You didn't counter any of my points. You agreed with me but still think there should be a there a Death penalty. It will just be more stuff for them to fix.
I agreed with you, but also ellaborated on why, in order to show that each point that you raised doesn't justify your argument in NOT having a DP. As I pointed out, the "stuff for them to fix" is needed irrespective of whether or not a new DP is introduced. The "DSE npc camping" issue needs sorting regardless. A death penalty in that scenario only comes about as a result of a poorly conceived scenario. Eliminate the problems concerned with that scenario and you eliminate the possibililty of incurring a death penalty from it.
Really? How am I contradicting myself? Just because YOU say so? Come on now Goodwind. I'm not so easily goaded lol.
Yes, I know what I consider fun.
However, ask yourself:
Why do people repeatedly play games that are not that easy to beat?
Why do people still enjoy games that impose a certain level of restriction on how the player can win, and rules on the individual taking part, and thus reduce the overall possibility of success?
Why is it that even though people get frustrated with a game, they will often return to it?
Answer me those questions, and you'll be closer to understanding the truth behind the definition of "fun"
I fail to see how any of the three bullet points, taken together or separately, logically imply the need for a DP. They certainly imply a need for increased encounter difficulty and proper spawn resets. Anything further is not challenge, just punitive and unnecessary timesinks.
I fail to see how any of the three bullet points, taken together or separately, logically imply the need for a DP. They certainly imply a need for increased encounter difficulty and proper spawn resets. Anything further is not challenge, just punitive and unnecessary timesinks.
Simply because you are taking them in the wrong context. Those points highlighted that people consider challenging activities "fun". They don't just throw down their joypads after one go, they keep at. And even when they do, they often return to the game.
Now, whilst a death penalty doesn't on its own define the level of challenge in an encounter, nevertheless it reinforces the need to complete encounters in the desired way i.e. by not dieing. And its such rules that define "challenge". This is the case with MANY mmos, except STO.
But, if theres no consequence to NOT adhere to the rules that define the challenge, then the very level of challenge itself is nullified. And an activity that isn't challenging is often considered "boring". Wouldn't you agree?
Then you reinforce my thoughts on the matter. Thank you
My point is that people in MMO discussions have a tendency to incorrectly "pigeon hole" players. Calling them "console lovers", "carebears", "kiddie wow players" or some other ridiculous nonsense, when in actual fact that is far from the truth.
Now, from what I've seen in these forums, not that many are big advocates of the "harsh" death penalties such as dropping / perma-losing items or XP / SP like the ones found in Eve Online. In fact, given that Cryptic have already begun to "tweak" the crew system that is already in the game, to me sounds like a pretty good indicator that they intend to go with their original plan for a "durability" type system which can be replenished.
After all, its already in the game, it just needs to be fully enabled once it is correctly balanced. And balancing starts with ensuring that whatever "crew" is lost is done so in a fair manner.
I dont mind the crew loss, It doens't thrll me but I dont mind it and it would not discourage me from trying .. unlike loosing gear permanently would.
However I am not enjoying waiting half an hour for my crew to regen after some guy beats me by ramming me to win instead of shootig at me (take to long ramming is easier faster win.. and he suffers no point loss to his side)
and on a third hand if i had one I want to be able to jump into a new space game after the first one ends without waiting half an hour for my crew to regen. that's to long in a system where klingons are low on players and feds are overloaded on them. I am also of the opinion that the F vs F system as a cure for long wait times is a wrong move. See I made a klingon to have instant PvP. And it worked now they want to remove this from the game. PVP is the only reason I play this game. Slow the matches down make me sit out for half an hour in space = me not doing space pvp. Do the same to ground = me finding another instant fun PVP game.
urbanlamb, when it comes to death penalties I agree with you that STO shouldn't resort to using an "Eve style" perma-loss death penalty. To me, thats **too** harsh. To me, such penalties can only exist in games that promote the ease of equipment acquisition and in a game that is heavily biased on PVP activities.
Because of this, I feel that STO lends itself more to a Wow-style "durability loss" death penalty. Whereby a death reduces your effectiveness by a slight, but noticable amount and continuous deaths resort in a VERY noticable difference in weapon / shield effectiveness. That sort of "durability loss" system has been used countless times to good effect. It doesn't overly penalise a player for dieing a small number of times, but it DOES discourage the use of "zerg" tactics.
Really? How am I contradicting myself? Just because YOU say so? Come on now Goodwind. I'm not so easily goaded lol.
Yes, I know what I consider fun.
However, ask yourself:
Why do people repeatedly play games that are not that easy to beat?
Why do people still enjoy games that impose a certain level of restriction on how the player can win, and rules on the individual taking part, and thus reduce the overall possibility of success?
Why is it that even though people get frustrated with a game, they will often return to it?
Answer me those questions, and you'll be closer to understanding the truth behind the definition of "fun"
So you do think you can define what fun is for each individual player. Not to surprised, it is the main trait of the most in the DP crowd. They believe if they can force people to play their way they'll simply enjoy the game more.
If you can't move forward until you defeat the encounters without dying (at least as a group), how is the challenge nullified?
It isn't. I think you've misunderstood the point.
If death has little consequence and all the while the challenge diminishes, then the level of challenge is no longer maintained and ultimately becomes nullified. This is not evident in other MMO's but it IS in STO for a number of reasons. Heres 2 examples:
Solo encounter (1 player vs 3 ships):
The encounter starts, the player defeats 1 ship and blows up in the process.
The player respawns, now theres only 2 ships left. The challenge is now diminished because the player is back to full health but only has to take on 2 ships.
The player begins the encounter again, kills another ship, and blows up in the process.
.......
Rinse and repeat until all mobs are gone.
Do you see how in this scenario, the player isn't actually adhering to a rule of "defeat the encounter without dying", because they don't need to and thats because they aren't encouraged to do so.
Now, the issue is further compounded in a group situation:
Group encounter (many players vs 1 big bad TRIBBLE mob):
The encounter starts, the npcs health gets down to 75% and a player dies.
That player respawns after a few seconds and re-enters the fight at full health.
The npcs health is now at 60%. The group feels little result by the players death, and the chance of not succeeding hasn't been altered in any way. This is because all group members are at this point with full health and effectiveness. Whilst the npc is continuing to lose theirs.
The npcs health reaches 50%. A different player dies and after a few seconds respawns will full health and returns to the fight.
The npcs health is now 40%.
.......
Eventually the npc "dies" and every group member is full health.
The challenge should always be about completing the task in the way it is intended. And that often involves the use of tactics in order to not "die".
So you do think you can define what fun is for each individual player. Not to surprised, it is the main trait of the most in the DP crowd. They believe if they can force people to play their way they'll simply enjoy the game more.
Lol. I am not defining anything Goodwind, I don't need to. Its evident throughout life. Just watch someone partaking in a recreational activity and then ask them why they are doing it.
You can disagree all you like, but it is a fact that people enjoy a challenge, especially in their recreational activities. And challenge only comes from having to adhere to set rules. Consequences for ones actions serve to encourage the participant to adhere to them.
Just look at what you are attempting to do right now. You obviously consider it "fun" to attempt to goad people whilst adhering to forum rules. The consequence of NOT adhering to the rules may result in you being reported
I am not defining anything Goodwind, I don't need to. Its life.
You can disagree all you like, but it is a fact that people enjoy a challenge, especially in their recreational activities. And challenge only comes from having to adhere to set rules. Consequences for ones actions serve to encourage the participant to adhere to them.
Now, are you going to keep attempting to goad me in such a futile manner? If so, I'll discuss the issue with someone who isn't just interested in "winning points".
That you think you can speak for all people is simple arrogance. I guess it makes it easier when making absolute claims like you are.
So you do think you can define what fun is for each individual player. Not to surprised, it is the main trait of the most in the DP crowd. .
No its not.
The pro DP crowd are saying that a mechanic of the game (if done correctly) can be adjusted so the game is more fun.
The antiDP crwd are saying it cannot.
Personally i think that the antiDP crowd show suprime arrogance to say that the game is totally finished and ANY mechanic the death one or another cannot be improved just because they dislike the phrase "DEATH PENALTY" because that is what it boils down to until cryptic release the patch notes on what they are going to do.
That you think you can speak for all people is simple arrogance. I guess it makes it easier when making absolute claims like you are.
Lol. Oh, come now Goodwin. Is that the best you can do?
I find it ironic that you claim that I am assuming things, when you yourself are resorting to doing exactly that.
For instance, when have I ever said that I speak for anyone other than myself? The answer is never. I may give an opinion on how others are peceived, but I never claim to speak for others.
I give my opinion on the discussion subject. If people disagree with me then that is their perogative. They are entitled to do so. Just as I am entitled to give my opinion.
Goodwin, keep to the subject of the discussion or don't bother joining in my friend. Attacking people in this way does not do you any good.
Yes, but as long as it's not too drastic... it can always be made more of a punishment in a later patch if people think it doesn't go far enough, and easier to lose if people hate it.
The pro death penalty group are missing out on the real issue of it with this game. There tons of pug group content it will effect it by people not taking part so they wont die. They will free load just sit at the start and not take part just to get their completion. You will just be punished for other peoples game play. You're going to be punished for random enemy contacts pull you into the instance you don't want to do and die before you can get out. It wont make an easy game hard or more of a challenge or fun. Just ruin pug groups and force more people to solo.
No. the people running Escorts will more than likely start running things with more staying power and less aggression.
not only that but someone else pointed out that team participation will drop drastically...
and not to mention that LOTS of the casual players here (which there's a lot of since they only bought this game for trek-based reasons) will be upset... too many of these missions take hours to finish especially if you have to play it safe and lots of us have LIVES and can't just not walk away and HOPE nothing kills us... anyway, the majority of those people don't use the forums... this poll should be made official and offered IN GAME so EVERYONE can input on it. not just the losers who sit here and complain all day about one thing or another... 99% of humans are never happy with anything... just let them be unhappy, they'll keep playing anyway.
It isn't. I think you've misunderstood the point.
If you are allowed to die and all the while the challenge diminishes, then the level of challenge is no longer maintained and ultimately becomes nullified. This is not evident in other MMO's but it IS in STO for a number of reasons. Heres 2 examples:
Solo encounter (1 player vs 3 ships):
The encounter starts, the player defeats 1 ship and blows up in the process.
The player respawns, now theres only 2 ships left. The challenge is now diminished because the player is back to full health but only has to take on 2 ships.
The player begins the encounter again, kills another ship, and blows up in the process.
Rinse and repeat.
Do you see how in this scenario, the player isn't actually adhering to a rule of "defeat the encounter without dying", because they don't need to and thats because they aren't penalised for doing otherwise. Now, the issue is further compounded in a group situation:
Group encounter (many players vs 1 big bad TRIBBLE mob):
The encounter starts, the npcs health gets down to 75% and a player dies.
That player respawns after a few seconds and re-enters the fight at full health.
The npcs health is now at 60%. Very little result is felt by the player dieing and the chance of not succeeding hasn't been altered in any way because all group members are at full health and effectiveness.
The npcs health reaches 50%. A different player dies and after a few seconds respawns will full health and returns to the fight.
The npcs health is now 40%.
.......
Eventually the npc "dies" and every group member is full health.
The challenge should always be about completing the task in the way it is intended. And that often involves the use of tactics in order to not "die".
This is why I've argued, again and again, that the following two changes - not penalties - are required.
Restore spawns to full strength on solo/full-group defeat.
Suppress respawn when grouped until the group wipes (and provide a 'rez' mechanic in space as exists on the ground, with ships being disabled rather than core-breaching until the wipe)
Fleet actions and DSEs are just lost causes by their sloppy design and, with the way the mechanics only reward DPS, being taken out of the fight briefly does set you back.
Comments
I agreed with you, but also ellaborated on why, in order to show that each point that you raised doesn't justify your argument in NOT having a DP. As I pointed out, the "stuff for them to fix" is needed irrespective of whether or not a new DP is introduced. The "DSE npc camping" issue needs sorting regardless. A death penalty in that scenario only comes about as a result of a poorly conceived scenario. Eliminate the problems concerned with that scenario and you eliminate the possibililty of incurring a death penalty from it.
I fail to see how any of the three bullet points, taken together or separately, logically imply the need for a DP. They certainly imply a need for increased encounter difficulty and proper spawn resets. Anything further is not challenge, just punitive and unnecessary timesinks.
Simply because you are taking them in the wrong context. Those points highlighted that people consider challenging activities "fun". They don't just throw down their joypads after one go, they keep at. And even when they do, they often return to the game.
Now, whilst a death penalty doesn't on its own define the level of challenge in an encounter, nevertheless it reinforces the need to complete encounters in the desired way i.e. by not dieing. And its such rules that define "challenge". This is the case with MANY mmos, except STO.
But, if theres no consequence to NOT adhere to the rules that define the challenge, then the very level of challenge itself is nullified. And an activity that isn't challenging is often considered "boring". Wouldn't you agree?
I dont mind the crew loss, It doens't thrll me but I dont mind it and it would not discourage me from trying .. unlike loosing gear permanently would.
However I am not enjoying waiting half an hour for my crew to regen after some guy beats me by ramming me to win instead of shootig at me (take to long ramming is easier faster win.. and he suffers no point loss to his side)
and on a third hand if i had one I want to be able to jump into a new space game after the first one ends without waiting half an hour for my crew to regen. that's to long in a system where klingons are low on players and feds are overloaded on them. I am also of the opinion that the F vs F system as a cure for long wait times is a wrong move. See I made a klingon to have instant PvP. And it worked now they want to remove this from the game. PVP is the only reason I play this game. Slow the matches down make me sit out for half an hour in space = me not doing space pvp. Do the same to ground = me finding another instant fun PVP game.
Because of this, I feel that STO lends itself more to a Wow-style "durability loss" death penalty. Whereby a death reduces your effectiveness by a slight, but noticable amount and continuous deaths resort in a VERY noticable difference in weapon / shield effectiveness. That sort of "durability loss" system has been used countless times to good effect. It doesn't overly penalise a player for dieing a small number of times, but it DOES discourage the use of "zerg" tactics.
If you can't move forward until you defeat the encounters without dying (at least as a group), how is the challenge nullified?
(10char)
So you do think you can define what fun is for each individual player. Not to surprised, it is the main trait of the most in the DP crowd. They believe if they can force people to play their way they'll simply enjoy the game more.
It isn't. I think you've misunderstood the point.
If death has little consequence and all the while the challenge diminishes, then the level of challenge is no longer maintained and ultimately becomes nullified. This is not evident in other MMO's but it IS in STO for a number of reasons. Heres 2 examples:
Solo encounter (1 player vs 3 ships):
The encounter starts, the player defeats 1 ship and blows up in the process.
The player respawns, now theres only 2 ships left. The challenge is now diminished because the player is back to full health but only has to take on 2 ships.
The player begins the encounter again, kills another ship, and blows up in the process.
.......
Rinse and repeat until all mobs are gone.
Do you see how in this scenario, the player isn't actually adhering to a rule of "defeat the encounter without dying", because they don't need to and thats because they aren't encouraged to do so.
Now, the issue is further compounded in a group situation:
Group encounter (many players vs 1 big bad TRIBBLE mob):
The encounter starts, the npcs health gets down to 75% and a player dies.
That player respawns after a few seconds and re-enters the fight at full health.
The npcs health is now at 60%. The group feels little result by the players death, and the chance of not succeeding hasn't been altered in any way. This is because all group members are at this point with full health and effectiveness. Whilst the npc is continuing to lose theirs.
The npcs health reaches 50%. A different player dies and after a few seconds respawns will full health and returns to the fight.
The npcs health is now 40%.
.......
Eventually the npc "dies" and every group member is full health.
The challenge should always be about completing the task in the way it is intended. And that often involves the use of tactics in order to not "die".
Lol. I am not defining anything Goodwind, I don't need to. Its evident throughout life. Just watch someone partaking in a recreational activity and then ask them why they are doing it.
You can disagree all you like, but it is a fact that people enjoy a challenge, especially in their recreational activities. And challenge only comes from having to adhere to set rules. Consequences for ones actions serve to encourage the participant to adhere to them.
Just look at what you are attempting to do right now. You obviously consider it "fun" to attempt to goad people whilst adhering to forum rules. The consequence of NOT adhering to the rules may result in you being reported
That you think you can speak for all people is simple arrogance. I guess it makes it easier when making absolute claims like you are.
Death penalty is such a cliche - time to move away from MMO cliche
No its not.
The pro DP crowd are saying that a mechanic of the game (if done correctly) can be adjusted so the game is more fun.
The antiDP crwd are saying it cannot.
Personally i think that the antiDP crowd show suprime arrogance to say that the game is totally finished and ANY mechanic the death one or another cannot be improved just because they dislike the phrase "DEATH PENALTY" because that is what it boils down to until cryptic release the patch notes on what they are going to do.
.
Lol. Oh, come now Goodwin. Is that the best you can do?
I find it ironic that you claim that I am assuming things, when you yourself are resorting to doing exactly that.
For instance, when have I ever said that I speak for anyone other than myself? The answer is never. I may give an opinion on how others are peceived, but I never claim to speak for others.
I give my opinion on the discussion subject. If people disagree with me then that is their perogative. They are entitled to do so. Just as I am entitled to give my opinion.
Goodwin, keep to the subject of the discussion or don't bother joining in my friend. Attacking people in this way does not do you any good.
How does that saying go... "Pot calling the Kettle black"
a PvE death penalty, at this stage? HA!
Please cite where I position myself to speak for all people.
10/chars
not only that but someone else pointed out that team participation will drop drastically...
and not to mention that LOTS of the casual players here (which there's a lot of since they only bought this game for trek-based reasons) will be upset... too many of these missions take hours to finish especially if you have to play it safe and lots of us have LIVES and can't just not walk away and HOPE nothing kills us... anyway, the majority of those people don't use the forums... this poll should be made official and offered IN GAME so EVERYONE can input on it. not just the losers who sit here and complain all day about one thing or another... 99% of humans are never happy with anything... just let them be unhappy, they'll keep playing anyway.
[10 character minimum]
This is why I've argued, again and again, that the following two changes - not penalties - are required.
Fleet actions and DSEs are just lost causes by their sloppy design and, with the way the mechanics only reward DPS, being taken out of the fight briefly does set you back.
Start off small till the people say stop.
Fine then, here's 10 characters if it makes you happy.
[10 character minimum]