Making Things More Interesting

[DiogoVP]

There were so many times that I've seen an NPC saying I was going to die. So if I let myself be defeated, that means the NPC is dumb enough to not finish killing me and letting me retreat? The OP talks about "realistic", but that doesn't sound "realistic" either. How that after a NPC threatens to kill me, they just let me escape that easilly after he "defeats" me... Nah.
And mobs have morale, at first you were talking about mobs, not creeps, and here the proof they have morale: Joego scored a hit with Call to Fate on Ilzkâl the Pummeler for 3,272 Light damage to [b]Morale[\b].
In some games, you have to save your game and if you die eventually, you'll go back to where you were the last time you saved. LOTRO is not like that, so when you get killed, instead you'll get teleported to a Rally Circle.
The ability to go to the past in the game is present in almost everything. When you let Legolas die in a quest, you can go back to that quest later and start over. Or the ability of doing an instance many times...
I believe 99% of the times we are defeated by enemies we are killed. Simply because I don't think our enemies are fools enough to defeat us and not finish killing us. If you try to find a realistic reason for most things in the game, you'll find many conflicting things.
Like you said "I don't think our characters die. That's why they use Retreat and not Respawn". Why do I have the option to retreat even when I get incapacited by misadventure?
And you said "we retreat to the nearest Rally Circle to gather ourselves.". So let's say I am doing an instance in a room with my friend and every gate in the room is closed so there is no way I can escape from that room. Then I die and my friend survives, but still I get teleported outside that room while my friend stays in the room with the boss and the gate is still closed, so I can't come back to the room. How can you explain that realistically? Maybe they can pass through solid matter like Kitty Pryde from X-men and gather themselves outside of that room?
That's my point: you will find conflicts if you try to find a realistic reason for everything.

[Lady_Lethargy]

In the case of (most) instances, I think you're right about dying and 'starting over' and the same goes for NPCs in instances (and the occasional landscape quest). But I think that you're wrong about our characters dying when they are attacked by your average landscape mobs. If I attack a group of Corsairs, kill one and loot an item, then 'die,' why do I still have that item at the rally circle? Also, why do I have to repair my gear if it never happened? And why do I 'restart' at some rally circle instead of some place where my character was a few minutes ago?

[DiogoVP]

In the case of (most) instances, I think you're right about dying and 'starting over'

Ok, now that you have admitted it, why do I have to repair my armour if I die in an instance? After all you've just said that I died instead of being defeated...

If I attack a group of Corsairs, kill one and loot an item, then 'die,' why do I still have that item at the rally circle?

Same reason as if you loot a mob and then right after jump into a lava pool and die. You will still have that item in your inventory, right?

Also, why do I have to repair my gear if it never happened?

Game penalty for getting killed.

And why do I 'restart' at some rally circle instead of some place where my character was a few minutes ago?

Because that would be too much complicated.

[Lady_Lethargy]

http://lotro-wiki.com/index.php/Revive

[DiogoVP]

http://lotro-wiki.com/index.php/Revive

That is from a site created and maintained by players and the statement made about characters never being killed have no sources to anywhere outside of the wiki. Not to mention that the statement can be interpreted in many different ways. Anyway, I don't wanna prolong this discussion any further. I came to give my opinion on the matter of prisons, now time to move on.

[Lady_Lethargy]

It would be nice if a Dev could step in and give their opinion on character 'death.'

[Xhiu]

That is from a site created and maintained by players and the statement made about characters never being killed have no sources to anywhere outside of the wiki. Not to mention that the statement can be interpreted in many different ways. Anyway, I don't wanna prolong this discussion any further. I came to give my opinion on the matter of prisons, now time to move on.

It is in the game itself.

Minstrels sing up your health. And that works by...?

It increases your morale. You are defeated and become too dejected to continue. The rezzing classes Bolster your courage, or Rally you to fight on. They don't heal you at all. The rez circle is called a rally point. You rally there, not rez there. Examine your skill tool tips and find one that says someone is brought back to life, from death.

[maxjenius]

It is in the game itself.

Minstrels sing up your health. And that works by...?

It increases your morale. You are defeated and become too dejected to continue. The rezzing classes Bolster your courage, or Rally you to fight on. They don't heal you at all. The rez circle is called a rally point. You rally there, not rez there. Examine your skill tool tips and find one that says someone is brought back to life, from death.

So explain the Undying title (if our characters can never die, they should all get the Undying title at level 1). Explain the Minstrel deeds that talk about healing.

Again, semantic quibbling. Mechanically speaking, health/morale/hit points, same thing, death/defeat/incapacitation, same thing.

It would be nice if a Dev could step in and give their opinion on character 'death.'

Why? The only reason what word is used matters is for RP.

[OldMadeOfLions]

It would be nice if a Dev could step in and give their opinion on character 'death.'

I can tell you that originally we used Morale as the justification for having healing that didn't rely on 'magic,' and the idea was that when you were defeated in combat you retreated 'off-camera' and your story would continue. So you weren't actually dying.

But players generally treated it as death, since that's the way it is in every other game, and after awhile we stopped insisting on it. I think it's up to each character: either 'it's a game' and this is death and respawning, or 'it's a continuous story' and you're only being defeated until you die 'for real.'

MoL

[Lady_Lethargy]

I can tell you that originally we used Morale as the justification for having healing that didn't rely on 'magic,' and the idea was that when you were defeated in combat you retreated 'off-camera' and your story would continue. So you weren't actually dying.

But players generally treated it as death, since that's the way it is in every other game, and after awhile we stopped insisting on it. I think it's up to each character: either 'it's a game' and this is death and respawning, or 'it's a continuous story' and you're only being defeated until you die 'for real.'

MoL

Okay, thanks MoL.

[DiogoVP]

I can tell you that originally we used Morale as the justification for having healing that didn't rely on 'magic,' and the idea was that when you were defeated in combat you retreated 'off-camera' and your story would continue. So you weren't actually dying.

But players generally treated it as death, since that's the way it is in every other game, and after awhile we stopped insisting on it. I think it's up to each character: either 'it's a game' and this is death and respawning, or 'it's a continuous story' and you're only being defeated until you die 'for real.'

MoL

I think that makes sense, but at the same time it's conflicting. As someone said there is the 'undying title'. And we would ask ourselves: if our enemies tell us something like "Now you die" and then finish attacking us as soon as they defeat us, it means they didn't actually want to kill us, unless that defeat means death. There are many NPCs that we kill - am I wrong? - and the word used for it is also defeat - "Your might blow defeated *mob name*" - so why does the word defeat seems convenient to explain that character-players don't die, but at the same the same word is used for mobs that do die.
Also I wonder when you're in a boss fight in one of those big rooms where all the gates or doors of the rooms are closed and if you die and retreat, you go back to the beginning of the instance, leaving whoever was fighting the boss with you still in that room. Realistically saying, you can't explain how I would retreat 'off-camera' from a place that you cannot escape from - the gates are closed - and then have to wait for my friend to finish killing the boss on the room while I am outside watching the fight.
That was kinda my whole point here. While it would make sense that in some occasions we can pretend that our characters didn't die, you can't realistically explain how they escape death in many other occasions.
I think that having the words "morale", "revive" and "retreat" as excuses to explain why your character doesn't die in fact is unsatisfactory, otherwise you would have to explain why mobs and good NPCs also have morale and you would have to explain why the word "retreat" is also used for being incapacited by misadventure as well.
But I believe that sometimes that you are defeated, you don't die - like in that instance where Sara Oakheart reveals who she truly is and you're forcibly defeated at the end and respawn in Gath Forthnir -, but I think those are one of the few occasions where I find credible that we were defeated without dying.

[Xhiu]

I think that makes sense, but at the same time it's conflicting. As someone said there is the 'undying title'. And we would ask ourselves: if our enemies tell us something like "Now you die" and then finish attacking us as soon as they defeat us, it means they didn't actually want to kill us, unless that defeat means death. There are many NPCs that we kill - am I wrong? - and the word used for it is also defeat - "Your might blow defeated *mob name*" - so why does the word defeat seems convenient to explain that character-players don't die, but at the same the same word is used for mobs that do die.

I think MoL explained that. Besides, NPC die. They are not heroes like we are. As for the undying title it is as bogus as the undefeated title. If yours was the only interpretation the Undefeated title would have to be unavailable as soon as you finished V1B9... or missed a turn in Moria

Also I wonder when you're in a boss fight in one of those big rooms where all the gates or doors of the rooms are closed and if you die and retreat, you go back to the beginning of the instance, leaving whoever was fighting the boss with you still in that room. Realistically saying, you can't explain how I would retreat 'off-camera' from a place that you cannot escape from - the gates are closed - and then have to wait for my friend to finish killing the boss on the room while I am outside watching the fight.

You only have to open a door and pass through to be off camera. -Close up of person fighting and next scene is person at entrance, picking up his laundry or something cuz wth else would he run all the way back to the entrance of the dungeon in the middle of the fight? Athelas potions are really Elixirs of Zoloft? "You hang in there. I need to cheer up a moment."

That was kinda my whole point here. While it would make sense that in some occasions we can pretend that our characters didn't die, you can't realistically explain how they escape death in many other occasions.
I think that having the words "morale", "revive" and "retreat" as excuses to explain why your character doesn't die in fact is unsatisfactory, otherwise you would have to explain why mobs and good NPCs also have morale and you would have to explain why the word "retreat" is also used for being incapacited by misadventure as well.
But I believe that sometimes that you are defeated, you don't die - like in that instance where Sara Oakheart reveals who she truly is and you're forcibly defeated at the end and respawn in Gath Forthnir -, but I think those are one of the few occasions where I find credible that we were defeated without dying.

So... what happens to you when you drop to the floor and a minstrel sings you alive? Either way you have to bend your 'rp' to explain what happened. We are not Gandalf or any other kind of being that gets a second chance after the Balrog mops the floor with us. While I tell people in /k I needa pay attention cuz I just died again, none of my characters have ever died. Ever. I have been at the [pep] rally point several times.

But if you wanna die its ok with me

[Xhiu]

I can tell you that originally we used Morale as the justification for having healing that didn't rely on 'magic,' and the idea was that when you were defeated in combat you retreated 'off-camera' and your story would continue. So you weren't actually dying.

But players generally treated it as death, since that's the way it is in every other game, and after awhile we stopped insisting on it. I think it's up to each character: either 'it's a game' and this is death and respawning, or 'it's a continuous story' and you're only being defeated until you die 'for real.'

MoL

Ohohohoh does that mean a perma death is upcoming?!?1?one

Do EET. *cackles madly*

[maxjenius]

Ohohohoh does that mean a perma death is upcoming?!?1?one

Do EET. *cackles madly*

If you want perma-death, you can do that now. The only person stopping you is you.

[Feadel]

Now you're getting it!


"Frustrating and annoying" has always been something I seek out in my entertainment.

If your implication is that "death penalties" are a good thing, then, again, you are free to impose whatever burdens you wish upon your characters.

Lol. Totally got the wrong impression. I don't think death penalties are a good thing. Except for one effect... the harsher the death penalty, the greater the efforts to avoid having your character die.
In EQ (original) you had to run back and find your corpse to get your loot and some exp back. Nothing fun about 'naked Kithcor nighttime' corpse runs.
In DAoC, you could run back to your tombstone and get some exp back, especially improtant if you lost a level from dieing.
Even LotRo had dread effects.
Now days, what incentive is there to avoid dieing? A few minutes of wasted time running back? Or it can be a quick trip back to town, with no other penalty.
I know which versions I had more fun in. LotRo has some good things, mainly the scenery and the story, but there isn't any thrill of danger or fear of being defeated. People like it that way, but really, considering the number of thread complaining about 'dumbing' the game, I think the challenge has been removed. But it's a casual game, so that's probably a good thing.

My main point is that gamers these days don't get the thrill of a hard won battle in which they managed to avoid death by the skin of their teeth and the skill (and quick thinking) of the player. Sure, there is some rose colored hind-sight going on, but it's been true for me since early D&D days. The more apparent danger, the more fun I had getting past it. My weekend gaming group is having great fun even though we're fighting for our character's lives every encounter.

I don't think much of the "imprisonment" idea, and I don't think LotRo would really survive the adding of any kind of death penalty again. But then again giving people a reason to avoid letting their characters die might make the game exciting again.

[maxjenius]

Lol. Totally got the wrong impression. I don't think death penalties are a good thing. Except for one effect... the harsher the death penalty, the greater the efforts to avoid having your character die.

And are you saying that's good? If so, why? It's just a game.

In EQ (original) you had to run back and find your corpse to get your loot and some exp back. Nothing fun about 'naked Kithcor nighttime' corpse runs.
In DAoC, you could run back to your tombstone and get some exp back, especially improtant if you lost a level from dieing.
Even LotRo had dread effects.
Now days, what incentive is there to avoid dieing? A few minutes of wasted time running back? Or it can be a quick trip back to town, with no other penalty.
I know which versions I had more fun in.

If the version you had more fun in is the "penalty" version, then you are free to impose whatever penalties you feel are appropriate. Take off all your character's gear and do a pseudo "naked corpse run" back to the place your character bought the farm. Equip a yellow main hand for 10 minutes to simulate dread or sit and do nothing for 10 minutes or discard a Hope token. Whatever you think is appropriate.

LotRo has some good things, mainly the scenery and the story, but there isn't any thrill of danger or fear of being defeated. People like it that way, but really, considering the number of thread complaining about 'dumbing' the game, I think the challenge has been removed. But it's a casual game, so that's probably a good thing.

Exactly. I think there are games that still offer this so-called "challenge," but they don't seem to be the popular ones.

My main point is that gamers these days don't get the thrill of a hard won battle in which they managed to avoid death by the skin of their teeth and the skill (and quick thinking) of the player. Sure, there is some rose colored hind-sight going on, but it's been true for me since early D&D days. The more apparent danger, the more fun I had getting past it. My weekend gaming group is having great fun even though we're fighting for our character's lives every encounter.

Your weekend gaming group is not a mass market MMO. In any event, it all gets back to "It's just a game, meant to be played for fun." And MMO makers are going to design their "fun" to appeal to what they think is the largest player base.

But then again giving people a reason to avoid letting their characters die might make the game exciting again.

Again, you can impose whatever penalties you wish. Play perma-death if you want. The only person stopping you is you.

[Pyroburn]

I can tell you that originally we used Morale as the justification for having healing that didn't rely on 'magic,' and the idea was that when you were defeated in combat you retreated 'off-camera' and your story would continue. So you weren't actually dying.

But players generally treated it as death, since that's the way it is in every other game, and after awhile we stopped insisting on it. I think it's up to each character: either 'it's a game' and this is death and respawning, or 'it's a continuous story' and you're only being defeated until you die 'for real.'

MoL

Wait I thought the original reason for not calling it death, only defeat was based on the license? I knew the morale equals health for healing not based on magic, because the game was not supposed to have wizards because there were only 5 of them... but we kinda threw that out the window...

[Lady_Lethargy]

Wait I thought the original reason for not calling it death, only defeat was based on the license? I knew the morale equals health for healing not based on magic, because the game was not supposed to have wizards because there were only 5 of them... but we kinda threw that out the window...

You mean with LMs? I'll agree they press they lore, but they aren't Wizards. They're just people who understand nature, animals, and science, and use this knowledge to their advantage.

[Nymphonic]

I can tell you that originally we used Morale as the justification for having healing that didn't rely on 'magic,' and the idea was that when you were defeated in combat you retreated 'off-camera' and your story would continue. So you weren't actually dying.

But players generally treated it as death, since that's the way it is in every other game, and after awhile we stopped insisting on it. I think it's up to each character: either 'it's a game' and this is death and respawning, or 'it's a continuous story' and you're only being defeated until you die 'for real.'

MoL

Thanks for explaining it. For me, I see it as dying and respawning. Even back years ago with Turbine insisting on it being defeated, I still treated it as dying and respawning.

[Reximus]

I don't think death penalties are a good thing. Except for one effect... the harsher the death penalty, the greater the efforts to avoid having your character die.

This used to be the common strain of thought, but I recall some MMO dev not too many years back being asked about these penalties, and they said they found that, in general, instead of making players play better, it made them play scared, and discouraged them from exploring or seeking out new or harder content, so ultimately the penalties were self defeating to the intent of the game.

Of course there are always some players that enjoy the risk/reward system these kinds of system offer, but they seem to be in the minority.

[Lady_Lethargy]

So, as DiogoVP said earlier, they could have some roaming bad guys who, if they see you, try to capture you. What would people think of that? It avoids the death penalty problem, but you can still be captured by some enemies.

[maxjenius]

So, as DiogoVP said earlier, they could have some roaming bad guys who, if they see you, try to capture you. What would people think of that? It avoids the death penalty problem, but you can still be captured by some enemies.

That sounds like a quest, with the objective being "escape from the bad guys."

[DiogoVP]

That sounds like a quest, with the objective being "escape from the bad guys."

I actually think it would be interesting. It would be a new kind of roaming enemies, but they would be in greater number and they could be anywhere - specially at rally points - but then, those enemies should be in very specific areas of the game. Maybe areas surrounding Mordor, Harad, Mirkwood, etc. A quest could be involved, yes, but instead of "escaping the bad guys", quests like "escape the prison", "recover your equipments", etc, etc...

[maxjenius]

I actually think it would be interesting. It would be a new kind of roaming enemies, but they would be in greater number and they could be anywhere - specially at rally points - but then, those enemies should be in very specific areas of the game. Maybe areas surrounding Mordor, Harad, Mirkwood, etc. A quest could be involved, yes, but instead of "escaping the bad guys", quests like "escape the prison", "recover your equipments", etc, etc...

Conceptually, sounds fine.

[Lady_Lethargy]

Yeah, sounds good to me, too.