[...] I will say that I think there is something to his core argument, since I’ve said that risk is a necessary component in our games. But, is a death penalty really an appropriate way to add [...]

1. if people die/fail, they cry. A lot. Getting killed on a PvP server repeatedly made Zubon at KTR write an article "canceled and coasting". Who would not feel pissed in this case, still the reaction is to cancel the account. Now there is a reason why there are PvE servers and why devs take care that nobody feels pissed by making things less harmful. You don't even lose honor points in WoW if you die, unlike to Aion. You also do not pay repair costs. The only thing that remains annoying is that someone stops us from questing where we want and when we want.

2. the problem that arises out of this safety and protection is that without loss, there is also no victory. Or the victory is rather shallow, as you already pointed out in one of your later blog entries.

All this is not necessarily restricted to PvP, we have contradictions in our wishes for PvE, too. We in general want to have large, if not even gigantic game worlds, but if travel takes a very long, we are discontent. We love flight in WoW, but it basically destroys open world pvp if everyone can fly away quickly and travel elsewhere in no time.

I think the dev has to treat the wishes of his customers like that of kids: Too much candy is bad for the teeth, some hard/edged spices are needed. Almost as if a little bit of pain makes the player feel more alive! :)

WARNING: WOW EXAMPLE.

Pre-raiding, death is basically a teleport. The repair costs are trivial. The time disruption is minimal. The time loss is minimal.

Result: A narrow victory where you win with 1% health is basically "that's nice." You saved yourself 2 minutes. That's it. In an old school MMO, that narrow victory could be HOURS saved. It meant something. You felt it.

Similarly, when someone swooped in and saved your bacon when you were about to die, you were really, genuinely grateful. In a WoW-like game, you might actually be pissed that the guy stole your xp.

Valleys are important. Even if gamers insist they hate something, you must examine WHY they hate it. If the thing they hate does not happen often, and if it heightens the excitement level of the game, it might be for their own good that you leave it in.

Deadly Game vs Protect the PCs
Player Skill vs Character Skill
Sandbox vs Railroad
PCs Make The Story vs DM Makes The Story

etc.

I can only imagine the trend has followed consumer tastes. Less grognards from the 70s, 80s, and 90s that want games with perma-death, sandbox areas, and no segregation of players due to play style. More of an audience that wants an experience crafted and tailored for them.

I've never seen any resolution between AD&D players and 4th Edition players, nor do I see it in the current gaming market.

I miss most of the old school pacing mechanics because I think we've lost a lot of the social side of MMOs with the improved gameplay.

And yep, it's all about risk vs reward and finding that balance. I think some people take it too far and assume that for a game to capture the old feelings of risk, they have to be incredibly frustrating and grinding. I don't believe that's necessary and I'm convinced good MMOs can be made that provide a challenge and risk but don't require silly grinds or time sinks or huge investments of time to play.

Some of things I didn't like in EQ were the corpse losses and the time sinks like camping but I really miss some of the other elements that encourage social interaction like trains and fully open dungeons.

This post, comments, and my experience last night has inspired me, as you so often do.

I appreciated the challenge posed by these areas. The inherent danger kept me from becoming complacent or bored even though they often frustrated me at the same time. I absolutely do not miss corpse runs or xp loss, for me death was punishment enough but everyone has different tolerances for risk.

I also enjoyed exploration in EQ1 and in AC1. Both had large worlds that were not quickly traversed where the unfamiliar wanderer could easily stumble into places they shouldn't be. Today's theme park designs usher players from ride to ride between velvet ropes which leave little, if anything, beyond their confines to be discovered.

I think games today have largely gone too far to coddle players and ensure that nothing bad happens particularly when they are first starting out. By making everything safe, easy and predictable they have also eliminated the thrill and feeling of accomplishment or discovery one could take from rising to meet the unexpected challenge.

For example, if you only encountered a train maybe once a week, it would be exciting. If there was a train every time you entered the zone, you'd quit in disgust. Similarly with World PvP. You have a single PvP encounter and it's very intense and fun. But getting corpse-camped is just terrible.

It's very hard to allow a negative behavior for only a small fraction of the time. It's much easier to prevent that behavior entirely. So faced with the choice of "spice overdose" or "no spice", most people choose "no spice", which is an entirely rational choice.

I didn't really miss it, because it really was a lot of death and chaos, leading to wasted nights of your party dying because some idiot kept running mobs past you to zone, and you couldn't bug out before it got back and ate your healer. But a lot of people did, and its tough.

Too much risk, and you make very conservative players. Too little and its a dull game. I guess you need to assess the risk comfort of your potential audience and go from there.