Talking about internet loss something like this could fix the issue.
You need to die more than one time before your char dies.
After some amount of time your death counter decrease by 1.
So, if you have some internet problem and you die, there is nothing to worry, because you will get this life back.
If you are dying because of internet problems faster than your death counter you have a fucked up internet and the problem is not the permadeath feature.
I would predict this game has a very very short life.Once the gankers find out there are only other gankers left in the game to kill. I cannot believe some game developers haven't learned this by now.
You have to take into account that a big part of UO's success came from the fact that it had little to no competition.
And i would not call UO "successful" when EQ has double its subs.
So, it's only the title that's at the top at any given time that can be considered "successful"? You don't think that Origin Systems made some serious moula off of UO? Your statement is illogical.
Just so it's clear, UO's success was the reason that many MMORPGs were given the green light.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
I picture logging in to the game for the very first time... you are at the character creation screen. Tons of awesome classes and races and appearances to choose from. You painstakingly set your parameters and enter a name and click on continue.
*Poof* your character is deleted and a window pops up and says... "You have chosen unwisely, try again".
You try again... this time you alter a few parameters, mainly because you forgot the settings you used...
Again *poof* your character is deleted with the same message.
About 3 tries later you get the message... this game was never meant to be played.
Originally posted by emperorwings Just have a hardcore label. You die, you lose the label and can continue on your character without the hardcore label.
PARADOX is running away as fast as it can from "SALEM"(which has perma-death).How many more perma-death games do some need to know this is a really bad idea.
Originally posted by Shadanwolf PARADOX is running away as fast as it can from "SALEM"(which has perma-death).How many more perma-death games do some need to know this is a really bad idea.
It's not abundantly clear from what I've read so far exactly why Paradox is unloading Salem, but even if it's because it is failing, and if it's failure is due to it's permadeath implementation, I don't think that says a great deal about the very idea of permadeath in an MMO. Salem has been carefully billed as a crafting MMO, yet has this seemingly arbitrary single-life PD mechanic... I can see where this strikes some players as incongruous and ill-conceived. I don't see this as a verdict on PD altogether. There were many failed attemps at building winged flying machines before the first successful airplane. Did those early failures mean that wings were a bad feature, or that they hadn't been properly implemented?
Originally posted by Shadanwolf PARADOX is running away as fast as it can from "SALEM"(which has perma-death).How many more perma-death games do some need to know this is a really bad idea.
It's not abundantly clear from what I've read so far exactly why Paradox is unloading Salem, but even if it's because it is failing, and if it's failure is due to it's permadeath implementation, I don't think that says a great deal about the very idea of permadeath in an MMO. Salem has been carefully billed as a crafting MMO, yet has this seemingly arbitrary single-life PD mechanic... I can see where this strikes some players as incongruous and ill-conceived. I don't see this as a verdict on PD altogether. There were many failed attemps at building winged flying machines before the first successful airplane. Did those early failures mean that wings were a bad feature, or that they hadn't been properly implemented?
There were many attempts at cold fusion too...
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Originally posted by Shadanwolf PARADOX is running away as fast as it can from "SALEM"(which has perma-death).How many more perma-death games do some need to know this is a really bad idea.
It's not abundantly clear from what I've read so far exactly why Paradox is unloading Salem, but even if it's because it is failing, and if it's failure is due to it's permadeath implementation, I don't think that says a great deal about the very idea of permadeath in an MMO. Salem has been carefully billed as a crafting MMO, yet has this seemingly arbitrary single-life PD mechanic... I can see where this strikes some players as incongruous and ill-conceived. I don't see this as a verdict on PD altogether. There were many failed attemps at building winged flying machines before the first successful airplane. Did those early failures mean that wings were a bad feature, or that they hadn't been properly implemented?
There were many attempts at cold fusion too...
Look, not every idea is a good one, and certainly when sufficient in-depth experimentation has been conducted without success, then by all means, call a spade a spade. But I can scarcely see how anyone could argue that permadeath has been implemented by enough developers as to be considered a failure in concept. And as I've said numerous times, some of the commonly cited examples of PD failling are poor examples because either a) they involved a very narrow implementation or b) there's insufficient evidence that PD was the cause of design failure.
I can't say factually that PD is a good idea, all I am saying is that's it's worth exploring.
I can't say factually that PD is a good idea, all I am saying is that's it's worth exploring.
Dunno; how to you explain the rise of "save early/save often" in three-deaths video games, clear back in the 80s?
Why wasn't Donkey Kong played with a single death and no saves? Surely some video game producer somewhere must've tried it, and found it very unpopular--because adding a "save the game before you try anything really hard" became an industry-wide video game standard, somehow.
I submit that game producers did try, early on, rather a lot of compromises between /rawrhardcore and /joecasual, and ended up with the sort of compromise solutions that left the smallest number of players ragequitting.
A death-risk "price point", sort of.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
Originally posted by Shadanwolf PARADOX is running away as fast as it can from "SALEM"(which has perma-death).How many more perma-death games do some need to know this is a really bad idea.
D3 .. perma death option ... 9% characters are hard core. Seems to work well. I don't see a reason not to even consider a PD option.
I can't say factually that PD is a good idea, all I am saying is that's it's worth exploring.
Dunno; how to you explain the rise of "save early/save often" in three-deaths video games, clear back in the 80s?
Why wasn't Donkey Kong played with a single death and no saves? Surely some video game producer somewhere must've tried it, and found it very unpopular--because adding a "save the game before you try anything really hard" became an industry-wide video game standard, somehow.
I submit that game producers did try, early on, rather a lot of compromises between /rawrhardcore and /joecasual, and ended up with the sort of compromise solutions that left the smallest number of players ragequitting.
A death-risk "price point", sort of.
I think I understand what you're getting at. Yes, admittedly the single-player game sector has moved decidely away from "permadeath" over the years, though exceptions remain. But I do think a persistent world game has a lot more to gain from a perma-death type system than does a single-player game, because of the "economy" of resources that players accrue (including wealth, items, and skills) and how those accruals afffect the other players in the game.
Originally posted by Shadanwolf PARADOX is running away as fast as it can from "SALEM"(which has perma-death).How many more perma-death games do some need to know this is a really bad idea.
D3 .. perma death option ... 9% characters are hard core. Seems to work well. I don't see a reason not to even consider a PD option.
Since you're using "characters created" as a measurement, you also have to remember that the average characters per player is far greater with players rolling hardcore characters (because those characters die). Therefore, the actual number of players who play with a PD option is bound to be lower than 9%.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Originally posted by Shadanwolf PARADOX is running away as fast as it can from "SALEM"(which has perma-death).How many more perma-death games do some need to know this is a really bad idea.
D3 .. perma death option ... 9% characters are hard core. Seems to work well. I don't see a reason not to even consider a PD option.
Since you're using "characters created" as a measurement, you also have to remember that the average characters per player is far greater with players rolling hardcore characters (because those characters die). Therefore, the actual number of players who play with a PD option is bound to be lower than 9%.
Yes, in my other thread, i did a full analysis.
It boils down to there are roughly 6M hard core characters. D3 allows for 10 characters max .. so theoretically, the number of players can be as low as 600k. However, since there are only 5 classes, it is probably not likely.
Assuming each players have at most 5 hard core characters seems to be a good assumption. In that case, there are 1.2M players with hard core characters. D3 sold 14.5M boxes.
That comes out to be around 8% of the players have perma death characters.
It doesn't work. I experienced it in Haven and Hearth.
Yes there were the random ISP errors which you think are covered but by their nature they are random. Sometimes YOUR server can be too swamped to respond too. Players shouldn't take a death for that and it's unknowable. My internet is up 99% of the time but some days I can disconnect every 2 hours just for 1 minute increments, that's enough time to get killed by a mob or player while reconnecting. I can only imagine it's storms somewhere else in the pipeline and they are disconnecting and reconnecting lines but there is no warning. Being punished for things out of your control are frustrating.
The puds rule when there is opportunity to be a pud. I've watched it firsthand. In WOW they killed lowbies nonstop even when I and a group of others protected them. If someone can be one shotted, there is no saving them, only attacking the attacker after the fact. Someone is still dead and gets to run back even when protected unless the protector proactively attacks everyone around the person they are protecting then creating the very thing trying to be avoided. Anyone who played WOW will also remember the rogues that just sat around at dungeon entrances killing people on the path there. Why? There was nothing to gain but bothering others and they did it alllllllllllllll night. And I spent allllllllll night many nights protecting other people and never advanced my character except for selling auctions during that time.
In Haven and Hearth there were puds too, people chasing in groups so that they would have advantage over smaller groups or solo players. They attacked my property, me trying to tame wildlife, anywhere I went was danger. It wasn't "fun" to look at everyone as an enemy that I encountered. I made very few friends in the game because it was smarter to run when you saw a person or risk an ambush. That what you want? You'll get that, everyone running from each other especially if ill-equipped.
Even on the last day of a world it was abused. I watched people get killed over and over just coming to the town to talk to people on the final day before the game world restarted, they would say hi then a group of 4 would go destroy them. They came back and tried over and over to meet someone, that's when it started becoming stomach turning watching people abuse others for NO reason, we were all getting killed off the next day.
It wasn't friendly or fun. It was something I will avoid so personal experience taught me that if I want to invest in a character, it can't have perma death unless I'm playing the side that steals from others and outnumbers them, that's who wins in perma-death, those that stack the cards on their side, if they don't invest in their character and steal, they lose little effort. The only people that lose are the people who do things like answer questions in chat for other players instead of focusing only on combat and the quickest way to down someone, maybe not the most graceful or best on resources and stamina but the way to make the most damage as quickly as possible.
It's not the mechanic that is the problem if it would work as expected. It's the people that mess it up. Some people have miserable lives. They make little money, their personality is dull, they aren't very smart, they aren't particularly attractive and they are frankly mad at the world and waiting to take a dump on someone else because real life isn't fulfilling them. They may even have some mental issues, don't know why people think that "crazy" can't buy and play MMOS, there are no restrictions or test to get in, is there. Rather than work on themselves it's easier to turn on the game and get enjoyment making others just as miserable.
Anonymity online can bring out that beast in them. This should explain it for you that haven't experienced them or tried to defend people from them. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTuhuon1j6U
Your tears are all the pay I'll ever need, that's all you need to know.
I'm pretty competitive so for reference any game that has an open PVP server on it, that's the one I join. I don't go the easy route and I've seen it abused in every game, there were none immune to it. You had people like me that would try to hold them back from hurting others but in all honesty it's time consuming to protect other people and eventually they just call in reinforcements because their entire guild are doing the same thing so you get outnumbered trying to be on the "good" side. You'll win one on one fights with them for 1/2 hour then all of a sudden 3 more people show up to help them until they can find enough people to kill you. It's just a matter of numbers.
I'm interested to know why, in your opinion, in a game like H&H (which I don't know a lot about), the "good guys" weren't able to band together to destroy wanton PKers? Would this have played out differently in a game where you have say 50-100 lives and were able to retaliate for your own death after getting PKed? Also, how do you feel about something along the lines of the settlement/reputation system that's planned for Trials of Ascension, where commiting crimes against members of a settlement can put you on a kill-on-sight list for any members of that settlement or their NPC guards? Do you think that would have any effect?
EDIT: I'd just like to point out that the griefing issue doesn't seem to be specifically endemic to PD MMOs. In fact, I don't get the impression that the problem is itself more prevalent in them than it is in other games, though obviously there's more at stake. I feel like there's got to be a way to balance that behavior without completely restricting PvP.
If lag or things that were out of my control were of no concern then I personally would love a MMO which permanantly bans your IP when you die once. I would rather play a game with an end than an MMO that only ends when people get bored of it and leave it as an empty husk of a game that has been forgoten. And ever since watching SAO, I have been looking for games that bring me as close to that as possible. Just my humble opinion.
Originally posted by ThoranTW If lag or things that were out of my control were of no concern then I personally would love a MMO which permanantly bans your IP when you die once. I would rather play a game with an end than an MMO that only ends when people get bored of it and leave it as an empty husk of a game that has been forgoten. And ever since watching SAO, I have been looking for games that bring me as close to that as possible. Just my humble opinion.
It's interesting how SAO seems to have opened a lot of people up to the idea of permadeath in mmos... maybe couching it in a conventional narrative shows how there is at least potential to make the narrative and drama more meaningful in a game context. There are quite a few SAO fans on the Trials of Ascension boards who've heard about it because of the incidental similarities and I guess a cross-posting somewhere. As for banning IPs, that's been bandied about on those forums too, though I don't think the devs are considering it. It's an interesting idea, though it doesn't appeal to at the moment. It does raise an interesting point about how an MMO can't really be experienced again the same way like a single-player game, but that's a whole other conversation topic.
I can't say factually that PD is a good idea, all I am saying is that's it's worth exploring.
Dunno; how to you explain the rise of "save early/save often" in three-deaths video games, clear back in the 80s?
Why wasn't Donkey Kong played with a single death and no saves? Surely some video game producer somewhere must've tried it, and found it very unpopular--because adding a "save the game before you try anything really hard" became an industry-wide video game standard, somehow.
I submit that game producers did try, early on, rather a lot of compromises between /rawrhardcore and /joecasual, and ended up with the sort of compromise solutions that left the smallest number of players ragequitting.
A death-risk "price point", sort of.
I think I understand what you're getting at. Yes, admittedly the single-player game sector has moved decidely away from "permadeath" over the years, though exceptions remain. But I do think a persistent world game has a lot more to gain from a perma-death type system than does a single-player game, because of the "economy" of resources that players accrue (including wealth, items, and skills) and how those accruals afffect the other players in the game.
I for one would not play one.. kind of interested to see how many people would pay money for one. I guess few. F2p might be an option though.
I can't say factually that PD is a good idea, all I am saying is that's it's worth exploring.
Dunno; how to you explain the rise of "save early/save often" in three-deaths video games, clear back in the 80s?
Why wasn't Donkey Kong played with a single death and no saves? Surely some video game producer somewhere must've tried it, and found it very unpopular--because adding a "save the game before you try anything really hard" became an industry-wide video game standard, somehow.
I submit that game producers did try, early on, rather a lot of compromises between /rawrhardcore and /joecasual, and ended up with the sort of compromise solutions that left the smallest number of players ragequitting.
A death-risk "price point", sort of.
I think I understand what you're getting at. Yes, admittedly the single-player game sector has moved decidely away from "permadeath" over the years, though exceptions remain. But I do think a persistent world game has a lot more to gain from a perma-death type system than does a single-player game, because of the "economy" of resources that players accrue (including wealth, items, and skills) and how those accruals afffect the other players in the game.
I for one would not play one.. kind of interested to see how many people would pay money for one. I guess few. F2p might be an option though.
I think there is a small, but significant, contingency of people who would be ready to try a pd game out of the gate. But if it was well-designed and people started reporting back that it was legitimately fun, wouldn't you at least give it a shot? Be it f2p or just a free trial, seems like there wouldn't be much to lose. At worst you could walk away with a well-informed criticism of the game.
I can't say factually that PD is a good idea, all I am saying is that's it's worth exploring.
Dunno; how to you explain the rise of "save early/save often" in three-deaths video games, clear back in the 80s?
Why wasn't Donkey Kong played with a single death and no saves? Surely some video game producer somewhere must've tried it, and found it very unpopular--because adding a "save the game before you try anything really hard" became an industry-wide video game standard, somehow.
I submit that game producers did try, early on, rather a lot of compromises between /rawrhardcore and /joecasual, and ended up with the sort of compromise solutions that left the smallest number of players ragequitting.
A death-risk "price point", sort of.
I think I understand what you're getting at. Yes, admittedly the single-player game sector has moved decidely away from "permadeath" over the years, though exceptions remain. But I do think a persistent world game has a lot more to gain from a perma-death type system than does a single-player game, because of the "economy" of resources that players accrue (including wealth, items, and skills) and how those accruals afffect the other players in the game.
I for one would not play one.. kind of interested to see how many people would pay money for one. I guess few. F2p might be an option though.
I think there is a small, but significant, contingency of people who would be ready to try a pd game out of the gate. But if it was well-designed and people started reporting back that it was legitimately fun, wouldn't you at least give it a shot? Be it f2p or just a free trial, seems like there wouldn't be much to lose. At worst you could walk away with a well-informed criticism of the game.
To be truthful most likely not. I like the option of deciding whether or not to continue playing a character and do not want an unfortunate situation or even worse a game lag to take that decision away from me. I have tried D3's hardcore and must confess I like the tension - not unlike playing EVE and going into low or null sec. But in EVE you always have a clone. To just lose the charater on death is not what I like. To expand upon your premise - what if it was full pvp and you got ganked and then your character is no more? Mostly though I have seen enough little bits of game lag in most games and just one glitch could cost you a level XX character. The higher the level, the worse the cost. Is there a niche for it, sure I'll agree. Last time I checked though niche games were a low priority for the major companies.
I think there is a small, but significant, contingency of people who would be ready to try a pd game out of the gate. But if it was well-designed and people started reporting back that it was legitimately fun, wouldn't you at least give it a shot? Be it f2p or just a free trial, seems like there wouldn't be much to lose. At worst you could walk away with a well-informed criticism of the game.
To be truthful most likely not. I like the option of deciding whether or not to continue playing a character and do not want an unfortunate situation or even worse a game lag to take that decision away from me. I have tried D3's hardcore and must confess I like the tension - not unlike playing EVE and going into low or null sec. But in EVE you always have a clone. To just lose the charater on death is not what I like. To expand upon your premise - what if it was full pvp and you got ganked and then your character is no more? Mostly though I have seen enough little bits of game lag in most games and just one glitch could cost you a level XX character. The higher the level, the worse the cost. Is there a niche for it, sure I'll agree. Last time I checked though niche games were a low priority for the major companies.
That's why I'm in favor of something like a 100-life system rather than a 1-life system. It let's you get a bit deeper into things rather than being just one-and-done because you happened to aggro a powerful mob by accident or lag during PvP. But yeah, you're definitely not gonna see the major companies jumping on this bandwagon any time soon. It's gonna be the little guy or nobody.
Comments
Oh don't be daft, of course its not true! Next you will argue that the earth is flat, no doubt.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
And i would not call UO "successful" when EQ has double its subs.
Talking about internet loss something like this could fix the issue.
You need to die more than one time before your char dies.
After some amount of time your death counter decrease by 1.
So, if you have some internet problem and you die, there is nothing to worry, because you will get this life back.
If you are dying because of internet problems faster than your death counter you have a fucked up internet and the problem is not the permadeath feature.
So, it's only the title that's at the top at any given time that can be considered "successful"? You don't think that Origin Systems made some serious moula off of UO? Your statement is illogical.
Just so it's clear, UO's success was the reason that many MMORPGs were given the green light.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
I picture logging in to the game for the very first time... you are at the character creation screen. Tons of awesome classes and races and appearances to choose from. You painstakingly set your parameters and enter a name and click on continue.
*Poof* your character is deleted and a window pops up and says... "You have chosen unwisely, try again".
You try again... this time you alter a few parameters, mainly because you forgot the settings you used...
Again *poof* your character is deleted with the same message.
About 3 tries later you get the message... this game was never meant to be played.
people would complain about that too
It's not abundantly clear from what I've read so far exactly why Paradox is unloading Salem, but even if it's because it is failing, and if it's failure is due to it's permadeath implementation, I don't think that says a great deal about the very idea of permadeath in an MMO. Salem has been carefully billed as a crafting MMO, yet has this seemingly arbitrary single-life PD mechanic... I can see where this strikes some players as incongruous and ill-conceived. I don't see this as a verdict on PD altogether. There were many failed attemps at building winged flying machines before the first successful airplane. Did those early failures mean that wings were a bad feature, or that they hadn't been properly implemented?
There were many attempts at cold fusion too...
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Look, not every idea is a good one, and certainly when sufficient in-depth experimentation has been conducted without success, then by all means, call a spade a spade. But I can scarcely see how anyone could argue that permadeath has been implemented by enough developers as to be considered a failure in concept. And as I've said numerous times, some of the commonly cited examples of PD failling are poor examples because either a) they involved a very narrow implementation or b) there's insufficient evidence that PD was the cause of design failure.
I can't say factually that PD is a good idea, all I am saying is that's it's worth exploring.
Dunno; how to you explain the rise of "save early/save often" in three-deaths video games, clear back in the 80s?
Why wasn't Donkey Kong played with a single death and no saves? Surely some video game producer somewhere must've tried it, and found it very unpopular--because adding a "save the game before you try anything really hard" became an industry-wide video game standard, somehow.
I submit that game producers did try, early on, rather a lot of compromises between /rawrhardcore and /joecasual, and ended up with the sort of compromise solutions that left the smallest number of players ragequitting.
A death-risk "price point", sort of.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
D3 .. perma death option ... 9% characters are hard core. Seems to work well. I don't see a reason not to even consider a PD option.
I think I understand what you're getting at. Yes, admittedly the single-player game sector has moved decidely away from "permadeath" over the years, though exceptions remain. But I do think a persistent world game has a lot more to gain from a perma-death type system than does a single-player game, because of the "economy" of resources that players accrue (including wealth, items, and skills) and how those accruals afffect the other players in the game.
Since you're using "characters created" as a measurement, you also have to remember that the average characters per player is far greater with players rolling hardcore characters (because those characters die). Therefore, the actual number of players who play with a PD option is bound to be lower than 9%.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Yes, in my other thread, i did a full analysis.
It boils down to there are roughly 6M hard core characters. D3 allows for 10 characters max .. so theoretically, the number of players can be as low as 600k. However, since there are only 5 classes, it is probably not likely.
Assuming each players have at most 5 hard core characters seems to be a good assumption. In that case, there are 1.2M players with hard core characters. D3 sold 14.5M boxes.
That comes out to be around 8% of the players have perma death characters.
I'm interested to know why, in your opinion, in a game like H&H (which I don't know a lot about), the "good guys" weren't able to band together to destroy wanton PKers? Would this have played out differently in a game where you have say 50-100 lives and were able to retaliate for your own death after getting PKed? Also, how do you feel about something along the lines of the settlement/reputation system that's planned for Trials of Ascension, where commiting crimes against members of a settlement can put you on a kill-on-sight list for any members of that settlement or their NPC guards? Do you think that would have any effect?
EDIT: I'd just like to point out that the griefing issue doesn't seem to be specifically endemic to PD MMOs. In fact, I don't get the impression that the problem is itself more prevalent in them than it is in other games, though obviously there's more at stake. I feel like there's got to be a way to balance that behavior without completely restricting PvP.
It's interesting how SAO seems to have opened a lot of people up to the idea of permadeath in mmos... maybe couching it in a conventional narrative shows how there is at least potential to make the narrative and drama more meaningful in a game context. There are quite a few SAO fans on the Trials of Ascension boards who've heard about it because of the incidental similarities and I guess a cross-posting somewhere. As for banning IPs, that's been bandied about on those forums too, though I don't think the devs are considering it. It's an interesting idea, though it doesn't appeal to at the moment. It does raise an interesting point about how an MMO can't really be experienced again the same way like a single-player game, but that's a whole other conversation topic.
I for one would not play one.. kind of interested to see how many people would pay money for one. I guess few. F2p might be an option though.
Currently bored with MMO's.
I think there is a small, but significant, contingency of people who would be ready to try a pd game out of the gate. But if it was well-designed and people started reporting back that it was legitimately fun, wouldn't you at least give it a shot? Be it f2p or just a free trial, seems like there wouldn't be much to lose. At worst you could walk away with a well-informed criticism of the game.
To be truthful most likely not. I like the option of deciding whether or not to continue playing a character and do not want an unfortunate situation or even worse a game lag to take that decision away from me. I have tried D3's hardcore and must confess I like the tension - not unlike playing EVE and going into low or null sec. But in EVE you always have a clone. To just lose the charater on death is not what I like. To expand upon your premise - what if it was full pvp and you got ganked and then your character is no more? Mostly though I have seen enough little bits of game lag in most games and just one glitch could cost you a level XX character. The higher the level, the worse the cost. Is there a niche for it, sure I'll agree. Last time I checked though niche games were a low priority for the major companies.
Currently bored with MMO's.
That's why I'm in favor of something like a 100-life system rather than a 1-life system. It let's you get a bit deeper into things rather than being just one-and-done because you happened to aggro a powerful mob by accident or lag during PvP. But yeah, you're definitely not gonna see the major companies jumping on this bandwagon any time soon. It's gonna be the little guy or nobody.