The question is whether the design decision is fun or not. You can make a game with a bunch of non-fun elements and people will still play the game. If your target audience is, "people who put up with my crap so they can get at the few nuggets of fun in my game" (see: SS13), then more power to you. However, I like to think that developers should try to make their game as fun as possible, which also tends to mean (not always, sure, but usually) it will appeal to a broader audience.
| |
Except nobody here has explained how penalizing players for death is fun at all. There's just some hemming and hawing about "roleplaying" and "playing properly" and some back-asswards concept of "challenge," but nobody has explained how it actually makes things any more FUN.
| |
I lost you here. You say that players should restart combat when they die, but you're arguing against penalties. If you suggest penalties, such as restarting combat, do outline what is good and what is bad, any why, because you're not making sense. And if not, why is restarting combat not a penalty?
| |
I guess it could be considered a penalty. But when you die in combat what else can happen exactly? If you die in combat then chances are you will have to restart the fight because not much else can happen! Maybe you could restart from where you left off, but you are still restarting.
My friend took his driving test not long ago. He failed it, so naturally he didn't get his driving license. Was him not getting his driving license a penalty for not passing the test? Not really! He simply doesn't get the license unless he passes the test, and since he needs to pass the test to get a license it is obvious that he will need to take the test again to get a license. It is the same with a battle in a game. If you want to win the fight but end up dying then you will have to fight again, because it is pretty hard to win a fight that never happened! I don't really think you can call having to fight again a penalty, because if you have to win the fight and die then there is nothing else to do but fight again. Unless people don't die when they are killed and can still fight then there isn't much else that can be done other than to fight again. | |
Bingo. The reward for successfully winning a fight is that the enemies are dead. Death isn't a penalty for losing a fight, it's the indication that you've lost. Don't pick at the wording I choose to use just because you have nothing to say in defense of death penalties.
Generally, however, online games screw up the whole idea of resetting a fight. You take a couple enemies out with you... and they stay dead after you've lost the fight. So you go again and it's slightly easier because you killed three last time... and two the time before that... and so on, and you whittle down the enemy. So the games penalize death itself in order to prevent that, rather than properly respawning all the enemies killed in a fight when it's over. An easy way to model this is that enemies are only "knocked out" in a fight, and you can't finish them off until you're out of combat (which means that the looting animation would be a fulfilling throat-slit, something we can all enjoy). If you die before you can get out of the fight, then they'll just get right back up (after a minute, perhaps). | |
The Magic Man wrote:
My friend took his driving test not long ago. He failed it, so naturally he didn't get his driving license. Hrm. I experienced the exact opposite phenomenon a few days ago. I failed it, but got my license anyways. And no, I'm not a sucky driver, but my truck doesn't have turn signals, one headlight is out, etc, so I had to take my sister-in-laws tiny car which I'm not used to at all, so I misjudged a few things, lol. | |
Baladin wrote:
Garthor, give it a rest. Everyone knows what you are saying, apperently a lot of people disagree. I have also made my own decision on how death is going to be handeled. no no no no no its just like the other games, and this would suck so much, as maybe youve spawned in town, and now you are supposed to get your body in 5 mins, walking straight there, it took 6 mins. really big game, u have 1 hour, but it took an hour and a half to go straight there. just a few examples. also, permadeath might be better, i meen, at the lower levels, spare them at death, and lose nothing, and no ghost ever, and then after, at the higher levels, such as in mystic journey losing exp, then you should be put to death, permadeath. | |
Yeah... his post seems rather contradictory to me.
He doesn't like the idea of cutting EXP at death because its too much punishment, but he DOES like the idea of deleting the savefile altogether? Maybe I just read his post wrong <_< | |
In my game, death is permanent. However, that fits with the roguelike/dungeon-crawler theme. I wouldn't dream of doing such a thing to players on ORPG's.
| |
Yeah, we did the same thing when playing DnD back a few years ago before everyone started moving out of town.
Yeah. That's one of the things Garthor keeps saying that gets me : that the majority of players wont like that and etc. Heck, he's right, the majority of players won't, but I want to know where he gets the idea games have to be designed to be marketable and targeted at mainstream players xD