An open discsusion on the consequences of death

[Rentahamster]

Why does everyone still think that SP loss would come with ranking down?

I doesn't necessarily have to, but that's what happened in FF11, and that's what most people relate to.

Essentially, we both have the same discouragement: Anima loss. But the SP loss system allows people to choose... they can choose to either lose SP or lose Anima. In your system, you have to lose Anima.

Yeah, they have to lose anima if they die, but accompanied with the adjustments are made to how anima is used, it wouldn't be such a big deal. My adjustment of letting you "return" for 0 anima would save much more anima than you'd lose by dying. Also, with more transport options to choose from, anima wouldn't be that valuable anymore. Besides - casual players will have lots of anima anyway sine they don't play that often.

To some people, their Anima is more useful to them than their SP.

Hmm, really? I don't think so, personally.

And what about when someone reaches 0 Anima? Then it's no different than it is now and they are free to just die over and over, wasting everyone's time.

What about it? If they die over and over, they'll never get anymore anima, they will get a reputation for being a terrible player, and they'll never be able to get the "staying alive" bonus. There's enough reasons not to die even if you have 0 anima.

Not saying your idea is necessarily bad, but there are a couple of holes, and I don't see "positive reinforcement" as the most effective (and you still have negative reinforcement in there too, so it's ends up in a wash anyway).

I don't really see the holes you mention.

"Positive reinforcement" is the best form of encouragement. Getting praised for being good is more fun then getting punished for being bad.

I do still have negative reinforcement. Just a little. I didn't say I wanted to do away with it completely. I said I wanted the emphasis to be on positive rather than negative. Like, 75% positive, 25% negative.

FF11 was 100% negative - which made death scary, yes, but it put off a lot of players.

If this system were 100% positive, that too would be a little too "carebear" and boring.

That's why I think a nice mix would appeal to the most players while not reducing enjoyment for anyone.

[Kaedan]

Yeah, they have to lose anima if they die, but accompanied with the adjustments are made to how anima is used, it wouldn't be such a big deal. My adjustment of letting you "return" for 0 anima would save much more anima than you'd lose by dying. Also, with more transport options to choose from, anima wouldn't be that valuable anymore. Besides - casual players will have lots of anima anyway sine they don't play that often.

I am also all for making Return cost 0 Anima.

Hmm, really? I don't think so, personally.

1 Anima = 4 hours. You can get a LOT of SP in 4 hours.

What about it? If they die over and over, they'll never get anymore anima, they will get a reputation for being a terrible player, and they'll never be able to get the "staying alive" bonus. There's enough reasons not to die even if you have 0 anima.

Exactly. Your system is actually HARSHER than my system. At least with a SP loss/buyback system, you can choose between losing SP and losing Anima.

I don't really see the holes you mention.

-Your system forces you to lose Anima only. SP loss system allows you to choose between SP loss or Anima loss.
-When someone's Anima drops to 0, we are back in the same boat we're in now.

"Positive reinforcement" is the best form of encouragement. Getting praised for being good is more fun then getting punished for being bad.

Actually, this is continually debated by psychologists and professionals in Law enforcement and Correction. It cannot be determined one way or the other which is more effective... there are good cases for both. I'm personally against positive reinforcement as a deterrent to negative action since I am more convinced by that side of the scientific argument.

FF11 was 100% negative - which made death scary, yes, but it put off a lot of players.

Agreed. Which is why I suggested an alternate system which is discouraging, but not too harsh. As I said, your system is actually more harsh than mine, since you don't have the choice between losing SP and losing Anima.


So how about this? No loss of anything... no durability loss, no SP loss, no Anima loss. We just increase the weakness timer to 10 minutes. Since time is the most valuable asset in MMOs, that should be a viable deterrent.

[kukurumei]

So how about this? No loss of anything... no durability loss, no SP loss, no Anima loss. We just increase the weakness timer to 10 minutes. Since time is the most valuable asset in MMOs, that should be a viable deterrent.

Not really. "time" is situational. I loose nothing if I'm about to log off, or go have lunch or the millions of other things that time does not matter, in that it's a "free multi-task".

It's not a hard system to implement, it's just really stupid social one. That's why the XP loss system is so freakin easy to advise.

It's a simple mathematical formula to get balanced. If 20% is too harsh, you do 10% if 10% is too light, you do 15% etc, until it's acceptable.

Where the alternative is to throw in some crazy ideas, or some combination of annoyances, etc, that are even harder to balance, because they are infinitely more complex, and harder to stabilize.

Sure it's tricking the mind where "anything but xp, anything~!" doesn't exactly have a difference in terms of penalty

The idea of "buy back" doesn't make it a any less harsh system, it simply offers a compromise between "casuals" or "squealers" vs "hardcore" etc.

Like promising a candy to a kid after a needle shot, because...he's a kid. The candy is hardly worth the price of a needle shot.

I would straight up favor XP loss, because I know it's a simple mind trick. But I also know the squirmish need to be fooled, so buyback isn't exactly a bad idea...the idea of XP debt for instance was the approach or armor loss, etc.

An alternative I have seen is called "state locking" Where death, put you into a "state where you can't advance". And it can't be rid of till you get X/Y amount of XP or some other non-constant situation.

Say a death would add 5 minutes to a "state locked" where you can't level up, or change equipment, or trade, etc. And can't be removed till physically go to a special area, and state in that area for xyz amount of time. The area being isolated can make it an even harsher penalty then simply XP loss, but it does trick the mind that you did not lose anything, when in reality, you lost a lot by doing things you didn't want to do.

AKA: the old penalty box trick

[Kaedan]

Not really. "time" is situational. I loose nothing if I'm about to log off, or go have lunch or the millions of other things that time does not matter, in that it's a "free multi-task".

It's not a hard system to implement, it's just really stupid social one. That's why the XP loss system is so freakin easy to advise.

It's a simple mathematical formula to get balanced. If 20% is too harsh, you do 10% if 10% is too light, you do 15% etc, until it's acceptable.

Where the alternative is to throw in some crazy ideas, or some combination of annoyances, etc, that are even harder to balance, because they are infinitely more complex, and harder to stabilize.

Sure it's tricking the mind where "anything but xp, anything~!" doesn't exactly have a difference in terms of penalty

The idea of "buy back" doesn't make it a any less harsh system, it simply offers a compromise between "casuals" or "squealers" vs "hardcore" etc.

Like promising a candy to a kid after a needle shot, because...he's a kid. The candy is hardly worth the price of a needle shot.

I would straight up favor XP loss, because I know it's a simple mind trick. But I also know the squirmish need to be fooled, so buyback isn't exactly a bad idea...the idea of XP debt for instance was the approach or armor loss, etc.

Yeah, I was mostly being facetious. I still support my original idea. And yes, buyback is merely a compromise between hardcore and casual... which was my entire point. Casuals want no death penalty, hardcores want more severe penalties. I'm trying to find a middle ground.

[Fieros]

Casuals want no death penalty, hardcores want more severe penalties. I'm trying to find a middle ground.

SE need to sell Final Fantasy values to the casuals, instead of selling casual compromises to the FF crowd. The middle ground is where we currently reside, a bland experience truly satisfying to neither.

[Kaedan]

SE need to sell Final Fantasy values to the casuals, instead of selling casual compromises to the FF crowd. The middle ground is where we currently reside, a bland experience truly satisfying to neither.

I disagree. I believe the current system highly favors casuals and neglects moderate and hardcore players. Though I do agree that the current system is bland and unsatisfying. Which is why I suggested a system that is somewhat penalizing to please the hardcore crowd, and very forgiving to please the casuals.

SE wants both players...

So what are you defining as FF values?

[kukurumei]

I disagree. I believe the current system highly favors casuals and neglects moderate and hardcore players. Though I do agree that the current system is bland and unsatisfying. Which is why I suggested a system that is somewhat penalizing to please the hardcore crowd, and very forgiving to please the casuals.

SE wants both players...

So what are you defining as FF values?

Hard to define FF values, when FF values itself have been shot for the last decade.

But assuming it's FFXI values, in this case, it would be partying, adventuring, and basically the model Everquest became popular with.

Everything was about "building" a life inside the fictitious world. From the boring to the exciting, from the tough to the heartwarming.

The casual values would be something more like the FtP games or the DCUO things, where content becomes the name of the game. Log in, log out, log in, log out.

Then there is the 3rd faction which is the PvP faction, or PVE, in which you have a fight for survival. Basically "western" formula of MMOs, or what was branched off from the lineage families.

So basically to give names to each faction, you have
The everquest branch (FF style like)
The lineage branch (WoW, warhammer, etc)
The Guild wars branch (Casuals here) Though I would actually call it the Maple story branch, since that's the MMO that started this "give people anything they want as long as they pay ideal".

[Rentahamster]

1 Anima = 4 hours. You can get a LOT of SP in 4 hours.

No, they won't.

1 Anima = 4 hours. You can gain a lot of SP in 4 hours.

You are making the false assumption that everyone will always buy it back. It's still a choice.

I'm not sure why you're making 1 anima the equivalent of 4 hours' worth of SP grinding. It's totally not the same at all. A chunk of SP is waaaay more valuable than 1 anima since SP represents actual effort put into the game, whereas anima doesn't mean anything since it regenerates automatically without any effort.

If you had a choice of either A. Losing 40000 SP, or B. losing 1 anima (which in your view could be considered equivalent, given a 10k/hour grind rate), no one in their right mind would choose the SP loss over the anima loss.

SP is so much more valuable than anima that it's hardly equivalent. Why would anyone choose to loose their invested time and effort over anima, which regens automatically? Everyone would always choose to loose gil or anima instead of SP (probably gil, since gil is even more worthless than anima). Again, if everyone is always going to choose the same way, it's effectively the same as not giving them a choice in the first place and doesn't help to change anything.

Exactly. Your system is actually HARSHER than my system. At least with a SP loss/buyback system, you can choose between losing SP and losing Anima.

No it's not. Let's compare my system to the two "choices" of your system.

Scenario A: player dies
my system- loses anima
your system - loses SP and buys it back with anima

Both systems have equivalent harshness.


Scenario B: player dies
my system- loses anima
your system - loses SP and decides not to buy it back.

Your system is harsher than mine in Scenario B because losing SP is a harsher penalty than losing anima, since SP is a direct representation of a quantity of effort and time put into the game.

-When someone's Anima drops to 0, we are back in the same boat we're in now.

What boat? The casuals are fine with the current system. It's only the hardcore players who want more challenge. If anima drops to 0, casual players don't care. As for hardcore players, they're skillfull enough not to have 0 anima all the time. That's also why I implemented the bonuses as a performance and visual impact booster to give the hardcore players a reward for being good, and to give them a better reason not to die.