So you would be ok with it if small group content was the most efficient method to gain high end advancement? If the "end-game" progression was primarily centered around small groups and multi-group raids were actually a little less efficient way to get that high end equipment?
I mean, if the focus of this game is grouping then shouldn't the focus of the game always be grouping? Not just while you are leveling up but at the end-game too?
Raiding is only at "end-game" because of the inefficiencies created by linear statistical progression - leveling up systems.
Like, if you have 50 levels in your game, the general group size is 5 players, you can't put a raid at level 30 with like 10-20 players as a part of the level up process, participation would be WAY too low to be effective. Ya know?
Sure, but that doesn't really answer the question I put forth.
I think having progression at the small group level at "end game" is important.
I think the whole solo leads to small group leads to raid group thing is kind of stupid, IMO.
I like the idea of small group content to level, small group content to end-game, small group content at end-game.
A challenging 5-6 person dungeon or whatever can be just as difficult as a 20-40 person raid. The only thing more difficult is the organization of the larger group, and the coordination/control by the raid leaders, but there is no reason small group content can't be as challenging in terms of technical game play.
If anything small group can be MORE challenging because each player gains more responsibility in a smaller group. Each loss/death in the group is felt more clearly.
Dismissing people's thoughts with go else where because there are other games out there, just shows how weak your footing is on the topic and is also rude. You have nothing to support your point of view other than a mantra it adds risk and fear. So in instead you dismiss people thinking your post has depth. It does not.
I hear ya on the different forms of death penalty. I am ok with xp loss penalties but I am not against other ways of doing it. Not saying this should be considered but I play project gorgon on the side and they make death on bosses hurt if your not prepared. They do this with curses. Usually the curse gives you a type of bad debuff until you beat the boss or do a quest to lift it or a potion and so on.
I think a stacking debuff would be more fitting when you die at the hands of any mob. Something like up to 5-10 stacks, each stack adds -1% hp and -1% to stats and maybe run speed -1% so you feel it. Or maybe make it unlimited stacks. Have set classes with the ability to remove the debuff or a quest in town you can do to remove it. Having classes with the ability to remove it would help that class gets teams and add interdependence. Where an exp loss only adds more grinding to the game and nothing more. I am sure the devs could come up with something even smarter than this if they put their minds to it.
If anything you should gain more XP for dying and coming back to life.
After all, no experience better than doing it, failing and coming back to try again etc.
Too easily abused as a game mechanic, of course, but an interesting thought.
Project Gorgon does this. Death experience ends up granting slight passive stat increases. Not enough to want to spend all day dying, but means an encounter is never a complete waste.
If anything you should gain more XP for dying and coming back to life.
After all, no experience better than doing it, failing and coming back to try again etc.
Too easily abused as a game mechanic, of course, but an interesting thought.
Project Gorgon does this. Death experience ends up granting slight passive stat increases. Not enough to want to spend all day dying, but means an encounter is never a complete waste.
Nice, I like the ingenuity.
I swear, the big MMO devs just don't brainstorm up this kind of creative shit anymore.
I think a lot of little things can add a bit of depth and give the game a better overall feel:
1. Being able to put points into attributes every two levels or so(ala Vanguard) 2. Skill gains(such as weapon skills, parry, etc) shouldn't max out as soon as you level. Vanguard did this after a while and it made the skills pretty useless and just a number to stare at. One of the great things about Everquest was the fact that you still had to work on your skills throughout the game and it gave you something extra to work on and improve. 3. Being able to spend 5-10 points on skills when you level up.
They don't seem like much, but they really add more depth to the game and aren't difficult to implement. A lot of small things like this IMO add a lot to the game and give you more things to look forward to as you progress.
If anything you should gain more XP for dying and coming back to life.
After all, no experience better than doing it, failing and coming back to try again etc.
Too easily abused as a game mechanic, of course, but an interesting thought.
Why dont we just put a socialist death system in the game while we are at it. When I die I get half of the exp I lost from your experience you have gained?
I think having progression at the small group level at "end game" is important.
I think the whole solo leads to small group leads to raid group thing is kind of stupid, IMO.
I like the idea of small group content to level, small group content to end-game, small group content at end-game.
A challenging 5-6 person dungeon or whatever can be just as difficult as a 20-40 person raid. The only thing more difficult is the organization of the larger group, and the coordination/control by the raid leaders, but there is no reason small group content can't be as challenging in terms of technical game play.
If anything small group can be MORE challenging because each player gains more responsibility in a smaller group. Each loss/death in the group is felt more clearly.
Oh...I wasn't expecting that. I completely agree. I thought we were going to be arguing. Hmm, well now what do I do. I was almost looking forward to the big, pointless pissing contest I was getting myself into and it didn't happen.
Oh...I wasn't expecting that. I completely agree. I thought we were going to be arguing. Hmm, well now what do I do. I was almost looking forward to the big, pointless pissing contest I was getting myself into and it didn't happen.
Hmm what do you want to fight about then?
I think larger group content is cool simply because there is something "epic" about being a part of a 20 person team vs. a 5 person team. Or taking part in a 100 person battle vs. a 5 vs. 5 etc.
Why that is? I think simply that pop culture has taught us that large scale battles between armies and such are really cool.
As a counter point, the real epic battles are always the most intimate - one vs. one.
So what's the point?
THERE IS NONE! HAH!
No the real point is that raids exist and existed in the early MMOs like EQ because it was cool and something you couldn't get in other games, large scale group content. That's it.
There is literally no other gameplay advantage or design theory etc. that makes large group somehow better than smaller group, in fact there are many more valid/true game design reasons NOT to have large group content.
Experience loss also makes no sense. No matter what you do in life you have the opportunity to learn from it. There should be penalties from death but my experience should always go up not down. Please remove the senseless grind.
“Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new.” Albert Einstein
Experience loss also makes no sense. No matter what you do in life you have the opportunity to learn from it. There should be penalties from death but my experience should always go up not down. Please remove the senseless grind.
“Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new.” Albert Einstein
Experience loss after death is just a way of having consequences in the game. It even kind of makes sense because if you seriously get hurt in life, it's easy to become rusty and lose some of your former robustness. That's why prolonged unemployment is bad. Regardless, how realistic it's is unimportant. If it was something else, more realistic, like wounds which remain for X time, everybody would still complain, depending on how severe the consequence. Players tend to not like consequences whether it's in game or irl.
I've always liked penalties (or consequences) in games. Just the way I am. I think pain makes things feel real and so it's immersive. Without it, it's just a game and I can't be absorbed in it. BUT I don't want consequences to be too unforeseeable. The best consequences are the ones we can prevent or can be foreshadowed by our choices. However, I understand it's hard--or impractical--to make ALL consequences foreshadowed by choices. I also understand everbody has different aptitudes and so some will suffer disproportionately. For example, a twitch heavy dungeon with big consequences for failure would disproportionally affect gamers who have low twitch aptitude.
But I don't expect Pantheon to have a death penalty or no maps or no GPS or similar. I will play it regardless of what it does. So don't take what I say the wrong way. I'm just stating opinions what I like in the best circumstances. Yet I understand if Pantheon were to have a big death penalty and no GPS and no maps and so on, it'd be suicide for its future success.
Instead what I hope for is a sort of survival server or a survival class. The survival server would have bigger death penalties and more dangers in general. The survivor class would be similar, but there'd be no benefit or advantage to it. Someone who chooses a survivor class will level slower and suffer larger penalties. They'd not be stronger or more powerful. They might get a title, that's all. The game would have to balance everything so if these players group with normal players everything is ok and other factors.
(If that isn't there, I'll still play Pantheon.)
It's easy to see all of this as just mashochism or needless punishment if you don't enjoy it yourself. It's the same for GPS on maps. Why would someone not want GPS or not want detailed maps? Immersion. That's why. As I said, a game without frustration isn't as real and not as immersive. Myself being this way, I can't take a game seriously if it doesn't have some consequences. I cherish the feeling of having to jump over a chasm. If I fall, I die and lose time. But let me say: It's a great, awesome feeling. That's what I want in games. It's not as fun when games remove the consequences. The chasm loses its aura of danger. The intensity lessens. I lose interest. I might fall asleep.
It is not a senseless grind it is a bloody penalty for dying....
And if you want to use a real world example here ya go...think of it like this...ever had a serious concussion? You can actually forget what happened to yourself. Think of death as a worse version of that, you forget a certain amount of life experience, but you regain it as you start playing again.
If we are using debuffs do not allow classes to cure them otherwise whats the point it is again no longer a penalty, it is a ploy for the lazy folks to not have to worry about a real penalty.
If anything you should gain more XP for dying and coming back to life.
After all, no experience better than doing it, failing and coming back to try again etc.
Too easily abused as a game mechanic, of course, but an interesting thought.
Project Gorgon does this. Death experience ends up granting slight passive stat increases. Not enough to want to spend all day dying, but means an encounter is never a complete waste.
To be more specific it gives you xp in dying skill and as you lvl up that skill it gives you permanent passives like increased health and resistances. I like the skill lvling in the game it is very well thought out.
That sounds very different and appealing. Debuffs on a death as a penalty and char advancement all rolled in together. That's what developers should be doing today. Taking old systems and evolving them into something new and exciting. Why should I lose experience when a system like this makes me feel the challenge and has me excited about the development of my char? Tickle me pink.
Also, death penalties absolutely do make better players, I'd say objectively so. Even the crappier players in a MMO with a DP are better than those in MMOs with out it. Why? Because death penalties suck - which is exactly the point of them - people want to avoid them, and so they are more careful in how they play.
(snip)
That's the purpose death penalties serve. It's not to arbitrarily punish players for failing. It's to make them play more carefully and strategically, so they don't die in the first place. Yes dying sucks... because you're not supposed to die!
Also, in MMOs without death penalties, players don't play better because they don't have to. Doesn't matter if they die 10 times to some enemy because they just keep running in face first without thinking it through. Why bother being careful when there's no penalty for failing to do so?
Finally, saying that
I want to make it clear I agree with you. I explained in my prior post and possibly in another one in this thread. I support consequences. They make the game fun, for me.
BUT I want to play the devil's advocate. I've played hte devil's advocate so much since I was younger, I don't know if I'm a troll or if I actually work for the devil.
(And no I don't intentionally troll, if I by chance am somehow a troll. It's best explained as I care about what others think who disagree with me. Strongly, even. A flaw?)
Personally, I don't think it makes us better players. The strain of knowing consequences are heavy might make players more careful, but it's easy to be too carefully or just plain not enjoy the discomfort. Players don't respond the same way to it. Some will play worse because of it. Some players will play their best when the consequences are least.
Also sometimes s*** happens and it isn't our fault. Heavy consequences make it even more painful. Some peole just cannot handle that at all.
We're adrenaline junkies. Looking for a high. Playing on the edge of danger or extremes. We need it or it isn't compelling.
Please don't take my post the wrong way. Can't I agree and play hte devils advocate too? Will you let me? I've played MMO's for many many years. Ok I've been the adrenaline junky for most of that time. You wouldn't believ some of the things I've done. But in that time I've come to know it's very niche. I know most players aren't like me. And I respect other people's opinion. I probably respect others more than I respect my own opinions.
If anything you should gain more XP for dying and coming back to life.
After all, no experience better than doing it, failing and coming back to try again etc.
Too easily abused as a game mechanic, of course, but an interesting thought.
Well, while I like the devs trying something new, I really don't like
buffing people for losing. That's like the modern day participation
trophy system. Really not a fan of giving any type of bonuses at all for death. I'm not in the masochist "violate my spirit" camp like some of these people seem to be, but I do prefer a slight death penalty, even if it's just a stacking debuff like some have mentioned.
Experience loss also makes no sense. No matter what you do in life you have the opportunity to learn from it. There should be penalties from death but my experience should always go up not down. Please remove the senseless grind.
“Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new.” Albert Einstein
As far as this goes: I think this is almost a philosophical debate. That said, from a reality perspective, it actually makes a ton of sense to me. Kridak's post below is a good theory on it.
It is not a senseless grind it is a bloody penalty for dying....
And if you want to use a real world example here ya go...think of it like this...ever had a serious concussion? You can actually forget what happened to yourself. Think of death as a worse version of that, you forget a certain amount of life experience, but you regain it as you start playing again.
If we are using debuffs do not allow classes to cure them otherwise whats the point it is again no longer a penalty, it is a ploy for the lazy folks to not have to worry about a real penalty.
One could easily theorize that dying would be something akin to a
concussive state or even dreaming. Even when you remember details from
those states, things are rarely clear. So, in theory, memory loss
associated with dying is perfectly reasonable.
All that said, I
prefer challenging AI that makes it easier to die rather than harshly
punishing people for dying to crappy AI/mechanics. I'm all for positively encouraging people to try to improve themselves and take on tougher and tougher challenges rather than deter them with a boatload of punishment.
Debuffs on death as a penalty would be nothing more than a nuisance if they could be immediately cured through class interdependency.
If I had a magic debuff that could be dispelled by a wizard/enchanter, I would be begging either class if I wasn't grouped with one. /shout Are there any wizards than can cure mana burn around, will to donate?. If I were grouped with one, and they could simply cast a spell to remove the penalty, then it isn't one at all.
And, if you're saying that even with removal of the penalty there's a 10-15 minute res effects type debuff still, then you're encroaching on tedium/nuisance for the sake of change. And you're trading one penalty that effects a player's time for another, with the exception that you're trying to remove what you call the "Grind" by trying to regain experience and inserting another system that just allows you to /afk until the effects wear off instead of play.
And, if you couldn't find a wizard/enchanter, you'd be wasting more time than you would have by just fighting and trying to regain your experience. Because if the debuff was truly a penalty, it would need to be a debuff to stats of greater than 15-20%, and someone wouldn't want to continue fighting unless it was gone.
And, if you say the penalty is only a 1% reduction (even a stackable 1%), then it's pointless and serves no purpose and you may as well not have any death penalty at all.
One could easily theorize that dying would be something akin to a
concussive state or even dreaming. Even when you remember details from
those states, things are rarely clear. So, in theory, memory loss
associated with dying is perfectly reasonable.
All that said, I
prefer challenging AI that makes it easier to die rather than harshly
punishing people for dying to crappy AI/mechanics. I'm all for positively encouraging people to try to improve themselves and take on tougher and tougher challenges rather than deter them with a boatload of punishment.
Exactly, those types of systems existed then because that's what knowledge as well as tech allowed for, they were changed for a reason, not just because of "err casuals" but because they found better systems, as well as acquired more working knowledge of what people like/dislike.
Punish through design skill and creativity, don't use arbitrary systems for the sake of being like EQ... Which is all it really boils down to, no matter what people try and argue about (risk vs reward)... There are simply better ways to do this, yet since they weren't in EQ, that crowd can't comprehend it. Which is quite simply the result of an echo chamber that I can see as possibly ruining the potential of this game.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I will be posting much on this topic as I feel strongly about it and no one here has given one good reason why its worth keeping. Other than the same mantra that it adds risk and fear. Risk and fear can be added other ways without adding grind. Adding grind to a game for the sake of grind is again, dumb and lazy.
I gave plenty of reasoning/rebuttal - you ignored it all. What else is a death penalty suppose to add other than risk or fear? Should you feel elated? Excited? Satisfied? If a death in a game provokes risk and fear, then it's done it's job. Having meaningless debuffs that can be easily cured does neither. Mobs will still be zerged as their is no fear of permanently player time loss. And again, "time" is the only finite resource, which is why exp loss exponentially increases the risk and fear.
Debuffs on death as a penalty would be nothing more than a nuisance if they could be immediately cured through class interdependency.
If I had a magic debuff that could be dispelled by a wizard/enchanter, I would be begging either class if I wasn't grouped with one. /shout Are there any wizards than can cure mana burn around, will to donate?. If I were grouped with one, and they could simply cast a spell to remove the penalty, then it isn't one at all.
And, if you're saying that even with removal of the penalty there's a 10-15 minute res effects type debuff still, then you're encroaching on tedium/nuisance for the sake of change. And you're trading one penalty that effects a player's time for another, with the exception that you're trying to remove what you call the "Grind" by trying to regain experience and inserting another system that just allows you to /afk until the effects wear off instead of play.
And, if you couldn't find a wizard/enchanter, you'd be wasting more time than you would have by just fighting and trying to regain your experience. Because if the debuff was truly a penalty, it would need to be a debuff to stats of greater than 15-20%, and someone wouldn't want to continue fighting unless it was gone.
And, if you say the penalty is only a 1% reduction (even a stackable 1%), then it's pointless and serves no purpose and you may as well not have any death penalty at all.
Err debuffs work in combination with treks, respawn, weapon/gear damage, etc.. it all ties into the penalty for death, these are game-play systems, XP loss is not, it's systematic punishment, that only results in more grind, that's it. It adds nothing to the game, nor interdependency. It's fake longevity that adds nothing of real value to gameplay.
It's not a deal breaker for me, but it certainly isn't an interesting mechanic.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I will be posting much on this topic as I feel strongly about it and no one here has given one good reason why its worth keeping. Other than the same mantra that it adds risk and fear. Risk and fear can be added other ways without adding grind. Adding grind to a game for the sake of grind is again, dumb and lazy.
I gave plenty of reasoning/rebuttal - you ignored it all. What else is a death penalty suppose to add other than risk or fear? Should you feel elated? Excited? Satisfied? If a death in a game provokes risk and fear, then it's done it's job. Having meaningless debuffs that can be easily cured does neither. Mobs will still be zerged as their is no fear of permanently player time loss. And again, "time" is the only finite resource, which is why exp loss exponentially increases the risk and fear.
Your responses highlight one thing you see EQ and only EQ...
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Don't understand why they don't use a "down" system. *Snip*
Some good thoughts in your post; however, I'd be worried of the abuse of guilds from having that system. The res from the "downed" state would need to come with significant penalties, moreso than you even listed to avoid zerg (and other) tactics. Make it similar to EQ res effects where you're worthless with 1 in all stats and can't move for 5-10 minutes.
Debuffs on death as a penalty would be nothing more than a nuisance if they could be immediately cured through class interdependency.
If I had a magic debuff that could be dispelled by a wizard/enchanter, I would be begging either class if I wasn't grouped with one. /shout Are there any wizards than can cure mana burn around, will to donate?. If I were grouped with one, and they could simply cast a spell to remove the penalty, then it isn't one at all.
And, if you're saying that even with removal of the penalty there's a 10-15 minute res effects type debuff still, then you're encroaching on tedium/nuisance for the sake of change. And you're trading one penalty that effects a player's time for another, with the exception that you're trying to remove what you call the "Grind" by trying to regain experience and inserting another system that just allows you to /afk until the effects wear off instead of play.
And, if you couldn't find a wizard/enchanter, you'd be wasting more time than you would have by just fighting and trying to regain your experience. Because if the debuff was truly a penalty, it would need to be a debuff to stats of greater than 15-20%, and someone wouldn't want to continue fighting unless it was gone.
And, if you say the penalty is only a 1% reduction (even a stackable 1%), then it's pointless and serves no purpose and you may as well not have any death penalty at all.
Err debuffs work in combination with treks, respawn, weapon/gear damage, etc.. it all ties into the penalty for death, these are game-play systems, XP loss is not, it's systematic punishment, that only results in more grind, that's it. It adds nothing to the game, nor interdependency. It's fake longevity that adds nothing of real value to gameplay.
It's not a deal breaker for me, but it certainly isn't an interesting mechanic.
Since most of this stuff seems to revolve around people wanting EQ's systems. I guess my question for Raidan(this isn't all directed at Raidan in particular) or whoever would be:
Why are people okay with clerics being able to rez back all your lost exp. instantly, but not okay with people being able to cure a debuff?
Why are curable debuffs so bad? I mean you'd still have to find someone to cure it and then run back to wherever. It seems to me that'd be worse than just having a cleric instantly port you back to your body. I don't see any real difference between the two? I haven't seen anyone shouting out against resurrection, which pretty much removes the death penalty entirely in EQ and instantly teleports you back to your death spot.
It seems like people in favor of harsh death are perfectly okay with being able to completely and totally negate death through clerics, but not okay with lesser penalties that can't be negated, for instance. If everyone is so hard up for punishment, why isn't that camp begging for no experience rezzing?
I'm not promoting either of those particular systems, mind you -- just asking since there's so much overlap and contradiction.
30 min into the stream and I am loving what I am seeing. I think you may have taken wanting a EQ throwback to literally. IMO things like losing EXP on death is not needed any more. Just stops people from taking risks and sometimes breaks up teams before they can learn each other styles of play but I can deal with it. As far as the graphics, I would play it as it stands but I would not get upset if they got an upgrade. For Alpha state, I have no clue why people are upset. Going to watch the rest and may post more thoughts.
Losing xp is exactly what the majority want. We want to know we need to be careful and not chew off more than we can handle.
To many games now have little to no repercussions for dying.
I have seen all the other brilliant ideas and no thanks for me...i want to know that if i die i will be penalized...it makes you try and get better as a player and make more informed decisions about who or what you are attacking.. Too many games just let you zerg content over and over with no real penalty for dying.
Oh here go repair your gear...slap on hand.....you should not have died you bad boy...
Eq actually made me think..shit do i really wanna try and kill this? Nowadays just run in and try...nothing to lose if you die.
Screw that.
I hate to break it to you. But NO harsh death penalties did not make you be a better player. I met so many players in UO and FFXI that had harsh death penalties and they never learned. Most quit. Harsh death penalties are wanting by a handful of people on this forum. Just like LFR is wanting by a handful of people on the WOW forum. Yet why has WOW been bleeding subs? Thats right because tools like LFR yet Developers think that is what the majority want. Yet of the 10 or so friends that where on the Pantheon stream that got me into it, not 1 of them posted on the Pantheon forums or here. Guess what they just voted with their wallets.
There is a huge disconnect between what Forum goers like me want and what people like my wife wants who has posted on any forum a whole 10 times, And that was to jump into a conversation she wanted to be a part of or my 2 best gaming friends who only posted on MMO Technical help for that game forum. Most people dont post on a forum to give their opinions. They just will or will not spend their money.
Now in the defense of Pantheon. The game should do what it wants because its what the developers love and what they feel passionate about they should TRY To do. It does not mean they will be successful but there is no reason to stop them. Right now if my group of friends is not interested either am I. I have the right to say that.
WoW is bleeding subs because it's an 11 year old game that is receiving fewer and fewer updates while trying to charge as much or more than ever.
Back when every game had a harsh death WoW was like a breath of fresh air. Now that no game has a harsh death penalty there is almost certainly room for at least one game with some oldschool harshness. Not everyone liking a feature is just fine. Trying to create games that appeal to everyone has lead to 10 years of stagnation.
Comments
After all, no experience better than doing it, failing and coming back to try again etc.
Too easily abused as a game mechanic, of course, but an interesting thought.
I think the whole solo leads to small group leads to raid group thing is kind of stupid, IMO.
I like the idea of small group content to level, small group content to end-game, small group content at end-game.
A challenging 5-6 person dungeon or whatever can be just as difficult as a 20-40 person raid. The only thing more difficult is the organization of the larger group, and the coordination/control by the raid leaders, but there is no reason small group content can't be as challenging in terms of technical game play.
If anything small group can be MORE challenging because each player gains more responsibility in a smaller group. Each loss/death in the group is felt more clearly.
Perfect compromise, IMO between soft death (no penalty) and harsh death.
It encourages group play too, very well designed.
Project Gorgon does this. Death experience ends up granting slight passive stat increases. Not enough to want to spend all day dying, but means an encounter is never a complete waste.
I swear, the big MMO devs just don't brainstorm up this kind of creative shit anymore.
1. Being able to put points into attributes every two levels or so(ala Vanguard)
2. Skill gains(such as weapon skills, parry, etc) shouldn't max out as soon as you level. Vanguard did this after a while and it made the skills pretty useless and just a number to stare at. One of the great things about Everquest was the fact that you still had to work on your skills throughout the game and it gave you something extra to work on and improve.
3. Being able to spend 5-10 points on skills when you level up.
They don't seem like much, but they really add more depth to the game and aren't difficult to implement. A lot of small things like this IMO add a lot to the game and give you more things to look forward to as you progress.
Feel the BUUURNNNNNNN
I think larger group content is cool simply because there is something "epic" about being a part of a 20 person team vs. a 5 person team. Or taking part in a 100 person battle vs. a 5 vs. 5 etc.
Why that is? I think simply that pop culture has taught us that large scale battles between armies and such are really cool.
As a counter point, the real epic battles are always the most intimate - one vs. one.
So what's the point?
THERE IS NONE! HAH!
No the real point is that raids exist and existed in the early MMOs like EQ because it was cool and something you couldn't get in other games, large scale group content. That's it.
There is literally no other gameplay advantage or design theory etc. that makes large group somehow better than smaller group, in fact there are many more valid/true game design reasons NOT to have large group content.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
“Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new.”
Albert Einstein
I've always liked penalties (or consequences) in games. Just the way I am. I think pain makes things feel real and so it's immersive. Without it, it's just a game and I can't be absorbed in it. BUT I don't want consequences to be too unforeseeable. The best consequences are the ones we can prevent or can be foreshadowed by our choices. However, I understand it's hard--or impractical--to make ALL consequences foreshadowed by choices. I also understand everbody has different aptitudes and so some will suffer disproportionately. For example, a twitch heavy dungeon with big consequences for failure would disproportionally affect gamers who have low twitch aptitude.
But I don't expect Pantheon to have a death penalty or no maps or no GPS or similar. I will play it regardless of what it does. So don't take what I say the wrong way. I'm just stating opinions what I like in the best circumstances. Yet I understand if Pantheon were to have a big death penalty and no GPS and no maps and so on, it'd be suicide for its future success.
Instead what I hope for is a sort of survival server or a survival class. The survival server would have bigger death penalties and more dangers in general. The survivor class would be similar, but there'd be no benefit or advantage to it. Someone who chooses a survivor class will level slower and suffer larger penalties. They'd not be stronger or more powerful. They might get a title, that's all. The game would have to balance everything so if these players group with normal players everything is ok and other factors.
(If that isn't there, I'll still play Pantheon.)
It's easy to see all of this as just mashochism or needless punishment if you don't enjoy it yourself. It's the same for GPS on maps. Why would someone not want GPS or not want detailed maps? Immersion. That's why. As I said, a game without frustration isn't as real and not as immersive. Myself being this way, I can't take a game seriously if it doesn't have some consequences. I cherish the feeling of having to jump over a chasm. If I fall, I die and lose time. But let me say: It's a great, awesome feeling. That's what I want in games. It's not as fun when games remove the consequences. The chasm loses its aura of danger. The intensity lessens. I lose interest. I might fall asleep.
And if you want to use a real world example here ya go...think of it like this...ever had a serious concussion? You can actually forget what happened to yourself. Think of death as a worse version of that, you forget a certain amount of life experience, but you regain it as you start playing again.
If we are using debuffs do not allow classes to cure them otherwise whats the point it is again no longer a penalty, it is a ploy for the lazy folks to not have to worry about a real penalty.
BUT I want to play the devil's advocate. I've played hte devil's advocate so much since I was younger, I don't know if I'm a troll or if I actually work for the devil.
(And no I don't intentionally troll, if I by chance am somehow a troll. It's best explained as I care about what others think who disagree with me. Strongly, even. A flaw?)
Personally, I don't think it makes us better players. The strain of knowing consequences are heavy might make players more careful, but it's easy to be too carefully or just plain not enjoy the discomfort. Players don't respond the same way to it. Some will play worse because of it. Some players will play their best when the consequences are least.
Also sometimes s*** happens and it isn't our fault. Heavy consequences make it even more painful. Some peole just cannot handle that at all.
This is what it's:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoIQAX_jOQw
We're adrenaline junkies. Looking for a high. Playing on the edge of danger or extremes. We need it or it isn't compelling.
Please don't take my post the wrong way. Can't I agree and play hte devils advocate too? Will you let me? I've played MMO's for many many years. Ok I've been the adrenaline junky for most of that time. You wouldn't believ some of the things I've done. But in that time I've come to know it's very niche. I know most players aren't like me. And I respect other people's opinion. I probably respect others more than I respect my own opinions.
As far as this goes: I think this is almost a philosophical debate. That said, from a reality perspective, it actually makes a ton of sense to me. Kridak's post below is a good theory on it.
One could easily theorize that dying would be something akin to a concussive state or even dreaming. Even when you remember details from those states, things are rarely clear. So, in theory, memory loss associated with dying is perfectly reasonable.
All that said, I prefer challenging AI that makes it easier to die rather than harshly punishing people for dying to crappy AI/mechanics. I'm all for positively encouraging people to try to improve themselves and take on tougher and tougher challenges rather than deter them with a boatload of punishment.
Debuffs on death as a penalty would be nothing more than a nuisance if they could be immediately cured through class interdependency.
If I had a magic debuff that could be dispelled by a wizard/enchanter, I would be begging either class if I wasn't grouped with one. /shout Are there any wizards than can cure mana burn around, will to donate?. If I were grouped with one, and they could simply cast a spell to remove the penalty, then it isn't one at all.
And, if you're saying that even with removal of the penalty there's a 10-15 minute res effects type debuff still, then you're encroaching on tedium/nuisance for the sake of change. And you're trading one penalty that effects a player's time for another, with the exception that you're trying to remove what you call the "Grind" by trying to regain experience and inserting another system that just allows you to /afk until the effects wear off instead of play.
And, if you couldn't find a wizard/enchanter, you'd be wasting more time than you would have by just fighting and trying to regain your experience. Because if the debuff was truly a penalty, it would need to be a debuff to stats of greater than 15-20%, and someone wouldn't want to continue fighting unless it was gone.
And, if you say the penalty is only a 1% reduction (even a stackable 1%), then it's pointless and serves no purpose and you may as well not have any death penalty at all.
Punish through design skill and creativity, don't use arbitrary systems for the sake of being like EQ... Which is all it really boils down to, no matter what people try and argue about (risk vs reward)... There are simply better ways to do this, yet since they weren't in EQ, that crowd can't comprehend it. Which is quite simply the result of an echo chamber that I can see as possibly ruining the potential of this game.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
It's not a deal breaker for me, but it certainly isn't an interesting mechanic.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Some good thoughts in your post; however, I'd be worried of the abuse of guilds from having that system. The res from the "downed" state would need to come with significant penalties, moreso than you even listed to avoid zerg (and other) tactics. Make it similar to EQ res effects where you're worthless with 1 in all stats and can't move for 5-10 minutes.
Why are people okay with clerics being able to rez back all your lost exp. instantly, but not okay with people being able to cure a debuff?
Why are curable debuffs so bad? I mean you'd still have to find someone to cure it and then run back to wherever. It seems to me that'd be worse than just having a cleric instantly port you back to your body. I don't see any real difference between the two? I haven't seen anyone shouting out against resurrection, which pretty much removes the death penalty entirely in EQ and instantly teleports you back to your death spot.
It seems like people in favor of harsh death are perfectly okay with being able to completely and totally negate death through clerics, but not okay with lesser penalties that can't be negated, for instance. If everyone is so hard up for punishment, why isn't that camp begging for no experience rezzing?
I'm not promoting either of those particular systems, mind you -- just asking since there's so much overlap and contradiction.
Back when every game had a harsh death WoW was like a breath of fresh air. Now that no game has a harsh death penalty there is almost certainly room for at least one game with some oldschool harshness. Not everyone liking a feature is just fine. Trying to create games that appeal to everyone has lead to 10 years of stagnation.