should we be able to fail more?
By
Agent White,
Posted on: 2012-02-24 11:40 in CoH and CoV General Discussions
I enjoy the tough stuff and have no problem with failure itself - but there's got to be a good balance between a success and failure.
Also, the game is entertainment - and it's not very entertaining to fail constantly so the balance is very important, and stuff that's tough to complete just doesn't get done much in this game.
There's a culture of winning in this game. Even if 30 firbolg escape, we don't lose the whole arc, we just fail the mission.
Personally I'd be happy to have more missions that fail but I'm certainly a minority here and it's no biggie as things stand.
Thelonious Monk
Quote:
Personally, I don't mind "failing" consistently so long as there are no consequences for it. In a single-player game, failure means I die and the game is over. No continue, no reset, no nothing. Well, game over unless you reload. And you can reload as many times as you want, fail as many times as you want, and when you finally succeed, the game treats it like you succeeded on your first try. Because... You did. Quickloads don't count. Essentially, I'm talking about save scumming, but it also applies to MMOs, as well.|
Originally Posted by Scarlet Shocker
Also, the game is entertainment - and it's not very entertaining to fail constantly so the balance is very important, and stuff that's tough to complete just doesn't get done much in this game.
|
In City of Heroes, I can't really save and load per se, but every time I die and have to go to the hospital, I've essentially quick-loaded to before I fought the boss. Sure, some bosses fail to regenerate back to full health before you can rush back to them, especially when doing missions through the Ouro crystals where both the hospital and the inspirations vendor are within spitting distance of the mission entrance, and wouldn't mind one bit if these bosses completely reset when they lost aggro, but that's besides the point. What that long sentence is trying to say is that in City of Heroes, you can "fail" many times over, but you can almost never actually FAIL. You die, you resurrect, you try again, wash, rinse, repeat. Eventually, I'll find what it is that I need to do in order to beat the boss that's killing me so much. It's irritating, but if it's only specific enemies or specific missions, it's tolerable.
What I DO NOT WANT, however, is to be afraid to fail. We're playing super heroes here, and City of Heroes right now really feels like it. I can approach the game with confidence and often even arrogance and still succeed in the end. I enjoy that feeling of power, that ability to dare the game to bite me. The only real reason I'm as brave as I am is because I know that even if I fail, it's no big deal. I can always try again. I'm not a hero in real life, nor am I specifically brave, but it's this safe, no-risk environment that allows me to play-pretend at being brave. When there's nothing to fear, then the feeling of power is almost inescapable. And that is almost the entire gameplay-specific reason I'm still with this game.
In short, I play City of Heroes because it coddles and babies me. I like that, so I continue to pay for it. I've played and paid for other games that treated me harshly and forced me to look after myself. I paid for them for a while, then felt they weren't treating me well enough to be worth the spending, so I no longer pay for them any more. I play this game exactly because it ISN'T like those other games. I don't have to worry about failing, and that lets me sit back, relax and enjoy the ride. Take on space aliens? Sure, let's go. Fight a god? What's the worst that can happen. That sort of thing.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.
|
Sam I suspect (but can't confirm) you and I have a different perspective to most players. I know that often we come from opposing sides of what we want from the game, neither right or wrong but simply different.
I love doing the tough stuff and adding extra levels of challenge - and a trip back from the hospital is a bit frustrating but no biggie. What I hate is just plugging away and getting nowhere - dysfunctional teams are one example; where the team wipes so everyone charges back into the map and tries to solo the boss that took the team out and fails to coordinate. But getting my posterior handed to me in an epic fight and then picking up the challenge again is great fun. It took me 65 hours total (that time included sleep, doing rl stuff and a couple of alted trials etc) to solo the ITF and 50 defeats but I nailed the ******* in the end and really enjoyed it.
In general, I think it's awesome how many people this game can cater for - so many different expectations, requirements and so many different people who remain subscribed because it works for them.
What I could probably enjoy a lot is an option where you fail a mission/task/trial and your character is killed - effectively deleted. It would have to be totally Opt In, and would need to be optional - so therefore probably a solo/small team. If you succeed, you get an epic reward, but if you fail your character is locked out of the game and archived (probably so you can cannibalise them.) I can't ever see that happening and there are certain characters - Scarlet Shocker for example - that wouldn't ever run it for fear of failing and I wouldn't take the risk with her. But I would love that option. I wouldn't be remotely surprised if I'm unique in that though.
(Tangent: As I typed this maybe the mission is the "Ultimate Sacrifice" where you have to die to save the world... or something... but that's sidetracking. Success there means... well if you failed that and didn't save the world, would it end?)
Thelonious Monk
Quote:
Of course, of course. Beating you head against a wall with no chance of success sucks, no matter your patience. It also sucks when the only way to defeat a boss is to fight, die, resurrect, rush off to buy inspirations and re-confront the boss before he can regenerate to full health. Whenever I face a situation like this, I consider it a failure on my part, and it's not very pleasant, even when I can win.|
Originally Posted by Scarlet Shocker
I love doing the tough stuff and adding extra levels of challenge - and a trip back from the hospital is a bit frustrating but no biggie. What I hate is just plugging away and getting nowhere - dysfunctional teams are one example; where the team wipes so everyone charges back into the map and tries to solo the boss that took the team out and fails to coordinate. But getting my posterior handed to me in an epic fight and then picking up the challenge again is great fun. It took me 65 hours total (that time included sleep, doing rl stuff and a couple of alted trials etc) to solo the ITF and 50 defeats but I nailed the ******* in the end and really enjoyed it.
|
Actually, run the Mender Tesseract SF some time. Yes, I know she's an insufferable *****, but do it anyway. The second mission in that TF has you fighting in a tournament of sorts, squaring off against I believe three to five VERY tough bosses in succession. If you leave the mission (i.e. if you die) the mission resets itself and you start back at the first boss. Now THAT is a fight you can't bullrush. Either you fight the whole thing from beginning to end properly, or you don't win at all. The rest of the TF isn't very good, but that bit is exactly how I'd want to see boss battles go.
The game actually has the tech to do this even if you don't leave the mission. Remember the "leashing" tech? The one where enemies become untargetable, return to their spawn points and become targetable again at full health and all powers recharged? Do that with bosses. Force players to fight a boss such that if the players all run away or the boss loses aggro for, say, 30 seconds, he recovers back to full and the fight resets. That's the kind of difficulty I'd see as fair.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Scarlet Shocker
What I could probably enjoy a lot is an option where you fail a mission/task/trial and your character is killed - effectively deleted. It would have to be totally Opt In, and would need to be optional - so therefore probably a solo/small team. If you succeed, you get an epic reward, but if you fail your character is locked out of the game and archived (probably so you can cannibalise them.) I can't ever see that happening and there are certain characters - Scarlet Shocker for example - that wouldn't ever run it for fear of failing and I wouldn't take the risk with her. But I would love that option. I wouldn't be remotely surprised if I'm unique in that though.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.
|
Quote:
Ugh, /unsigned. I hate it when games do that. I just quit another MMO that pulled that B.S. Repeatedly throwing yourself at a boss, getting them down to that last sliver of health, only to get defeated and have to start over from scratch? DO NOT WANT.|
Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
Force players to fight a boss such that if the players all run away or the boss loses aggro for, say, 30 seconds, he recovers back to full and the fight resets. That's the kind of difficulty I'd see as fair.
|
Quote:
| Honestly, that's another difficulty setting to me, and so long as I don't have to use it, then I honestly have no problem with it. |
99458: The Unbearable Being of Lightness
191775: How the Other Half Lives
My Webcomics
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JKCarrier
Sure. Although people would probably demand that playing on that setting gives you better rewards, which means that every PUG would want to leave it on, no matter how many times the team wipes...
|
If the team wipes, the team is removed permanently from game in my proposed model which would mean you've got to be sure you're going to get it right.
Thelonious Monk
Quote:
I thought I'd run it... maybe I'll have to give it a go on Huntsman Strauss... though I don't recall the leashing tech you speak of.
|
Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
Of course, of course. Beating you head against a wall with no chance of success sucks, no matter your patience. It also sucks when the only way to defeat a boss is to fight, die, resurrect, rush off to buy inspirations and re-confront the boss before he can regenerate to full health. Whenever I face a situation like this, I consider it a failure on my part, and it's not very pleasant, even when I can win.
Actually, run the Mender Tesseract SF some time. Yes, I know she's an insufferable *****, but do it anyway. The second mission in that TF has you fighting in a tournament of sorts, squaring off against I believe three to five VERY tough bosses in succession. If you leave the mission (i.e. if you die) the mission resets itself and you start back at the first boss. Now THAT is a fight you can't bullrush. Either you fight the whole thing from beginning to end properly, or you don't win at all. The rest of the TF isn't very good, but that bit is exactly how I'd want to see boss battles go. The game actually has the tech to do this even if you don't leave the mission. Remember the "leashing" tech? The one where enemies become untargetable, return to their spawn points and become targetable again at full health and all powers recharged? Do that with bosses. Force players to fight a boss such that if the players all run away or the boss loses aggro for, say, 30 seconds, he recovers back to full and the fight resets. That's the kind of difficulty I'd see as fair. As an option, of course. I have nothing against "hardcore mode" as a concept, even in City of Heroes. If some players feel they're badass enough to attempt it, then why not. Honestly, that's another difficulty setting to me, and so long as I don't have to use it, then I honestly have no problem with it. I'm not against other people facing consequences for their failures. I'm against me facing consequences for mine |
Thelonious Monk
Quote:
Good point. So there's already some groundwork there. I didn't even think of the timer for the length of a story arc or TF. Yeah, that would sove the timer problem too. Don't attach it to a mission, attach it to the front of a story arc when they start one (if they have the setting to have a timer added). In fact, they could add a lot of those choices to the Fateweavers and Hero Corps as general difficulty options. Like all the other settings, they'd only apply when it's their mission.|
Originally Posted by MajorDecoy
Challenge conditions like this exist already in Oroboros and for Task Forces.
|
Quote:
|
There are a number of problems with allowing more missions to be failed. 1) It would introduce new technology. That's not a bad thing, but there are often problems with new tech in the game. I know that the first time I ran the "Protect the War Wall generators" all the generators were destroyed within about a minute of entering the map. I never even saw them. That's frustrating. 2) Escourt missions and game AI. Everyone complains about Fusionette, Lady Jane, General Runs Screaming into melee and hits things with his pistol, and the like. 3) Balance. The archetypes that would have the most trouble with missions like "protect soundso" are Stalkers and Blasters. Archetypes that don't really need any more trouble soloing: Stalkers and Blasters (blasters much more so). 4) Why does being defeated mean failure for a Dark Armour Tank, a Fiery Aura Tank, or a Willpower tank? I don't like taking my Radiation defender on "Master of ---" Taskforces because it means I won't be able to use Fallout, Mutation, Soul Transfer, or Vengeance. |
2) Well allowing the Escorts to be attacked isn't the same as saying they're going to go and get aggro of their own volition. They'd still just follow you.
3) That's why it'd be a choice, just like any of the other difficulty settings.
4) Again, just an option
I'm not going to defend these ideas too hard, I was just tossing them out there. I probably wouldn't even use most of them most of the time, but some folks really enjoy difficult challenges, I don't see why they shouldn't have the option to add more risk, especially if there's more reward associated.
"I play characters. I have to have a very strong visual appearance, backstory, name, etc. to get involved with a character, otherwise I simply won't play it very long. I'm not an RPer by any stretch of the imagination, but character concept is very important for me."- Back Alley Brawler
I couldn't agree more.
Quote:
I suggest this from time to time as a way to still make defeat essentially meaningless but as a barrier while still making sure that kamikadze runs are not a viable option. The reason I don't want kamikadze runs to be a viable option is I believe THAT is the primary problem with a game that has no penalty for failing - you have no reason to not incorporate failure a part of your regular strategy. This is an admittedly VERY harsh way to ensure that you cannot win by repeatedly failing.|
Originally Posted by JKCarrier
Ugh, /unsigned. I hate it when games do that. I just quit another MMO that pulled that B.S. Repeatedly throwing yourself at a boss, getting them down to that last sliver of health, only to get defeated and have to start over from scratch? DO NOT WANT.
|
I mentioned before that I hate losing, and that's true. But that doesn't mean I necessary have to win to be satisfied. This is not a binary choice, because there is also a very broad third option - stalemate. You can't lose, but you also can't win, so either you have to try something else, get someone to help you... Or cheat. By cheat, I mean drop the mission, level up, go find extra temp powers and so forth.
I've never agreed with Jack Emmert's view on "risk vs. reward," because I've never been a fan of risk. I've always been far more partial to the "time vs. reward" metric that most other MMOs use, and that City of Heroes has been employing for some time. I like this metric because it ensures I can still play the game with relatively little risk - and thus, with relatively little of the stress that accompanies risk - but still have a path of high rewards open to me if I'm efficient about it. Essentially, it's less a question of "win or lose" and more a question of "win or win BIG!"
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JKCarrier
Sure. Although people would probably demand that playing on that setting gives you better rewards, which means that every PUG would want to leave it on, no matter how many times the team wipes...
|
The crucial bit here is that Hardcore mode is an option specific to the character, not specific to the environment. You very much could have a team comprised of Hardcore and non-Hardcore characters, and it's not something that a whole team had to be roped into. Of course, if your Hardcore character joined a lousy team and you died through no fault of your own, that would be very infuriating, so most Hardcore players tended to be a lot more... Particular about how they played and who they played with.
I still see it as a viable option, even if I pity the people who try it out. And yes, Hardcore characters did get much better loot in Diablo 2, as I remember it. Personally, I have no problem with it. I'd gladly settle for having a slower gain if it meant I didn't have to sweat a permanent game over and especially if it meant I wouldn't feel compelled to bang my expensive equipment together when I inevitably died a fool's death. I honestly don't understand why anyone would want a Hardcore mode, but there are plenty of people out there that I don't understand.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.
|
Quote:
I just wanted to quote this, because everyone should have to write it on the blackboard 100 times, or possibly have it tattooed on their foreheads.
|
Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
There's nothing "logical" about a slippery slope argument unless you live in a fictional world without any sense of moderation where every notion is taken to its illogical absolute extreme with no regard to reason or consequence.
|
Quote:
Why is that a problem?
|
Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
The reason I don't want kamikadze runs to be a viable option is I believe THAT is the primary problem with a game that has no penalty for failing - you have no reason to not incorporate failure a part of your regular strategy.
|
99458: The Unbearable Being of Lightness
191775: How the Other Half Lives
My Webcomics
Quote:
Because it removes the need for one to actually play the game. If you could defeat a boss by essentially landing a punch, dying, reincarnating, landing another punch, dying again and repeating this cycle a hundred times, then this ceases to be a game because it ceases to have any victory conditions. In a more realistic sense, it allows you to fight a boss part-way, die and continue where you left off, giving the player no reason to want to avoid dying.|
Originally Posted by JKCarrier
Why is that a problem?
|
I don't want to see long-term consequences for failure, but that doesn't mean I want to see failure as a legitimate path to success. I talk a lot about involvement, because I hold a very strong belief that a game needs to involve its player as extensively as possible. The game should never play itself, and it should never let the player succeed without meeting some form of goal of advancement, because this advancement is part of what makes a game a game. This is a great problem I have with the tutorial, in fact. Not only can you not die in there, but the thing essentially plays itself. You can summon the Giant Shivan then step out to have lunch and the Vanguard Jets will take care of it for you. That's not an interactive experience.
To me, a game is a series of objectives which require the player to act in order to progress, and which require that there be correct actions and incorrect actions. Player participation is only meaningful when the player's actions have meaning. When a player can achieve an objective by LITERALLY doing anything and everything, then those actions become meaningless because the choice between them does not matter. As easy as a game may be, as assured as victory may be, the player should still always be expected to act against the game's posed challenges to achieve it. Those don't have to necessarily be difficult, but they have to require the player to be actively involved and actively thinking in order to beat them.
When the game allows you to win any fight by losing that fight enough times, the game fosters a gameplay that's entirely uninvolved. It requires no thought, no decision and no awareness of right and wrong ways to approach the situation, because all ways are right. You don't need to "beat" a boss, you just need to approach this boss enough times and you'll win by attrition.
I firmly believe that games need to force players to act in at least some small fashion, and by denying the player the no-involvement option, we force said player to actually try.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.
|
Quote:
In my case, at least, this is incorrect; I try to avoid dying, even if I have a self-rez and can literally pop right back up and keep fighting. Dying feels bad, psychologically, even if there's no practical penalty involved.|
Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
In a more realistic sense, it allows you to fight a boss part-way, die and continue where you left off, giving the player no reason to want to avoid dying.
|
Quote:
| The game should never play itself, and it should never let the player succeed without meeting some form of goal of advancement, because this advancement is part of what makes a game a game. This is a great problem I have with the tutorial, in fact. |
Quote:
| I firmly believe that games need to force players to act in at least some small fashion, and by denying the player the no-involvement option, we force said player to actually try. |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
I pay good money to play games where reality is of no consequence and I can have all my positive reinforcement irrespective of whether I deserve it.
|
99458: The Unbearable Being of Lightness
191775: How the Other Half Lives
My Webcomics
I've failed missions -- BUT the problem is that the game is geared for not failing missions. On redside I failed a mission to protect some research that would save the life of King Midas. (I know, I know. I didn't get that what I was supposed to do was stand there by the equipment and kill everyone who came near it. I went scouting around for mobs and got the fail message.) Even though I failed it, references to Midas still being alive keep coming up.
There was also one blueside where I had to rescue someone and lead her out of where she was held, and she died on the way because she insisted on fighting every. single. enemy. we came across. Even though I technically 'failed' the mission by not protecting her, there were no consequences -- she was still there as an NPC outside the rescue mission. Technically you could do a rescue mission and get to the person, and not bother leading them out; you could just quit the game at that point, or leave without making sure they follow, and you still succeed.
So if there are going to be more chances for failure, there have to be storyline branches that take failure into account.
Quote:
You're comparing apples to oranges in this case. As I keep saying, not being able to lose is not the same as being guaranteed to win. And not entirely losing your progress IS a guarantee to win, it just puts a number of how many times you have to die to achieve it. That, really, is where I switch sides, because to my eyes, the number of how many times you need to die to achieve something is zero. I simply don't agree that any tactic which includes dying, going to the hospital and coming back should be valid.|
Originally Posted by JKCarrier
Who are you, and what have you done with Samuel_Tow?
|
Mind you, I don't mean to disparage self-resurrection or ally resurrection abilities. To my eyes, you haven't "lost" as long as you can keep getting up. Rise of the Phoenix from yourself, Mutate from your friendly neighbourhood Rad Defender, the Return to Battle power, inspirations, that temp power you get from the 15-20 Mayhem/Safeguard mission, all of those and more count as part of the fight. If getting killed and resurrecting is part of your strategy, that's fine in my book. That's what these powers are designed to do.
But if your strategy includes the hospital, that's where I draw the line. The hospital in this game is a cop-out because City of Heroes can't mandate permadeath or no-one would play it. But whenever you have to go to the hospital, that's when a single-player game would have popped up the "Game Over! Reload last save?" screen. The hospital is when you lose and reload the game to the last safe state you were in, which means reloading to before the last spawn, to before the last boss, to before the last fight.
Of course, like in Lode Runner: The Legend Returns, this is a lot harsher when you're alone because the level resets every time you die, but not nearly as harsh when you have two people because then both would have to die at the exact same time for it to reset, which never happens. That's why I brought up "leashing." That's a way to reset a fight without having to have the whole team wipe AND the whole team leave the instance at the same time. It just means that you can't disengage from a fight to rest without allowing your enemies to recover right alongside you.
In short, I don't want to be afraid of losing with consequences, but I also don't want to be allowed to win BY losing with no consequences.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.
|
Let me put it as simple as I can: Not being able to fail a mission is not the same as being guaranteed to succeed at that mission. All it means is that the mission has no specific fail objectives, and it implies nothing beyond that notion. Anything beyond this is your own invention and has nothing to do with anything I've said.
This is where your ridiculous slippery slope argument fails, in fact - I want a game which requires my action to proceed, but which does not permit my actions to lead to failure that has consequences at the same time. If I die, that's part of the game. I restart and try again and nothing has been lost. I wouldn't mind one bit if bosses healed to full when I went to the hospital or my team wiped, but that's not a penalty. That's just the mechanic of giving me another shot without making suicide runs possible like they are now. Any game that requires me to be awake to play is "challenging" enough for me even if the game doesn't uninstall itself from my computer every time I fail.
City of Heroes has far more sophisticated mechanics for enabling choice now. That our writers are using them to break open coconuts is besides the point, they are there and they are far superior. Making me fail a mission because the protection objective spawned with 100 hit points and a Chief Soldier one-shotted it before I even came into view (ah, the memories of the War Wall Defender badge...) is bad enough. Making me have to fail a mission ON PURPOSE so as to get a choice is considerably worse.
As long as I'm paying a subscription to this game - and I am - I will not put up with consequences for failure, be they bad or good. As far as I'm concerned, debt can go away entirely and I wouldn't bat an eye. At least it would mean I wouldn't have to worry about using Rise of the Phoenix and Soul Transfer.