I think the discussion about death penalties has kinda gone a bit too far and is getting a bit personal, perhaps time to take a step back?
That said, I've never played a game with corpse runs so I don't have any experience with it personally, so I have some questions for those who do have experience to see if I can understand. I'm generally against harsh death penalties, but I feel like the death penalty employed needs to be matched with the overall design of the game.
1) Does the prospect of having to do a corpse run affect your enjoyment of the actual content you are engaging with?
2) Does the potential of having to do a corpse run increase or decrease the frequency with which you engage with difficult content?
3) Do you enjoy the actual gameplay of doing a corpse run?
4) Do you think the social benefits of corpse runs could be achieved through other mechanics?
I think the discussion about death penalties has kinda gone a bit too far and is getting a bit personal, perhaps time to take a step back?
That said, I've never played a game with corpse runs so I don't have any experience with it personally, so I have some questions for those who do have experience to see if I can understand. I'm generally against harsh death penalties, but I feel like the death penalty employed needs to be matched with the overall design of the game.
1) Does the prospect of having to do a corpse run affect your enjoyment of the actual content you are engaging with?
2) Does the potential of having to do a corpse run increase or decrease the frequency with which you engage with difficult content?
3) Do you enjoy the actual gameplay of doing a corpse run?
4) Do you think the social benefits of corpse runs could be achieved through other mechanics?
Ok, I played EQ1, that has corpse runs, maybe DAOC did, I honestly don't remember.
Anyway.
EverQuest - Corpse Runs.
1) Does the prospect of a Corpse Run affect my Enjoyment of the Content I am playing.
Ok, well for starters, if did a lot to make me very aware of my surroundings, and what my chances were to win/lose an encounter, it did a lot to make me a more cautious player, and to not go in places where I was out leveled, at least, not alone.
As far as EQ went, for me, the EXP loss was a far more infuriating mechanic then the Corpse Run in and of itself.
2) Does the potential of having to do a corpse run increase or decrease the frequency with which you engage with difficult content?
This depends.
When I was solo, it Vastly Decreased what risks I was willing to take. If I didn't feel like I had a 100% chance to win, I was not going to risk it, even a 10% chance to lose, while soloing, was too much, as I was all alone, just not worth it.
When I was with my static, to be honest, we were an audacious group of assess that loved to challenge ourselves, however, it deistically increased the tenacity by which we faced encounters if anyone fell, as we didn't want to risk them losing their body, after we put a lot of work into getting their gear.
With my Guild, well, I did what the Guild Leader asked, and played my part in our raids. Sometimes things went bad, but, mainly I really had very little idea if things were gonna go bad, until they did, but, it was a guild group, if people died, we would get together and get everyone's body back.
With a Pug, there was no way in hell I was going to take risks on my main with a bunch of rando's, who may or may not offer any help doing a corpse run if I died. Gonna be honest, it was like soloing with extra DPS, as far as security went.
3) Do you enjoy the actual gameplay of doing a corpse run?
Aww hell naw.
4) Do you think the social benefits of corpse runs could be achieved through other mechanics?
Not really, but I was never a fan of corpse runs to be honest. The idea of losing all my gear and a bunch of exp on death was a huge massive turnoff in a game like ERQ where death was too easy to happen.
Penalties should fit the game, ideally, for a basic game idea, the harder it is to kill you, the harsher the penalty should be to reflect your death due to how many bad judgment calls you need to make before you die, the easier the game is set up to kill you, the less it should affect you if you are powerless to stop it.
Case in point, in GW2, where there are a bunch of insta-down mechanics by mobs, followed by a insta-spike mechanic, a death pen would make that game just crap, overall, the characters feel very flimsily, the term glass cannon truly applies to characters in GW2, so much so, they even removed the cost to repair armor.
Ideally the death pen also needs to fit the game it is in.
In some games it should be very harsh because of the nature of the game, like Survival games should have very harsh death pens, up to perma-death, because the whole design of the game is to survive, not play hero.
So there really is no one size fits all answer to this, but the goal should be, it fits well into the game it is in.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
I get that you and others don't like my forcefulness when I lash back after someone crosses the line and equates dislike of harsh death penalties with entitled punks. I will put statements like that on full blast every time.
Again, noone said that. The blog post says that not having death penalties invites "entitled punks" in (and you obviously disagree with that), It says that devs made that wrong choice (and you obviously disagree with that too). But It says nowhere that people disliking death penalties are one. You feel insulted for no reason.
The blog is written by someone that doesn't know what they're talking about and using it as some kind of reference to authority on the subject is just silly.
Personally, I love harsh death penalties if they fit within a game. I played EVE for like 7 years, UO was the first MMO I ever played, and I even played Mortal Online for a little while. Harsh death penalties made sense in those games because they were built with them in mind.
I can assure you there were an insane amount of "entitled punks," trolls and whatever else you want to refer to as the dregs of MMORPGs. In fact, it was far more prevalent in those games than any silly corpse run game.
It's not that harsh death penalties are bad and kind death penalties are good. It's that there isn't a relationship between this mechanic and the types of players that play the games. There are so many other factors that play into how a community is built and evolves. And if one were forced to at gunpoint choose which game had more asshats in it, you would almost always end up picking the one with the harsh death penalty.
It's not that harsh death penalties are bad and kind death penalties are good. It's that there isn't a relationship between this mechanic and the types of players that play the games.
Exactly.
It is written trying to make a point that the only people who benefit by the removal of death penalties are entitled punks and no one else minds them.
Well I do mind them simply because I consider the fights and whatever else I want to do in the game, the parts I want to spend time on. I see death penalty recovery as something that keeps me away from the things I enjoy.
People like me don't exist in his mind. You are either a good MMO citizen, all of whom are perfectly fine with death penalties, or entitled punks who are not.
But enough about that shit. @tzervo apparently forgot that he and I agreed to disagree and move on
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
But enough about that shit. @tzervo apparently forgot that he and I agreed to disagree and move on
Heh yeah. At this point I do not try to convince anyone. Just trying to make sure I am not misquoted.
Misquote? Are you the Greedy Goblin?
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
I can assure you there were an insane amount of "entitled punks," trolls and whatever else you want to refer to as the dregs of MMORPGs. In fact, it was far more prevalent in those games than any silly corpse run game.
It's not that harsh death penalties are bad and kind death penalties are good. It's that there isn't a relationship between this mechanic and the types of players that play the games. There are so many other factors that play into how a community is built and evolves. And if one were forced to at gunpoint choose which game had more asshats in it, you would almost always end up picking the one with the harsh death penalty.
You are talking about a different kind of asshats and trolls and generalizing. Not what is discussed here.
I'm surely going to get laughed at here for this, but I don't care...
I think we could get a really great mmorpg that stokes that old fire we've been looking for but it does depend on some factors and there is a decent chance that it doesn't work out but if Chris Roberts can implement his vision, they can work out base creation and land claiming in a proper way, achieve a nearly masterful netcode which is exponentially greater then what they have now...Then maybe Star Citizen will stoke our fire but it is still a few years out and the netcode thing is extremely difficult to pull off when you have the kind of fidelity and scale that they are going for. But I think it is possible, we will have to see.
What incentive does SC even have to launch? They are as profitable now as they msot likely will ever be. If the backers haven't twisted the screws on this company by now, they never will......
I think the discussion about death penalties has kinda gone a bit too far and is getting a bit personal, perhaps time to take a step back?
That said, I've never played a game with corpse runs so I don't have any experience with it personally, so I have some questions for those who do have experience to see if I can understand. I'm generally against harsh death penalties, but I feel like the death penalty employed needs to be matched with the overall design of the game.
1) Does the prospect of having to do a corpse run affect your enjoyment of the actual content you are engaging with?
2) Does the potential of having to do a corpse run increase or decrease the frequency with which you engage with difficult content?
3) Do you enjoy the actual gameplay of doing a corpse run?
4) Do you think the social benefits of corpse runs could be achieved through other mechanics?
Point taken. Never meant to make anything personal.
Good inquiry, overall. Let me try my hand at it
1) Does the prospect of having to do a corpse run affect your enjoyment of the actual content you are engaging with? - The only MMORPG I played with a corpse run was EQ1. It was both fun and frustrating at the same time. It did effect my enjoyment, for good or ill. EQ1 put a timer on your corpse which could place a "sense of urgency" that was kind of "arbitrary."
2)
Does the potential of having to do a corpse run increase or decrease
the frequency with which you engage with difficult content? - Again, EQ1 for basis. Solo, most definitely made me more cautious. In groups it factored in a little, but not overwhelmingly. Of course more players can both help and hinder a group's chances
3) Do you enjoy the actual gameplay of doing a corpse run? - I can't say I didn't "enjoy" them, but they were part of the game and a mechanic I didn't mind going through like many activities. I did usually find something fun about them, though.
4) Do you think the social benefits of corpse runs could be achieved through other mechanics? - Interdependency between players has lost its luster, lately. In EQ1 a few classes had abilities that were helpful for finding lost corpses. Basically any helpful way that MMORPGs can "encourage" working with others would do as well.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
So you didn't like one of the most beloved games out there. But can you acknowledge that people love it and that perhaps they put a greater value on things that you don't?
You're still dodging the question. Is it "most beloved" because of the death penalty or despite it?
As to this thread... don't glorify the death penalty and I won't chime in with my comments about why glorifying it is messed up.
Doesn't bother you? You can make the best of it? You think it makes you a better player because you modify your game play to avoid its consequences? That's all fine.
But I jumped into this discussion when someone linked an opinion blog saying that the current bad state of MMO communities and the reason why "toxic punks" abound is all about the death penalty.
I quote:
"The golden age can be brought back if the death penalties are reintroduced and the entitled punks self-select out."
Now that is just a deluded and elitist bullshit glorification of the death penalty bordering on necrophilia
I know you are talking about Dark Souls but the same can be said about Everquest's death penalty.
I won't say I love it. As I mentioned before in this thread I almost lost my corpses in various stages of looting because I would loot then die and repeat god only know how many times. Partly looted corpses spread out in the area made for a nightmare retrieval. That wasn't the first time in the Fear Plane either where I have had such bad runs. How can I possibly say I loved that? How can I not admit I nearly quit in rage a lot of times but my friends talked me out of it.
I used to spend a lot of time with other guilds and helping them in Fear and Fate. My own guild was very competent and we would have very good runs with no long CR. It was one of the top guilds on the server so you don't expect these types of badly run raids.
However because of the tyranny practiced by top guilds many of my friends were unable to do the planes and I would often try to join and help smaller guilds especially with Fate runs as wizards are needed for those. That often ended in these types of CR. Anyway there wasn't much to do then before Kunark so I spent a lot of time just playing the game doing stuff like this although I was already fully decked out (I had the eye of Cazic-Thule even but I think that came later sorry I'm old and my memory is bad).
You are trying to give an absolute emotion to a mechanic that is very much entwined with the parts I love in Everquest. Of course my view is clouded about where the love for the game starts and the fact that the death penalty had so much to do with the people I relied on to make the experience of playing so great. Without those experiences would I have made those friends or would they have been so close and dependable. You don't rely and depend on people until you are in situations where they show themselves to be dependable. There is no way to divorce these things.
Without those penalties and harsh playing conditions, the extent of your relationships are not really tested and people don't show their best because there is nothing at stake and nothing to lose. I risked everything in the game for my friends and I cannot say that for any game nowadays but that does not mean that I don't enjoy the games I play nowadays but I cannot say I have that deep a bond with the people I play with. Could be a character flaw on my part but those are my sincere thoughts.
The way you compare this to necrophilia and call it glorification shows you have no respect for what others think and you're demeaning us by making that association. Do you have to be so insulting? Why are you feeling so threatened that insults seems to be your answer for a point of view? Can't you understand that people might have a view you disagree with without the need to degrade that. Very disappointed in you.
It's way beyond liking and disliking corpse runs in this thread. What do you think it is if not insulting when someone associates not wanting harsh death penalties with being an entitled punk?
If you feel insulted when I blasted that blog and the author you really should take a look at yourself for defending that point of view.
That's your interpretation of the discussion here. It wasn't right for you to characterize others in this discussion the way you have. Then you're asking me to take a look at myself and I never said anything about 'entitled punks' or that people who don't want death penalties are entitled punks . Where did I ever say that?
We just explained what we felt about death penalties and how they affected a game like Everquest. You are the one who said your view was the correct way to look at things and that this seems like a masochistic fetish and bordering on necrophilia. Why did you have to stoop so low and insult a point of view by branding it such.
See the problem with you is that you are not just content in stating your point of view and insisting you're correct but you need to make sure you insult those of us who think otherwise.
I think the discussion about death penalties has kinda gone a bit too far and is getting a bit personal, perhaps time to take a step back?
That said, I've never played a game with corpse runs so I don't have any experience with it personally, so I have some questions for those who do have experience to see if I can understand. I'm generally against harsh death penalties, but I feel like the death penalty employed needs to be matched with the overall design of the game.
1) Does the prospect of having to do a corpse run affect your enjoyment of the actual content you are engaging with?
2) Does the potential of having to do a corpse run increase or decrease the frequency with which you engage with difficult content?
3) Do you enjoy the actual gameplay of doing a corpse run?
4) Do you think the social benefits of corpse runs could be achieved through other mechanics?
Point taken. Never meant to make anything personal.
Good inquiry, overall. Let me try my hand at it
1) Does the prospect of having to do a corpse run affect your enjoyment of the actual content you are engaging with? - The only MMORPG I played with a corpse run was EQ1. It was both fun and frustrating at the same time. It did effect my enjoyment, for good or ill. EQ1 put a timer on your corpse which could place a "sense of urgency" that was kind of "arbitrary."
2)
Does the potential of having to do a corpse run increase or decrease
the frequency with which you engage with difficult content? - Again, EQ1 for basis. Solo, most definitely made me more cautious. In groups it factored in a little, but not overwhelmingly. Of course more players can both help and hinder a group's chances
3) Do you enjoy the actual gameplay of doing a corpse run? - I can't say I didn't "enjoy" them, but they were part of the game and a mechanic I didn't mind going through like many activities. I did usually find something fun about them, though.
4) Do you think the social benefits of corpse runs could be achieved through other mechanics? - Interdependency between players has lost its luster, lately. In EQ1 a few classes had abilities that were helpful for finding lost corpses. Basically any helpful way that MMORPGs can "encourage" working with others would do as well.
In UO, when you died you turned into a ghost on the spot. You could go anywhere you could run to. You could talk to players (and became visible as a ghost for about 15 seconds), but your speech was randomly mixed up ("Help me?" became "hsrl dgw" or something else). The Spirit Speak skill allowd that player to understand the ghost.
There were NPC Healers that walked the world, so you could try to find one. Players got used to noticing where they were on their way to dangerous locals, for future need. But sometimes, just when you needed one, you couldn't find them. So you had to run to a city or a Shrine to get a resurrection. Unless a helpful player was around, and there were lots of them. Players with high enough skill could Res you, and often did. Or players with low-ish skill could use Res Scrolls.
The corpse, and any gear that wasn't looted, deleted after a hefty time period. 20-30 minutes maybe, I'm not sure how long.
Corpse runs usually were done after gearing back up at the bank, or if you got a Player Res they usually helped you get your gear, and kill the MOBs that looted you for what they took.
+
I think this was a huge social benefit to the game. Player made new friends, and even became friendly with entire Guilds, over this stuff. Trust was established between players. Alliances were formed because of all of this. Associations were made, trade deals and all other social interactions were enhanced.
Players didn't see that, though. So they demanded "easy" mode. And look where it got us.
You've totally lost me. I have no idea what you're seeing as contradictory between that statement and anything else I wrote.
[edited for brevity] You said if you "lost", then you get to go back and fight again. You when lose a tennis match, do you get to immediately go at them again? The match (or fight) is lost. Your opponent won. You lost. Or do you play with the "do over" rule?
So just think if in tennis you are in a match and you lose 1 point. You are stripped down naked, leave your racket, leave all your gear. Then someone drops you off at some arbitrary point far away where you have to find your way back and you have to swim through shark infested waters or dodge dangerous predators in a jungle all while being completely naked just to have the chance to finish the match.
What does running around naked have to do with the game you play anyways? Just a weird mechanic that some dev started that caught on for a few years.
I suspect under those rules, I wouldn't see many people playing tennis. I suspect people would think that's a retarded rule.
I will admit, that would make some interesting TV thou.
Losing a televised tennis match comes with the associated consequences which being real will transcend the cost of any virtual inconvenience a game may inflict.
What death penalties in games give is consequences beyond that inflicted by failure alone. They were likely intended to give more weight to the outcome of player choices and actions, increasing player engagement accordingly.
Some players find they do enhance their game experience. Others, not so much. As with anything where opinion is divided, the merit of death penalties or lack thereof is in the mind of the beholder.
You've totally lost me. I have no idea what you're seeing as contradictory between that statement and anything else I wrote.
[edited for brevity] You said if you "lost", then you get to go back and fight again. You when lose a tennis match, do you get to immediately go at them again? The match (or fight) is lost. Your opponent won. You lost. Or do you play with the "do over" rule?
So just think if in tennis you are in a match and you lose 1 point. You are stripped down naked, leave your racket, leave all your gear. Then someone drops you off at some arbitrary point far away where you have to find your way back and you have to swim through shark infested waters or dodge dangerous predators in a jungle all while being completely naked just to have the chance to finish the match.
What does running around naked have to do with the game you play anyways? Just a weird mechanic that some dev started that caught on for a few years.
I suspect under those rules, I wouldn't see many people playing tennis. I suspect people would think that's a retarded rule.
I will admit, that would make some interesting TV thou.
Losing a televised tennis match comes with the associated consequences which being real will transcend the cost of any virtual inconvenience a game may inflict.
What death penalties in games give is consequences beyond that inflicted by failure alone. They were likely intended to give more weight to the outcome of player choices and actions, increasing player engagement accordingly.
Some players find they do enhance their game experience. Others, not so much. As with anything where opinion is divided, the merit of death penalties or lack thereof is in the mind of the beholder.
I agree. But this concept goes beyond just personal interpretation too. In thinking about how it affects the game in other ways, there's the social aspects I mentioned just a few posts up. There's also the thing with players charging in, over and over again (mentioned previously by a couple of posters), until they win by attrition. That's not good game play, IMO, as it really lacks meaning to "victory." Then there's the "solo" drift, if a game isn't challenging enough. Probably a few other aspects that are affected too.
1) Does the prospect of having to do a corpse run affect your enjoyment of the actual content you are engaging with?
2) Does the potential of having to do a corpse run increase or decrease the frequency with which you engage with difficult content?
3) Do you enjoy the actual gameplay of doing a corpse run?
4) Do you think the social benefits of corpse runs could be achieved through other mechanics?
Ok let me give you the way I see this mechanic.
1) Does the prospect of having to do a corpse run affect your enjoyment of the actual content you are engaging with?
Yes, to me it wastes a bunch of time. Its like a mini game you have to play, running around naked, trying to get back to your corpse within a certain amount of time. You are not strong enough to fight back because you have no gear or items. Sometimes make it back to your body almost dead, loot your body to reset the timer and die again rinse and repeat.
2) Does the potential of having to do a corpse run increase or decrease the frequency with which you engage with difficult content?
Yes without a doubt. You cant find people to do difficult content with. It punishes experimenting or trying hard content. Just listen to these people on the forums talking about how it makes them very cautious. They are afraid to do difficult content, so they make sure they always have overwhelming force. They stay over-leveled/over-geared so there is not a shred of chance of dieing, because dieing is so punishing.
3) Do you enjoy the actual gameplay of doing a corpse run?
Nobody likes this. If they did they could run around naked without the penalty. How often do you see people in any games run around the zones completely naked without equipment trying to avoid mobs? I wont say it never happens, but usually people just joking if they doing it.
4) Do you think the social benefits of corpse runs could be achieved through other mechanics?
Yes, you could have rare portals pop up, that lead to a small mini-dungeon, that was beatable by a small group but not a solo player. Make it linked to just 1 player that has be the one to form the group. You could even make it where nobody can see it but the 1 player, unless you are in that players group. It could have a short window you have to go thru within 10-20 min timer on it or it despawns. If you win each person gets a chance at rare loot/materials to drop in their bags. This would encourage people to reach out for help and group up with randoms nearby to beat it within the short window of time. This is just one example there are other ways to reward group play.
Conclusion this mechanic makes the games mobs ez mode.
Nobody wants to lose their stuff, so they always stay in ez areas. If the penalty is to harsh then too many people will quit. To combat people from rage quitting the game is forced to do one of 2 things.
a) Lower the content difficulty so death is rare, therefore losing your stuff is rare.
b) Make gear easily replaceable and pretty much meaningless. (even this wont help if people running around naked all the time, nobody wants that game)
1) Does the prospect of having to do a corpse run affect your enjoyment of the actual content you are engaging with?
2) Does the potential of having to do a corpse run increase or decrease the frequency with which you engage with difficult content?
3) Do you enjoy the actual gameplay of doing a corpse run?
4) Do you think the social benefits of corpse runs could be achieved through other mechanics?
3) Do you enjoy the actual gameplay of doing a corpse run?
Nobody likes this. If they did they could run around naked without the penalty. How often do you see people in any games run around the zones completely naked without equipment trying to avoid mobs? I wont say it never happens, but usually people just joking if they doing it.
I really wish you didn't speak for other people. "I" actually enjoy the game play of corpse runs for precisely the reason you say you hate it. That you can't fight back that you have to be careful and quick and stealthy or at least alert to your surroundings.
And "again" your other statement is also speaking for other people.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Death runs are excellent, provided the game enhances the experience.
In UO:
Ghosts were a great way to scout.
Ghosts were a warning of nearby PKs.
You actually had a skill to speak to ghosts.
Corpses were an interesting source of random loot.
In Secret World:
You actually had to be dead in order to complete a particular quest.
I'd like to see games expand upon the death state by adding quests, making the state advantageous in some settings, and using the mechanic to expand upon random loot finds and so forth.
Heck, it would be totally awesome if they added options for resurrection type or even add the ability to play as a vengeful spirit. (What if you were PKd and could follow the PK around and you had 1 or 2 debuffs you could throw down on a whim?)
So..much...potential.
Interesting comments. I also liked how MOBs would loot players of the things they wanted. Different MOBs had different "desires", each type looting a set of things they'd want. So MOB loot would get enhanced by that of dead Characters. There was a Dragon in an out of the way location once that was really tough, and had collected an extreme amount of loot over whatever time period it was, and a Player defeated it and got a very nice reward.
I do like the Ghost scouting part, but it takes away from the Skills of a Stealther. It also removes the value of such things as Scrying items like Crystal Balls, or a Player inhabiting his Familiar to scout out a place. I'd rather see "Ghosting" have some sort of limits to it. I'm just not sure how to accomplish having both.
b) Make gear easily replaceable and pretty much meaningless. (even this wont help if people running around naked all the time, nobody wants that game)
I don't think there's a need to make gear meaningless. But if the Power Gaps are low, players can pick and choose the times they use their best, and most rare, gear to reduce the chances of loss. Only using it when they are with a strong enough group of trusted guildmates, for example.
I think the concept of possible loss in MMORPGs is sadly at a minimum. Loss is the only thing that keeps a Player from accumulating, and successfully accumulating is a sign of "winning." Something to actually be proud of, as it's not a given when you can lose some of it.
Add in gear breaking, too.
The only losses in most games are using potions and herbs and the like. I don't consider lost time as a loss. You're still playing, and that's what you wanted.
You've totally lost me. I have no idea what you're seeing as contradictory between that statement and anything else I wrote.
[edited for brevity] You said if you "lost", then you get to go back and fight again. You when lose a tennis match, do you get to immediately go at them again? The match (or fight) is lost. Your opponent won. You lost. Or do you play with the "do over" rule?
So just think if in tennis you are in a match and you lose 1 point. You are stripped down naked, leave your racket, leave all your gear. Then someone drops you off at some arbitrary point far away where you have to find your way back and you have to swim through shark infested waters or dodge dangerous predators in a jungle all while being completely naked just to have the chance to finish the match.
What does running around naked have to do with the game you play anyways? Just a weird mechanic that some dev started that caught on for a few years.
I suspect under those rules, I wouldn't see many people playing tennis. I suspect people would think that's a retarded rule.
I will admit, that would make some interesting TV thou.
Losing a televised tennis match comes with the associated consequences which being real will transcend the cost of any virtual inconvenience a game may inflict.
What death penalties in games give is consequences beyond that inflicted by failure alone. They were likely intended to give more weight to the outcome of player choices and actions, increasing player engagement accordingly.
Some players find they do enhance their game experience. Others, not so much. As with anything where opinion is divided, the merit of death penalties or lack thereof is in the mind of the beholder.
I agree. But this concept goes beyond just personal interpretation too. In thinking about how it affects the game in other ways, there's the social aspects I mentioned just a few posts up. There's also the thing with players charging in, over and over again (mentioned previously by a couple of posters), until they win by attrition. That's not good game play, IMO, as it really lacks meaning to "victory." Then there's the "solo" drift, if a game isn't challenging enough. Probably a few other aspects that are affected too.
Absolutely. The personal preference aspect relates to the value a particular player places on a game system and how it affects play. Those play elements will affect the game in many significant ways regardless of the worth any particular player assigns to them.
Winning through attrition definitely deprives players of the sense of accomplishment they would have had from a clean victory. It is understandable how some feel it cheapens that player's experience or even a game that allows that as a whole.
I'm personally not so extreme in my view as that, but generally accept my losses in solo play regardless. I will often go back immediately to try again, especially if the battle was very close, but the encounter will have reset so there is no attrition to take advantage of.
When playing with my fiance, which makes up the vast majority of my structured grouping, I will unabashedly res as needed if I die and she is still in peril, but that is a consideration that goes beyond the gaming merit of such.
You've totally lost me. I have no idea what you're seeing as contradictory between that statement and anything else I wrote.
[edited for brevity] You said if you "lost", then you get to go back and fight again. You when lose a tennis match, do you get to immediately go at them again? The match (or fight) is lost. Your opponent won. You lost. Or do you play with the "do over" rule?
So just think if in tennis you are in a match and you lose 1 point. You are stripped down naked, leave your racket, leave all your gear. Then someone drops you off at some arbitrary point far away where you have to find your way back and you have to swim through shark infested waters or dodge dangerous predators in a jungle all while being completely naked just to have the chance to finish the match.
What does running around naked have to do with the game you play anyways? Just a weird mechanic that some dev started that caught on for a few years.
I suspect under those rules, I wouldn't see many people playing tennis. I suspect people would think that's a retarded rule.
I will admit, that would make some interesting TV thou.
Losing a televised tennis match comes with the associated consequences which being real will transcend the cost of any virtual inconvenience a game may inflict.
What death penalties in games give is consequences beyond that inflicted by failure alone. They were likely intended to give more weight to the outcome of player choices and actions, increasing player engagement accordingly.
Some players find they do enhance their game experience. Others, not so much. As with anything where opinion is divided, the merit of death penalties or lack thereof is in the mind of the beholder.
I agree. But this concept goes beyond just personal interpretation too. In thinking about how it affects the game in other ways, there's the social aspects I mentioned just a few posts up. There's also the thing with players charging in, over and over again (mentioned previously by a couple of posters), until they win by attrition. That's not good game play, IMO, as it really lacks meaning to "victory." Then there's the "solo" drift, if a game isn't challenging enough. Probably a few other aspects that are affected too.
Absolutely. The personal preference aspect relates to the value a particular player places on a game system and how it affects play. Those play elements will affect the game in many significant ways regardless of the worth any particular player assigns to them.
Winning through attrition definitely deprives players of the sense of accomplishment they would have had from a clean victory. It is understandable how some feel it cheapens that player's experience or even a game that allows that as a whole.
I'm personally not so extreme in my view as that, but generally accept my losses in solo play regardless. I will often go back immediately to try again, especially if the battle was very close, but the encounter will have reset so there is no attrition to take advantage of.
When playing with my fiance, which makes up the vast majority of my structured grouping, I will unabashedly res as needed if I die and she is still in peril, but that is a consideration that goes beyond the gaming merit of such.
Yeah, understand that I don't care if other players like that sort of attrition game play. It's all about the better game, IMO. Especially in the social aspects that it creates. I love the challenge of going solo in a game that's challenging even for groups. I love the stealthy assassin strategy, working my way through a very dangerous Dungeon, etc. It wouldn't be nearly the fun if it wasn't a truly challenging victory.
I want challenge for the distinction. Not just for me, but for all the great gamers who deserve the title of "a darn good player."
Amaranthar said: I agree. But this concept goes beyond just personal interpretation too. In thinking about how it affects the game in other ways, there's the social aspects I mentioned just a few posts up. There's also the thing with players charging in, over and over again (mentioned previously by a couple of posters), until they win by attrition. That's not good game play, IMO, as it really lacks meaning to "victory."
Then there's the "solo" drift, if a game isn't challenging enough. Probably a few other aspects that are affected too.
I don't think I have played any MMO's in last 10 years that mobs don't reset once everyone in range is dead. If they heal up to full, then its effectively reset. So where are you seeing this attrition concept?
How would this be different if another group just wandered by and the mob had 1hp and they hit it and got all the loot? You don't think that would be cheap?
Mobs losing health and not regaining health after combat is a separate mechanic and really has nothing to do with death penalties.
Amaranthar said: I agree. But this concept goes beyond just personal interpretation too. In thinking about how it affects the game in other ways, there's the social aspects I mentioned just a few posts up. There's also the thing with players charging in, over and over again (mentioned previously by a couple of posters), until they win by attrition. That's not good game play, IMO, as it really lacks meaning to "victory."
Then there's the "solo" drift, if a game isn't challenging enough. Probably a few other aspects that are affected too.
I don't think I have played any MMO's in last 10 years that mobs don't reset once everyone in range is dead. If they heal up to full, then its effectively reset. So where are you seeing this attrition concept?
How would this be different if another group just wandered by and the mob had 1hp and they hit it and got all the loot? You don't think that would be cheap?
Mobs losing health and not regaining health after combat is a separate mechanic and really has nothing to do with death penalties.
GW2 = and the tactic was called Rez-Rushing.
As for hitting a mob and getting all the loot.. GW2, has that too, everyone that contributes gets reward.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
We're not going back. It's never going back to what it was; I think honestly you all should revisit John Smedley's comments when they were working on EQ Next. He hit the nail on the head of where the MMORPG world was headed next; Which is what some talked about in the front of the comments section. It's an expansive world where exploration will be a reward and there isn't a rails system toward end-game. MMORPGs really the goal should be that there isn't end game. Just like in real life you wouldn't call being 80-90 the end game where most players want to be; All of the journey is the game and it doesn't end until you stop playing. That's where MMORPGs should be heading but we just don't have the tech to get us there yet. But John wasn't wrong, he knew that the formula that he helped worked on in EQ has an end stage, and if you go play WoW retail right now M+ and anything beyond Normal raiding is it.
Right now we just don't haven the tech to create something like that. Imagine if you could a world like how Minecraft/7DTD play where you're in this world that's a random world that's never the same thing; sure the PoIs are the same, and the features of the world are the same, but the seed is different each time. That's kinda what he was hinting at.
MMORPGs are in a stale state currently. I mean I just got done playing WoW retail, and let me tell ya, WoW retail isn't an MMORPG--it's literally an Action-Game you play with 20 other people. There's nothing really RPG about it anymore, and I do believe that applies to almost all of the other games. There's a great quote from Pirates of the Caribbean about the world.
Barbossa: The world used to be a bigger place Jack: The world is still the same...there's just less in it
That dialogue to me illustrates where we are right now with MMORPGs. The worlds we play in aren't necessarily smaller, or bigger, they're still the same games. It's just there's now less stuff in it for us, not because there isn't content, but the formula hasn't changed since when EQ made the first Raid. What you're nostalgic for is the feeling of not knowing what happens at the next level, or when you travel to this place you don't know what to expect. You couldn't just hop on your other monitor and head to google to go check out where to go, or what's the optimal guide for leveling. That's what the communities were there for, now we have streamers like Preach, Whatever his name Gold dude, and Pre-Heat who take the numbers look at what's optimal and tell you. Now that's how you play the game because that's the only way to play the game because it's the only thing to do. The MMO world didn't change, there's just less stuff in it now.
What I think we're going to get in the next 1`0-15 years is technology and AI that can create a near-infinite digital world. If that happens MMORPGs will feel more like Pen and Paper DnD, or what MMORPGs are portrayed as in Isekai Animes. What we have now is a limited third person action-RPG with some choices but the world has significantly less stuff in it than compared to single player RPGs where the game revolves around a singular character. I'm really convinced that the way forward is taking what Minecraft does with it's world in terms of how it's created, and expanding it forever and letting AI have constant feuds and changes in their game that are unpredictable. That'll really change how we view MMORPGs.
But no--we're not going back and you can't expect the games of today to change. WoW retail I think is kind of the hallmark of what MMORPGs are right now. They're games that aren't great, the combat is boring with wayyyy too many buttons, you basically have to do keyboard kung-fu in raids which also makes the game not feel as RPG as other games, and then to top it off when you get to the top the only thing to do is chase items that make your numbers go up, and items that make your armor look cool. That's what happens when you take EverQuest's original idea and streamline it, we're a niche game genre that gets absolutely owned in terms of numbers when compared to MOBAs, or FPS and really that's where WoW has moved to essentially becoming a game that mirrors the demands of what their top player base in e-sports need. With that comes sacrificing the RPG elements of the game.
We're not going back. It's never going back to what it was; I think honestly you all should revisit John Smedley's comments when they were working on EQ Next. He hit the nail on the head of where the MMORPG world was headed next; Which is what some talked about in the front of the comments section. It's an expansive world where exploration will be a reward and there isn't a rails system toward end-game. MMORPGs really the goal should be that there isn't end game. Just like in real life you wouldn't call being 80-90 the end game where most players want to be; All of the journey is the game and it doesn't end until you stop playing. That's where MMORPGs should be heading but we just don't have the tech to get us there yet. But John wasn't wrong, he knew that the formula that he helped worked on in EQ has an end stage, and if you go play WoW retail right now M+ and anything beyond Normal raiding is it.
Right now we just don't haven the tech to create something like that. Imagine if you could a world like how Minecraft/7DTD play where you're in this world that's a random world that's never the same thing; sure the PoIs are the same, and the features of the world are the same, but the seed is different each time. That's kinda what he was hinting at.
MMORPGs are in a stale state currently. I mean I just got done playing WoW retail, and let me tell ya, WoW retail isn't an MMORPG--it's literally an Action-Game you play with 20 other people. There's nothing really RPG about it anymore, and I do believe that applies to almost all of the other games. There's a great quote from Pirates of the Caribbean about the world.
Barbossa: The world used to be a bigger place Jack: The world is still the same...there's just less in it
That dialogue to me illustrates where we are right now with MMORPGs. The worlds we play in aren't necessarily smaller, or bigger, they're still the same games. It's just there's now less stuff in it for us, not because there isn't content, but the formula hasn't changed since when EQ made the first Raid. What you're nostalgic for is the feeling of not knowing what happens at the next level, or when you travel to this place you don't know what to expect. You couldn't just hop on your other monitor and head to google to go check out where to go, or what's the optimal guide for leveling. That's what the communities were there for, now we have streamers like Preach, Whatever his name Gold dude, and Pre-Heat who take the numbers look at what's optimal and tell you. Now that's how you play the game because that's the only way to play the game because it's the only thing to do. The MMO world didn't change, there's just less stuff in it now.
What I think we're going to get in the next 1`0-15 years is technology and AI that can create a near-infinite digital world. If that happens MMORPGs will feel more like Pen and Paper DnD, or what MMORPGs are portrayed as in Isekai Animes. What we have now is a limited third person action-RPG with some choices but the world has significantly less stuff in it than compared to single player RPGs where the game revolves around a singular character. I'm really convinced that the way forward is taking what Minecraft does with it's world in terms of how it's created, and expanding it forever and letting AI have constant feuds and changes in their game that are unpredictable. That'll really change how we view MMORPGs.
But no--we're not going back and you can't expect the games of today to change. WoW retail I think is kind of the hallmark of what MMORPGs are right now. They're games that aren't great, the combat is boring with wayyyy too many buttons, you basically have to do keyboard kung-fu in raids which also makes the game not feel as RPG as other games, and then to top it off when you get to the top the only thing to do is chase items that make your numbers go up, and items that make your armor look cool. That's what happens when you take EverQuest's original idea and streamline it, we're a niche game genre that gets absolutely owned in terms of numbers when compared to MOBAs, or FPS and really that's where WoW has moved to essentially becoming a game that mirrors the demands of what their top player base in e-sports need. With that comes sacrificing the RPG elements of the game.
That's a great post. One thing about "going back" though, is it's like every other phrase in that it means something different to different people. I get that for a lot of people, it means going back to EQ. For others, it's AC. For a few like me, it's UO and before, the dream of a "World." At the same time, back in the MUDD days, there were also plenty of gamers who liked the DIKU (EQ and WoW style). So "going back" is, as all phrases, in the mind of the beholder.
I think this movement will be in stages, more and more, now that it's a known commodity in this "is this all there is?" phase of MMORPG design. I contend that it can be done now, just in a lighter version than what will come some day down the road.
There was a lot of time wasted in the last 15 years or so. Design and coding should have been building things like AI, socialness and interaction among players, etc. Interaction in world design has been moving somewhat, look at Skyrim (SP) with it's cool worldly interactions. People want that stuff, it's just more fun to play in a world where you can actually do things in and to it. But it's still rudimentary, compared to what can be.
MMORPGs have a very bright future. (There are potholes that I'm sure some will fail to avoid, along the way, though.)
Amaranthar said: I agree. But this concept goes beyond just personal interpretation too. In thinking about how it affects the game in other ways, there's the social aspects I mentioned just a few posts up. There's also the thing with players charging in, over and over again (mentioned previously by a couple of posters), until they win by attrition. That's not good game play, IMO, as it really lacks meaning to "victory."
Then there's the "solo" drift, if a game isn't challenging enough. Probably a few other aspects that are affected too.
I don't think I have played any MMO's in last 10 years that mobs don't reset once everyone in range is dead. If they heal up to full, then its effectively reset. So where are you seeing this attrition concept?
I believe his point is that so long as at least some players stay engaged, preventing the reset of the battle, it is easier than it had been for slain players to rejoin the fight as effective combatants. Eventually this would result in a victory just as much by attrition as skillful play. When death had stiffer penalties attrition wouldn't have been as viable, with the remaining players having to rise to the occasion instead to succeed as their fallen companions would likely stay so until at least the current battle was over.
Comments
Anyway.
EverQuest - Corpse Runs.
1) Does the prospect of a Corpse Run affect my Enjoyment of the Content I am playing.
Ok, well for starters, if did a lot to make me very aware of my surroundings, and what my chances were to win/lose an encounter, it did a lot to make me a more cautious player, and to not go in places where I was out leveled, at least, not alone.
As far as EQ went, for me, the EXP loss was a far more infuriating mechanic then the Corpse Run in and of itself.
2) Does the potential of having to do a corpse run increase or decrease the frequency with which you engage with difficult content?
This depends.
When I was solo, it Vastly Decreased what risks I was willing to take. If I didn't feel like I had a 100% chance to win, I was not going to risk it, even a 10% chance to lose, while soloing, was too much, as I was all alone, just not worth it.
When I was with my static, to be honest, we were an audacious group of assess that loved to challenge ourselves, however, it deistically increased the tenacity by which we faced encounters if anyone fell, as we didn't want to risk them losing their body, after we put a lot of work into getting their gear.
With my Guild, well, I did what the Guild Leader asked, and played my part in our raids. Sometimes things went bad, but, mainly I really had very little idea if things were gonna go bad, until they did, but, it was a guild group, if people died, we would get together and get everyone's body back.
With a Pug, there was no way in hell I was going to take risks on my main with a bunch of rando's, who may or may not offer any help doing a corpse run if I died. Gonna be honest, it was like soloing with extra DPS, as far as security went.
3) Do you enjoy the actual gameplay of doing a corpse run?
Aww hell naw.
4) Do you think the social benefits of corpse runs could be achieved through other mechanics?
Not really, but I was never a fan of corpse runs to be honest. The idea of losing all my gear and a bunch of exp on death was a huge massive turnoff in a game like ERQ where death was too easy to happen.
Penalties should fit the game, ideally, for a basic game idea, the harder it is to kill you, the harsher the penalty should be to reflect your death due to how many bad judgment calls you need to make before you die, the easier the game is set up to kill you, the less it should affect you if you are powerless to stop it.
Case in point, in GW2, where there are a bunch of insta-down mechanics by mobs, followed by a insta-spike mechanic, a death pen would make that game just crap, overall, the characters feel very flimsily, the term glass cannon truly applies to characters in GW2, so much so, they even removed the cost to repair armor.
Ideally the death pen also needs to fit the game it is in.
In some games it should be very harsh because of the nature of the game, like Survival games should have very harsh death pens, up to perma-death, because the whole design of the game is to survive, not play hero.
So there really is no one size fits all answer to this, but the goal should be, it fits well into the game it is in.
Personally, I love harsh death penalties if they fit within a game. I played EVE for like 7 years, UO was the first MMO I ever played, and I even played Mortal Online for a little while. Harsh death penalties made sense in those games because they were built with them in mind.
I can assure you there were an insane amount of "entitled punks," trolls and whatever else you want to refer to as the dregs of MMORPGs. In fact, it was far more prevalent in those games than any silly corpse run game.
It's not that harsh death penalties are bad and kind death penalties are good. It's that there isn't a relationship between this mechanic and the types of players that play the games. There are so many other factors that play into how a community is built and evolves. And if one were forced to at gunpoint choose which game had more asshats in it, you would almost always end up picking the one with the harsh death penalty.
It is written trying to make a point that the only people who benefit by the removal of death penalties are entitled punks and no one else minds them.
Well I do mind them simply because I consider the fights and whatever else I want to do in the game, the parts I want to spend time on. I see death penalty recovery as something that keeps me away from the things I enjoy.
People like me don't exist in his mind. You are either a good MMO citizen, all of whom are perfectly fine with death penalties, or entitled punks who are not.
But enough about that shit. @tzervo apparently forgot that he and I agreed to disagree and move on
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
What incentive does SC even have to launch? They are as profitable now as they msot likely will ever be. If the backers haven't twisted the screws on this company by now, they never will......
Good inquiry, overall. Let me try my hand at it
- The only MMORPG I played with a corpse run was EQ1. It was both fun and frustrating at the same time. It did effect my enjoyment, for good or ill. EQ1 put a timer on your corpse which could place a "sense of urgency" that was kind of "arbitrary."
- Again, EQ1 for basis. Solo, most definitely made me more cautious. In groups it factored in a little, but not overwhelmingly. Of course more players can both help and hinder a group's chances
- I can't say I didn't "enjoy" them, but they were part of the game and a mechanic I didn't mind going through like many activities. I did usually find something fun about them, though.
- Interdependency between players has lost its luster, lately. In EQ1 a few classes had abilities that were helpful for finding lost corpses. Basically any helpful way that MMORPGs can "encourage" working with others would do as well.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
We just explained what we felt about death penalties and how they affected a game like Everquest. You are the one who said your view was the correct way to look at things and that this seems like a masochistic fetish and bordering on necrophilia. Why did you have to stoop so low and insult a point of view by branding it such.
See the problem with you is that you are not just content in stating your point of view and insisting you're correct but you need to make sure you insult those of us who think otherwise.
There were NPC Healers that walked the world, so you could try to find one. Players got used to noticing where they were on their way to dangerous locals, for future need.
But sometimes, just when you needed one, you couldn't find them. So you had to run to a city or a Shrine to get a resurrection.
Unless a helpful player was around, and there were lots of them.
Players with high enough skill could Res you, and often did. Or players with low-ish skill could use Res Scrolls.
The corpse, and any gear that wasn't looted, deleted after a hefty time period. 20-30 minutes maybe, I'm not sure how long.
Corpse runs usually were done after gearing back up at the bank, or if you got a Player Res they usually helped you get your gear, and kill the MOBs that looted you for what they took.
+
I think this was a huge social benefit to the game.
Player made new friends, and even became friendly with entire Guilds, over this stuff.
Trust was established between players.
Alliances were formed because of all of this.
Associations were made, trade deals and all other social interactions were enhanced.
Players didn't see that, though.
So they demanded "easy" mode.
And look where it got us.
Once upon a time....
Will we have fierce and heated discussions about everything and anything like the 2004 and prior days? Hell yes. Look no further.
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
Losing a televised tennis match comes with the associated consequences which being real will transcend the cost of any virtual inconvenience a game may inflict.
What death penalties in games give is consequences beyond that inflicted by failure alone. They were likely intended to give more weight to the outcome of player choices and actions, increasing player engagement accordingly.
Some players find they do enhance their game experience. Others, not so much. As with anything where opinion is divided, the merit of death penalties or lack thereof is in the mind of the beholder.
Then there's the "solo" drift, if a game isn't challenging enough.
Probably a few other aspects that are affected too.
Once upon a time....
Yes, to me it wastes a bunch of time. Its like a mini game you have to play, running around naked, trying to get back to your corpse within a certain amount of time. You are not strong enough to fight back because you have no gear or items. Sometimes make it back to your body almost dead, loot your body to reset the timer and die again rinse and repeat.
Nobody likes this. If they did they could run around naked without the penalty. How often do you see people in any games run around the zones completely naked without equipment trying to avoid mobs? I wont say it never happens, but usually people just joking if they doing it.
Yes, you could have rare portals pop up, that lead to a small mini-dungeon, that was beatable by a small group but not a solo player. Make it linked to just 1 player that has be the one to form the group. You could even make it where nobody can see it but the 1 player, unless you are in that players group. It could have a short window you have to go thru within 10-20 min timer on it or it despawns. If you win each person gets a chance at rare loot/materials to drop in their bags. This would encourage people to reach out for help and group up with randoms nearby to beat it within the short window of time. This is just one example there are other ways to reward group play.
And "again" your other statement is also speaking for other people.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
I also liked how MOBs would loot players of the things they wanted. Different MOBs had different "desires", each type looting a set of things they'd want.
So MOB loot would get enhanced by that of dead Characters.
There was a Dragon in an out of the way location once that was really tough, and had collected an extreme amount of loot over whatever time period it was, and a Player defeated it and got a very nice reward.
I do like the Ghost scouting part, but it takes away from the Skills of a Stealther.
It also removes the value of such things as Scrying items like Crystal Balls, or a Player inhabiting his Familiar to scout out a place.
I'd rather see "Ghosting" have some sort of limits to it. I'm just not sure how to accomplish having both.
Once upon a time....
I think the concept of possible loss in MMORPGs is sadly at a minimum. Loss is the only thing that keeps a Player from accumulating, and successfully accumulating is a sign of "winning." Something to actually be proud of, as it's not a given when you can lose some of it.
Add in gear breaking, too.
The only losses in most games are using potions and herbs and the like.
I don't consider lost time as a loss. You're still playing, and that's what you wanted.
Once upon a time....
Absolutely. The personal preference aspect relates to the value a particular player places on a game system and how it affects play. Those play elements will affect the game in many significant ways regardless of the worth any particular player assigns to them.
Winning through attrition definitely deprives players of the sense of accomplishment they would have had from a clean victory. It is understandable how some feel it cheapens that player's experience or even a game that allows that as a whole.
I'm personally not so extreme in my view as that, but generally accept my losses in solo play regardless. I will often go back immediately to try again, especially if the battle was very close, but the encounter will have reset so there is no attrition to take advantage of.
I love the challenge of going solo in a game that's challenging even for groups. I love the stealthy assassin strategy, working my way through a very dangerous Dungeon, etc.
It wouldn't be nearly the fun if it wasn't a truly challenging victory.
I want challenge for the distinction. Not just for me, but for all the great gamers who deserve the title of "a darn good player."
Once upon a time....
I don't think I have played any MMO's in last 10 years that mobs don't reset once everyone in range is dead. If they heal up to full, then its effectively reset. So where are you seeing this attrition concept?
How would this be different if another group just wandered by and the mob had 1hp and they hit it and got all the loot? You don't think that would be cheap?
Mobs losing health and not regaining health after combat is a separate mechanic and really has nothing to do with death penalties.
As for hitting a mob and getting all the loot.. GW2, has that too, everyone that contributes gets reward.
Right now we just don't haven the tech to create something like that. Imagine if you could a world like how Minecraft/7DTD play where you're in this world that's a random world that's never the same thing; sure the PoIs are the same, and the features of the world are the same, but the seed is different each time. That's kinda what he was hinting at.
MMORPGs are in a stale state currently. I mean I just got done playing WoW retail, and let me tell ya, WoW retail isn't an MMORPG--it's literally an Action-Game you play with 20 other people. There's nothing really RPG about it anymore, and I do believe that applies to almost all of the other games. There's a great quote from Pirates of the Caribbean about the world.
Barbossa: The world used to be a bigger place
Jack: The world is still the same...there's just less in it
That dialogue to me illustrates where we are right now with MMORPGs. The worlds we play in aren't necessarily smaller, or bigger, they're still the same games. It's just there's now less stuff in it for us, not because there isn't content, but the formula hasn't changed since when EQ made the first Raid. What you're nostalgic for is the feeling of not knowing what happens at the next level, or when you travel to this place you don't know what to expect. You couldn't just hop on your other monitor and head to google to go check out where to go, or what's the optimal guide for leveling. That's what the communities were there for, now we have streamers like Preach, Whatever his name Gold dude, and Pre-Heat who take the numbers look at what's optimal and tell you. Now that's how you play the game because that's the only way to play the game because it's the only thing to do. The MMO world didn't change, there's just less stuff in it now.
What I think we're going to get in the next 1`0-15 years is technology and AI that can create a near-infinite digital world. If that happens MMORPGs will feel more like Pen and Paper DnD, or what MMORPGs are portrayed as in Isekai Animes. What we have now is a limited third person action-RPG with some choices but the world has significantly less stuff in it than compared to single player RPGs where the game revolves around a singular character. I'm really convinced that the way forward is taking what Minecraft does with it's world in terms of how it's created, and expanding it forever and letting AI have constant feuds and changes in their game that are unpredictable. That'll really change how we view MMORPGs.
But no--we're not going back and you can't expect the games of today to change. WoW retail I think is kind of the hallmark of what MMORPGs are right now. They're games that aren't great, the combat is boring with wayyyy too many buttons, you basically have to do keyboard kung-fu in raids which also makes the game not feel as RPG as other games, and then to top it off when you get to the top the only thing to do is chase items that make your numbers go up, and items that make your armor look cool. That's what happens when you take EverQuest's original idea and streamline it, we're a niche game genre that gets absolutely owned in terms of numbers when compared to MOBAs, or FPS and really that's where WoW has moved to essentially becoming a game that mirrors the demands of what their top player base in e-sports need. With that comes sacrificing the RPG elements of the game.
One thing about "going back" though, is it's like every other phrase in that it means something different to different people.
I get that for a lot of people, it means going back to EQ. For others, it's AC. For a few like me, it's UO and before, the dream of a "World." At the same time, back in the MUDD days, there were also plenty of gamers who liked the DIKU (EQ and WoW style).
So "going back" is, as all phrases, in the mind of the beholder.
I think this movement will be in stages, more and more, now that it's a known commodity in this "is this all there is?" phase of MMORPG design.
I contend that it can be done now, just in a lighter version than what will come some day down the road.
There was a lot of time wasted in the last 15 years or so. Design and coding should have been building things like AI, socialness and interaction among players, etc.
Interaction in world design has been moving somewhat, look at Skyrim (SP) with it's cool worldly interactions. People want that stuff, it's just more fun to play in a world where you can actually do things in and to it.
But it's still rudimentary, compared to what can be.
MMORPGs have a very bright future.
(There are potholes that I'm sure some will fail to avoid, along the way, though.)
Once upon a time....
I believe his point is that so long as at least some players stay engaged, preventing the reset of the battle, it is easier than it had been for slain players to rejoin the fight as effective combatants. Eventually this would result in a victory just as much by attrition as skillful play. When death had stiffer penalties attrition wouldn't have been as viable, with the remaining players having to rise to the occasion instead to succeed as their fallen companions would likely stay so until at least the current battle was over.