Can We Get Rid of Death XP Penalties Already? Games Are Supposed to be Fun

the previous thread was full of actual facts - it didn't matter, at all.

they don't like facts. and when you use facts, you get accused of trolling.

Fact carries the same meaning as troll - you fling the word around to support your claims without actually understanding the definition.

"

Holmiester wrote:

I don't see that the game is harmed in the slightest by removing death penalties, which I regard as a throwback to a bygone era of game design. The reasoning behind them appears to be nothing more than 'because we want it that way.'

You haven't thought very hard on the matter then. There's plenty of important design impacts and game theory implications from having various failure states and disincentives for failing. In the very broadest sense without risk the reward doesn't feel as sweet which means the game isn't as fun to play.

The lighter the penalty for failure the less important your choices are. The less rewarded you feel for making the right choice, and the less importance you give to thinking about your choices (aka Gaming). Gaming is literally the act of making interesting choices, answering interesting dilemas. They can be be reflex, dexterous, knowledge driven or deductive but in the end thats the foundation of what a game is.

So if failing doesn't have an impact then who cares if you get out of the way of a boss slam? Right? So what about the player who RELISHES being rewarded for getting out of the way? How does he feel if you remove the need to have reflex skill or knowledge based choices? For him the game is cheaper and less fun.

The answer is that the less impact your choices have the worse the game is, invariably, just try "gaming" a "game" of Pachinko some time... your choice literally doesn't matter... was it a fun and engaging game? Was is deep and rich and compelling to play? No it's a fucking random version of Pinball without even flippers where what slot you put the ball in not only is the ONLY choice you have but is also almost entirely irrelevant to the result of where the ball lands.

Add flippers to it and suddenly we have a game... it doesn't give us a TON of agency without risking tilt but its a game and its fun where pachinko never was.

As you can see failure states are important. the degree to which you're punished for making a bad choice is integral to how compelling and deep a game is, The difference between Tic Tac Toe and Chess is how many really punishing things can happen if you make a bad choice (losing an important piece). The closer you get to "no penalty for failure" the closer you get to "no gameplay here".

but fo a quick recap of shit i said from a previous thread:

fact: the xp penalty was ALREADY nerfed.
fact: removal of the xp penalty would enable zerging to 100/zerging with impunity
fact: the xp penalty is already the ONLY skill-related factor in leveling. with it removed, increasing xp is inevitable - and therefore, anyone/everyone will make it to 100, given enough playtime.

logic dictates that the burden of proof is on the side wanting change (action), as status quo requires no action. that burden has not been met.


if history has taught me anything, i'm now about to be accused of trolling because that's the de facto response for those with no argument in the face of facts.