Forum Settings
       
This Forum is Read Only

be very very quiet..... I'm talking death penaltyFollow

#102 Jan 19 2010 at 7:47 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
Why do people have to equate players who want difficult bosses to no-lifers? I'm married, have a good job, live comfortably, visit friends and family, and I want these type of bosses that the majority of people cannot kill.

The way I (and my LS) enjoy games is beating the hardest bosses, with the least amount of people. I respect the way you (and the people who agree with your viewpoint) enjoy games, but don't ask SE to take away these type of encounters that keep people like me playing. If you don't like it b/c you feel like you need to give up your life in order to beat it, then you can choose not to attempt it, and enjoy the other aspects of the game.

Also I want to point out the glaring fact that you don't need to be a no-lifer to be good at gaming. In fact, good gamers often exercise and play sports involving hand-eye coordination, or do mentally challenging tasks to stay sharp, playing only 1-4 hours a day, and are much better than people who glue themselves to their seats for 10+ hours a day. We've all experienced playing a game too much with continuous failure, then coming in fresh the next day and winning.


Frankly I don't care what kind of lifestyle you claim to live. There is nothing healthy about playing a video game for marathon lengths of time, and it is irresponsible as a designer to create content that REQUIRES you to play for many hours at a time. Epic fights are fine. They don't have to take 6+ hours though.

Quote:
If there is no death penalty, what is the point of being able to die?


Because dying lets you know that you lost. You didn't do well enough. You need to do better. Dying IS a penalty. Plus, generally people assume that when you die, you're already being penalized with lost time because you'll have to try again. It's not like there's no penalty if you don't lose other things on top of that.

Quote:
Why not just make everybody invincible?


Because that would remove all relevant challenge from the game? Do you see now how that's completely different from removing the penalties for death?
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#103 Jan 20 2010 at 12:23 AM Rating: Default
odinpingpong wrote:

How condescending. You couldn't have bothered to quote and force people to comb through a hundred lines of FFXI haterade to find a needle in a haystack that reeks of WoW-fanboyism.


No, because if they're too biased to read what was written the first time they're not likely to get it the second time, which means my effort to stick it in front of them would be wasted. If someone is to be penalized, it should be the ones with the bias, no? c wut i did thar?

Quote:
Anyways, lost travel time & consumables is not a penalty. XP loss is the penalty. You lose time and consumables whether you win or die.


Of course it's a penalty. Don't be ridiculous. You had a food buff with <x> duration remaining on it and when you died, it was taken away. You invested <x> amount of time traveling to a particular spot. If you die and use an RR item and then refresh the RR buff, you lost a charge. If you decide to wait for a raise, you potentially lose time. If you HP and have to travel back, you lose time. No matter what you do, you lose something above and beyond the fight.

That, for the uninformed, is called a penalty.

So stop arguing like a 3rd grader...please. For your own sake. You're not doing yourself any credit.
#104 Jan 20 2010 at 12:33 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
899 posts
Rather then fighting and calling each other's opinion sucks (idk how an opinion can be sucks, its an opinion justified duh!) why cant we all have what we consider as death penalty ? customizable one.

Player can have Option in which if he die he can:

- ??% exp needed to level up.
or
- ?? gils.
or
- ??% durability to all equips.

The question will be how to balance it (which we cant answer yet). I know 2nd option will attract gilbuyers but even in a game that doesn't need much money like WoW, they do exist. And hey! its an easier way for SE to ID them lol.

Can add more options if needed rather then start fighting between WoW fanboyz and FFXI ones.
____________________________
Falasi of Bismarck.
THF75/WAR75/BLU75/RNG75/DRK75/MNK75/SAM66
ZM:done. PM:done. AM:done.
Assault: Captain
#105AureliusSir the Irrelevant, Posted: Jan 20 2010 at 3:27 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Take everything FFXI had, minus the xp loss, and you'd have a lot fewer disgruntled players. I personally don't even think the rez sickness is appropriate...I think there are better ways to prevent zerg tactics if SE wants to explore them. SE has announced plans for durability damage on gear. If they carry forward the full compliment of penalties in FFXI and add durability damage, they'll be making a horrendous mistake.
#106 Jan 20 2010 at 5:10 AM Rating: Good
*
109 posts
This is why I'm in favor of a comprehensive system with balances of sensibility and justification. Make the penalties justifiable, and make them sensible given the other difficulty factors in a given activity.

It's amazing what you're able to get people to put up with if you make things make sense to them.
____________________________

Kashius wrote:
Things WoW did not invent:
...
- Fun
#107 Jan 20 2010 at 5:25 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
899 posts
Quote:
You don't need to explicitly lose gil when you die. Having to pay to repair your gear is the indirect way of doing that and it makes sense. If you have an arbitrary gil penalty for death, how do you rationalize that? "I died while I was in a party of 5 people. We were fighting a moose. When I died, the moose ate 120 of my gil. My party wasn't quick enough to stop it. After they finished killing the moose and they raised me, nobody wanted to gut the moose to get my gil back. Boo."


Ofc there should be a differnce between both lose gils and durability lose:

(all numbers used to explain the point, nothing else)
Say Player A (Mage) is so close to lvling up but expect to die next event so he switch to Option C (durability lose say 15% when death, dmg taken take 0.1% for each 1k dmg taken).
Now Player A died way too much , his equips durability is now 20% , cost to repair is 1k for each 1% so 80k but player A doesn't have 80k atm and expect his LS's pay by next event to be 200k. Option B comes into the picture with 5k for each death.

The point is for a player to choose the lesser evil for death , some love making gils but hate re-exping , some live to exp and some are in between.

(remember this is just an opinion)

Quote:
I think there are better ways to prevent zerg tactics if SE wants to explore them.


Like ? (I think you mean Zombie tactics..)
____________________________
Falasi of Bismarck.
THF75/WAR75/BLU75/RNG75/DRK75/MNK75/SAM66
ZM:done. PM:done. AM:done.
Assault: Captain
#108 Jan 20 2010 at 9:02 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
You lose time and consumables whether you win or die.


I should think it would be obvious to anyone that you lose MORE when you die. Often twice as much just for dying once.

Quote:
idk how an opinion can be sucks, its an opinion justified duh!


Just as an fyi, saying that something is an opinion doesn't make it an opinion (it can just be a fact that is wrong), and some opinions are (much) better than others. That's the very basis of subjective assessments, which are often proven to be reliable and valid. I didn't read what you were talking about so I don't know if either is the case for you, but that answers your question.

For the record I don't dislike the idea of choosing your penalty in a game that's going to have a penalty, as providing a few viable choices is actually a consistently proven method of promoting enjoyment. Practically speaking, if you provide a choice, everyone is going to probably find that one method is least painful and go by that-- personal goals and needs may be a factor as well, but each player could at least pick the death that was least painful for them (or more, I guess, if they wanted the extra "challenge," though I guarantee no one would do that, unless perhaps as a joke.) That said, I still think an even better way is to remove the additional penalties altogether.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#109 Jan 20 2010 at 9:27 AM Rating: Default
**
432 posts
Just make death the penalty. I don't know about you guys but I enjoy having people to play with in a MMO. Hardcores don't make that much of a population and having more people to play with is better. Harsh death penalties and stupid content (its really f***ing stupid) like AV and PW just makes people leave rather than stay.

Make it a bit more casual and a lot more people will be able to enjoy this game with us.

Also we are not children to be scolded every time we do something wrong. Content can be hard and fun at the same time. I keep bringing Monster Hunter and Demon's Souls but those games got the difficulty right. Not much penalties for losing (money in MH and monsters becoming a bit harder on DS) and content that made you become better at the game without the need for cat-like reflexes.

WoW becomes boring after a while and FFXI just made me want to quit because I'm not a *********.
____________________________
Kyunalesca
Lakshmi

"should you punch a six-year old girl in the face -- or should you punch her in the stomach? Hmm, that's a toughie."

Battlecat:
"I've always felt the best way to respond to someone calmly presenting their point of view is to fly off the handle and insult everyone who doesn't think like exactly like myself as well."
#110 Jan 20 2010 at 10:27 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,523 posts
AureliusSir the Irrelevant wrote:
odinpingpong wrote:

How condescending. You couldn't have bothered to quote and force people to comb through a hundred lines of FFXI haterade to find a needle in a haystack that reeks of WoW-fanboyism.


No, because if they're too biased to read what was written the first time they're not likely to get it the second time, which means my effort to stick it in front of them would be wasted. If someone is to be penalized, it should be the ones with the bias, no? c wut i did thar?

Quote:
Anyways, lost travel time & consumables is not a penalty. XP loss is the penalty. You lose time and consumables whether you win or die.


Of course it's a penalty. Don't be ridiculous. You had a food buff with <x> duration remaining on it and when you died, it was taken away. You invested <x> amount of time traveling to a particular spot. If you die and use an RR item and then refresh the RR buff, you lost a charge. If you decide to wait for a raise, you potentially lose time. If you HP and have to travel back, you lose time. No matter what you do, you lose something above and beyond the fight.

That, for the uninformed, is called a penalty.

So stop arguing like a 3rd grader...please. For your own sake. You're not doing yourself any credit.


The world isn't as cruel as you take it to be.
____________________________
____(>°°)D_->__(O°°)>-_<(;,,;)>_C-(°°Q)__O~~_t(°°<)_(;o0)___<(;,,;)>_<(;,,;)>_<(;,,;)>_<(;,,;)>_<(;,,;)>_____

#111 Jan 20 2010 at 10:36 AM Rating: Default
RedGalka wrote:

The world isn't as cruel as you take it to be.


Were you going to make your own contribution to the discussion or just toss out dumbass comments every once in a while for ***** and giggles?
#112 Jan 20 2010 at 10:38 AM Rating: Default
Falasi wrote:
Quote:
You don't need to explicitly lose gil when you die. Having to pay to repair your gear is the indirect way of doing that and it makes sense. If you have an arbitrary gil penalty for death, how do you rationalize that? "I died while I was in a party of 5 people. We were fighting a moose. When I died, the moose ate 120 of my gil. My party wasn't quick enough to stop it. After they finished killing the moose and they raised me, nobody wanted to gut the moose to get my gil back. Boo."


Ofc there should be a differnce between both lose gils and durability lose:


That would be all well and good but there has been no mention of direct gil loss, so you're just arguing your own fantasy at this point.
#113 Jan 20 2010 at 11:15 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,523 posts
AureliusSir the Irrelevant wrote:
RedGalka wrote:

The world isn't as cruel as you take it to be.


Were you going to make your own contribution to the discussion or just toss out dumbass comments every once in a while for sh*ts and giggles?


You're shooting everything down with **** so I think my comments are more then enough.
____________________________
____(>°°)D_->__(O°°)>-_<(;,,;)>_C-(°°Q)__O~~_t(°°<)_(;o0)___<(;,,;)>_<(;,,;)>_<(;,,;)>_<(;,,;)>_<(;,,;)>_____

#114 Jan 20 2010 at 11:16 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
899 posts
Quote:

That would be all well and good but there has been no mention of direct gil loss, so you're just arguing your own fantasy at this point.


Relax, there was no mention of anything more then a promise that its ganna be a casual friendly (look mythic weapons promises) so the whole point of my post is to find a middle ground between casual and hardcore (dont tell me you dont want hardcore on the game , they exist even in WoW).

You still didnt suggest a better solution to Zerg tactics (or zombie).
____________________________
Falasi of Bismarck.
THF75/WAR75/BLU75/RNG75/DRK75/MNK75/SAM66
ZM:done. PM:done. AM:done.
Assault: Captain
#115 Jan 20 2010 at 12:22 PM Rating: Good
***
2,169 posts
AureliusSir the Irrelevant wrote:
RedGalka wrote:

The world isn't as cruel as you take it to be.


Were you going to make your own contribution to the discussion or just toss out dumbass comments every once in a while for sh*ts and giggles?


Your posts are riddled with logical fallacies, followed by insults, and even a personal attack.

You fail to realize that SE losing 75% of it's subscriber base does not equate to a lack of success. 500,000 accounts paying $15 a month is not a failure. Your problem is you assume that the death penalty was part of the exodus, then you proceed to describe the type of death penalty you want, which, surprise, is exactly like WoW.

You fail to realize that you are arguing AGAINST rez sickness, but instead you argue FOR using gil to repair armor, gil that may take time to obtain, just like XP took time to recover in FFXI. It's comical that you don't even realize that all you want is WoW2.0, b/c rez sickness is a much better fit for your carebear death penalty argument.

You claim to know so much about how to make money developing an MMO, it's truly a miracle that SE didn't hire you already (see I can use logical fallacies too).

I've heard people like you, on the AION boards when that game was in its development and conception. They got exactly what they asked for, WoW 2.0, and you know what, they were not happy with what they got. All gamers think they know what it takes to develop a good game, but really, none of us know more than the other, so stop with the insults and stop pretending like you know more than anyone else, forcing WoW mechanics down our throats and insulting anyone who doesn't agree, under the pretense that SE won't make money b/c you, AureliousSir of Allakhazam happens to know what's best for the company. Aion/Warhammer boards pre-launch was pretty much 1000 AureliousSirs posting at the same time, and developers made the mistake of catering to them.

Finally, you accused me of using "hacks" (ranged distance plugin) to supplement my challenges. I've called you out to elaborate in detail, to which you have said nothing. I'm still waiting on that one. You started this one, so I feel an explanation is warranted.



Edited, Jan 20th 2010 1:45pm by odinpingpong
____________________________
FFXIV - Currently Playing on Selbina Server
Name: Itachi Akatsuki (THM)
LS: UnitedBBQ

www.guildwork.com - best guildhosting site period

FFXI - Pingpong - Retired 2007
http://ffxi.allakhazam.com/profile.xml?6988
75rng | 75nin | 75blm | working on RDM
RNG Gration solo: http://pingpongwww.livejournal.com/15532.html
#116 Jan 20 2010 at 12:53 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,169 posts
AureliusSir the Irrelevant wrote:
odinpingpong wrote:

How condescending. You couldn't have bothered to quote and force people to comb through a hundred lines of FFXI haterade to find a needle in a haystack that reeks of WoW-fanboyism.


No, because if they're too biased to read what was written the first time they're not likely to get it the second time, which means my effort to stick it in front of them would be wasted. If someone is to be penalized, it should be the ones with the bias, no? c wut i did thar?

Quote:
Anyways, lost travel time & consumables is not a penalty. XP loss is the penalty. You lose time and consumables whether you win or die.


Of course it's a penalty. Don't be ridiculous. You had a food buff with <x> duration remaining on it and when you died, it was taken away. You invested <x> amount of time traveling to a particular spot. If you die and use an RR item and then refresh the RR buff, you lost a charge. If you decide to wait for a raise, you potentially lose time. If you HP and have to travel back, you lose time. No matter what you do, you lose something above and beyond the fight.

That, for the uninformed, is called a penalty.

So stop arguing like a 3rd grader...please. For your own sake. You're not doing yourself any credit.


LS#1 kills Tiamat in 1 hour, using 2 rounds of consumables. LS#2 attempts Tiamat 2 times wiping in 15 minutes each time with 15 minutes to travel back. They lose 2 rounds of consumables and also an hour due to death.

Time lost for LS#1: 1 hour
Time lost for LS#2: 1 hour
Consumables lost for LS#1: 2 charges
Consumables lost for LS#2: 2 charges

They both lost TIME and CONSUMABLES. You lose that no matter what. Traveling back and losing consumables is simply a natural consequence of attempting the fight. If both the winner and loser lose the exact same amount of time and consumables, it's not really a penalty. There is no comparative disadvantage. In most occurrences, people who die lose LESS time than people who win, in which case the penalty is simply the lack of reward.

If I'm arguing like a 3rd grader, you might still be in preschool.

Edited, Jan 20th 2010 2:41pm by odinpingpong
____________________________
FFXIV - Currently Playing on Selbina Server
Name: Itachi Akatsuki (THM)
LS: UnitedBBQ

www.guildwork.com - best guildhosting site period

FFXI - Pingpong - Retired 2007
http://ffxi.allakhazam.com/profile.xml?6988
75rng | 75nin | 75blm | working on RDM
RNG Gration solo: http://pingpongwww.livejournal.com/15532.html
#117 Jan 20 2010 at 1:33 PM Rating: Good
Sage
*
94 posts
While technically correct, you don't really feel like the consumables you used were lost if you win the fight. They were a means to an end that you accomplished. If you loose the fight, you've lost the time and consumables with nothing tangible to show for it.
#118 Jan 20 2010 at 1:42 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
899 posts
Quote:
While technically correct, you don't really feel like the consumables you used were lost if you win the fight. They were a means to an end that you accomplished. If you loose the fight, you've lost the time and consumables with nothing tangible to show for it.


Technically also , Unless you are solo or duo with no healer(who has the ability to cast raise/reraise) you don't walk back mid-fight , in any other group activity you sure to have a WHM-SCH or someone /WHM to to raise you back.

In FFXI you cant count "walking back" as a penalty since its assumed that you'll end up with someone casting raise on you. As for soloing earring/hairpin/scrolls exist for a reason... especially the first 2.. think about the poor crafters D:!

edit: spellingz!

Edited, Jan 20th 2010 2:51pm by Falasi
____________________________
Falasi of Bismarck.
THF75/WAR75/BLU75/RNG75/DRK75/MNK75/SAM66
ZM:done. PM:done. AM:done.
Assault: Captain
#119 Jan 20 2010 at 2:40 PM Rating: Decent
**
423 posts
Quote:
In FFXI you cant count "walking back" as a penalty since its assumed that you'll end up with someone casting raise on you


You know what happens when you assume?

Also not true. For any new players, which is where the game initially needs to cater, you do run back. Later on you cannot assume every party has a whitemage because as i recall they sometimes didn't, especially if you had a ninja tank then a RDM was more then enough.

The earrings/hairpins/scrolls are band-aids for the bigger issue. If you say it doesn't exist because of these that is wrong. In the perfect situation yes, someone will have one or many of the items, but in many they will not. I remember when i played on release when people died you waited for your party to find a local 50+ whitemage to raise it up. Should we depend on higher level people being in lower areas to make the game bearable?

Second the limited inventory was also brutal for new players. You manage to scrape together enough money for decent full set of equip then you lose most of your inventory due to that... not very encouraging to carry extra "nice to have" items.

Lastly, if the stupid home points weren't so far away and the game wasn't build upon "camps" style of leveling up people would run back. However this is not the case because you usually have to run through piles of aggro mobs and by the time you hit your camp your res sickness would be up anyways. Look @ Dunes/Quifim. When you die it's usually much quicker to go to the home point and run back.

#120 Jan 20 2010 at 2:49 PM Rating: Decent
**
432 posts
Good thing that FFXIV won't have XP so we won't have that penalty!

I just hope we don't lose skill points or this will be FFXI PITA again.
____________________________
Kyunalesca
Lakshmi

"should you punch a six-year old girl in the face -- or should you punch her in the stomach? Hmm, that's a toughie."

Battlecat:
"I've always felt the best way to respond to someone calmly presenting their point of view is to fly off the handle and insult everyone who doesn't think like exactly like myself as well."
#121 Jan 20 2010 at 5:20 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,169 posts
Kachi wrote:
Quote:
Why do people have to equate players who want difficult bosses to no-lifers? I'm married, have a good job, live comfortably, visit friends and family, and I want these type of bosses that the majority of people cannot kill.

The way I (and my LS) enjoy games is beating the hardest bosses, with the least amount of people. I respect the way you (and the people who agree with your viewpoint) enjoy games, but don't ask SE to take away these type of encounters that keep people like me playing. If you don't like it b/c you feel like you need to give up your life in order to beat it, then you can choose not to attempt it, and enjoy the other aspects of the game.

Also I want to point out the glaring fact that you don't need to be a no-lifer to be good at gaming. In fact, good gamers often exercise and play sports involving hand-eye coordination, or do mentally challenging tasks to stay sharp, playing only 1-4 hours a day, and are much better than people who glue themselves to their seats for 10+ hours a day. We've all experienced playing a game too much with continuous failure, then coming in fresh the next day and winning.


Frankly I don't care what kind of lifestyle you claim to live. There is nothing healthy about playing a video game for marathon lengths of time, and it is irresponsible as a designer to create content that REQUIRES you to play for many hours at a time. Epic fights are fine. They don't have to take 6+ hours though.


I see where you are coming from, and I don't think every boss in the game should take 6 hours to kill. But 6 hours for the hardest boss in the game is acceptable imo for early kills. I will snowboard for 6 straight hours, I do work everyday at a computer for 6 straight hours, and I watch TV for 6 straight hours, or sit in a car for 6 straight hours.

As long as it's a once in a while occurrence, 6 hours is not going to kill me or be detrimental to my health.

Also, kill times usually go down once people figure out a working strategy. I don't think any mob will take 6 hours in the long run, it only takes 6 hours b/c it seems difficult initially, just like Kirin when it was first being killed.
____________________________
FFXIV - Currently Playing on Selbina Server
Name: Itachi Akatsuki (THM)
LS: UnitedBBQ

www.guildwork.com - best guildhosting site period

FFXI - Pingpong - Retired 2007
http://ffxi.allakhazam.com/profile.xml?6988
75rng | 75nin | 75blm | working on RDM
RNG Gration solo: http://pingpongwww.livejournal.com/15532.html
#122 Jan 20 2010 at 6:09 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,808 posts
odinpingpong wrote:
LS#1 kills Tiamat in 1 hour, using 2 rounds of consumables. LS#2 attempts Tiamat 2 times wiping in 15 minutes each time with 15 minutes to travel back. They lose 2 rounds of consumables and also an hour due to death.

Time lost for LS#1: 1 hour
Time lost for LS#2: 1 hour
Consumables lost for LS#1: 2 charges
Consumables lost for LS#2: 2 charges

Unfortunately your hypothetical scenario is grievously flawed. After LS#2 finishes wiping they still have to actually kill Tiamat, which you forgot to include. OR alternatively they can choose to quit and give up the rewards, which the other group would have received, and so they incur an opportunity cost. So assuming LS#2 is equally capable as LS#1 (aside from some accidental wipes), it will cost them an additional 1 hour and 2 rounds of consumables for when they successfully kill Tiamat.

Ultimately the situation is

Time lost for LS#1: 1 hour
Time lost for LS#2: 2 hours
Consumables lost for LS#1: 2 charges
Consumables lost for LS#2: 4 charges

So it indeed cost them more time and consumables for wiping.

Death that cause a time delay (either waiting on a rez or spawn at home point, or running back to your corpse) and/or removing buffs will always be a cost. The only exception happens around interval abnormalities, like dying 1 hour after downing a consumable that happens to last 1 hour as well (so you lucked out and there was no cost in this rare occurrence).
odinpingpong wrote:
I see where you are coming from, and I don't think every boss in the game should take 6 hours to kill. But 6 hours for the hardest boss in the game is acceptable imo for early kills. I will snowboard for 6 straight hours, I do work everyday at a computer for 6 straight hours, and I watch TV for 6 straight hours, or sit in a car for 6 straight hours.

The difference with a boss is that you also have to coordinate that 6 hour time slot with every other person in the group. There is no sensible reason a boss should require 6 or more hours to kill, except maybe as a one time special event that serves as a joke encounter.

After a group proves they they can win the encounter, it should be over, because the rest is just a really boring movie. If you are playing chess and you opponent is literally in the position where it is check mate in three moves with no escape, then the game is over; the rest is simply going through the motions, but not an actual game. Once a group completes one strategic cycle (that is whatever strategy they are using has looped over), heck completes it even two or three times just to prove they can do it consistently, a fight should be over.

If we're a match where a win is "best 4 out of 7," then if you win the first four games there is no reason to play 3 more games against me. It just wastes time. You've already won.

Edited, Jan 20th 2010 6:19pm by Allegory
#123 Jan 20 2010 at 6:53 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,169 posts
Allegory wrote:
After LS#2 finishes wiping they still have to actually kill Tiamat


No, they don't.

Quote:
OR alternatively they can choose to quit and give up the rewards, which the other group would have received, and so they incur an opportunity cost.


Which is basically what I've already said. The cost is not receiving the drops from Tiamat, as you put it, the opportunity cost.

Quote:
There is no sensible reason a boss should require 6 or more hours to kill, except maybe as a one time special event that serves as a joke encounter.


I don't think we are necessarily disagreeing here. I don't think any boss should REQUIRE you to spend 6 hours to kill either. Vrtra could take 1 LS 6 hours to kill, another LS 1 hour, and some LSs, 1 minute. There is no 6 hour requirement. The only thing is that first kills tend to last longer as people are trying to figure out the mob. AV prepatch took LB over a day to get it to lock, but a couple hours for Apathy to kill later in the week using the same strategy.

Quote:
After a group proves they they can win the encounter, it should be over, because the rest is just a really boring movie. If you are playing chess and you opponent is literally in the position where it is check mate in three moves with no escape, then the game is over; the rest is simply going through the motions, but not an actual game. Once a group completes one strategic cycle (that is whatever strategy they are using has looped over), heck completes it even two or three times just to prove they can do it consistently, a fight should be over.

If we're a match where a win is "best 4 out of 7," then if you win the first four games there is no reason to play 3 more games against me. It just wastes time. You've already won.

Edited, Jan 20th 2010 6:19pm by Allegory


I agree, but what does all of this have to do with anything?
____________________________
FFXIV - Currently Playing on Selbina Server
Name: Itachi Akatsuki (THM)
LS: UnitedBBQ

www.guildwork.com - best guildhosting site period

FFXI - Pingpong - Retired 2007
http://ffxi.allakhazam.com/profile.xml?6988
75rng | 75nin | 75blm | working on RDM
RNG Gration solo: http://pingpongwww.livejournal.com/15532.html
#124AureliusSir the Irrelevant, Posted: Jan 20 2010 at 7:12 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Think back. Way back. FFXI RNG forums.
#125 Jan 20 2010 at 7:28 PM Rating: Decent
It's Just a Flesh Wound
******
22,699 posts
Quote:
Which is basically what I've already said. The cost is not receiving the drops from Tiamat, as you put it, the opportunity cost.


You shouldn't really be comparing two examples where the outcome is different. I think it's better to think of it this way. You have the option to fight Tiamat or not. The opportunity cost is your consumables and time. The more you die, the more consumables and time it takes; therefore penalty.
____________________________
Dear people I don't like: 凸(●´―`●)凸
#126 Jan 20 2010 at 7:40 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,169 posts
AureliusSir the Irrelevant wrote:
odinpingpong wrote:
AureliusSir the Irrelevant wrote:
RedGalka wrote:

The world isn't as cruel as you take it to be.


Were you going to make your own contribution to the discussion or just toss out dumbass comments every once in a while for sh*ts and giggles?


Your posts are riddled with logical fallacies, followed by insults, and even a personal attack.


And yours are riddled with hypocritical dumb. Were you going to attempt to make a point?

Don't talk to me about how you crave challenge in an MMO. Anyone who uses the Windower in conjunction with plugins to make the game easier has no business getting on the challenge high horse.

Quote:
You fail to realize that SE losing 75% of it's subscriber base does not equate to a lack of success. 500,000 accounts paying $15 a month is not a failure. Your problem is you assume that the death penalty was part of the exodus, then you proceed to describe the type of death penalty you want, which, surprise, is exactly like WoW.


No business that loses 75% of its customers to a competitor is labeled a success. Try some logic of your own.

Quote:
You fail to realize that you are arguing AGAINST rez sickness, but instead you argue FOR using gil to repair armor, gil that may take time to obtain, just like XP took time to recover in FFXI. It's comical that you don't even realize that all you want is WoW2.0, b/c rez sickness is a much better fit for your carebear death penalty argument.


Get a clue. Seriously. I haven't mentioned anything in this entire thread or referenced any concepts that aren't already present in several games on the market, not just WoW. Your bias is showing again.

And I'm not arguing FOR armor loss, ya whiny dunce...IT'S ALREADY BEEN ANNOUNCED AS SOMETHING THEY'RE PLANNING TO INCLUDE IN THE GAME. They've also said that "xp" loss is something that is currently in the game but they're undecided as to whether or not they're going to launch the game with it in place. See how that works? Why would I argue against something that's confirmed when I can sink my teeth into something that's still in the air?

If you spent half as much time informing yourself as you did beaking off, you wouldn't make such an idiot of yourself.

Quote:
I've heard people like you, on the AION boards when that game was in its development and conception. They got exactly what they asked for, WoW 2.0, and you know what, they were not happy with what they got.


If you're truly so stupid that you connect "I don't want to be excessively punished for minor setbacks" with "I want WoW 2.0", you belong in a special school with a helmet, not posting here.

Quote:
All gamers think they know what it takes to develop a good game, but really, none of us know more than the other, so stop with the insults and stop pretending like you know more than anyone else, forcing WoW mechanics down our throats and insulting anyone who doesn't agree, under the pretense that SE won't make money b/c you, AureliousSir of Allakhazam happens to know what's best for the company.


Paranoid much? I'm not talking about WoW mechanics, and you've earned every insult you've been lovingly handed. Stop being such an obtuse twit. **I** have not mentioned WoW. YOU have. WTF does that leave us with? Ohhh...someone with an anti-WoW bias and a partial lobotomy trying to carry on a debate. Hurray for you.

Quote:
Finally, you accused me of using "hacks" (ranged distance plugin) to supplement my challenges. I've called you out to elaborate in detail, to which you have said nothing. I'm still waiting on that one. You started this one, so I feel an explanation is warranted.


Think back. Way back. FFXI RNG forums.

Sissy.

Edited, Jan 20th 2010 5:21pm by AureliusSir


Describing game mechanics that work EXACTLY like WoW in every single thread about how the game should work IS describing WoW. Just because you don't mention WoW explicitly does not make it any less obvious that you are describing a WoW mechanic. I can go quote any of your posts and add "-like WoW" to the end of it and it would make perfect sense. I understand you are angry for being exposed. For the record, I've both defended WoW in certain aspects and attacked it in other aspects. You on the other hand have an innate hatred for FFXI that is so glaringly obvious that you feel the impulse to project your feelings in every thread.

WoW will eventually lose 75% of it's customer base to another competitor, just like FFXI, just like any other game.

Downloading Windower does not enhance my character to gain an unfair competitive advantage. It was a convenience so that I can use Skype and internet while playing, thanks.

Show me where I'm using ranged plugin to my advantage:
http://img204.imageshack.us/i/gration1ru5.png/
http://img504.imageshack.us/i/gration4qy9.png/
http://img397.imageshack.us/i/gration8cy9.png/
http://img144.imageshack.us/i/tankingxr6.jpg/
http://img80.imageshack.us/i/300expzg5.jpg/
http://img287.imageshack.us/i/thefight1ij.jpg/

Where am I getting my distance from target?

Your best shot is that I suck b/c I downloaded Windower. Sorry but LOL doesn't even begin to describe it.

Edited, Jan 20th 2010 8:53pm by odinpingpong
____________________________
FFXIV - Currently Playing on Selbina Server
Name: Itachi Akatsuki (THM)
LS: UnitedBBQ

www.guildwork.com - best guildhosting site period

FFXI - Pingpong - Retired 2007
http://ffxi.allakhazam.com/profile.xml?6988
75rng | 75nin | 75blm | working on RDM
RNG Gration solo: http://pingpongwww.livejournal.com/15532.html
#127 Jan 20 2010 at 7:41 PM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
20,808 posts
odinpingpong wrote:
Which is basically what I've already said. The cost is not receiving the drops from Tiamat, as you put it, the opportunity cost.

Which is still a real cost. Either way by wiping LS#2 incurs a greater penalty/cost than LS#1. Your assertion "Anyways, lost travel time & consumables is not a penalty. XP loss is the penalty. You lose time and consumables whether you win or die." Is flawed. You lose time and consumables whether you win or die, but you don't incur the same net loss. You incur marginal costs/penalties by dying.


odinpingpong wrote:
I don't think we are necessarily disagreeing here. I don't think any boss should REQUIRE you to spend 6 hours to kill either. Vrtra could take 1 LS 6 hours to kill, another LS 1 hour, and some LSs, 1 minute. There is no 6 hour requirement. The only thing is that first kills tend to last longer as people are trying to figure out the mob. AV prepatch took LB over a day to get it to lock, but a couple hours for Apathy to kill later in the week using the same strategy.

My assumption was that you were asserting 6 hours was an acceptable norm time for a boss kill (for a reasonably skilled group that is reasonably familiar with the encounter). If I misinterpreted your statement, then I'm sorry and what I said after does not apply.
odinpingpong wrote:
I agree, but what does all of this have to do with anything?

My point here is that 1) the typical kill time for a boss should be short overall and 2) the typical kill time of a boss should not exceed beyond about 3 cycles of the same strategy.

Many FFXI bosses violated both of these conditions. The longest combat abilities in FFXI are 2 hours, no boss fight (except perhaps one time special events) should last beyond 2 hours for a group in FFXI. There is no reason for it. By this point a group has used every possible ability at their disposal and is ready to repeat the procedure, which is pointless. They've already proven they can win, the fight should be over by then.

While battle times will vary based on the combat speed of the game, a standard of about 8-15 for fast paced games and an hour at most for slower paced games is what I would deem to be reasonable boss kill time. Fights that last 3 hours or more are ridiculous.

Edited, Jan 20th 2010 7:50pm by Allegory
#128 Jan 20 2010 at 8:15 PM Rating: Default
odinpingpong wrote:
Describing game mechanics that work EXACTLY like WoW in every single thread about how the game should work IS describing WoW. Just because you don't mention WoW explicitly does not make it any less obvious that you are describing a WoW mechanic.


Or a LOTRO mechanic. Or any other game that (in the context of this discussion) uses durability loss as the primary penalty for death in addition to lost time, buffs, and having to attempt the fight over again from the beginning if you want to be successful. But your hatred for all things WoW is so extreme that all you see is a similarity to WoW, ergo that must me that all *I* want is WoW 2.0, amirite?

Get a grip.

Quote:
You on the other hand have an innate hatred for FFXI that is so glaringly obvious that you feel the impulse to project your feelings in every thread.


I don't post in every thread. As a point of fact, I find most of the threads here to be dull and uninteresting so I leave them alone.

You can cry me a ******* river all day long about me being the big meanie head doodoo pants that you seem to want to think I am, but as I recall it were the inferences that people who don't want to be bent over the proverbial pickle barrel over every minor mistake in a game are somehow lacking because they oppose the hardcore ********* approach to MMO gaming. So again, Commander Hypocrite, get a grip.

Quote:
WoW will eventually lose 75% of it's customer base to another competitor, just like FFXI, just like any other game.


WoW, since you keep bringing it up, has been going 5 years strong on the global market where their only substantial dip in subscribers has come as a result of disputes with the juggernaut of ethical censorship that is China, not a mass exodus of dissatisfied/disgruntled players like SE saw with FFXI. FFXI lasted what...2 years on the global market before the game went kaput? And let's face it, FFXI had no real competition when it was first launched. If it had, I'm sure it wouldn't have gone as long as it did before its population plummeted. I'm also fairly sure that if SE had more successful games to compare FFXI to while it was in development so they could get a feel for what the market as a whole was most inclined to pay for, they would have taken a much different approach to design.

You think it's a fluke SE has decided to aim FFXIV to a more casual audience? You think they're a development house jam packed with innovators? They looked at EQ...the forefather of epic grinds and harsh penalties for trivial rewards...and implemented a lot of those concepts into FFXI. Now EQ and FFXI are both in the toilet as mere shadows of their former selves and I don't think even you would be so dense as to assert that they're aiming FFXIV more towards the MMO market as a whole (as opposed to the hardcore niche) "just because".

Quote:
Downloading Windower does not enhance my character to gain an unfair competitive advantage. It was a convenience so that I can use Skype and internet while playing, thanks.


But when the RNG nerfs came down all those years ago, you were so willing and able to rabidly defend the use of the ranged plugin to assess optimum distance from target and the crutch it was for RNG to bypass the new "challenge", yet you oppose the idea of cutting the casual gamer some slack with FFXIV.

Yup, that'd make you a hypocrite. Or maybe you've simply changed your stance over the years. Either way, you've got no credibility with me.
#129 Jan 20 2010 at 8:29 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,169 posts
AureliusSir the Irrelevant wrote:

But when the RNG nerfs came down all those years ago, you were so willing and able to rabidly defend the use of the ranged plugin to assess optimum distance from target and the crutch it was for RNG to bypass the new "challenge", yet you oppose the idea of cutting the casual gamer some slack with FFXIV.

Yup, that'd make you a hypocrite. Or maybe you've simply changed your stance over the years. Either way, you've got no credibility with me.


Wow, that was like 4 years ago. I didn't even remember that thread. Thanks for the good memories. My stance remains that distance plugin is fine, but not necessary, although you are entitled to your opinion that it is a crutch and a cheat.

Tbh, I think that it's totally fine you want a game that has similar features to WoW, you are again entitled to your opinion, of which I vehemently disagree with, although will respect. But I took issue with your incessant need to act condescending towards anyone that agrees with you.

I might not remember particular threads in the RNG forum, but I do remember the people, and I don't recall you resorting namecalling b/c someone disagreed with you. But I don't know, maybe you've changed your personality over the years.

Edited, Jan 20th 2010 9:41pm by odinpingpong
____________________________
FFXIV - Currently Playing on Selbina Server
Name: Itachi Akatsuki (THM)
LS: UnitedBBQ

www.guildwork.com - best guildhosting site period

FFXI - Pingpong - Retired 2007
http://ffxi.allakhazam.com/profile.xml?6988
75rng | 75nin | 75blm | working on RDM
RNG Gration solo: http://pingpongwww.livejournal.com/15532.html
#130 Jan 21 2010 at 12:02 AM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
All gamers think they know what it takes to develop a good game, but really, none of us know more than the other


Well... that's not really the case.

I mean, I can't really believe that some people are arguing that lost time and consumables aren't penalties. If you lose a fight, and don't even lose xp, then you still lose MORE time and consumables for the same amount of progress when you attempt the fight again. Really, anyone who is arguing otherwise at this point should be trying desperately to change the subject. Arithmetic is not up for debate.

Quote:
I see where you are coming from, and I don't think every boss in the game should take 6 hours to kill. But 6 hours for the hardest boss in the game is acceptable imo for early kills. I will snowboard for 6 straight hours, I do work everyday at a computer for 6 straight hours, and I watch TV for 6 straight hours, or sit in a car for 6 straight hours.

As long as it's a once in a while occurrence, 6 hours is not going to kill me or be detrimental to my health.

Also, kill times usually go down once people figure out a working strategy. I don't think any mob will take 6 hours in the long run, it only takes 6 hours b/c it seems difficult initially, just like Kirin when it was first being killed.


I'd agree with some reservations, but I wouldn't agree if you were saying that XI lived up to those standards. Snowboarding and going to work aren't really comparable situations, either. Six hours might be reasonable for an event that is truly few and far between, not for an event that you have to do dozens of times because the drop rates are terrible.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#131 Jan 21 2010 at 1:13 AM Rating: Decent
It's Just a Flesh Wound
******
22,699 posts
Quote:
FFXI lasted what...2 years on the global market before the game went kaput?

lol

Quote:
But when the RNG nerfs came down all those years ago, you were so willing and able to rabidly defend the use of the ranged plugin to assess optimum distance from target and the crutch it was for RNG to bypass the new "challenge", yet you oppose the idea of cutting the casual gamer some slack with FFXIV.

This statement is horrible on so many levels. "Challenge", "crutch"? All you had to do was use the radar, which was trivial because everytime you engaged the radar disappeared (lolps2limitations). Using the distance plugin gave you a little bit of convience. You equating that to challenge and then using that of all things to call him a hypocrit? Ahahahahahaha.

Your posts reek of absolute ffxi hatred. You're free to have your own opinions, but god some of them are downright retarded. If you want to comment on things like game mechanics, maybe you should get rid of your obvious prejudice. It's clear to everyone how blind it has made you.

Edited, Jan 21st 2010 2:32am by Deadgye
____________________________
Dear people I don't like: 凸(●´―`●)凸
#132 Jan 21 2010 at 1:56 AM Rating: Default
Deadgye wrote:
Quote:
FFXI lasted what...2 years on the global market before the game went kaput?

lol

Quote:
But when the RNG nerfs came down all those years ago, you were so willing and able to rabidly defend the use of the ranged plugin to assess optimum distance from target and the crutch it was for RNG to bypass the new "challenge", yet you oppose the idea of cutting the casual gamer some slack with FFXIV.

This statement is horrible on so many levels. "Challenge", "crutch"? All you had to do was use the radar, which was trivial because everytime you engaged the radar disappeared (lolps2limitations). Using the distance plugin gave you a little bit of convience. You equating that to challenge and then using that of all things to call him a hypocrit? Ahahahahahaha.

Your posts reek of absolute ffxi hatred. You're free to have your own opinions, but god some of them are downright retarded. If you want to comment on things like game mechanics, maybe you should get rid of your obvious prejudice. It's clear to everyone how blind it has made you.


Actually, it's you rabid defenders of bad games that usually set off the more heated debates. I express my opinions and then people get butthurt. Then they whine. Then they deny reality to present counter arguments. Or they pretend like reality never happened, as you appear to have done in your response to me just now. -75% of your customers in a year is a huge loss. MASSIVE. But you laugh it off as though you don't even want to believe it happened. Like somehow denying it makes it not so.

And then, continuing with the trend, YOU will bring up some other MMO like I'm comparing. I'm not. I'm making a single, isolated statement about one game...FFXI...and how, after roughly 2 years on the market, it lost that 75% of its customers in the span of a year. That says something about FFXI. It says something about how well SE did at anticipating their market outside of Japan (hint: they failed at it).

And still you'll deny. You were happy with FFXI. Good for you. What I suggest you learn to accept is that out of that initial 2 million or so subscribers, 3 out of 4 people will disagree with you. They'll happily site FFXI's strong points, and it had many...just not enough to offset its glaring deficiencies. And of course, you're free to present your opinion, but denying reality in the face of clear and present facts does little for your credibility.
#133 Jan 21 2010 at 3:07 AM Rating: Decent
It's Just a Flesh Wound
******
22,699 posts
Quote:
And then, continuing with the trend, YOU will bring up some other MMO like I'm comparing. I'm not. I'm making a single, isolated statement about one game...FFXI...and how, after roughly 2 years on the market, it lost that 75% of its customers in the span of a year. That says something about FFXI. It says something about how well SE did at anticipating their market outside of Japan (hint: they failed at it).

And still you'll deny. You were happy with FFXI. Good for you. What I suggest you learn to accept is that out of that initial 2 million or so subscribers, 3 out of 4 people will disagree with you. They'll happily site FFXI's strong points, and it had many...just not enough to offset its glaring deficiencies. And of course, you're free to present your opinion, but denying reality in the face of clear and present facts does little for your credibility.


Orly? I don't believe I did. FFXI had plenty of horrible points, and plenty of good points. What I'm laughing about is the points you're mentioning are not the horrible points.

Putting aside any costumer loss(I'd actually like to see the numbers if you have them handy, since I've never bothered to look at any of the censuses. That is what they're from, right?) you spout your own opinions on the game, and then you attack other peoples opinions stating your own again like it's a fact. Sorry, but your definition of "good" is not the same as everybody else.
____________________________
Dear people I don't like: 凸(●´―`●)凸
#134 Jan 21 2010 at 3:23 AM Rating: Decent
***
2,169 posts
FYI Aurelious, the horrible points of FFXI are such things as

rampant RMT
botting
HNM camping

Losing 20min of XP per death? Not in my book.

You seem unable to acknowledge the possibility that your solution for death penalty may not be the best, to the point of accusing others of down syndrome.

I'm in the camp that believes you might just not be the beacon of truth to show all of us retarded people the light.
____________________________
FFXIV - Currently Playing on Selbina Server
Name: Itachi Akatsuki (THM)
LS: UnitedBBQ

www.guildwork.com - best guildhosting site period

FFXI - Pingpong - Retired 2007
http://ffxi.allakhazam.com/profile.xml?6988
75rng | 75nin | 75blm | working on RDM
RNG Gration solo: http://pingpongwww.livejournal.com/15532.html
#135 Jan 21 2010 at 8:06 AM Rating: Excellent
Guru
Avatar
*****
11,081 posts
Like XI or not, there's some merit to its population dwindling then and even now. I've always been doubtful of SE's claims of 500k users, especially in the past two years where you could see server peaks of 3k and now might be lucky to see 1.5k. Additionally, blindly citing subscriptions doesn't really account for how often people actually play or aren't secondary or tertiary accounts of people who just use them to scout NMs or play solely as TH whores or PLs.

Realistically, we've probably been at about 250k unique individual users for a while now, spread out over all the servers. Something had been causing my Friend's List and Linkshell Roster to diminish, and while could maybe blame RL changes for some cases, I think it has more to do with the game. Is it EXP penalties? Is it crap drop rates? Is it the NM/Claim system? Is it SE's questionable support with XIV looming? Is it the fact the game hasn't really gotten anything fresh in 2 years now? Is it job balancing? Is it the difficulty in making gil? Is it crafting sucking? Is it most events being a waste of time?

Such things could be one good reason for anyone, but I'd imagine they're a combination. And guess what, some have a form of penalty associated with them.
____________________________
Violence good. **** bad. Yay America.
#136 Jan 21 2010 at 10:40 AM Rating: Excellent
45 posts
I've been off FFXI for several years, and unfortunately still crave going back. (I say unfortunate cause I know it still has the problems that made me quit, so I just have to deal with the craving.) FFXI had a fantastic concept, and I still believe that concept was better than the concept of any other MMO out there.

Where I feel FFXI failed was in the balance area.

Death was an example of this. The death penalties were absolutely appropriate... in a game where you die rarely. This was probably an unfortunate consequence of designing it for a Japanese target audience and then attempting to bring it to America without thoughts to the differences in culture. When I joined the game, I knew two other people who played. While they had their own friends in-game, I spent most of my leveling time running solo, something that was likely considered to be a rare activity for Japanese players.

It went like this: Advertise for a group for 2 hours, level for 1 hour, gain half a level and/or lose half a level.

I imagine if I'd had a good solid group to play with, I'd have rarely died, and never fretted about it. Some FFXI players likely did, made it to the cap where you're less concerned with gaining and more with maintaining, and felt the pressure fall off.

Concepts like these were why I gave up on the game. FFXI was tailored toward a specific style of play, and if you were outside that scope, it had no place for you.

There've been several concepts of death penalties from various games discussed, but in each case, they balance the penalty toward their target audience. I won't recap these, as it's not relevant to the discussion. What SE needs to do is make sure that - whoever they want playing their game - the style, consequences, and rewards are best tailored TO that type of game. If they want to make money, this means targetting the largest available audience.

If you're fine with a game that targets a small fraction of the available audience, keep in mind that you should probably pay more for the privilege of having an exclusive club. The business side will look at dollars earned vs. dollars spent.

My Preferred Death Penalty

None.

Yep, that's right. No death penalty. Say what you will about shame, lost time, etc. It's irrelevant. The way to make an enjoyable experience and also encourage players to develop their skill is not through penalties, but through rewards.

Let's say you want to experience the content. You probably don't care HOW you down a boss, just THAT you down it.

Now, let's go to the other end. You're downing bosses for rare items, for prestige, for self-satisfaction in achieving something difficult; you want to have something that few other people have. Do you really care that 95% of the player base sees the content? Or do you care that they got what you do, even though you're that much better? Or do you feel cheated that you put in so much time, effort, planning, and passion, and now you feel cheated cause Johnny Faceroller just did it with an account he started yesterday?

What I would like to see is an aspect similar to that of the single-player games. If you die, you lose nothing. (Minor durability is fine; it's generally just a realism / economy cycle aspect without significant consequence.) If your whole party dies, you're sent to a nearby safepoint (crystal, in this case.) Your party loses any gil or items that they won in that area, all the bosses / enemies respawn, and you're forced to reattempt it. (Think of this like jumping back in time to the last save.) You retain your skill development (mostly because the most important skill development is happening in the real world, and you don't lose that.)

You may ask: How does this prevent people from throwing their bodies at an obstacle til they pass it? Well, it doesn't. This is where the reward aspect comes in.

Leves, missions, content progression... If these are all you're interested in, you fight/die/repeat until you get strong enough / good enough to do it. No big deal.

However: Anything of value checks how many tries it took you.

Let's talk about bosses, since they're an easy example. If you want the best reward, you complete the challenge with no deaths. Each death of a group member diminishes the reward, down to some minimum level (a handful of gil and some cheap items). If the whole group falls and fights their way back, the game remembers that your group has had some deaths, and the boss rewards are lowered. (Until whatever resets the score, such as a timer or a deadline.) If you want that amazing gear, you need to down him without losing anybody.

See what that does? Anybody who's just there for fun and isn't serious about it can get together and play around, and eventually see all the content. Anybody who's there for the challenge, rewards, and prestige can get it by being skilled enough. If they want, they can even add a "special challenge" button near the boss, that lets you make the fight harder for a better reward.

Recap

Penalties: Should go away. Send us back to "the last save". That's it.
Rewards: Escalating rewards conversely to the number of deaths occurred.

PS: Give us a way to rate players we've played with so - if we have to group with people we don't know - we know beforehand what to expect.
Also, no more camping. I'd rather fight my way THROUGH a zone than sit in one spot killing anything that comes by, while fifty other people are in sight doing the same.
____________________________
d'Jang'ai'alarion
#137 Jan 21 2010 at 10:58 AM Rating: Default
Deadgye wrote:

And still you'll deny. You were happy with FFXI. Good for you. What I suggest you learn to accept is that out of that initial 2 million or so subscribers, 3 out of 4 people will disagree with you. They'll happily site FFXI's strong points, and it had many...just not enough to offset its glaring deficiencies. And of course, you're free to present your opinion, but denying reality in the face of clear and present facts does little for your credibility.


Orly? I don't believe I did. FFXI had plenty of horrible points, and plenty of good points. What I'm laughing about is the points you're mentioning are not the horrible points.[/quote]

It's inevitable. You've gone that way with every other argument we've had. And again, you're laughing based on your opinion. Enjoy that minority position. It's only going to get smaller.

Quote:
Putting aside any costumer loss(I'd actually like to see the numbers if you have them handy, since I've never bothered to look at any of the censuses. That is what they're from, right?) you spout your own opinions on the game, and then you attack other peoples opinions stating your own again like it's a fact. Sorry, but your definition of "good" is not the same as everybody else.


Actually, I stand corrected...according to the charts I was just reviewing, FFXI never hit anywhere near 2 million subscribers. It peaked at 650k (Chart) in 2005, two years after NA release, and then lost ~25% of it's customers within a year and never got them back (gross figures). So it never really was that popular to begin with and then in 2005 it fell into the toilet.

But argue and deny. The 2million figure was apparently active characters. Why SE would count that in a census I have no idea. Active subs has apparently never gone over 650k. And while 25% is obviously not 75%, it's still an enormous loss.

Over 20 million people worldwide play MMOs. FFXI claims < 3% of those as active subscribers. But it's a good game with mass appeal, ya? And SE is just so happy with their design philosophy that they've decided to do a 180 with regards to their approach, right?

You have no facts. You have opinion only. And of course, you're entitled to that opinion. But save the mirthful responses for when you've got some facts to back them up, mmmkay?
#138 Jan 21 2010 at 11:27 AM Rating: Decent
**
621 posts
AureliusSir the Irrelevant wrote:


Actually, I stand corrected...according to the charts I was just reviewing, FFXI never hit anywhere near 2 million subscribers. It peaked at 650k (Chart) in 2005, two years after NA release, and then lost ~25% of it's customers within a year and never got them back (gross figures). So it never really was that popular to begin with and then in 2005 it fell into the toilet.

You have no facts. You have opinion only. And of course, you're entitled to that opinion. But save the mirthful responses for when you've got some facts to back them up, mmmkay?


Loosing 25% of its subscribers isn't "falling into the toilet". Do you really expect an 8 (or so) year old game to keep getting more popular? I think that only loosing 25% over a 4-5 year span is a great performance when you consider the fast development of the gaming industry.

And LOL at you claiming 75% lost subscribers within a year. What an epic fail.
____________________________
Kweh?!

...prophesizing the golden patch since october 2010.
#139 Jan 21 2010 at 11:51 AM Rating: Decent
**
456 posts
First of all, lets establish that China/Korea (Asia) is the biggest gaming region for MMO's. Half of WoW's population is in this region, and most of other games like Aion, also have the majority of players from this region. This was a market that FFXI was not in, because they don't sell their games to the chinese or Korea, because of personal reasons. The reason why FFXi was not even more successful was directly because of this, and not because of a death penalty or any other game mechanic. If you don't sell your games to the biggest regional market, then of course your success will take a hit. Even with all that, it was a very successful MMO, even though it didn't bring in WoW type numbers. It was easily around 5th most successful MMO (for its longevity and numbers), which is great taking into account that they didn't sell their game to the market that every other MMO company pulls huge numbers from.

Many other MMOs have came out fairly recently, that have promised to do some of the same things that you are asking for, and most of them fell flat. They have not even snipped the amount of success that FFXi has had, so I don't understand the criticism on FFXI's success. Last time I said that, you had some excuse why such and such game failed, but it doesn't matter. Like everybody else said, you are using your opinion and stating it as a fact, when in reality its just your small opinion. Everybody has an opinion, and with the game nearing beta we will see soon enough whose viewpoint is closer to correct.

Quote:
Let's talk about bosses, since they're an easy example. If you want the best reward, you complete the challenge with no deaths. Each death of a group member diminishes the reward, down to some minimum level (a handful of gil and some cheap items). If the whole group falls and fights their way back, the game remembers that your group has had some deaths, and the boss rewards are lowered. (Until whatever resets the score, such as a timer or a deadline.) If you want that amazing gear, you need to down him without losing anybody.

See what that does? Anybody who's just there for fun and isn't serious about it can get together and play around, and eventually see all the content. Anybody who's there for the challenge, rewards, and prestige can get it by being skilled enough. If they want, they can even add a "special challenge" button near the boss, that lets you make the fight harder for a better reward.


I see this as a very boring, excitement lacking game, especially if every boss is done this way. To a lot of people and myself, it was never about the reward, it was more about the excitement of the fight, especially with low numbers. The rewards was just the icing on top of the cake, the fight was always the best part. In FFXI terms, everybody wasn't going to get a reward anyway, so most of the people that was there was there because the fight was exciting. Even stuff like killing Hydra and Jormungand were events because the fight was fun, their drops weren't even that good. Sure the rewards are great too, but the fight itself was most of the fun, and this way just takes out basically all the excitement of the fight. You zombie kill it and its just "o who cares you don't get the good reward," that doesn't sound like much fun at all. Sounds real dull knowing you can kill everything if you wanted too by zombie killing it but you just won't get the reward. The title that you got in FFXI was as much of the reward as the items were on some fights (at least to me anyways).

Edited, Jan 21st 2010 1:17pm by HocusP
#140AureliusSir the Irrelevant, Posted: Jan 21 2010 at 5:19 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) It wasn't over a 4-5 year span. It was over the span of a year. Way to fail at basic chart reading.
#141 Jan 21 2010 at 5:28 PM Rating: Decent
**
621 posts
AureliusSir the Irrelevant wrote:
insanekangaroo wrote:
AureliusSir the Irrelevant wrote:


Actually, I stand corrected...according to the charts I was just reviewing, FFXI never hit anywhere near 2 million subscribers. It peaked at 650k (Chart) in 2005, two years after NA release, and then lost ~25% of it's customers within a year and never got them back (gross figures). So it never really was that popular to begin with and then in 2005 it fell into the toilet.

You have no facts. You have opinion only. And of course, you're entitled to that opinion. But save the mirthful responses for when you've got some facts to back them up, mmmkay?


Loosing 25% of its subscribers isn't "falling into the toilet". Do you really expect an 8 (or so) year old game to keep getting more popular? I think that only loosing 25% over a 4-5 year span is a great performance when you consider the fast development of the gaming industry.


It wasn't over a 4-5 year span. It was over the span of a year. Way to fail at basic chart reading.


In ~2005 it was 650k, in 2008 (and I'm assuming 2009) it was 500k. That means it dropped 150k (about 25%) in a span of 4 years.

And BTW, that chart disproves your whole theory about FF11 being a failed game. Compare the chart of FF11 to the general trend of the other games and you will see that FF11 has maintained its success more or less during the years, while most of the other games have either plummeted towards zero in the same time span or never actually reached a great number of subs.
____________________________
Kweh?!

...prophesizing the golden patch since october 2010.
#142 Jan 21 2010 at 5:29 PM Rating: Good
It's Just a Flesh Wound
******
22,699 posts
Quote:
You have no facts. You have opinion only. And of course, you're entitled to that opinion. But save the mirthful responses for when you've got some facts to back them up, mmmkay?


Like you did, amirite? Don't preach if you're not going to follow what you're saying.

Quote:
Over 20 million people worldwide play MMOs. FFXI claims < 3% of those as active subscribers. But it's a good game with mass appeal, ya? And SE is just so happy with their design philosophy that they've decided to do a 180 with regards to their approach, right?


I'd say it did pretty @#%^ing well.

Oh, did you want to link this chart that clearly shows ffxi as one of the most active MMOs as something that's supposed to support your argument?

Tell me, if FFXI is such a horrible MMO like you say your facts back you up on; what exactly is your idea of a good MMO?

Edited, Jan 21st 2010 6:42pm by Deadgye
____________________________
Dear people I don't like: 凸(●´―`●)凸
#143 Jan 21 2010 at 6:13 PM Rating: Default
Deadgye wrote:
Quote:
You have no facts. You have opinion only. And of course, you're entitled to that opinion. But save the mirthful responses for when you've got some facts to back them up, mmmkay?


Like you did, amirite? Don't preach if you're not going to follow what you're saying.


Did I not correct my statement and acknowledge the actual numbers? You haven't offered any facts either way. Just opinions. And snide remarks. And dumb. Yes. Loads of dumb.

Quote:
Quote:
Over 20 million people worldwide play MMOs. FFXI claims < 3% of those as active subscribers. But it's a good game with mass appeal, ya? And SE is just so happy with their design philosophy that they've decided to do a 180 with regards to their approach, right?


I'd say it did pretty @#%^ing well.

Oh, did you want to link this chart that clearly shows ffxi as one of the most active MMOs as something that's supposed to support your argument?

Tell me, if FFXI is such a horrible MMO like you say your facts back you up on; what exactly is your idea of a good MMO?


I picked the chart that excluded the more popular MMOs because their subscriber numbers made it difficult to get an accurate visual of what had been happening with FFXI. (That would be the same chart that showed Runescape as having more than double the active subscriptions as FFXI, btw). If you want to see the chart I'm referring to, change Chart2 in the url I linked to Chart1. Careful though...your e-peen might shrink a lil.

Otherwise, come back with some facts or **** off.
#144AureliusSir the Irrelevant, Posted: Jan 21 2010 at 6:24 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) The population spikes downward to 500k at about the 2006 mark. That, in case basic addition and subtraction are also beyond your grasp, was about 4 years ago. From 2005 to 2006 is...one year. -25% in one year. Thanks for coming out, though.
#145 Jan 21 2010 at 6:36 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,169 posts
Deadgye wrote:
Quote:
You have no facts. You have opinion only. And of course, you're entitled to that opinion. But save the mirthful responses for when you've got some facts to back them up, mmmkay?


Like you did, amirite? Don't preach if you're not going to follow what you're saying.

Quote:
Over 20 million people worldwide play MMOs. FFXI claims < 3% of those as active subscribers. But it's a good game with mass appeal, ya? And SE is just so happy with their design philosophy that they've decided to do a 180 with regards to their approach, right?


I'd say it did pretty @#%^ing well.

Oh, did you want to link this chart that clearly shows ffxi as one of the most active MMOs as something that's supposed to support your argument?

Tell me, if FFXI is such a horrible MMO like you say your facts back you up on; what exactly is your idea of a good MMO?

Edited, Jan 21st 2010 6:42pm by Deadgye


Don't you know anything other than World of Warcraft is a failed MMO?
/sarcasm
____________________________
FFXIV - Currently Playing on Selbina Server
Name: Itachi Akatsuki (THM)
LS: UnitedBBQ

www.guildwork.com - best guildhosting site period

FFXI - Pingpong - Retired 2007
http://ffxi.allakhazam.com/profile.xml?6988
75rng | 75nin | 75blm | working on RDM
RNG Gration solo: http://pingpongwww.livejournal.com/15532.html
#146 Jan 21 2010 at 6:42 PM Rating: Good
It's Just a Flesh Wound
******
22,699 posts
Quote:
Did I not correct my statement and acknowledge the actual numbers? You haven't offered any facts either way. Just opinions. And snide remarks. And dumb. Yes. Loads of dumb.


I haven't offered any facts, because there is no need to. The only one discussing anything of the sort is you. Every other single person here is giving their opinions on what type of death penalty they'd like and why; Or debating with others opinions saying why they think that's too harsh or too soft. I've given snide remakes because some of the things you've said were just plain wrong, or just plain silly. Please go ahead and point out where I've spewed out "Loads of dumb."

Quote:
I picked the chart that excluded the more popular MMOs because their subscriber numbers made it difficult to get an accurate visual of what had been happening with FFXI. (That would be the same chart that showed Runescape as having more than double the active subscriptions as FFXI, btw). If you want to see the chart I'm referring to, change Chart2 in the url I linked to Chart1. Careful though...your e-peen might shrink a lil.

Otherwise, come back with some facts or @#%^ off.


Epeen? Sorry to burst your bubble, but I'm not like that. I don't get any sort of satisfaction from correcting your mistakes. I'm here simply to debate. Congratulations on belittling your argument again though. Runescape is a free to play MMO. It costs nothing to start up, and it costs nothing to continue playing. It's not that bad of a game for a free to play MMO too actually, lol. And now the other three games that are above FFXI. Lineage, Lineage II, and WoW. You don't know much about Lineage do you? It's pure grind fest. If you think FFXI or Aion was bad, then you have nooooo idea. It's Korean though, as are most of their subscribers, so there's no surprise there. And we all know WoW is a successful MMO that's enjoyable, at minimum for a couple months. But you said you weren't talking about WoW, right?

If you're going to argue, stay consistent. Don't waver all over the place saying ffxi failed because it lost 25% of it's users in 1 year, and then post a chart backing up your claim where 2/4 of the MMOs with a higher active subscription number have done the same exact thing. (Lineage lost 30%~ from 04 to 05. And Lineage II lost 25%~ from 05 to 06.) Runescape didn't, but once again free to play MMO. And WoW didn't, but you said you're not talking about WoW.
____________________________
Dear people I don't like: 凸(●´―`●)凸
#147 Jan 21 2010 at 7:03 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,169 posts
AureliusSir the Irrelevant wrote:
insanekangaroo wrote:

In ~2005 it was 650k, in 2008 (and I'm assuming 2009) it was 500k. That means it dropped 150k (about 25%) in a span of 4 years.


Hi, dumbass. Good to see how again. How are you? I'm not sure what part of the world you're from, but where I come from they teach people how to read basic line graphs by about the 4th of 5th grade. So that means you're either really, really young, you live in a third world country, or you're just not so bright.

The population spikes downward to 500k at about the 2006 mark. That, in case basic addition and subtraction are also beyond your grasp, was about 4 years ago. From 2005 to 2006 is...one year. -25% in one year. Thanks for coming out, though.


"Failure" is a subjective term. It is pointless to debate subjective terms, b/c everyone will twist it to their own bias, and everyone in this thread has a bias.

While you can argue that FFXI lost 25% in 1 year, others can point to the fact that it has maintained it's subscription share for 3 more years. We are all looking at the same chart. Interpretations will be all over the place.

You enjoy reminding us of how successful one game is compared to another but using it to support why one game mechanic is better and passing it as fact or truth leads to logical fallacies. At some point you need to realize that what you are proposing as the best solution is your own opinion, an opinion that has been repeated many times in AionSource and WarhammerAlliance, both of which had very involved devs who catered to the community to build a game similar to WoW, both who have yet to find what you would deem as success in the MMO genre.
____________________________
FFXIV - Currently Playing on Selbina Server
Name: Itachi Akatsuki (THM)
LS: UnitedBBQ

www.guildwork.com - best guildhosting site period

FFXI - Pingpong - Retired 2007
http://ffxi.allakhazam.com/profile.xml?6988
75rng | 75nin | 75blm | working on RDM
RNG Gration solo: http://pingpongwww.livejournal.com/15532.html
#148 Jan 21 2010 at 8:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Guru
Avatar
*****
11,081 posts
Does anyone know how SE determines their subscriber base? For all we know, they may consider someone who only paid three months part of their yearly users instead of those that span the twelve. How about trial accounts? This doesn't exactly help the popularity argument if things are then a revolving door when added with more long-time subscribers. There's also the matter of "alt-itis" I brought up in an earlier post. You'll also have people who just keep paying because they don't have it in them to "let go" or think they'll lose their data. To be honest, I have a hard time calling anyone/an account who plays 20 hours or less a month a subscriber, and you can be sure such people exist and are skewing numbers in who knows which direction. SE wins with such customers, though, as those who stay on 24/7 are just sucking up bandwidth and consequently demanding more of SE in the long run, too.

As for Aion, my opinion of it is it's a game that got released a bit too soon. It's rather solid until level 35 or so, but then content drops off under the assumption the PvP crowd would keep things entertaining. Well, said PvP crowd seems more interested in ganking and telling those more interested in PvE that they're morons, that it's their game, go back to WoW, and so on. It's a case of, "Be careful what you wish for..." as now both sides are griping about diminished populations because they can't do anything (Be it group questing or large-scale PvP). As with FFXI, though, the problems weren't singular. For many, it's a comprehensive make or break, and not unlike XI, Aion will penalize you somewhat harshly with a number of methods that also makes FFXI suck at times. Some of Aion's worst grinds still pale to XI's, though. Doesn't make 'em any less frustrating when you do hit them, however.
____________________________
Violence good. **** bad. Yay America.
#150 Jan 22 2010 at 9:25 AM Rating: Decent
3 posts
Very simple, death = character deletion...
#151AureliusSir the Irrelevant, Posted: Jan 22 2010 at 3:50 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) There you go bringing up WoW again, even after I SPECIFICALLY chose a chart that excluded it. Told ya so.
This forum is read only
This Forum is Read Only!
Recent Visitors: 23 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (23)