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.
If a debuff was truly on par with experience loss from a death, I wouldn't have a problem with it. I just think getting a cleric to your corpse is much more problematic than simply seeking out a player that can dispel a debuff. As Raiden spoke of multiple times, it all comes down to time. Time spent can make an item feel valuable or, in the case of time lost, add tension to combat. There is not much else you can do design-wise to create those feelings. There are other ways to address the time factor, but I just don't see a change in death penalty as necessary if they are essentially doing the same thing.
As I spoke of earlier, the thing about losing experience is that it was meant to be the greatest challenge when you still had a lot of xp and levels to achieve. It wasn't just a shallow mechanic to keep the player perpetually grinding experience, it was a mechanic of learning and was meant to eventually be mitigated at higher levels by class interdependence (much like travel was by group teleports).
Perhaps a resurrection spell shouldn't completely negate death. I personally wouldn't be against it capping at 75 or even 50% xp restoration, but like I already pointed out, getting a cleric to your corpse can, at times, take as long as it would to earn your experience back. That and it was meant to be a social challenge encouraging players to work together.
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.
I
. It wasn't just a shallow mechanic to keep the player perpetually grinding experience,
That's where I'd say you were wrong...at least IMO, as that is the penalty in a nutshell (more grind), you have to regrind the XP you've previously earned, so it doubles the time it takes to achieve said XP. That's the very definition of grind as far as games go.
Any penalty is going to teach you something, yet there are penalties that add depth to game-play as well as interactivity between players, then there are penalties that essentially add nothing at all but tedium on an individual player level. I'd say XP loss falls closer to the latter than the former.
Death penalties can be deeply ingrained into the fabric of a game, promoting different play-styles outside of combat, creating stronger community relation. Which is the chief overall goal here. What's really more important to an MMORPG; systematic punishment, or communal reliance? Under the premise of XP loss, the only promotion of grouping and socialization is in not dying. That's it, that's the extent of your worry. It's the extent of player reliance.
To argue in anyway that it promotes more socialization than the methods laid out here by others, is disingenuous IMO. JUst as acting as though it's harsher, so it's better at teaching a lesson would be.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
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.
I
. It wasn't just a shallow mechanic to keep the player perpetually grinding experience,
That's where I'd say you were wrong...at least IMO, as that is the penalty in a nutshell (more grind), you have to regrind the XP you've previously earned, so it doubles the time it takes to achieve said XP. That's the very definition of grind as far as games go.
That wouldn't fall into the perpetual grind category (please, just stop and read before objecting). While grouping at max level, getting a rez became the norm. At that point, there were new challenges introduced (like harder content) rather than merely worrying about restoring lost experience. So... clearly they did not intend for it to be a shallow way to keep a player grinding forever.
Not that there weren't plenty of ways to encourage players to continue playing. The addition of levels, Alternate advancement, new content, etc. However, down the line, death basically dropped off this list unless you were playing alone, far away from civilization. Even then, at cap it didn't matter because, unless you were horrible, you gained more experience than lost.
You raise a good point, and, if you look at my original posts in this thread, you'll see that I argued that people are remembering EQ's death penalty incorrectly, and it wasn't as harsh as people are claiming and that it was trivialized as you say at max level by cleric resses. So, the penalty really is only for the journey from 1 to 50. However, the reason why this is important is people did "learn" their class better due to those penalties from 1-50. And, once you hit max level, players were more skilled and knowledgeable of their classes, and you could take on more challenges without fear of constant exp loss due to having high level cleric resses. Once you hit max, or are on alts, most everyone knows a cleric friend or guildie that could provide the res.
But, to Dullahan's point, the reason I still vote for exp loss versus debuffs is there's no debuff system that has been implemented or that has been proposed in this thread that can replicate the factor of lost "time." And yes, losing time sucks, and I didn't like it either, but no system had made me respect/fear death more. And as a result, that fear/respect of death made me (and others) a better player.
And, again, the time loss is really for the first journey from 1-50, after that, if you're socializing at all, those who don't like the death penalty should be satisfied by cleric (and I'm sure other classes similar to VG) being able to res.
But like Dullahan, if you or others could propose a system that could replicate that, or make it even more difficult, I wouldn't be opposed to positive change.
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.
I
. It wasn't just a shallow mechanic to keep the player perpetually grinding experience,
That's where I'd say you were wrong...at least IMO, as that is the penalty in a nutshell (more grind), you have to regrind the XP you've previously earned, so it doubles the time it takes to achieve said XP. That's the very definition of grind as far as games go.
That wouldn't fall into the perpetual grind category (please, just stop and read before objecting). While grouping at max level, getting a rez became the norm. At that point, there were new challenges introduced (like harder content) rather than merely worrying about restoring lost experience. So... clearly they did not intend for it to be a shallow way to keep a player grinding forever.
Not that there weren't plenty of ways to encourage players to continue playing. The addition of levels, Alternate advancement, new content, etc. However, down the line, death basically dropped off this list unless you were playing alone, far away from civilization. Even then, at cap it didn't matter because, unless you were horrible, you gained more experience than lost.
I didn't say it keeps people grinding forever, I'm aware of that, I'm saying the penalty itself is more grind. That's the result of death in a nutshell, tedium. WHich really only serves as an artificial sense of longevity in the end. I honestly didn't take your use of "perpetual" in a literal sense, rather more so exaggeration. IF that's the case I'll apologize for saying you're wrong. Yet I'll still stand by my initial argument in regard to the benefits of one system over the other.
IN the end like I said before I can live with XP loss, I just don't consider it a system with much thought put into it. IF they're using it because it's easy and requires less work I can understand that. They're a small team. On the other hand if they're simply going with it because it's like EQ, I think they could do better.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
But like Dullahan, if you or others could propose a system that could replicate that, or make it even more difficult, I wouldn't be opposed to positive change.
IS grind difficult? Gaining back lost XP is not difficulty. Difficulty is what comes before dying.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
But like Dullahan, if you or others could propose a system that could replicate that, or make it even more difficult, I wouldn't be opposed to positive change.
IS grind difficult? Gaining back lost XP is not difficulty. Difficulty is what comes before dying.
And to that I say, where is the difficulty if you have nothing to lose? What, the challenge of learning an encounter, how to properly use an ability, when to use said ability, where to go to find something you need? Those forms of difficulty are so much easier to circumvent than time. Next you'll suggest you increase those forms of difficulty further, which always leads to changing the game from one about strategy and cooperative play to one about personal reflexes, memorizing patterns or pushing buttons faster. Go ahead and go there though, I'll have this quote ready when we arrive.
But like Dullahan, if you or others could propose a system that could replicate that, or make it even more difficult, I wouldn't be opposed to positive change.
IS grind difficult? Gaining back lost XP is not difficulty. Difficulty is what comes before dying.
And to that I say, where is the difficulty if you have nothing to lose? What, the challenge of learning an encounter, how to properly use an ability, when to use said ability, where to go to find something you need? Those forms of difficulty are so much easier to circumvent than time. Next you'll suggest you increase those forms of difficulty further, which always leads to changing the game from one about strategy and cooperative play to one about personal reflexes, memorizing patterns or pushing buttons faster. Go ahead and go there though, I'll have this quote ready when we arrive.
Who said anything about losing nothing? Or not losing time? Stiff death penalties can result in the loss of items, Gear, stats (which need to be healed... which costs time)...
Have you actually read the things people are suggesting, or do you just nope it all outright?
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
But like Dullahan, if you or others could propose a system that could replicate that, or make it even more difficult, I wouldn't be opposed to positive change.
IS grind difficult? Gaining back lost XP is not difficulty. Difficulty is what comes before dying.
And to that I say, where is the difficulty if you have nothing to lose? What, the challenge of learning an encounter, how to properly use an ability, when to use said ability, where to go to find something you need? Those forms of difficulty are so much easier to circumvent than time. Next you'll suggest you increase those forms of difficulty further, which always leads to changing the game from one about strategy and cooperative play to one about personal reflexes, memorizing patterns or pushing buttons faster. Go ahead and go there though, I'll have this quote ready when we arrive.
Who said anything about losing nothing? Or not losing time? Stiff death penalties can result in the loss of items, Gear, stats (which need to be healed... which costs time)...
Have you actually read the things people are suggesting, or do you just nope it all outright?
Considering I've addressed just about every single suggestion specifically, I think the real question is do you actually read what I write or just nope it outright?
I think its logical to assume if you're so against experience loss, you must have a problem with a loss of time mechanic. I've already said we could exchange one loss of time mechanic for another, but what is the point. So, if there is any logic in what you're saying and you aren't arguing just to argue, you must be opposed to time-loss mechanics. As such, the assumption that you want to replace it with "difficulty before dying" rather than loss of time is justified.
Considering I've addressed just about every single suggestion specifically, I think the real question is do you actually read what I write or just nope it outright?
I think its logical to assume if you're so against experience loss, you must have a problem with a loss of time mechanic. I've already said we could exchange one loss of time mechanic for another, but what is the point. So, if there is any logic in what you're saying and you aren't arguing just to argue, you must be opposed to time-loss mechanics. As such, the assumption that you want to replace it with "difficulty before dying" rather than loss of time is justified.
Loss of time and loss of progress are two different things. That aside it's not the loss in this that bothers me at all, it's that there is no actual benefit to the system what so ever. Hence why I said I can live with it, yet find it to add nothing of worth to the experience. Thsi is where my question comes into play as you'd know this if you read my initial suggestions, they contained plenty of loss, yet loss that benefits the actual communal as well as other aspects of the game. Item loss benefits commerce, it benefits the need to stay alive, it benefits the need to gain wealth, Yet it doesn't erase past deeds.
Wounds create downtime, extended social healing (think SWG's doctors & Dancers) creates down time with other players, it adds utility to classes other than combat ability.
There are plenty of ways to add stiff penalty yet benefit the rest of the game.
My reaction to XP loss isn't Oh noo! that's too harsh, it's woohoo:( in a very sarcastic myopic voice.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Considering I've addressed just about every single suggestion specifically, I think the real question is do you actually read what I write or just nope it outright?
I think its logical to assume if you're so against experience loss, you must have a problem with a loss of time mechanic. I've already said we could exchange one loss of time mechanic for another, but what is the point. So, if there is any logic in what you're saying and you aren't arguing just to argue, you must be opposed to time-loss mechanics. As such, the assumption that you want to replace it with "difficulty before dying" rather than loss of time is justified.
Loss of time and loss of progress are two different things.
No, they're not. Progress takes time, if you're losing progress, you're losing time. If you lose time, you're losing potential progress.
That aside it's not the loss in this that bothers me at all, it's that there is no actual benefit to the system what so ever.
Except for the dozen or so things that have been expounded upon here in no small detail. Reread it or don't, but I won't be spending any more time expounding on it for your sake.
Considering I've addressed just about every single suggestion specifically, I think the real question is do you actually read what I write or just nope it outright?
I think its logical to assume if you're so against experience loss, you must have a problem with a loss of time mechanic. I've already said we could exchange one loss of time mechanic for another, but what is the point. So, if there is any logic in what you're saying and you aren't arguing just to argue, you must be opposed to time-loss mechanics. As such, the assumption that you want to replace it with "difficulty before dying" rather than loss of time is justified.
Loss of time and loss of progress are two different things.
No, they're not. Progress takes time, if you're losing progress, you're losing time. If you lose time, you're losing potential progress.
That aside it's not the loss in this that bothers me at all, it's that there is no actual benefit to the system what so ever.
Except for the dozen or so things that have been expounded upon here in no small detail. Reread it or don't, but I won't be spending any more time expounding on it for your sake.
Please reply to the body of my posts that have explained these points... Otherwise you're wasting my time.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Loss of time and loss of progress are two different things.
No, they're not. Progress takes time, if you're losing progress, you're losing time. If you lose time, you're losing potential progress.
That aside it's not the loss in this that bothers me at all, it's that there is no actual benefit to the system what so ever.
Except for the dozen or so things that have been expounded upon here in no small detail. Reread it or don't, but I won't be spending any more time expounding on it for your sake.
Please reply to the body of my posts that have explained these points... Otherwise you're wasting my time.
I'll make that a bit easier..
"Any penalty is going to teach you something, yet there are penalties that add depth to game-play as well as interactivity between players, then there are penalties that essentially add nothing at all but tedium on an individual player level. I'd say XP loss falls closer to the latter than the former."
"Death penalties can be deeply ingrained into the fabric of a game, promoting different play-styles outside of combat, creating stronger community relation. Which is the chief overall goal here. What's really more important to an MMORPG; systematic punishment, or communal reliance? Under the premise of XP loss, the only promotion of grouping and socialization is in not dying. That's it, that's the extent of your worry. It's the extent of player reliance."
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
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.
If a debuff was truly on par with experience loss from a death, I wouldn't have a problem with it. I just think getting a cleric to your corpse is much more problematic than simply seeking out a player that can dispel a debuff. As Raiden spoke of multiple times, it all comes down to time. Time spent can make an item feel valuable or, in the case of time lost, add tension to combat. There is not much else you can do design-wise to create those feelings. There are other ways to address the time factor, but I just don't see a change in death penalty as necessary if they are essentially doing the same thing.
As I spoke of earlier, the thing about losing experience is that it was meant to be the greatest challenge when you still had a lot of xp and levels to achieve. It wasn't just a shallow mechanic to keep the player perpetually grinding experience, it was a mechanic of learning and was meant to eventually be mitigated at higher levels by class interdependence (much like travel was by group teleports).
Perhaps a resurrection spell shouldn't completely negate death. I personally wouldn't be against it capping at 75 or even 50% xp restoration, but like I already pointed out, getting a cleric to your corpse can, at times, take as long as it would to earn your experience back. That and it was meant to be a social challenge encouraging players to work together.
I am truly thinking of the game and the good of it. I want to see as many people as needed to play this game to keep content rolling. The big problem with exp loss is low levels you have so few tools to deal with it that most of the negative effects really only land on new people to the game leveling for the first time. By the time you get to endgame you dont care any more. You have people you can rely on to get fast exp to recover. Reses from friends and guildies. Ports to get you back to your corpse and Necros to summon your corpse.
So dinging people learning the game now days wont have the effect it did 17 years ago where the only real quality option was EQ1. EXP loss does only one thing. Makes people think twice about taking risks. Adds a fear element. Does it do anything else for the new gamer? Does it add depth to their class? Does it bring people together? Does it bring interdependence? Do it add to the economy? A debuff system on death, if done so its impacting can bring these things and this is just one way to add risk. Other layers can be added. So you can have risk of death thats impacting and add more than just a grind.
Exp loss does add fear of death but thats all it does and nothing more. I am sure the devs could put their minds together and come up with something better than this. I expect more as many other gamers feel the same way. Its time to bring back the old and add to it. Not just a pure recycle. Gamers expect more or they should.
This is just another title trying to ''re-kindle'' the passion of the past. The audience will be extremly niche and it will by no means cater to the younger gaming audience that is more into the streamlined experience.
People love to be hipsters trying to prove that everything big studios develope is garbage and nothing but cloning. Others love to point out how ''watered down'' MMORPG's is what is ruining the genre and we should go back to ''real MMO's''. Well, this won't happen sadly. Wildstar was a complete flop due to the game catering to the hardcore crowd. Sure, the game itself has alot of flaws, but in my opinion, the game was polished enough to hold people's interest if it wasn't so focused on ''hard core'' mode.
The future of MMO's is in something new. I don't think catering to the ''old MMO players'' by making nostalgia titles will work. Not disregarding the developers of this game or anything, but this is the reality of the industry.
Many people will hype this up due to: 1. Indie developers and people like to support them since they always seem more trustworthy than let's say Ubisoft. 2. Nostalgic gameplay which brings back memeories of past MMO's.
Now, don't get me wrong. I don't think the game looks bad by any means. I also do realize it is catering to the old school crowd. It is just that I don't have much faith in that specific crowd. Old school players usually talk abot nostalgia all the time, but when nostlagic titles come out, they end up abondoning them nontheless due to ''ehh, this is not what I thought it would be'' and ''man, this isn't like before''.
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.
If a debuff was truly on par with experience loss from a death, I wouldn't have a problem with it. I just think getting a cleric to your corpse is much more problematic than simply seeking out a player that can dispel a debuff. As Raiden spoke of multiple times, it all comes down to time. Time spent can make an item feel valuable or, in the case of time lost, add tension to combat. There is not much else you can do design-wise to create those feelings. There are other ways to address the time factor, but I just don't see a change in death penalty as necessary if they are essentially doing the same thing.
As I spoke of earlier, the thing about losing experience is that it was meant to be the greatest challenge when you still had a lot of xp and levels to achieve. It wasn't just a shallow mechanic to keep the player perpetually grinding experience, it was a mechanic of learning and was meant to eventually be mitigated at higher levels by class interdependence (much like travel was by group teleports).
Perhaps a resurrection spell shouldn't completely negate death. I personally wouldn't be against it capping at 75 or even 50% xp restoration, but like I already pointed out, getting a cleric to your corpse can, at times, take as long as it would to earn your experience back. That and it was meant to be a social challenge encouraging players to work together.
I am truly thinking of the game and the good of it. I want to see as many people as needed to play this game to keep content rolling. The big problem with exp loss is low levels you have so few tools to deal with it that most of the negative effects really only land on new people to the game leveling for the first time. By the time you get to endgame you dont care any more. You have people you can rely on to get fast exp to recover. Reses from friends and guildies. Ports to get you back to your corpse and Necros to summon your corpse.
So dinging people learning the game now days wont have the effect it did 17 years ago where the only real quality option was EQ1. EXP loss does only one thing. Makes people think twice about taking risks. Adds a fear element. Does it do anything else for the new gamer? Does it add depth to their class? Does it bring people together? Does it bring interdependence? Do it add to the economy? A debuff system on death, if done so its impacting can bring these things and this is just one way to add risk. Other layers can be added. So you can have risk of death thats impacting and add more than just a grind.
Exp loss does add fear of death but thats all it does and nothing more. I am sure the devs could put their minds together and come up with something better than this. I expect more as many other gamers feel the same way. Its time to bring back the old and add to it. Not just a pure recycle. Gamers expect more or they should.
Debuff on death, so you mean I just have to afk for 5 minutes and take a piss while my debuff wears off, then I can continue? Sounds like a real tough death penalty to me... cough not.
I can see where you're going with your theory, and while you may be correct that there MAY be some system that is better for punishing players time-wise than exp loss, you haven't suggested a good way yet, and neither has anyone else, until then, exp loss stays.
Also, on the note of lower level players, I just want to throw out there that the amount of exp you lost sub level 20 was so little that you could make it back faster than you could find a rez. It was a deterrent to zerging and slack-brained play, but not really a sting.
The biggest component of the death penalty of Everquest was really the corpse. Without a corpse run there can be nothing, because if all I'm risking is a little exp for venturing into that dungeon to try to get some phats, then I'm not risking anything but a little time. If I'm risking my corpse, that's an entirely different matter, because if I cant find someone to help me get it out, I could be in for some real trouble.
You know, after thinking on this a little more and reading a few more replies, I might borrow from SWG a bit. For those that never played, your max HAM (Health, Action, Mind) would decrease everytime you died. In my case, I ventured too close to the saarlac pit once and all 3 bars were almost totally black. One then had to head over to the Med Center and let a doctor or medic heal those wounds. Doctors could do this very quickly, while medics were quite a bit slower.
Obviously, the same system wouldn't work in Pantheon simply because crafting in SWG is what supported this system, but if the goal is to promote interdependency and socialization, then why not use the idea? It would also give those healing classes a way to work for tips in a way that is needed while keeping death meaningful. Or, you know, we can stick with the same old tired XP loss system.
Whether XP loss is in or not won't keep me from playing, but Pantheon is not intended to be very innovative in the first place. I think this is one area where we could effect a change that might move the genre forward for once.
This is just another title trying to ''re-kindle'' the passion of the past. The audience will be extremly niche and it will by no means cater to the younger gaming audience that is more into the streamlined experience.
People love to be hipsters trying to prove that everything big studios develope is garbage and nothing but cloning. Others love to point out how ''watered down'' MMORPG's is what is ruining the genre and we should go back to ''real MMO's''. Well, this won't happen sadly. Wildstar was a complete flop due to the game catering to the hardcore crowd. Sure, the game itself has alot of flaws, but in my opinion, the game was polished enough to hold people's interest if it wasn't so focused on ''hard core'' mode.
The future of MMO's is in something new. I don't think catering to the ''old MMO players'' by making nostalgia titles will work. Not disregarding the developers of this game or anything, but this is the reality of the industry.
Many people will hype this up due to: 1. Indie developers and people like to support them since they always seem more trustworthy than let's say Ubisoft. 2. Nostalgic gameplay which brings back memeories of past MMO's.
Now, don't get me wrong. I don't think the game looks bad by any means. I also do realize it is catering to the old school crowd. It is just that I don't have much faith in that specific crowd. Old school players usually talk abot nostalgia all the time, but when nostlagic titles come out, they end up abondoning them nontheless due to ''ehh, this is not what I thought it would be'' and ''man, this isn't like before''.
Nostalgia titles such as what? What were these titles, that players abandoned? If you're talking about Wildstar, I'm going to have to disagree, as it didn't even successfully emulate classic WoW, let alone first gen MMOs. The last game even close to a classic MMO was Vanguard, and despite the fact that we knew the game was unfinished and full of bugs, over a quarter of a million people pre-ordered. That seems to suggest a game such as Pantheon won't be as "extremely niche" as you think.
I don't think the people are being counter-culture by pointing out that big studios are developing easier, streamlined games and targeting younger and more casual audiences. Its not hipster if its true.
I would prefer loss of xp over a debuff personally. Also make it sting, give us some slow leveling with a nice bit of xp lost if you die imo makes the world that much more exciting and intense.
Really sick of games were lvling is fast and its just a race to endgame or even worse slow lvling with faceroll mobs and quest hubs.
Considering I've addressed just about every single suggestion specifically, I think the real question is do you actually read what I write or just nope it outright?
I think its logical to assume if you're so against experience loss, you must have a problem with a loss of time mechanic. I've already said we could exchange one loss of time mechanic for another, but what is the point. So, if there is any logic in what you're saying and you aren't arguing just to argue, you must be opposed to time-loss mechanics. As such, the assumption that you want to replace it with "difficulty before dying" rather than loss of time is justified.
Loss of time and loss of progress are two different things. That aside it's not the loss in this that bothers me at all, it's that there is no actual benefit to the system what so ever. Hence why I said I can live with it, yet find it to add nothing of worth to the experience. Thsi is where my question comes into play as you'd know this if you read my initial suggestions, they contained plenty of loss, yet loss that benefits the actual communal as well as other aspects of the game. Item loss benefits commerce, it benefits the need to stay alive, it benefits the need to gain wealth, Yet it doesn't erase past deeds.
Wounds create downtime, extended social healing (think SWG's doctors & Dancers) creates down time with other players, it adds utility to classes other than combat ability.
There are plenty of ways to add stiff penalty yet benefit the rest of the game.
My reaction to XP loss isn't Oh noo! that's too harsh, it's woohoo:( in a very sarcastic myopic voice.
The problem is loss of progress is loss of time. If you lose XP and spend time regaining it, you've lost time. If you lose an item, and have to spend time farming plat to rebuy it, or to recamp the item, you've spent time regaining it. Functionally they are the same, you're just adding a couple steps in between to make it appear to be a more complicated system.
Where it comes down to is people can mentally deal with XP loss, but item loss in a PVE MMO is a non starter for most people. It's part of the main reason why PVP FFA full loot rights type of games have absolutely shit numbers of players. People in general are not keen on losing items.
Item loss is time loss. And while i understand your point, it really is going to be a non starter for a PVE mmo. It's really just not going to happen.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
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.
If a debuff was truly on par with experience loss from a death, I wouldn't have a problem with it. I just think getting a cleric to your corpse is much more problematic than simply seeking out a player that can dispel a debuff. As Raiden spoke of multiple times, it all comes down to time. Time spent can make an item feel valuable or, in the case of time lost, add tension to combat. There is not much else you can do design-wise to create those feelings. There are other ways to address the time factor, but I just don't see a change in death penalty as necessary if they are essentially doing the same thing.
As I spoke of earlier, the thing about losing experience is that it was meant to be the greatest challenge when you still had a lot of xp and levels to achieve. It wasn't just a shallow mechanic to keep the player perpetually grinding experience, it was a mechanic of learning and was meant to eventually be mitigated at higher levels by class interdependence (much like travel was by group teleports).
Perhaps a resurrection spell shouldn't completely negate death. I personally wouldn't be against it capping at 75 or even 50% xp restoration, but like I already pointed out, getting a cleric to your corpse can, at times, take as long as it would to earn your experience back. That and it was meant to be a social challenge encouraging players to work together.
I am truly thinking of the game and the good of it. I want to see as many people as needed to play this game to keep content rolling. The big problem with exp loss is low levels you have so few tools to deal with it that most of the negative effects really only land on new people to the game leveling for the first time. By the time you get to endgame you dont care any more. You have people you can rely on to get fast exp to recover. Reses from friends and guildies. Ports to get you back to your corpse and Necros to summon your corpse.
So dinging people learning the game now days wont have the effect it did 17 years ago where the only real quality option was EQ1. EXP loss does only one thing. Makes people think twice about taking risks. Adds a fear element. Does it do anything else for the new gamer? Does it add depth to their class? Does it bring people together? Does it bring interdependence? Do it add to the economy? A debuff system on death, if done so its impacting can bring these things and this is just one way to add risk. Other layers can be added. So you can have risk of death thats impacting and add more than just a grind.
Exp loss does add fear of death but thats all it does and nothing more. I am sure the devs could put their minds together and come up with something better than this. I expect more as many other gamers feel the same way. Its time to bring back the old and add to it. Not just a pure recycle. Gamers expect more or they should.
Debuff on death, so you mean I just have to afk for 5 minutes and take a piss while my debuff wears off, then I can continue? Sounds like a real tough death penalty to me... cough not.
I can see where you're going with your theory, and while you may be correct that there MAY be some system that is better for punishing players time-wise than exp loss, you haven't suggested a good way yet, and neither has anyone else, until then, exp loss stays.
Also, on the note of lower level players, I just want to throw out there that the amount of exp you lost sub level 20 was so little that you could make it back faster than you could find a rez. It was a deterrent to zerging and slack-brained play, but not really a sting.
The biggest component of the death penalty of Everquest was really the corpse. Without a corpse run there can be nothing, because if all I'm risking is a little exp for venturing into that dungeon to try to get some phats, then I'm not risking anything but a little time. If I'm risking my corpse, that's an entirely different matter, because if I cant find someone to help me get it out, I could be in for some real trouble.
No Im not. Im talking aboyt a debuff that stacks with each death. -1% HP -1% stats. You could set a maximum number of debuff or make it unlimited. That would be the devs law on that. Next to remove the debuff you would need to seek out a Shaman or Druid if the debuff you got was from a physical death (melee damage) and they could remove it. If you died by magic you would need to seek out an enchanter or wizard to have it removed. This would spread things out so it would be unlikely you would have everything you need in your team to remove the debuffs. But over standard DPS this would make these classes desired. They could also make money (tips) going to popular exp spots to removes these debuff. You could also have a quest given in town that would remove these debuff by doing a quest.
This would keep the fear of death intact and at the same time add the depth of needing other classes. Adding to the economy and best of all, removing the exp grind. This idea can be simplified or more depth added to it. Devs could come up with a better system. The point is, just slapping an exp loss on death is old and worn out mechanic. Can something new be added to the game that gives that same feeling of risk of death that can add more depth as well? The wheel works, why go beyond the wagon wheel? It got the job done. We are in the same place today, yes the wagon wheel works it adds fear of death but the steel belted tire does so much more than going around and around.
Well i for one enjoyed my years of playing the EQ games i do NOT want those systems.Simple reason is WHY would anyone want to LIMIT the game from improving. I would have to write several paragraphs to explain the MANY reasons why the EQ systems were borderline average to just bad.I doubt many gamer's put ANY thought into what they want from a game,i wouldn't expect that from a developer or a gamer,you SHOULD have distinct ideas that make a game the BEST it can be,not just "i want DCUO or i want EQ1" that is silly lame reasons to make a game. Again without writing a novel,there is not one system i would use from EQ1>VG all of those systems need improving or changes.
I will touch on a few and i HOPE there is time to still create a BETTER game.
1 Altaholics "just bad,i am not writing a book to explain why,you SHOULD after years of gaming understand why. 2 Linear questing "BAD" too many reasons to list.
3 Aggro systems,one simple proximity aggro system is not enough.
4 combos,predominantly if not 100% done SOLO in every game,improve this to support the reason we play ONLINE.....use other players. 5 ECO system,the most important aspect that brings a world to life and not one single game has done it yet.
MANY more areas but one i should make note of because again NOBODY is doing game design properly.Eliminating initial zones from future game play is just BAD design.Every single game is a RUSH,original LEVELS and original MAPS become ghost towns and nobody cares or uses that content ever again,might as well delete it from the hard drive.This is why you need a sub class system,it keeps level 1 relevant as well as original maps and content. On that same note Level 1 should carry the same weight as level 101,we should see levels treated more like aging rather than some xp number that in reality never has any relevance towards actual EXPERIENCE but instead just some numbers.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
I just have top say one thing because well i want the best game experience i can get. I don't like Raids,imo they are never necessary and will alienate a lot of players all the time.
This is the same type of attitude which has lead us down the path we're at now with the industry.
Nobody is forcing you to raid. They've already said raiding will be around 5-10% of the games content. So, basically you're just being petulant and selfish based on...? Jealousy? I don't know. I mean i really don't get that mentality. If you don't like doing something, don't do it.
It's like saying that a grocery store shouldn't carry oreos cus you're gluten free and since you can't have them, nobody should be able to, and that having them will "alienate" players. No, the only people who it will alienate are irrational people who operate on a me me me mindset 24/7
No you don't get it and that is the reason WHY we are where we are now with games and EVERY game is doing raiding,so your point of "where we are at now" is further proven wrong by YOUR own admittance.
My point was also that you do not NEED it,there is NOTHING you can't do in a game that would need 24 players ,NOTHING.Any design or idea you want from a raid can be done with 6 players,so it becomes nothing more than some l33tist term or some bragging platform.
Raiding does NOTHING to bring a guild together,you can bring players together with 6 man groups.I almost find it hilarious because in REALITY inside of groups MOST are acting as" individuals" anyhow so what's the difference?Unless you are trying to tell me each player is interacting with all 24 players?Not a chance ion hell but with a 5/6 man group you can most certainly have everyone interacting with each other. All raiding does is create a more cumbersome time consuming 6 man group all you have is 3-4 6 man groups.You can't even properly heal a 24 man group,nor can you properly target 24 people,it is just a sloppier less organized form of 5/6 man grouping.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
I just have top say one thing because well i want the best game experience i can get. I don't like Raids,imo they are never necessary and will alienate a lot of players all the time.
This is the same type of attitude which has lead us down the path we're at now with the industry.
Nobody is forcing you to raid. They've already said raiding will be around 5-10% of the games content. So, basically you're just being petulant and selfish based on...? Jealousy? I don't know. I mean i really don't get that mentality. If you don't like doing something, don't do it.
It's like saying that a grocery store shouldn't carry oreos cus you're gluten free and since you can't have them, nobody should be able to, and that having them will "alienate" players. No, the only people who it will alienate are irrational people who operate on a me me me mindset 24/7
No you don't get it and that is the reason WHY we are where we are now with games and EVERY game is doing raiding,so your point of "where we are at now" is further proven wrong by YOUR own admittance.
My point was also that you do not NEED it,there is NOTHING you can't do in a game that would need 24 players ,NOTHING.Any design or idea you want from a raid can be done with 6 players,so it becomes nothing more than some l33tist term or some bragging platform.
Raiding does NOTHING to bring a guild together,you can bring players together with 6 man groups.I almost find it hilarious because in REALITY inside of groups MOST are acting as" individuals" anyhow so what's the difference?Unless you are trying to tell me each player is interacting with all 24 players?Not a chance ion hell but with a 5/6 man group you can most certainly have everyone interacting with each other. All raiding does is create a more cumbersome time consuming 6 man group all you have is 3-4 6 man groups.You can't even properly heal a 24 man group,nor can you properly target 24 people,it is just a sloppier less organized form of 5/6 man grouping.
Do you feel better? If you want to make some less ludicrous and frankly hand waving emotional statements, than we can argue the actual merits of each idea. But while you continue to spew nonsense, I'm not going to engage you in any meaningful manner, and instead will just point out the absurdity.
Edit: BTW, You don't need to have have 11 people on a football field per team either. There is no possible justification for it, it adds nothing and it's only so that people can have elitist bragging. The 22 people on the field don't interact with each other any more than if it were just 5 people per team.
Edit 2: Your entire post shows just how little actual raiding experience you have. Particularly at higher level raiding where people are having to figure out the fights themselves, not just reading a guide or watching a video. To sit here and say that those 24 people aren't interacting with each other is quite literally the height of absurdity.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
Comments
As I spoke of earlier, the thing about losing experience is that it was meant to be the greatest challenge when you still had a lot of xp and levels to achieve. It wasn't just a shallow mechanic to keep the player perpetually grinding experience, it was a mechanic of learning and was meant to eventually be mitigated at higher levels by class interdependence (much like travel was by group teleports).
Perhaps a resurrection spell shouldn't completely negate death. I personally wouldn't be against it capping at 75 or even 50% xp restoration, but like I already pointed out, getting a cleric to your corpse can, at times, take as long as it would to earn your experience back. That and it was meant to be a social challenge encouraging players to work together.
Any penalty is going to teach you something, yet there are penalties that add depth to game-play as well as interactivity between players, then there are penalties that essentially add nothing at all but tedium on an individual player level. I'd say XP loss falls closer to the latter than the former.
Death penalties can be deeply ingrained into the fabric of a game, promoting different play-styles outside of combat, creating stronger community relation. Which is the chief overall goal here. What's really more important to an MMORPG; systematic punishment, or communal reliance? Under the premise of XP loss, the only promotion of grouping and socialization is in not dying. That's it, that's the extent of your worry. It's the extent of player reliance.
To argue in anyway that it promotes more socialization than the methods laid out here by others, is disingenuous IMO. JUst as acting as though it's harsher, so it's better at teaching a lesson would be.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Not that there weren't plenty of ways to encourage players to continue playing. The addition of levels, Alternate advancement, new content, etc. However, down the line, death basically dropped off this list unless you were playing alone, far away from civilization. Even then, at cap it didn't matter because, unless you were horrible, you gained more experience than lost.
@Lokero
You raise a good point, and, if you look at my original posts in this thread, you'll see that I argued that people are remembering EQ's death penalty incorrectly, and it wasn't as harsh as people are claiming and that it was trivialized as you say at max level by cleric resses. So, the penalty really is only for the journey from 1 to 50. However, the reason why this is important is people did "learn" their class better due to those penalties from 1-50. And, once you hit max level, players were more skilled and knowledgeable of their classes, and you could take on more challenges without fear of constant exp loss due to having high level cleric resses. Once you hit max, or are on alts, most everyone knows a cleric friend or guildie that could provide the res.
But, to Dullahan's point, the reason I still vote for exp loss versus debuffs is there's no debuff system that has been implemented or that has been proposed in this thread that can replicate the factor of lost "time." And yes, losing time sucks, and I didn't like it either, but no system had made me respect/fear death more. And as a result, that fear/respect of death made me (and others) a better player.
And, again, the time loss is really for the first journey from 1-50, after that, if you're socializing at all, those who don't like the death penalty should be satisfied by cleric (and I'm sure other classes similar to VG) being able to res.
But like Dullahan, if you or others could propose a system that could replicate that, or make it even more difficult, I wouldn't be opposed to positive change.
IN the end like I said before I can live with XP loss, I just don't consider it a system with much thought put into it. IF they're using it because it's easy and requires less work I can understand that. They're a small team. On the other hand if they're simply going with it because it's like EQ, I think they could do better.
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
Have you actually read the things people are suggesting, or do you just nope it all outright?
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I think its logical to assume if you're so against experience loss, you must have a problem with a loss of time mechanic. I've already said we could exchange one loss of time mechanic for another, but what is the point. So, if there is any logic in what you're saying and you aren't arguing just to argue, you must be opposed to time-loss mechanics. As such, the assumption that you want to replace it with "difficulty before dying" rather than loss of time is justified.
Wounds create downtime, extended social healing (think SWG's doctors & Dancers) creates down time with other players, it adds utility to classes other than combat ability.
There are plenty of ways to add stiff penalty yet benefit the rest of the game.
My reaction to XP loss isn't Oh noo! that's too harsh, it's woohoo:( in a very sarcastic myopic voice.
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
"Any penalty is going to teach you something, yet there are penalties that add depth to game-play as well as interactivity between players, then there are penalties that essentially add nothing at all but tedium on an individual player level. I'd say XP loss falls closer to the latter than the former."
"Death penalties can be deeply ingrained into the fabric of a game, promoting different play-styles outside of combat, creating stronger community relation. Which is the chief overall goal here. What's really more important to an MMORPG; systematic punishment, or communal reliance? Under the premise of XP loss, the only promotion of grouping and socialization is in not dying. That's it, that's the extent of your worry. It's the extent of player reliance."
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
So dinging people learning the game now days wont have the effect it did 17 years ago where the only real quality option was EQ1. EXP loss does only one thing. Makes people think twice about taking risks. Adds a fear element. Does it do anything else for the new gamer? Does it add depth to their class? Does it bring people together? Does it bring interdependence? Do it add to the economy? A debuff system on death, if done so its impacting can bring these things and this is just one way to add risk. Other layers can be added. So you can have risk of death thats impacting and add more than just a grind.
Exp loss does add fear of death but thats all it does and nothing more. I am sure the devs could put their minds together and come up with something better than this. I expect more as many other gamers feel the same way. Its time to bring back the old and add to it. Not just a pure recycle. Gamers expect more or they should.
People love to be hipsters trying to prove that everything big studios develope is garbage and nothing but cloning. Others love to point out how ''watered down'' MMORPG's is what is ruining the genre and we should go back to ''real MMO's''. Well, this won't happen sadly. Wildstar was a complete flop due to the game catering to the hardcore crowd. Sure, the game itself has alot of flaws, but in my opinion, the game was polished enough to hold people's interest if it wasn't so focused on ''hard core'' mode.
The future of MMO's is in something new. I don't think catering to the ''old MMO players'' by making nostalgia titles will work. Not disregarding the developers of this game or anything, but this is the reality of the industry.
Many people will hype this up due to:
1. Indie developers and people like to support them since they always seem more trustworthy than let's say Ubisoft.
2. Nostalgic gameplay which brings back memeories of past MMO's.
Now, don't get me wrong. I don't think the game looks bad by any means. I also do realize it is catering to the old school crowd. It is just that I don't have much faith in that specific crowd. Old school players usually talk abot nostalgia all the time, but when nostlagic titles come out, they end up abondoning them nontheless due to ''ehh, this is not what I thought it would be'' and ''man, this isn't like before''.
I can see where you're going with your theory, and while you may be correct that there MAY be some system that is better for punishing players time-wise than exp loss, you haven't suggested a good way yet, and neither has anyone else, until then, exp loss stays.
Also, on the note of lower level players, I just want to throw out there that the amount of exp you lost sub level 20 was so little that you could make it back faster than you could find a rez. It was a deterrent to zerging and slack-brained play, but not really a sting.
The biggest component of the death penalty of Everquest was really the corpse. Without a corpse run there can be nothing, because if all I'm risking is a little exp for venturing into that dungeon to try to get some phats, then I'm not risking anything but a little time. If I'm risking my corpse, that's an entirely different matter, because if I cant find someone to help me get it out, I could be in for some real trouble.
Obviously, the same system wouldn't work in Pantheon simply because crafting in SWG is what supported this system, but if the goal is to promote interdependency and socialization, then why not use the idea? It would also give those healing classes a way to work for tips in a way that is needed while keeping death meaningful. Or, you know, we can stick with the same old tired XP loss system.
Whether XP loss is in or not won't keep me from playing, but Pantheon is not intended to be very innovative in the first place. I think this is one area where we could effect a change that might move the genre forward for once.
I don't think the people are being counter-culture by pointing out that big studios are developing easier, streamlined games and targeting younger and more casual audiences. Its not hipster if its true.
Really sick of games were lvling is fast and its just a race to endgame or even worse slow lvling with faceroll mobs and quest hubs.
Where it comes down to is people can mentally deal with XP loss, but item loss in a PVE MMO is a non starter for most people. It's part of the main reason why PVP FFA full loot rights type of games have absolutely shit numbers of players. People in general are not keen on losing items.
Item loss is time loss. And while i understand your point, it really is going to be a non starter for a PVE mmo. It's really just not going to happen.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
I love the way the game is going. Please hold true to your vision... and don't let the masses influence the design.
You will get a lot of people that think that way...
This would keep the fear of death intact and at the same time add the depth of needing other classes. Adding to the economy and best of all, removing the exp grind. This idea can be simplified or more depth added to it. Devs could come up with a better system. The point is, just slapping an exp loss on death is old and worn out mechanic. Can something new be added to the game that gives that same feeling of risk of death that can add more depth as well? The wheel works, why go beyond the wagon wheel? It got the job done. We are in the same place today, yes the wagon wheel works it adds fear of death but the steel belted tire does so much more than going around and around.
I would have to write several paragraphs to explain the MANY reasons why the EQ systems were borderline average to just bad.I doubt many gamer's put ANY thought into what they want from a game,i wouldn't expect that from a developer or a gamer,you SHOULD have distinct ideas that make a game the BEST it can be,not just "i want DCUO or i want EQ1" that is silly lame reasons to make a game.
Again without writing a novel,there is not one system i would use from EQ1>VG all of those systems need improving or changes.
I will touch on a few and i HOPE there is time to still create a BETTER game.
1 Altaholics "just bad,i am not writing a book to explain why,you SHOULD after years of gaming understand why.
2 Linear questing "BAD" too many reasons to list.
3 Aggro systems,one simple proximity aggro system is not enough.
4 combos,predominantly if not 100% done SOLO in every game,improve this to support the reason we play ONLINE.....use other players.
5 ECO system,the most important aspect that brings a world to life and not one single game has done it yet.
MANY more areas but one i should make note of because again NOBODY is doing game design properly.Eliminating initial zones from future game play is just BAD design.Every single game is a RUSH,original LEVELS and original MAPS become ghost towns and nobody cares or uses that content ever again,might as well delete it from the hard drive.This is why you need a sub class system,it keeps level 1 relevant as well as original maps and content.
On that same note Level 1 should carry the same weight as level 101,we should see levels treated more like aging rather than some xp number that in reality never has any relevance towards actual EXPERIENCE but instead just some numbers.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
My point was also that you do not NEED it,there is NOTHING you can't do in a game that would need 24 players ,NOTHING.Any design or idea you want from a raid can be done with 6 players,so it becomes nothing more than some l33tist term or some bragging platform.
Raiding does NOTHING to bring a guild together,you can bring players together with 6 man groups.I almost find it hilarious because in REALITY inside of groups MOST are acting as" individuals" anyhow so what's the difference?Unless you are trying to tell me each player is interacting with all 24 players?Not a chance ion hell but with a 5/6 man group you can most certainly have everyone interacting with each other.
All raiding does is create a more cumbersome time consuming 6 man group all you have is 3-4 6 man groups.You can't even properly heal a 24 man group,nor can you properly target 24 people,it is just a sloppier less organized form of 5/6 man grouping.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Do you feel better? If you want to make some less ludicrous and frankly hand waving emotional statements, than we can argue the actual merits of each idea. But while you continue to spew nonsense, I'm not going to engage you in any meaningful manner, and instead will just point out the absurdity.
Edit: BTW, You don't need to have have 11 people on a football field per team either. There is no possible justification for it, it adds nothing and it's only so that people can have elitist bragging. The 22 people on the field don't interact with each other any more than if it were just 5 people per team.
Edit 2: Your entire post shows just how little actual raiding experience you have. Particularly at higher level raiding where people are having to figure out the fights themselves, not just reading a guide or watching a video. To sit here and say that those 24 people aren't interacting with each other is quite literally the height of absurdity.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
- Friedrich Nietzsche