, when it comes to the death rules, I favor a small delay or "cooldown", then not much fuss after that. In general most MMOs handle death really well, because they've moved away from draconian things like XP loss.
In general, the more a game values my time and tries to ensure I am entertained, rather than frustrated, the more I appreciate it. I am not here to conquer some super-human feat of dexterity with my digits, nor dig deep into google to find the right solution to a puzzle that could stump Archimedes, (or worse pretty much expects you to take the time to look up the solution on the net *cough TSW cough*)
I submit if you like "dextrous thumb-twitching to win" games, that Nintendo has a deluge of games for you. If you like puzzle/cerebral games, there's a myriad of them and ultimately chess should probably be your final destination. MMOs are mass-media games, that involve story and simple adventure/combat. Their strength is the environments are massive, there is much to explore and do and there's a vast community you can play with in which to experience these things together, ultimately making all MMOs a social endeavor as much as an exercise in hand-eye dexterity.
I am okay with being punished for not paying attention or being stupid, but beyond that, I see no particular "valor" in games that aim to frustrate and hold back its players just for the illusion the game requires "skill". Usually barriers like this just lengthen the amount of time I spend in specific content, which means gaming companies win and I lose, because they can produce less content and exploit it further, under the illusion it makes the game a "challenge". It just means less creative content, less things to see and explore and a lot of mind-crushing, soul-numbing repetition to get a particular segment of content "perfect" before you can progress.
I agree, and also find that as I have gotten older, I get frustrated more easily when my time is wasted.
When dying, I am already unhappy, either because I have messed up somehow or worse....because of Random killing me (sometimes death can not be avoided). Having to redo a battle is a perfect penalty for dying, and it lets you get right back into it. Nobody wants to die, and the FULL battle is still going to have to be fought, so it's not like you need more reasons to avoid death.
I do think though that if you can currently just chain zerg a boss...and it keeps all it's health while players who die run back to it, that needs to change.
Either by locking them out, or perhaps having it's health regen by a % for each player that returns (players have an option to return or not, but enemies health increases by 20% of max (up to max only) for each player that does return).
It would be 20% because 5 players is the max. So each player that returns would in effect heal it 1/5th of the way to full.
Problem with that is a bad player who constantly dies and returns could make killing a boss impossible (or if done on purpose could grief a party).
So i'd say just lock out players from returning in boss fights.
You can't do that sadly for normal missions though because players can wander all over the map. How do you lock out rooms from players that have died till the enemies have been killed if the party is spread out through a bunch of rooms?
One possible solution is to put a timer on resurrection by hearthfire when players are in a party. This would work on bosses and general missions as well. You can still bring a dead character back up within the time limit like it is now...but if they go poof, instead of instantly appearing at the hearthfire, they have to wait 120 seconds (2 minutes) before they can pop back up.
If the whole party dies before that time, the boss (and other enemies etc) all reset just like they do on solo missions.
IF it's a boss fight, all the players respawn right away if the boss dies as well.
IF any other player runs back to the hearthfire (that is alive) they can also instantly respawn anyone who has died and is in timer status as well.
That would probably solve the problem right there.
I do not see running back from the start of the instance to the end boss as zerg rushing it. From what I have seen of the game, even running through the entire thing fully cleared could still take a few minutes, in a group there is a good chance that the rest of the players will have won or also died in that time. Even if I had to repair, lost a reasonable amount of XP, whatever, the penalty in my mind is that I am not participating in the fight, or if I was solo, that the boss will be fully healed when I get back. The other things are coincidental, and when solo if I start taking penalties like taking more damage, dealing less, that only serves to ensure that I will NOT be able to finish the quest I was already having trouble with. This is not a good gameplay experience IMO.
Comparing things you see in a game to things you have seen in other games is one thing, but saying "This game should be this other game" is just silly.
I do not see running back from the start of the instance to the end boss as zerg rushing it. From what I have seen of the game, even running through the entire thing fully cleared could still take a few minutes, in a group there is a good chance that the rest of the players will have won or also died in that time. Even if I had to repair, lost a reasonable amount of XP, whatever, the penalty in my mind is that I am not participating in the fight, or if I was solo, that the boss will be fully healed when I get back. The other things are coincidental, and when solo if I start taking penalties like taking more damage, dealing less, that only serves to ensure that I will NOT be able to finish the quest I was already having trouble with. This is not a good gameplay experience IMO.
Comparing things you see in a game to things you have seen in other games is one thing, but saying "This game should be this other game" is just silly.
I agree, as long as there isn't a hearthfire right before dungeon boss fights I don't see that anything really needs to change.
Also, we have not fought hard bosses, or even hard content yet. It's been stated the difficulty doesn't start to ramp up until later.
If you lost xp or gold (there is no durability on items so that isn't a possible loss), each time you die, that could end up being a game breaker for many later on when difficulty gets harder.
Heck, the current system may already lock players out later on, at least for solo missions if they require potions to fight a boss solo...and they die a few times and run out. They'll have to leave and do the whole mission over again, or maybe even farm for gold to buy potions first.
I think one of the great things about NWO is it's fast paced, and that includes getting back into the combat after you die fast as well. As long as you can't zerg rush boss fights and make them obsolete, i'm happy with the current setup.
Currently, slain party members ARE locked out of the room on the final bosses in dungeons, but not any of the mini-bosses leading up to that point.
Personally, I'd like to see a small gold penalty associated with dying, just so it has a bit of sting and people actually try not to die. But it's okay as it is, too.
Comments
Yeah, I think the community is ageing heh. I'm only 40, but I've been playing video games since they were first created, and even used to create (TRS 80 was my first comp), and I started programing my own games back on the Apple 2c.
Started off with Zork, Wizardry etc early on. Wizardy was AWESOME to me when it came out, first real RPG on a computer for me. Video gaming has often been aimed both at kids, and young adults (mostly young men), but I think that is changing more and more. The ratio of gamers in their 20's to those 30+ has drastically changed in the last decade and games (and MMO's) are changing along with it.
I do like a challenge though, but I certainly have never "rushed" to be the first to do something (at least since my days mudding on 3 kingdoms heh) in an RPG or MMO. My aim/goal has always been to enjoy myself, and to help others enjoy themselves as well.
Challenge is a part of that, and I am a bit...worried...by the prevalence of casual games with little challenge lately. They are great for my wife (she really enjoys games with no challenge) but long term gamers, even those of us a bit older, still want/need a good challenge from a game.
Well, the real question is do we want to be part of the world we are playing in (this means death is serious) or do we want an online thema-park? a MMORPG or a MMOTP?
PnP RPG are cooperative in nature but death is real both for the PC (rare though) AND the NPC (something is at stake). In a MMOTP you have neither so they stop being cooperative to be competitive (about stuff and so) to have something at stake.
You can choose what you prefer.
Skanvak Drakken
http://lamaisondesdrakkens.clan-box.com/index.php
I am not trolling. Carebear started as an insult, and power-gaming did as well. Now they are NOT insults, atleast I did not intend them as such. I think we have a failure to communicate.
If we all could just return to the issue at hand, and stop reading insults in each post. I used carebear because ryger5 called himself one.
As for rpg's not being competetive when they came on the scene. While this is true, they where not easy. I am not talking about time-sinks, nor xp-sinks, or any of that kind. I seriously cannot understand how you can miss this.
One poster in this thread (can't remember the name now) stated basically what I was looking for. When dead, you have to start the bossfight over again. However, there is something of a discrepancy here. From the videos I have seen people die, respawn, and run back into the boss-fights. I am not talking about solo-content here.
You do not need to do content over and over and over again. That is the beuty of RPG's. If it is too hard, you go and level, return, and the encounter will be ALOT easier. Problem solved.
And yes, I can impose limitations on myself. But that will mean noone will group with me. I wanted to be a glass-cannon in D3, so people left the game because I was running a fun to play build, not abusing the combat-mechanic. And I am not looking for a single-player experience. There are games already for that (D1 mage comes to mind, and I do still play that).
Death may be permanent for a character, without being permanent for a player if that makes any sense.
In NWO for instance you the player may die....and get sent back to the nearest save point. The character itself did not die though, you just warped back in time and are forced to replay the fight (or give up I guess heh). That isn't exactly what happens in NWO though since you lose anything you used in the fight, but my point is that just because you the player die, does not mean your character had to.
Death should have consequences, but as long as you gain nothing from the death and are still forced to go through a skill checkpoint to accomplish your goals, it doesn't hurt anything really to not have any. I wouldn't mind seeing a hardcore option (or even options) added to the game though later on.
They could look something like this:
Basic character: On death you warp back to last hearthfire. No other penalties apply.
Mortal character: On death you lose 10% of your accumulated experience towards your next level. No exp is lost if you have no accumulated experience towards your next level. You also lose 10% of all gold currently carried on you (no gold is lost if stored in a bank).
Hardcore character: On death you....die. The character becomes a ghost with only the ability to mail items, gold to other accounts (similar to leaving it to them in a will). The character can no longer interact with any other NPCs, fight monsters or join quests. All exp is increased by 50% for Hardcore characters and players gain 1 bonus stat choice per level.
That would be fun.
I never saw anyone die in the Cloak Tower sadly, but supposedly you get locked out when you die on a boss fight. For general fights well, the hearthfire might be a long way back or something I guess. For boss fights though you SHOULD be locked out if you die...I saw someone say they actually had all the other party members kill themselves so they could do the fight with a full party or something. I figured this was already in effect....if it is not, it needs to be.
There does need to be some challenge to the fights and if you can just keep running back and keeping a boss fight going like throwing lemmings at it...there would be no fun at all.
Solo at least the system works great. In a party, they need to restrict access back into the boss fight for anyone who has died and not been saved/ressurected etc in time. I thought that was already in effect, but if it isn't, it really needs to be. That makes everything perfect in my opinion. It's all skill based...which is awesome.
normal character: When you die, you are teleported to a save-point, no penalties. You then run back to your team who has continued beating on the boss. Which means that eventually you will take it down by sheer force of numbers. You can die 40-100 times on a boss, and eventually take it down.
THIS is what I am talking about. Can we talk about this instead? the reason why I created the thread? I know, I failed in my effort to communicate, but I am trying to steer back to topic here, please help me
So actually Death penalty and quest gameplay are related but not corelated.
Skanvak Drakken
http://lamaisondesdrakkens.clan-box.com/index.php
Yeah, casual gaming has way to many different meanings to to many different people. I say we start a new one for people who want to play games with no challenge. I say we call it Couch Potato Gamer, CPG for short.
-1. No thank you. As a perfectionist, it drives me batty to see how imperfect I am when the game counts how many times I've died.
-1 No thank you. As a perfectionist, I usually re-roll a character after I die anyway, but sometimes you die due to reasons beyond your own control (poor party member or game lag, as two examples).
For me, I like the way NW currently does dying EXCEPT, I would like there to be some STORY element that explains why I am re-spawning. Maybe the deity I have chosen to follow "visits" me, scolds me or tells me how I'm needed in the world, and then returns me to life/health at a safe place. The story is more important to me than combat so that's what I would like to see in the game.
In my experience, gaming styles cross all demographics. I am old to be sure, like a previous poster, I bought Zork when it first released and loved it (Wizardry too).
But I also work a little with DigiPen (a college for gaming design and gaming programming) and I see all kinds of young kids, designing and playing all kinds of games. I also have kids that game. I see what they can do and I see they each have their own style and preferences.
And I can tell you, I know a 40-something that pwns in Halo and other FPS games, he's VICIOUS.
So let's try to avoid the slippery-slope of assumption that all women like Carebear games or as you get older, you lose your desire to have hard competition. In short, let's stow the ePeen thing, I mean again, bragging about how "good" you are in vide games is like bragging how good you jerk off, this things are amusments, not career tracks. You don't have "skills" you have "skilz", this is amusement, nothing more. It reminds me of people who brag about how much alcohol they consumed the night before. This isn't really an accomplishment, and indeed, so often it seems to come across as compensating for actual regret that you consumed so much alcohol.
And also, let's admit, that grinding games for XP as fast as possible, isn't really all that challenging, in just about any MMO you can mention. It's fun to be sure, a great way to experience a MMO, but MMOs aren't really that hard. Even EQ1 with its draconian penalties wasn't hard. EQ's flawed design was that in order to mitigate risk, you had to repeat certain grind alleyways ENDLESSLY until you drained them and your level forced you to "fish" someone else. (Well that and some idiot would pull a train on you and wipe your party) It was an endless cycle of pulling mobs back to a "safe spot", splattering them as fast as possible and then repeating that for HOURS AND HOURS. Not hard...it just required patience and a great deal of time.
I kind of gag on the idea that what gamers really want are "super hard, super challenge" games. Because right now, the market is making it quite clear, this isn't the case. Games are moving past the "arcade" mentality of the "high score" and many of the industry's best games are moving further and further away from arcade design.
Just to be clear, I don't consider power-gaming an insult. It's a term that's been embedded in gaming, particularly RPGs for decades. It's a perfectly valid style of play. Indeed, most gamers ARE power-gamers, that's the "buzz" for them, to accrue power within a game as efficiently as possible. It's a cool way to play, it's just that it isn't one demographic that prefers to play this way.
As for Carebear, it's a funny term for role players, I wear it with a badge of honor. I get why the term was invented, but I am happy to label myself that way, because RP is such a great thing. It's like when you drive a really great automobile. you're more than happy to deride it as a "jalopy".
But let me be clear, I've seen middle school kids PWN in PVP in Warcraft and Warhammer. Like destroy. But I also know 40-somethings that destroy most players on a PVP server and loves to do it. The idea that only men in the 20-something range can dominate games is false. Middle school kids tear that notion apart all the time. And there's even more proof these games are rarely (if ever) truly about "skill", because 7th graders can dominate them.
These games are easy. They are made easy so that they can access and exploit as wide a customer-base as possible. It's why most blockbusters movies don't ask you to think much and pretty much plot a safe, predictable course right from the opening credits.
In my opinion, there's far, far more bravado than actual "skill" in gaming. Now bravado is a great thing...and certainly in PVP, bravado is a large part of the fun. But let's admit it, gaming isn't about skill. Anyone can "pwn" in these games, it just requires a great deal of time and patience.
Similarly, anyone can RP if they want to. It's not hard. It isn't some "rich art" or some "subtle process". It doesn't require you to read endless articles on how to perfect RP. In fact, the more you insist there's only one right way to RP, the more I begin to suspect you don't really get the point of the hobby at all.
Check out SHADOW on YouTube!
If you die you should lose, at the very minimum, all your wealth and at least 1/3 of a level.
I am saying 1/3 of a level as that is about the max exp a "power gamer" can get in about 4 hours of play in most NWN PW modules.
The penalty should be stiffer but that is about the max that emotionally immature people can handle.
If the world is well developed people will stick around even if penalties are high.
CRect HAMSTER; // darn near killed'em
my $search_key = $something_else;
foreach (keys %some_hash) {
if ($_ eq $search_key) {
do_something($_);
}
else();
}
locked by NullUserException
Carebear: Someone who seeks an experience without challenge. they are in it for the story. Like watching an interactive movie
Rollplayer: Somone looking for escapism and immersion. They want to feel part of the world
Power-gamer: Someone who wants to beat the game as efficiently as possible. Someone who likes finding exploits, using any and all tools in their arsenal to finnish the game and move on.
Hello-kitty gamer: Someone who wants to be over-powerd and whines about it in every forum. Definitily derogatory
Grinder: Someone who want to collect things. Time spend, is the effort.
I am none of these. I am a gamer. I want to find a challenge, try to over-come it. Take that feel-good energy into the other parts of my life. But I do not want to spend more than 10 to 20 hours a week on this. I work, I study, and I sometimes get tricked into relationships.
[/SIGPIC]
The Older Gamers (25+) - Never too old to play games
The problem here is the classic forum-issue. This thread is hijacked. But I will try once more.
One poster has stated that you had to redo boss fights if you die. Compleatly start from the begining. This is what I want, but I do not know if this is the singleplayer experience only.
Just to be annoying, I cannot find the video that I remember people rejoining the fights before they where over (after they died). But I know that mini-bosses, for sure, suffers from this mechanic.
Please people, don't suggest that they make major changes. That is what different games are for. Make small changes to increase the enjoyment, or avoide pit-falls. If you cannot understand what I mean, I will try to give an example.
By your definition, I would probably be a Carebear Grinder.
By your definition, I'd also be a role player. I like feeling part of the world. I'm here for escapism. My definition of a role player, though, would be someone who is social and is always in-character. Someone who plays their character as if they were a real person. Me... I'm anti-social.
As to your point about preventing someone from rejoining a battle after they've died unless/until everyone wipes or wins, I would probably lean towards the side of letting them back into the battle after they've re-spawned and run back in. Otherwise, it penalizes the other group members who may be playing their characters just fine.
I mentioned above that if this is the case it needs to be changed ASAP to restrict players from getting back into the boss fight. I thought this was already the case though, and have heard reports that it is. Sadly, nobody died fighting the boss in the cloak tower any of the times I ran through it (4 times) so I don't have any personal experience with this.
What we really need is for someone to say one way or another if you do get locked out of boss battles after you die (and nobody helps you before it's final).
If that is the case, then yes, it's a big deal and we need to address it before the game launches.
That of course is saying that any of the dungeons actually have enough difficulty to kill a group of random players let along a team of them that are working together. There was no team work really in any of my runs on the Cloak tower and no danger either, heck, with my rogue I ran ahead most of the time and just wasted everything since the party was taking so long to do anything.
For solo work it's perfect right now. If you can just constantly zerg a boss with 2 or more players....that is a problem I agree.
I think the thread has stayed mostly on topic, dealing with death penalties at least. It's hard to ever keep a thread exactly on topic though (just a specific aspect of death penalty in a game). I know death works with the whole reset thing for solo play...but no clue on the party setup (we really didn't have much of a chance to try the party mechanic so far in the Beta).
I guess part of the problem is we don't have enough information yet to really discuss the issue...since we don't know for sure one way or another if players are going to be let back into boss fights after death. That is probably why the thread has devolved into discussing death penalties.
I still strongly stand behind the current system as long as death vs bosses is permanent. I'd even like to see rooms locked down in quests with a party (so you can't run back into the room even, until all enemies in it are killed). Without that, parties will have no difficulty running through quests at all.
To be honest though (and this is way off topic), NWO has seemed far more like a solo MMO experience (where you trade with other players etc, but mainly kill by yourself) so far to me. That will hopefully change in later content though.
Seconded.
I was certain that I had seen a video of this happening in Cloak Tower. But now I cannot find it. But I would love if this was the case for any special mob. However, if I get one encounter a dungeon, I am fine with that. There is always the foundry to make my own encounters
I want to pick up a PUG and roll on. I don't want to hang in the wings and wait while some clan camps instances.
The whole idea of camping RNG boss drops is a total turnoff and will run me off in a heartbeat.
Also, figure out something to keep PUG soakers the boot. You know what I'm talking about. That jerk that joins for the boss loot roll and does nothing else the whole instance.
With that said. If the party cleric doesn't like you I say lock out on respawn.
CRect HAMSTER; // darn near killed'em
my $search_key = $something_else;
foreach (keys %some_hash) {
if ($_ eq $search_key) {
do_something($_);
}
else();
}
locked by NullUserException
So there is a negative connotation to every group of people who play games? Interesting I find your definitions lacking. Oh and Role player is spelled that way. Like playing a role. Not eating a roll or rolling a guy for his cash and sneakers.
Specifically, when it comes to death rules, I believe it's been rightly pointed out that players can self-penalize themselves if they find the "punishment" for death too convenient.
I think labels can be dangerous and over-simplified, but the term "power-gamer" is one you can trace in articles dating back to the 80's. I specifically read an article Wizards wrote about the different kinds of gamers it has in D&D and how to cater to them and the term "power gamer", "social gamer" and "role player" were the terms and categories they used. So it can be useful to categorize gaming styles and try to cater to them, but they can, of course, over-simplify, as all generalization tend to do.
Again, when it comes to the death rules, I favor a small delay or "cooldown", then not much fuss after that. In general most MMOs handle death really well, because they've moved away from draconian things like XP loss.
In general, the more a game values my time and tries to ensure I am entertained, rather than frustrated, the more I appreciate it. I am not here to conquer some super-human feat of dexterity with my digits, nor dig deep into google to find the right solution to a puzzle that could stump Archimedes, (or worse pretty much expects you to take the time to look up the solution on the net *cough TSW cough*)
I submit if you like "dextrous thumb-twitching to win" games, that Nintendo has a deluge of games for you. If you like puzzle/cerebral games, there's a myriad of them and ultimately chess should probably be your final destination. MMOs are mass-media games, that involve story and simple adventure/combat. Their strength is the environments are massive, there is much to explore and do and there's a vast community you can play with in which to experience these things together, ultimately making all MMOs a social endeavor as much as an exercise in hand-eye dexterity.
I am okay with being punished for not paying attention or being stupid, but beyond that, I see no particular "valor" in games that aim to frustrate and hold back its players just for the illusion the game requires "skill". Usually barriers like this just lengthen the amount of time I spend in specific content, which means gaming companies win and I lose, because they can produce less content and exploit it further, under the illusion it makes the game a "challenge". It just means less creative content, less things to see and explore and a lot of mind-crushing, soul-numbing repetition to get a particular segment of content "perfect" before you can progress.
Check out SHADOW on YouTube!
that is a modern spelling. The word comes from recieving a roll, as in rolled together sheets with information on the character and what lines the actor plays. If you find my definitions lacking is beside the point. They are my defenitions, and I wrote them to simplify communication to indicate that never meant to be derogatory.
Jag avskyr verkligen spraaknassar po forumsidor. bilingual som man e, so irriterar sodan argumentation. Men so aer det.
There are always stereotypes. You cannot avoide it, it is so ingrained in your thinking that we all use it heuristically. The difference is knowing about the cognetive process, or if you supress them (which gives a rebound effect in many cases, but enough about that).
I agree, and also find that as I have gotten older, I get frustrated more easily when my time is wasted.
When dying, I am already unhappy, either because I have messed up somehow or worse....because of Random killing me (sometimes death can not be avoided). Having to redo a battle is a perfect penalty for dying, and it lets you get right back into it. Nobody wants to die, and the FULL battle is still going to have to be fought, so it's not like you need more reasons to avoid death.
I do think though that if you can currently just chain zerg a boss...and it keeps all it's health while players who die run back to it, that needs to change.
Either by locking them out, or perhaps having it's health regen by a % for each player that returns (players have an option to return or not, but enemies health increases by 20% of max (up to max only) for each player that does return).
It would be 20% because 5 players is the max. So each player that returns would in effect heal it 1/5th of the way to full.
Problem with that is a bad player who constantly dies and returns could make killing a boss impossible (or if done on purpose could grief a party).
So i'd say just lock out players from returning in boss fights.
You can't do that sadly for normal missions though because players can wander all over the map. How do you lock out rooms from players that have died till the enemies have been killed if the party is spread out through a bunch of rooms?
One possible solution is to put a timer on resurrection by hearthfire when players are in a party. This would work on bosses and general missions as well. You can still bring a dead character back up within the time limit like it is now...but if they go poof, instead of instantly appearing at the hearthfire, they have to wait 120 seconds (2 minutes) before they can pop back up.
If the whole party dies before that time, the boss (and other enemies etc) all reset just like they do on solo missions.
IF it's a boss fight, all the players respawn right away if the boss dies as well.
IF any other player runs back to the hearthfire (that is alive) they can also instantly respawn anyone who has died and is in timer status as well.
That would probably solve the problem right there.
Comparing things you see in a game to things you have seen in other games is one thing, but saying "This game should be this other game" is just silly.
I agree, as long as there isn't a hearthfire right before dungeon boss fights I don't see that anything really needs to change.
Also, we have not fought hard bosses, or even hard content yet. It's been stated the difficulty doesn't start to ramp up until later.
If you lost xp or gold (there is no durability on items so that isn't a possible loss), each time you die, that could end up being a game breaker for many later on when difficulty gets harder.
Heck, the current system may already lock players out later on, at least for solo missions if they require potions to fight a boss solo...and they die a few times and run out. They'll have to leave and do the whole mission over again, or maybe even farm for gold to buy potions first.
I think one of the great things about NWO is it's fast paced, and that includes getting back into the combat after you die fast as well. As long as you can't zerg rush boss fights and make them obsolete, i'm happy with the current setup.
Personally, I'd like to see a small gold penalty associated with dying, just so it has a bit of sting and people actually try not to die. But it's okay as it is, too.