NERO LARP :: Forums :: Main Category :: General Discussion
 
<< Previous thread | Next thread >>
PERMANENT DEATH BY PLAYER CHOICE 2013 & 2014
Go to page   <<        >>  
Moderators: Administrator, KatieMueller, AdamTaylor, jvalenti, Clint, NickDenny, ShellyHollon, KnightofEvendarr, jasonmote, JSchneider, fdhogan, DDS, jvalentinero, BrianCook, dcashel
Author Post
jvalenti
Sun Jan 27 2013, 06:03AM
Joseph Valenti

Registered Member #68
Joined: Mon Aug 08 2011, 10:35AM
Posts: 600
awesome. thank you Will!
Back to top
Administrator
Sun Jan 27 2013, 06:10AM
Dark Lord of NERO

Registered Member #1
Joined: Mon May 30 2011, 02:21AM
Posts: 170
AsheBlackfist wrote ...

KenGillis wrote ...

This is tantamount to the US government deciding to let people choose how much taxes they want to pay one year, and then using the amount of people who chose to pay zero taxes as a reason to cut out taxes.

If you give people the choice, of course they are going to choose what's best for their character. However, that does not mean it is what's best for the game.



You might want to rethink your analogy.

It boils down to "if you give people the choice of whether or not they want their character to die, of course they are going to choose not to let them die! But that's not good for the people who didn't die."

Essentially you just admitted that if you experienced a character who permed (and had the choice), you would elect to not have them perm given the option. Like most people would. And yet some people hold on to this view that it's good for the game, or somehow detrimental to them in a game environment. It looks fundamentally flawed and hypocritical to me.


I think my analogy is sound.

However, here's one that's a bit easier to follow. What if, when playing WoW, you found out that upon login, you could choose to have your character max level, with the top level armor, and 100,000 gold? You could, of course, choose varying degrees below that, or refuse it completely.

While there would be those who would choose the varying degrees, and even refuse it, most would favor getting the most bang for their buck. However, anyone with a modicum of game design knowledge would tell you that it is horrible for fun and game longevity.

Even if you took out that last bit, you'd still be left with a huge response bias that would render all of the data unusable.

A good amount of people who are against the removal of permanent death will still opt out of permanent death if given the choice. Especially if they have reason to believe that it is the system that will be going forward. Whereas someone may not agree with a game mechanic, you better believe they're going to take advantage of it in order to keep up with the curve (if they're willing to continue playing at all, that is).

Honestly, I was a proponent of getting rid of permanent death. However, I had much more stringent limitations on it (if you started a new character, 25% build; if keeping your character, back to starting build, no catch-up).

I have turned against it after hearing arguments against it. The difficulty in removing troublemaking characters from game ( and a solution that actually has the potential to make the situation even worse), as well as the fact that many of the older games already have an entrenched noble class that would never leave openings for new players to advance if it wasn't for permanent death.

Also, with the stated intent recently to slow down leveling, and get some of the build out of the game, this change, in tandem with other proposed changes, work in the complete opposite direction. How is a new player ever to catch up to the immortal character who started playing two decades ago, and can now also purchase build for cash? How will they ever even attain a squireship when the only noble court in town has been filled to the brim for over a decade, and no one's ever going to die or abdicate?

I think the complete removal of permanent death will do more to harm the game than help to solve the problems we have. Many people agree with me. However, many of those people will still take advantage of the removal of permanent death if it is implemented, rather than enforcing a personal handicap against themselves under the new system. And, those people are going to skew the results and make this form of "voting" completely skewed.


Back to top
AsheBlackfist
Sun Jan 27 2013, 01:23PM
Registered Member #44
Joined: Mon Aug 08 2011, 10:02AM
Posts: 147
KenGillis wrote ...



I think my analogy is sound.

However, here's one that's a bit easier to follow. What if, when playing WoW, you found out that upon login, you could choose to have your character max level, with the top level armor, and 100,000 gold? You could, of course, choose varying degrees below that, or refuse it completely.

While there would be those who would choose the varying degrees, and even refuse it, most would favor getting the most bang for their buck. However, anyone with a modicum of game design knowledge would tell you that it is horrible for fun and game longevity.

Even if you took out that last bit, you'd still be left with a huge response bias that would render all of the data unusable.


Your cited analogy is yet again faulty. WoW has changed their game design with each released expansion to favor less and less content between expansions and instead focusing on end-game content almost exclusively. And while I'm sure you'll cite WoW's declining membership, you might also want to keep in mind how stale any game can get after... what has it been? 8 years for WoW? And to think, NERO is even older than that...

To say that getting there is half the journey is only true for less than half the people. A bunch of people play WoW for other reasons, like spending time with distant friends or simply stuff questing. Actually, your analogy of WoW to NERO might be more accurate than I thought...
Back to top
AsheBlackfist
Sun Jan 27 2013, 01:23PM
Registered Member #44
Joined: Mon Aug 08 2011, 10:02AM
Posts: 147
JosephColucy wrote ...

"And to debunk the myth that perming adds a sense of fear to the game, I posit the question of where? in what situation has this EVER occurred? It leads to people feeling like they have to travel anywhere in groups of 10. Death hasn't been cool or fearful in NERO since I've played, it's only been a reason to tagalong with others. Fear is created by atmosphere, not by forcing it down people's throats. People are more afraid of permanent death because of the OOG losses than the IG ones."

Wow you are so wrong.





Very insightful.
Back to top
AsheBlackfist
Sun Jan 27 2013, 01:26PM
Registered Member #44
Joined: Mon Aug 08 2011, 10:02AM
Posts: 147
A good amount of people who are against the removal of permanent death will still opt out of permanent death if given the choice. Especially if they have reason to believe that it is the system that will be going forward. Whereas someone may not agree with a game mechanic, you better believe they're going to take advantage of it in order to keep up with the curve (if they're willing to continue playing at all, that is).


So people want it when they face permanent death, but DON'T want it when it isn't a factor. HMMMMMMMM. Maybe we should focus on the fact that people WOULD take advantage of this if it were offered?
Back to top
Administrator
Sun Jan 27 2013, 06:53PM
Dark Lord of NERO

Registered Member #1
Joined: Mon May 30 2011, 02:21AM
Posts: 170
Why are you arguing things I'm not arguing? I say that it's like giving you free crap on WoW, and you point out that WoW focuses on end game. Where did that come from?

I think you are failing to grasp the very simple concepts in response bias that are taught in any high school intro to statistics class.

Back to top
Attackgypsy
Sun Jan 27 2013, 06:55PM
Registered Member #79
Joined: Mon Aug 08 2011, 10:39AM
Posts: 95
If it happens to me, I'd probably take the 70%, but I would be RP'ing massive gaps in memory. As in he'd have to re-learn who his friends were, who his enemies were, etc...
Back to top
AsheBlackfist
Sun Jan 27 2013, 07:00PM
Registered Member #44
Joined: Mon Aug 08 2011, 10:02AM
Posts: 147
KenGillis wrote ...

Why are you arguing things I'm not arguing? I say that it's like giving you free crap on WoW, and you point out that WoW focuses on end game. Where did that come from?

I think you are failing to grasp the very simple concepts in response bias that are taught in any high school intro to statistics class.




You aren't being very clear then in what you are arguing, but fine, getting free crap and not progressing in WoW. The implementation of death knights said that when you level one character up to a certain point, you could create another character *almost* ready for end-game (at the time) and skip all that content you would otherwise play through.

Any other unclear arguments you'd like to clarify?
Back to top
Frog
Mon Jan 28 2013, 02:04AM
frog
Registered Member #17
Joined: Mon Aug 08 2011, 09:49AM
Posts: 86
Just for the record.
I have had 4 characters perm, one of them permed making sure that others could not be brought back again.
I still play.
Back to top
JacobMead
Mon Jan 28 2013, 02:13AM
Registered Member #2146
Joined: Sat Jun 02 2012, 12:48AM
Posts: 6
Please respond, I'd like to know if people can bring back their pre 2013 permed PCs back.
Back to top
Go to page   <<        >>   

Jump:     Back to top

Syndicate this thread: rss 0.92 Syndicate this thread: rss 2.0 Syndicate this thread: RDF
Powered by e107 Forum System