Save feature like Diablo 2 please.

[Nealrains]

Dear Dreamcathcer and devs,
Please make the save feature like they did in diablo 2(D2 saved as you exited the game). It was an excellent idea, made it more life like. Choices were harder to make cause you knew there was no going back. I love this idea. Plus when you died, if there were penalties, you had to take the penalty instead of reloading where you last saved. Please consider this.
If you cant do this then at least only allow saving from curtain points in the game. Like cities only or something. Thank you for listening.

[Frodo]

Dear Dreamcathcer and devs,
Please make the save feature like they did in diablo 2(D2 saved as you exited the game). It was an excellent idea, made it more life like. Choices were harder to make cause you knew there was no going back. I love this idea. Plus when you died, if there were penalties, you had to take the penalty instead of reloading where you last saved. Please consider this.
If you cant do this then at least only allow saving from curtain points in the game. Like cities only or something. Thank you for listening.

Neal, your point is well-taken, but I think this is impossible to do. D2 is a map level driven game. I'm not sure whether you are talking about saves for bnet games or single games though, although both have the same save feature, it is applied in different ways. That is, on bnet, only the level you have played in that particular session exist at any given time, but the quests carry over. In single player games, the map of your adventures may or may not exist depending on whether you've jumped from one difficulty level to another.

In any case, Dungeon Lords will be an open map system, where you can move in any direction you please and do quests in a more random manner that D2 allows. As a world-based map system, it seems to me that it would be problematic to wipe out maps or activities by level, simply because the game doesn't function as a level crawler.

Wiping out maps is a necessity for D2, after all, how could a player do a 1000 Baal runs otherwise. As with a game like Morrowind, the continuity is part of the beauty and logic of open map games.

Have a glass of Old-Winyards on me, that is if you're old enough ;)

[Narserke]

Neal, your point is well-taken, but I think this is impossible to do. D2 is a map level driven game. I'm not sure whether you are talking about saves for bnet games or single games though, although both have the same save feature, it is applied in different ways. That is, on bnet, only the level you have played in that particular session exist at any given time, but the quests carry over. In single player games, the map of your adventures may or may not exist depending on whether you've jumped from one difficulty level to another.

In any case, Dungeon Lords will be an open map system, where you can move in any direction you please and do quests in a more random manner that D2 allows. As a world-based map system, it seems to me that it would be problematic to wipe out maps or activities by level, simply because the game doesn't function as a level crawler.

Wiping out maps is a necessity for D2, after all, how could a player do a 1000 Baal runs otherwise. As with a game like Morrowind, the continuity is part of the beauty and logic of open map games.

Have a glass of Old-Winyards on me, that is if you're old enough ;)


I agree, but you aren't alone in wanting harsh death penalties and more realism in that area. The devs just might be able to give people like you something. However, there are those of us who are save junkies, and the ability to save often is a big help in trying new things and relieving some anxiety. i played diablo 2 just fine, but there were times when i would have liked to save my progress so i could quit for a while, stop a quest in the middle without having to worry about doing a whole area of annoyances again. no to mention all the blood leveling it allowed.

[Runeblade]

I don't like not being able to save the game when and where I want to and as often as I like. Sometimes I just want to go to bed or go outside and not be forced to keep playing. I also really hate replaying a bunch of stuff because you can't save. If there was going to be a 'no save' thinghy then id prefer it was in some nightmare difficulty mode. I've played a LOT of games where they have either no saves during a level or you have to find a dumb save gem or you have to find the checkpoint and I think it's just a pain. Sorry but I don't like the idea because its annoying.

[Dhruin]

Dear Dreamcathcer and devs,
Please make the save feature like they did in diablo 2(D2 saved as you exited the game). It was an excellent idea, made it more life like. Choices were harder to make cause you knew there was no going back. I love this idea. Plus when you died, if there were penalties, you had to take the penalty instead of reloading where you last saved. Please consider this.
If you cant do this then at least only allow saving from curtain points in the game. Like cities only or something. Thank you for listening.

Please no. I found that the single worst thing about Diablo 2. It completely breaks my immersion in the gameworld and renders the quests and and NPCs utterly meaningless. Go on quest to kill Bloodraven. Kill Bloodraven. Have lunch. Oh look - Bloodraven is back again. Didn't I already kill her? Why did I bother?

Fine for a purely action game but any game that wants to be a taken seriously as a genuine RPG should avoid this like the plague.

[Mythor]

D2 also saved your CHARACTER progress as you went along, whether you explicitly saved & exited. (Edited to clarify I meant character progress) The respawning monsters was a deliberate ploy by Blizzard to allow people to do exactly what they did - re-run areas hunting for new items and to gain XP.

The save system in the demo is fine. Or will be when the reported bugs are worked out. Being able to save whenever you please is much better for the player. Forcing players to only save in certain locations is a big no-no, unless you put in a LOT of those locations. Otherwise casual gamers will be put off trying to play the game because they can't just quit whenever they want.
It also means that if/when the game crashes, you don't lose all your progress since whenever you last went through one of the predetermined checkpoints. With Dungeon Lords' random encounters system it's feasible some players will just want to hang out in a particular area gaining XP and items for a while. If you can't save though, you could spend an hour or two doing that and then get unlucky on the way to the "save point" and have the game die.

Not letting us save whenever we want is just plain silly. It's a game.

[txa1265]

Checkpoint saves are a console thing, and they are garbage which belong nowhere on a PC. I have yet to see a good system - personally I like it when games autosave when you enter a new area / level, and then allow you to Quick-Save when you want.

Further to that, I love games like Soldier of Fortune II that allow you to cuatomize your level in terms of not just game difficulty but also # of saves and ammo carrying capacity ... anything that allows 'scalability' across different gamers is a good thing for me.

Personally I detested Diablo - it scared me off 'RPG' for almost 7 years, and am glad that this game is being built on the roots of games I *do* love - Jedi Knight II and Gothic 2.

Mike

[araczynski]

well, this game must have a lot of good things going for it, because i also love this game (demo), while hating the likes of jedi knight. i loved Diablo1, detested Diablo2, and liked Gothic1/2.

as for saving, i don't care what kind of 'save' challenges they give you the OPTION to enable for yourself, as long as i can quicksave to my heart's content.

[txa1265]

well, this game must have a lot of good things going for it, because i also love this game (demo), while hating the likes of jedi knight. i loved Diablo1, detested Diablo2, and liked Gothic1/2.Did you hate the original Jedi Knight or Jedi Knight II (outcast)? What did you think of the combat - some like the combat but complain about other stuff. Just wondering since in the combat mechanics DWB uses he specifically mentioned JKII and Blade of Darkness as reference points.


as for saving, i don't care what kind of 'save' challenges they give you the OPTION to enable for yourself, as long as i can quicksave to my heart's content.
Agreed ... but then there are those who seem to want to make it so you get *no* saves ... you have to win in one sitting, to tough it out again ;) (obvious exaggeration of the 'hardcore' debate)

Mike

[Runeblade]

I liked the combat and moves in Jedi Knight Outcast and Jedi Knight Academy myself and that's just playing the SP game. I never played the first one tho.

No saves = bad.

[txa1265]

I never played the first one tho.
The first Jedi Knight game:
- In terms of scope, story and level size was amazing in 1997, and still is now
- In terms of weapons, was quite cool in '97, ordinary now
- Gave you a lightsaber!
- In terms of saber combat ... it doesn't hold up. If you chose just to defend, you could expect to be taken out by a stormtrooper ...

Mike

[araczynski]

Did you hate the original Jedi Knight or Jedi Knight II (outcast)? What did you think of the combat - some like the combat but complain about other stuff. Just wondering since in the combat mechanics DWB uses he specifically mentioned JKII and Blade of Darkness as reference points.


i only played one of the 2, been so long i honestly don't remember. i'm not sure if it was the game itself so much as my personal biases getting in the way of the whole experience. while i love star wars and such, especially sci-fi, i could never stand any games based on the story, couldn't stand SW:KOTOR and didn't even bother trying the new one. I just find it hard to roleplay sci-fi games for some reason, always have preferred sword/sorcery settings.

plus the game reminded me too much of doom/quake/etc., also games which bore me to tears. but go figure, i love BattleField 1942(Forgotten Hope mod), perhaps because i also love the WW2 genre as well. but do love sci-fi strategy games...

[NTJedi]

In any case, Dungeon Lords will be an open map system, where you can move in any direction you please ....

Not sure if this will be true with multiplayer....
was doing some multiplayer and it seemed we all had to stay within a certain radius of each other. Even walking on a road would have us hit some invisible barrier until the others caught up.

Too bad if this exists in the real game.

[Tenka]

If they dont implement a D2 save-like system, how on earth will saving work in multiplayer?

They cant expect us to only save games amongst certain people, we'd never find the same people again. I think for multiplayer specifically there will be a D2 system or at least similar..

[txa1265]

If they dont implement a D2 save-like system, how on earth will saving work in multiplayer?

I think that is the core difference between us, Tenka - you think from a MP perspective and I think from a SP perspective.

When it comes to the MP experience, what you said in the other thread, and perhaps the D2 save system, make perfect sense. For a SP game, though ...

Mike

[Tenka]

I think perhaps they may include both, save-on-spot system for single and character stats only for multi. Its how Diablo 1 worked after all..

[GOBBLES!]

I would prefer a diablo2 like system; when you come to a new town or another 'major' place, where there are no hostiles, there is a waypoint. This is the place you go if u die or spawn if it's in MP. Your stats and progress is recorded as you go like diablo2, but NOT your location.
The reason why i don't like quicksaves in the middle of the lvl, is becouse then you can just save before you meet a big monster and reload it over and over(the same with chests!) until you beat the monster(or chest).
It ruins the emmersion imho

In fact i can't really see the diffence between D2 and DL in ways of monster-spawning, they both spawn monsters on the fly, the only thing is that in D2, u can kill off every monster and they don't come back....unless you reload the game.....

[txa1265]

The reason why i don't like quicksaves in the middle of the lvl, is becouse then you can just save before you meet a big monster and reload it over and over(the same with chests!) until you beat the monster(or chest).
It ruins the emmersion imho..

My point on that - again, from the Single Player perspective - is that you can choose *not* to quicksave, some games even allow you to unmap the quicksave button. But that is something I tend to do with games - start with normal difficulty, and as I replay increase difficulty and change my options - including doing whole levels without saves and so on. But for some gamers, who have just tried 25 times to finally make it past some stupid jump puzzle, to then die at the hand of a couple of goblins because he wasn't paying attention ... that is frustrating dev-imposed limitations.

Mike

[Mythor]

The reason why i don't like quicksaves in the middle of the lvl, is becouse then you can just save before you meet a big monster and reload it over and over(the same with chests!) until you beat the monster(or chest).
It ruins the emmersion imho
So don't do it. If others do it, that's their business. The option should be there so people can just save and quit whenever they like.
It doesn't in any way ruin the immersion, unless you choose to let it do so.

[GOBBLES!]

I know, i know... heh it's just that i can't help myself.. thats why i stopped playing HL2, i kept trying to keep the game perfect. you know by reloading every time i just got shot once or twice, just becouse i could and there were no penalty.. i stopped becouse it felt like having GOD mode on, if ya get me...

Maybe it's just me i don't know.. but ofcouse if some like it this way, have an option for it... like you said...

maybe some kind of schemes of options, like these...

1. normal style (easy?):
here you can saves as often as you like(quicksave that saves everything(location, stats, monsters slayen and their location))

2. normal style (hard?):
here you have quicksaves with penalties, maybe a certain %loss of experience or a certain amount of saves per session(gamelevel?).
(quicksave that saves everything(location, stats, monsters slayen and their location))

3. Diablo style (MP??):
No quicksaves, but waypoints in each city, like mentioned ealier.
realtime saving of stats.
monsters slayen and their location will be kept only for the session.
Maybe some kind of townportal, i dont know if it's necessary...

4. configurable schematic1

5. configurable schematic2

what'ya say?? i think it sounds rather cool :-)

[Narserke]

I know, i know... heh it's just that i can't help myself.. thats why i stopped playing HL2, i kept trying to keep the game perfect. you know by reloading every time i just got shot once or twice, just becouse i could and there were no penalty.. i stopped becouse it felt like having GOD mode on, if ya get me...

Maybe it's just me i don't know.. but ofcouse if some like it this way, have an option for it... like you said...

maybe some kind of schemes of options, like these...

1. normal style (easy?):
here you can saves as often as you like(quicksave that saves everything(location, stats, monsters slayen and their location))

2. normal style (hard?):
here you have quicksaves with penalties, maybe a certain %loss of experience or a certain amount of saves per session(gamelevel?).
(quicksave that saves everything(location, stats, monsters slayen and their location))

3. Diablo style (MP??):
No quicksaves, but waypoints in each city, like mentioned ealier.
realtime saving of stats.
monsters slayen and their location will be kept only for the session.
Maybe some kind of townportal, i dont know if it's necessary...

4. configurable schematic1

5. configurable schematic2

what'ya say?? i think it sounds rather cool :-)


well a quicksave with with an adv penalty would kinda kill the point of quicksaving, because when you save, you want to save your progress, and how many advance points you've added to your pool is progress, and if you have to loose some everytime you quicksave, then well it's just as bad as dying and having to go back a save a long way back..the point of a quick save feature is that you can save at the touch of a button, often, without breaking a stride much..like after a really tough boss battle, or sometimes even during for the really hard ones..even the diablo 2 system would be easier then a quick save with penalties, i would much rather have to re fight a lot of monsters then loose the experience for the couple i just fought. i hope this doesn't sound like a flame, I just want to point out the flaw in that system.

[onewolf]

gobbles, it sounds like you just gotta learn how to control yourself man.

[Mythor]

If you put penalties on the Quicksave function then you'll just end up with people having to drop out to the menu to save their progress instead.
And you can't penalise people for using that save function since the people you're most punishing then are the casual players who are going to be least impressed by that. :)

[GOBBLES!]

If you put penalties on the Quicksave function then you'll just end up with people having to drop out to the menu to save their progress instead.
And you can't penalise people for using that save function since the people you're most punishing then are the casual players who are going to be least impressed by that. :)
Well the same penalties could apply in the normal save game dialogue...
AND they should just pick the 'normal' schematic if they don't want penalties...



well a quicksave with with an adv penalty would kinda kill the point of quicksaving, because when you save, you want to save your progress, and how many advance points you've added to your pool is progress, and if you have to loose some everytime you quicksave, then well it's just as bad as dying and having to go back a save a long way back..the point of a quick save feature is that you can save at the touch of a button, often, without breaking a stride much..like after a really tough boss battle, or sometimes even during for the really hard ones..even the diablo 2 system would be easier then a quick save with penalties, i would much rather have to re fight a lot of monsters then loose the experience for the couple i just fought. i hope this doesn't sound like a flame, I just want to point out the flaw in that system.
hmm you'r right... I just think there should be an option for 'some' kind of penalty. Maybe just a certain amount of saves per level... but i find that anoying too... donno how it should implented....
This issue kind of an anoying thing for me, because if there were a diablo-like system, i would use that.. if it was made right ofcouse..


gobbles, it sounds like you just gotta learn how to control yourself man.
Heh, I haven't really been able to.. i do this in most singleplayer games, and i never finish them... As much as it is my own problem, i like when there's an option for a more 'strict' savesystem

[Mythor]

Well the same penalties could apply in the normal save game dialogue...
AND they should just pick the 'normal' schematic if they don't want penalties...
Which precludes casual gamers from ever moving up to the harder difficulties.
A "casual" gamer might play an hour here, an hour there. A more "hardcore" player may play for a couple of hours. Which will mean the "casual" gamer might get slugged with 5 penalties for playing a total of 5 hours, while someone who plays for longer only gets slugged twice.

The whole purpose of a save system is to let people not lose their progress when it's time to pack it in for the day. Penalising players for having less time to play, beyond them taking "longer" to finish the game is really not a nice idea.

[Narserke]

Which precludes casual gamers from ever moving up to the harder difficulties.
A "casual" gamer might play an hour here, an hour there. A more "hardcore" player may play for a couple of hours. Which will mean the "casual" gamer might get slugged with 5 penalties for playing a total of 5 hours, while someone who plays for longer only gets slugged twice.

The whole purpose of a save system is to let people not lose their progress when it's time to pack it in for the day. Penalising players for having less time to play, beyond them taking "longer" to finish the game is really not a nice idea.

Don't forget those of us who save because you never know what's about to happen next..you could get slaughtered, or you could ruin a script a la NWN:) That game has made me a save junkie, so I save often, more often with a quick save feature. However, I played and finished Diablo 2 with the expansion like most people, if not all, so obviously i can deal with a save system like that, and i am always for options.

[GOBBLES!]

Which precludes casual gamers from ever moving up to the harder difficulties.
Well just take away the "easy" and "hard" part, it wasn't really ment as difficulties, just as a possible name for the schematic...

But maybe they have made a singleplayer system and a multiplayer system, the SP one with normal saving, and the MP one with diablo-like system... or maybe something entirely different..
Just dished out some ideas, maybe they made a really good system, that neither of us can complain on... :-P

[mkreku]

Please don't jinx this forum by mentioning Diablo 2 here!

Oops, I did it myself.

[txa1265]

Please don't jinx this forum by mentioning Diablo 2 here!

Oops, I did it myself.Quit it already! You're triggering my gag reflex ... ;)

Seriously, I never played Diablo 2, as I hadn't played RPG's since early text stuff on the Apple ][, and my wife got me Diablo when it came out ... it put me off 'RPG' until I got NWN for my Mac in August 2003 to prep for KotOR, now I'm a total junkie with just about every decent RPG of the modern era under my belt.

Tried the Diablo 2 demo, maybe it is just flashbacks, but I still didn't like it ...

Mike

[Runeblade]

I tried the Diablo 2 demo last year sometime and didn't like it. Meh.

[NTJedi]

A "casual" gamer might play an hour here, an hour there. A more "hardcore" player may play for a couple of hours. Which will mean the "casual" gamer might get slugged with 5 penalties for playing a total of 5 hours, while someone who plays for longer only gets slugged twice.


The total duration someone plays will obviously make that person more skilled at the game.... this is true even with sports. To increase the games replay value those willing to sacrifice more time should see long term rewards.... this is true even with sports.
If the world followed your statement there's no point of placing extra time into a game or sport. For example in regards to a sport... everyone despite skill or training time would get a day playing professional baseball with the same salary.

[Mythor]

Absolutely correct. Playing a game on the computer or in the real world for a longer period of time will generally result in the player becoming more skilled. Completely agree.

But when was the last time you saw a football team have to play without their boots because they skipped a day of training? Would you think it fair if they got bashed with iron bars because they had a Bye the previous week?

There's a vast difference between a more "dedicated" player reaping the rewards in terms of their skill at the game increasing and punishing the less "dedicated" gamer by slowing their character's advancement.

We're talking about a game. Just because it doesn't happen in the real world, doesn't mean it shouldn't happen in a game.
Punishing people with less time to play in an artificially imposed fashion is absurd.

[NTJedi]

But when was the last time you saw a football team have to play without their boots because they skipped a day of training?

I'm not talking about taking away items(your example).



Punishing people with less time to play in an artificially imposed fashion is absurd.
It's not punishing those with less time... it's rewarding those who place more time into the game or into anything .... this is logical.

It sounds logical and justified that a team which trains only once a week instead of three times a week will obviously not be as skilled(Dexterity) or as strong(Strength) compared with the team which did train three times a week. Thus a team which has devoted the three times a week would see these rewards.

Otherwise the developers would have to keep matching the expectations of those with less and less time... your suggestion. Eventually the game would provide this immortal power character which kills 20 creatures in 3 seconds... game ends in 10minutes.

[Narserke]

I'm not talking about taking away items(your example).


It's not punishing those with less time... it's rewarding those who place more time into the game or into anything .... this is logical.

It sounds logical and justified that a team which trains only once a week instead of three times a week will obviously not be as skilled(Dexterity) or as strong(Strength) compared with the team which did train three times a week. Thus a team which has devoted the three times a week would see these rewards.

Otherwise the developers would have to keep matching the expectations of those with less and less time... your suggestion. Eventually the game would provide this immortal power character which kills 20 creatures in 3 seconds... game ends in 10minutes.

but how would a diablo 2 like save feature reward those who played longer? or any kind of quick save penalty? i for one played the demo from start to finish without going to bed, and taking only an hour break to watch Read or Die..those women drink their milk:) anyway, despite the amount of time i put into it, i still saved a lot, and had there been a diablo 2 save feature, i would have played not cause i wanted too as much as because i needed to get far enough so i could go to bed. and if i had been penalized for quicksaving, i probably wouldn't have progessed as far as i did just because i wanted to make sure my progress wasn't lost because of a careless mistake or a computer crash

[NTJedi]

but how would a diablo 2 like save feature reward those who played longer?

Saving the game shouldn't take away ADV pts... dying should. And if you reload the game after each death to avoid the loss of ADV pts then you're playing an IMMORTAL character... it's more fun for me to play a balanced game where the monsters can win.

I believe the quicksave from diablo 2 is a good idea.
Some people such as myself lose track of time and forget to save. A save feature like Diablo2 would guarantee any items and time are not lost because the system automatically rebooted. My guess is most gamers play about 8 hours a week... there's some which play 8 hours a day. If you are one of those which really get wrapped into the story/game it's easy to lose track of time.

[NTJedi]

........while hating the likes of jedi knight. i loved Diablo1, detested Diablo2, and liked Gothic1/2.


I also still play the original Diablo.... yet Diablo2 was uninstalled several months ago. It's great playing the original Diablo with friends where everyone does a straight run..... which is lets see who lives the longest and they cannot attack you but allowed to block doorways for up to 60seconds.

[Narserke]

Saving the game shouldn't take away ADV pts... dying should. And if you reload the game after each death to avoid the loss of ADV pts then you're playing an IMMORTAL character... it's more fun for me to play a balanced game where the monsters can win.

I believe the quicksave from diablo 2 is a good idea.
Some people such as myself lose track of time and forget to save. A save feature like Diablo2 would guarantee any items and time are not lost because the system automatically rebooted. My guess is most gamers play about 8 hours a week... there's some which play 8 hours a day. If you are one of those which really get wrapped into the story/game it's easy to lose track of time.

well either way, based on your immortality arguement you are immortal..even with using the diablo 2 save feature, you are still technically immortant, you just can't respawn right where you died, instead you respawn in the nearest town..so the diablo 2 save feature would prevent the immortality of your character.

also consider the fact that to really beat a monster, you have to understand it's tactics, how it fights..and sometimes that means you have to die, maybe a couple times, to be able to try new tricks and strategies..so being able to quick save before a big boss monster or boss npc means there isn't as much pressure on you and your battle.

also, there are some who agree with you, that being able to respawn from quicksave is cheap and not a real challenge, but they also don't believe in any save of any kind, ever, and not only that but they don't believe in resurrection..the feel that once your character is dead, it's dead, and you should have to restart completely, all the way from level one with a new character..and that is the only way to prevent this feeling of immortality that is created by quicksaving and even rezing.

i see where you are coming from though, and maybe the option should be there at least.

[Mythor]

It's not punishing those with less time... it's rewarding those who place more time into the game or into anything .... this is logical.
Try reading the suggestion again. The suggestion was that each time you "save" your game, you would be hit with a penalty to your ADV points or XP.
This is not, in any way, rewarding someone for putting more time in. It is purely punishing those who choose to use the save system.
I chose an "item" (shoes) based approach as it seemed the best analogy at the time. Losing the ability to kick for goal would not have made sense, for example.



It sounds logical and justified that a team which trains only once a week instead of three times a week will obviously not be as skilled(Dexterity) or as strong(Strength) compared with the team which did train three times a week. Thus a team which has devoted the three times a week would see these rewards.

Otherwise the developers would have to keep matching the expectations of those with less and less time... your suggestion. Eventually the game would provide this immortal power character which kills 20 creatures in 3 seconds... game ends in 10minutes.
As I said, I do not disagree that players who devote more time to the game should see a subsequent increase in their own skill, as well as progressing their character much further than someone who spends a lesser amount of time in the game.

What you are failing to comprehend is that the suggestion as it stands would result in 5 hours of a "casual" gamers time not equating to 5 hours of a "hardcore" players time. A casual gamer will be more likely to play for a shorter period of time, save the game and then exit. This might result in 5 play sessions to accumulate those 5 hours of in game time. If there's a penalty attached to saving the game, then the casual player will get slugged 5 times.
A hardcore player might play for 5 hours straight, only getting slugged once at the end of their session.
The suggested system doesn't "reward" the hardcore player, it merely punishes everyone for using the save system. The added problem is that the suggested method will also most heavily affect the casual player. Even though they may put in as many total hours as the "hardcore" gamer, because their play sessions are fragmented, they get slugged again and again and again, but the actual player's skill will continue to advance in line with the "hardcore" players skill, as they're playing for the same total lengths of time.

You have deliberately misinterpreted my point with your last statement. I did not in any way state that the game should be made easier for those players with less time to play. The big bad monster at the end of the dungeon should always be very big and very bad. If it takes 5 hours to get to him with a set level of skill, it should take 5 hours whether it's 5x1 hour sessions or a marathon crawl through it.

Equal time for equal reward.

[GOBBLES!]

well either way, based on your immortality arguement you are immortal..even with using the diablo 2 save feature, you are still technically immortant, you just can't respawn right where you died, instead you respawn in the nearest town..so the diablo 2 save feature would prevent the immortality of your character.

You DO loose experience which can be somewhat redeemed by getting your corpse back. Ofcouse if there were a experience loss on death in DL you could just use a savegame to get it back, so that wouldn't really work...

[Mythor]

You don't lose XP in Normal difficulty in Diablo II. Gold + corpse run only.

Whilst you could "regain" the XP you lost, it might be a toss up as to whether it's worthwhile. If you've not saved in a little while, you could end up going quite a ways backward anyway.
If you then die again at the same spot, you might feel like a goose. :)

I'd rather the penalty be set too low than too high, at least on the easier difficulty levels. It's better to push the better players up to higher difficulty levels seeking a challenge than it is to make the game too hard for the less skilled players.

All that said, the D2 system worked well. It did have downsides though - if you misclicked a skill, you were stuck with it, as the only way to "undo" it was to force the game to exit (Alt-F4) so your character wasn't saved. That's one advantage of the "save anytime" system - you can try out a skill for a few minutes and if you don't like it, just go back to your previous save.

Yet another thing we'll have to wait and see in action! :)

[Narserke]

You don't lose XP in Normal difficulty in Diablo II. Gold + corpse run only.

Whilst you could "regain" the XP you lost, it might be a toss up as to whether it's worthwhile. If you've not saved in a little while, you could end up going quite a ways backward anyway.
If you then die again at the same spot, you might feel like a goose. :)

I'd rather the penalty be set too low than too high, at least on the easier difficulty levels. It's better to push the better players up to higher difficulty levels seeking a challenge than it is to make the game too hard for the less skilled players.

All that said, the D2 system worked well. It did have downsides though - if you misclicked a skill, you were stuck with it, as the only way to "undo" it was to force the game to exit (Alt-F4) so your character wasn't saved. That's one advantage of the "save anytime" system - you can try out a skill for a few minutes and if you don't like it, just go back to your previous save.

Yet another thing we'll have to wait and see in action! :)


i have also always found that a lot of problems become easier when you know you've saved..when you don't have go through a lot of other stuff to get to the part you are having trouble with..like for instance some of the puzzles in this game, saving before we do them would for me make them easier..i feel i a pretty descent player, but i could never go straight through a game without saving..i make careless mistakes, get tired, so on..

[NTJedi]

so the diablo 2 save feature would prevent the immortality of your character.


Unfortunately most games are setup where the world revolves around an immortal character being played.... for me this takes away from being in an actual fantasy world. I don't mind being resurrected by a spell/scroll/item... but any living body which has died should suffer some penalty. Think of someone who has had 5 heart attacks then died and brought back to life compared with the person who has had none.... most likely the one which died 5 times will not have as healthy body/mind.



also consider the fact that to really beat a monster, you have to understand it's tactics, how it fights..and sometimes that means you have to die, maybe a couple times, to be able to try new tricks and strategies..so being able to quick save before a big boss monster or boss npc means there isn't as much pressure on you and your battle.

That takes away any risk or fear.... poor monster has ZERO chance of winning. This always places the game in a state of "YES YOU WILL WIN". I find the playing experience so much more rewarding knowing some penalty or permanent death exists for dying.



also, there are some who agree with you, that being able to respawn from quicksave is cheap and not a real challenge, but they also don't believe in any save of any kind, ever, ....

The game should have some type of save because you never know when a power outage or some other computer problem may occur.



and not only that but they don't believe in resurrection..the feel that once your character is dead, it's dead, and you should have to restart completely, all the way from level one with a new character..and that is the only way to prevent this feeling of immortality that is created by quicksaving and even rezing.

I believe in a fantasy realm resurrection should be possible but a penalty should exist. I see a holy shrine resurrecting your characters body/soul for a cost of gold, very minor loss of experience, possible loss of one item and -1 loss of stats. This way a character which has died 200 times would have to retire from adventuring... a new character could start and would do much better since the gamer has learned to play better.




i see where you are coming from though, and maybe the option should be there at least.
Options are always a good idea... hopefully there will be an "ADVANCED" options button where the developers will be able to add more and more options into the game with patches/expansions.




[QUOTE=Mythor]Try reading the suggestion again. The suggestion was that each time you "save" your game, you would be hit with a penalty to your ADV points or XP.
............ ................ ................
The suggested system doesn't "reward" the hardcore player, it merely punishes everyone for using the save system. ..........
Equal time for equal reward.
I don't see any game developers placing a loss of ADV for saving the game. I liked the original idea where the character is automatically saved and updated as the game progresses as within Diablo2 multiplayer.

[Narserke]

Unfortunately most games are setup where the world revolves around an immortal character being played.... for me this takes away from being in an actual fantasy world. I don't mind being resurrected by a spell/scroll/item... but any living body which has died should suffer some penalty. Think of someone who has had 5 heart attacks then died and brought back to life compared with the person who has had none.... most likely the one which died 5 times will not have as healthy body/mind.


That takes away any risk or fear.... poor monster has ZERO chance of winning. This always places the game in a state of "YES YOU WILL WIN". I find the playing experience so much more rewarding knowing some penalty or permanent death exists for dying.


The game should have some type of save because you never know when a power outage or some other computer problem may occur.


I believe in a fantasy realm resurrection should be possible but a penalty should exist. I see a holy shrine resurrecting your characters body/soul for a cost of gold, very minor loss of experience, possible loss of one item and -1 loss of stats. This way a character which has died 200 times would have to retire from adventuring... a new character could start and would do much better since the gamer has learned to play better.



Options are always a good idea... hopefully there will be an "ADVANCED" options button where the developers will be able to add more and more options into the game with patches/expansions.



Well as long as you can save, you will be immortal by your own definition. I understand how you feel when you say that saving before a big boss would be in a sense unfair for the boss, but the diablo system isn't any better and is just as unfair. Take this example..when I had to beat the final boss in Diablo 2, in ****, I died. A lot. Four or five times a least, yet I kept coming back, rezzed in town, with another chance to fight. I had to run into the room with Diablo, grab one of my corpes and keep fighting, but eventually I finally killed him. He didn't get to respawn anywhere to come after me again. So it's still unfair to the monster, when you kill them, no matter if you saved before, if you died and came back with a penalty, when you kill them they stay dead. So as long as you have some form of immortality, be it with quicksaves or with a respawn and death penalty, it's still going to be unfair because you get another chance reguardless, the monster doesn't. The only reason to really feel like playing a character in a fantasy world that is fair to the monsters is that if you die up stay dead. That would be like reality, but a game isn't reality, it's fantasy, and in a fantasy of any kind, you get to do it again and again. Dying, even with the ability to save whenever, is still a harsh penalty of failure. It only stops being a challenge when nothing can hurt you anymore, when every battle is like you versus say a bat. As long as I have to try, as long as there are going to be monsters that make me work for it, there is a challenge

However, I wouldn't mind a little exp or gold loss. I mean I could deal with it probably, as long as it wasn't so harsh. However, a dealth penalty that stacks and is permanant like a -1 to strike would be too much, and at that point you might as well make death permanant. Why? Cause if there is a huge boss or monster, one that would have a pretty good chance of killing me, then I'm probably going to die A LOT. Under the stackable death penalty, I would be facing this monster with less ability to hit it, or less hitpoints to take damage with, and a vicious cycle would form because I would be easier to kill, less likely to kill him, die more often, and so on.

Guild Wars has a death penalty almost similar to what you are suggesting, though it isn't permanant. Everytime you die on a mission, you have a death penalty to your health, where it drops by a percentage based on how often you've died. You can reverse it by killing mobs, but it takes a while. Problem is that if you die to much, you get to the point were you loose the ability to survive because your health is so low from death penalties that you die more often, loose more health, and well you can no longer stay alive.

Another example of how a death penalty can create a viscious cycle. Same game. My party was running from these things called Stormcallers. These are viscious little bastards that have a wicked sick ranged attack that stacks. It causes your health to drain..FAST. So we ran to the next zone, already with a dealth penalty. When we entered the zone, a whole mob of the **** things was there waiting for us. So we would die and respawn with a dealth penalty at special respawn points..well the respawn point we were sent too was like RIGHT NEXT TO THE MOB OF STORMCALLERS. Needless to say we started dying seconds after respawning cause of the aformentioned death penalty. Had we not had one, we might have had enough health to run away.

Look, I understand your point of view. However, I think it would only work for someone who doesn't really have to worry about dying that often. I however, no matter how good I am, will die, not every hour of play, but every once in a while I'll die, out of carelessness or taking on a group of monsters for a while, and then while fighting those guys a random monster spawns and overwhelms me. The games combat system took getting used too, and I died at first. Sure, after I got used to it, I stopped really dying, but had there been a dealth penalty, that was permanant, it probably would have become too hard for me. Maybe the hardest difficulty setting will have a death penalty you want, I just hope you understand where I am coming from. Some of us are good enough to enjoy the game, but without the ability to save and dealing with a death penalty like you suggest, we couldn't enjoy the game. We have to balance role playing in a game, fighting monsters and flinging spells and swinging swords, with the ability to save. Which is really what reloading a save is, it's not bringing your character back to life, but reversing the flow of time to a point back before you died.

Also, I haven't yet figured out to quote different parts of a post and reply to each of those quotes, so I am sorry I didn't pull your arguements apart the same way you did mine.

[Mythor]

I don't see any game developers placing a loss of ADV for saving the game. I liked the original idea where the character is automatically saved and updated as the game progresses as within Diablo2 multiplayer.
Diablo 2 singleplayer uses the same save system. The only difference is that if you don't change difficulty levels between games, the "random" maps will still be the same as last time, if you're still playing in Singleplayer.
Out of necessity, the random maps are regenerated each time a new instance is created on the Closed server. Unsure how it works off b.net as I never played it with "Open" characters.


but any living body which has died should suffer some penalty
Why? It doesn't add to the enjoyment of the game, so why do it?


I find the playing experience so much more rewarding knowing some penalty or permanent death exists for dying.
Ahh, now we get down to it. You're a masochist. :)

Seriously, there's no compelling reason to add such penalties to a game. All they do is frustrate gamers and make them consider quitting.
How does that make for a better game?

"Hardcore" is different. Players choose that style of gameplay.
Other penalties on death/saving/whatever should be similarly optional. If you really feel that the game is only fun if you're going to get a spanking for dying, then you pick a level above "Normal".

With a modicum of skill, it's always going to be possible to beat a game, even if the penalty for dying is set "high". The difference is that if someone plays for 10 hours, gets careless and say falls off a ledge to their death, then finds their XP cut in half, they're not going to want to keep playing, are they?
If they come back to life and their character's purse is a little lighter? Well, better get out there and earn some more with all their fancy new skills they've got after 10 hours play?


I don't know that this issue can really be resolved, since it's a stylistic choice. Most players would prefer to be penalised in ways that don't cripple their character. Some prefer the more hardcore ruleset.
The devs will usually aim more towards the majority viewpoint and then get bitched out by the minority. :)

[NTJedi]

((Penalty for Death))
Why? It doesn't add to the enjoyment of the game, so why do it?

How does that make for a better game?


Yes I know you want to play the Ultra Immortal Character which is true since you want no penalty for death. Heck put a blind fold on a play when fighting the dragons... you're going to win anyways.
There are several ways a penalty for death makes the game better as I've explained before:
1) A penalty for death rewards the experienced, wise and careful player with a more skilled player. After 20 levels... if a character is played recklessly and abusively it should not be equal to the character which was played wisely and carefully.
2) A penalty for death means the monsters are not just a speed bump... because enough deaths means retiring the character and starting again. A new start means the story and character could take different directions.
3) A penalty for death punishes the careless and reckless player. For example lets say 3 giant witches are guarding a treasure in the next room where the giant witches cannot follow... what's to stop you or someone you're playing with from trying to race past the 3 giant witches... so what if you die 3 times you'll get the better items without doing anything but playing recklessly.
4) A penalty for death places a realistic danger when fighting powerful monsters... without this you are playing where no enemy monster/being/entity is feared.




With a modicum of skill, it's always going to be possible to beat a game, even if the penalty for dying is set "high". The difference is that if someone plays for 10 hours, gets careless and say falls off a ledge to their death, then finds their XP cut in half, they're not going to want to keep playing, are they?

Those which are careless, reckless, stupid or abusive should suffer a penalty for dying. After 10 hours of playing is it fair for the wise and careful player to have a character of equal level to the player which has been reckless and careless ?? No it's not.
It's good knowing the -1 for a random stat will be in the game.



If they come back to life and their character's purse is a little lighter? Well, better get out there and earn some more with all their fancy new skills they've got after 10 hours play?

In your world there is no penalty for death and heck why not die 20 times... or chat on the phone, half-awake and eat some apple pie while playing... doesn't matter if or when you die. At this point you're just sitting back watching pretty colors on the screen because no matter what happens your character is unstoppable. Thank the heavens this will not be the case for this game.




I don't know that this issue can really be resolved, since it's a stylistic choice. Most players would prefer to be penalised in ways that don't cripple their character. Some prefer the more hardcore ruleset.
The devs will usually aim more towards the majority viewpoint and then get bitched out by the minority. :)

The best choice is to have options in the game regarding the death penalty. Easy, Normal, Difficult and HardCore... this satisfies the greatest majority of customers.

[Mythor]

Yes I know you want to play the Ultra Immortal Character which is true since you want no penalty for death.
Immortals cannot die. I have never said that characters should be immortal.
The rest of your argument is based upon that one flawed premise.

Additionally, all 4 of your reasons why a penalty on death makes a game "better" are flawed - they are all your opinion, which is no more nor less valid than mine; even when you deliberately mistate my opinion. They make the game "better" for you, but it doesn't follow that it is "better" for everyone.
If my opinion was that characters should receive a bonus to their skills, or a lowering of the difficulty level, upon death in order to let them get past whatever killed them, that opinion would still be a way for the game to be "better". If that was how I wanted to play the game, then including that would make the game "better" in my opinion.
Same as, in your opinion, the game is better if your character is ruined on death.
Believe it or not, some people play games for... fun! Not everyone thinks it's fun to have their character gimped because they died before they fully understood the consequences...



In your world there is no penalty for death and heck why not die 20 times... or chat on the phone, half-awake and eat some apple pie while playing... doesn't matter if or when you die. At this point you're just sitting back watching pretty colors on the screen because no matter what happens your character is unstoppable.
In your world every time you die your keyboard comes to life and eats your fingers.

Hm, what? You didn't say that? Neither did I.

Your opinion - the only way to have fun and make the game better is to punish everyone if they die.
My opinion - different strokes for different folks.

You say you want to offer gamers choices, but you keep insisting that the only choice is to have penalties that will result in an eventually unplayable character.
I keep trying to point out that if you keep ruining a player's progression, they're going to give up in short order. You've presented no argument otherwise.

Why does it even matter to you if someone gets as good a character as you, even though they died 400 times to do so? Did it diminish the game for you? Was it less fun smashing a tribe of goblins in one go because it took someone else 10 tries?
It's not a competition, it's just a game.

I will state my position once, clearly, so you can't misinterpret it again without proving yourself a fool:
- I am perfectly okay with a penalty upon death, even on the "easiest" difficulty level. It is generally better to have some kind of motivation for the player to avoid death in such games.
My preference is for the easiest levels to have the lightest penalties - minor gold loss, minor xp loss and possibly teleportation to the nearest "safe" area, if that's possible within the game.
The easiest setting should not be able to lead to a character being "ruined" because the game wasn't played to perfection. Any kind of penalty should be of the type where a player can learn from their mistake and recover their lost progress in a reasonable period of time.
This does not equal immortality no matter how many times you and others say it does!
It just means that when new players are getting a feel for the game, they don't end up with a character that is hopelessly underpowered by the mid-game, due to a few too many mistakes while they were learning the system. It's never fun having to start a game over because you made a mistake. You grow attached to a character and to have to start over because of something you did early on is just crazy.

The longevity of games such as this lies in the replayability. People will want to try again with a different set of skills, or with harder monsters to defeat. But only if it was fun the first time through.

Regardless, penalising players for dying does not actually improve the game. It may make the game more challenging, exciting or "better" in some people's opinions, but the gameplay is exactly the same either way. If the gameplay can result in any kind of "unfair" death, then the addition of the penalty is going to quickly become gamebreaking for most people, regardless of whether or not they're usually for or against penalties.

And one more time: I was one of the top ranked players on the Diablo 2 Hardcore Necromancer Ladder for a while during the first "season". So if you're going to keep suggesting I like playing "Immortal" characters, you should probably bear that in mind. :cool:

[NTJedi]

Immortals cannot die. I have never said that characters should be immortal.

Immortals cannot die... if a character is killed and stands back up 30 seconds later without any damage to stats/experience the character is immortal. For example... if someone in a game or real life was to get crushed by a giant boulder causing 70% of their organs to be crushed and 40% of blood lost on the ground... then 30 seconds later they stand up and continue their day without any side effects of the event they are immortal. That is what you are asking for... and just fail to understand the definition.



If that was how I wanted to play the game, then including that would make the game "better" in my opinion.
Same as, in your opinion, the game is better if your character is ruined on death.

Yes we are both expressing our opinions. It's unusual to see you are getting all emotional/stressed out over the discussion.




Believe it or not, some people play games for... fun! Not everyone thinks it's fun to have their character gimped because they died before they fully understood the consequences...

Yes that's why they've now included the starting campfire as a safety zone. Most people didn't like the ambush within 5 seconds of starting the game.... great to see this was improved.
And Chuk22 has already explained the penalty for death... which is:
You can revive w/no penalty if you have a ressurect spell... (R key basically checks for the presence of the spell, and burns a spell charge and gives you enhanced revive IF you have a ressurect)

Stat loss is currently 1 point in a random attribute... not hideous, but daunting enough that the player should avoid death...

This sounds perfect to me... yes I know it doesn't fit your Immortal Superman world... guess you'll download the eventual cheats which come out or just move on to a game which does. :D


======================
Opinions of Game Punishment

NTJedi opinion - Carless/Reckless/Stupid behavior should have punishment in any game.... just like Monopoly, Poker, Tennis = Foolish actions should cost you and do.
Mythor opinion - Gimme the Immortal Superman who gets additional bonuses the longer I play this allows winning no matter what because I cannot stomach defeat. In my game world the only obstacle will be how long it takes to win.

======================
These are just opinions and the developers will choose which seem more logical.




You say you want to offer gamers choices,...

Actually you are right... the easiest level should be as you describe no penalty and bonuses for staying alive. This setting should exist helping prevent cheat codes/programs. I change my advice for what the easiest setting should be. My young son might like starting on easy too.





I keep trying to point out that if you keep ruining a player's progression, they're going to give up in short order. You've presented no argument otherwise.

Just because you will give up doesn't mean myself or others will toss in the towel once our stats or adv pts are dropped. In fact since the developers have released what will happen in regards to death you are the only one crying about it.



Why does it even matter to you if someone gets as good a character as you, even though they died 400 times to do so?

Reckless, careless and stupid behavior should be punished in any game. And this will be true with this game as well based on the response from the devs.... unless you happen to have 400 ressurrect scrolls with you. :)




It's not a competition, it's just a game.

Games like Monopoly, Poker, Tennis are all games with competition. And competition can even be done in single player where you and your buddy could compete with characters items/stats after 3 weeks of playing.




My preference is for the easiest levels to have the lightest penalties - minor gold loss, minor xp loss and possibly teleportation to the nearest "safe" area, if that's possible within the game.

I agree the easiest setting should have this for two reasons... helps stop the cheaters in making hacks of immortality and because there are some people which prefer to play games like this.
Hopefully the settings such as easy, normal, difficult and hardcore will exist in the game... personally I would like to have one character on difficult and one on hardcore.





The longevity of games such as this lies in the replayability.
Yes I definitely agree... it's too bad this game won't have a random map generator or an editor ! That would really be great... perhaps DungeonLords_2. :D
An editor where we can adjust the stats/images of the monsters would be a legendary game!




Regardless, penalising players for dying does not actually improve the game.

It was during DungeonSiege where I recognized the lack of fantasy realism having an immortal character. As we all know the only penalty in DungeonSiege for dying is that you have to pickup items again. After 20 plus hours I remember reviewing all the battles I fought and realized there was no challenge because nothing could stop me. It was just a battle against time... even the queen dragon was just a speed bump of time, those poor monsters never had a chance.





And one more time: I was one of the top ranked players on the Diablo 2 Hardcore Necromancer Ladder for a while during the first "season". So if you're going to keep suggesting I like playing "Immortal" characters, you should probably bear that in mind. :cool:

Yes it's possible for people to change... perhaps the death of a hardcore character or some other character has instilled such hatred for penalty on any games. I will pray for you.

[txa1265]

And Chuk22 has already explained the penalty for death... which is:
You can revive w/no penalty if you have a ressurect spell... (R key basically checks for the presence of the spell, and burns a spell charge and gives you enhanced revive IF you have a ressurect)

Stat loss is currently 1 point in a random attribute... not hideous, but daunting enough that the player should avoid death...

This sounds perfect to me... It sounds perfect to me as well - combine that with a quick/full save system for Single Player and the more stringent Multi-Player save and I think it is all sewn up.

Mike

[Mythor]

It's unusual to see you are getting all emotional/stressed out over the discussion.
I'm not emotional nor stressed out. Frustrated perhaps.
You continue to try and put words in my mouth and suggest I'm "crying" about the penalties you're often completely pulling out of thin air.

You're re-interpreting the word "immortal" to suit your own ridiculous attack. It doesn't matter if a character can come back to life, that is not immortality.
Immortality is "god mode". Doesn't matter how much damage you sustain, you never ever hit the deck.
If you want to make yet another accusation, perhaps you should actually check the definition for yourself (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=immortal) instead of just assuming you're right. Notice how it just says "not subject to death"?
It doesn't matter if they can be resurrected. Resurrection means that someone is brought back from death.

You're continuing with the absurd presumption that everyone only equates character death with some big penalty. For many, the act of hitting the floor with no health left is the part that counts. The "penalty" is like shoving extra money in the arcade machine so you can continue playing. PC's don't have a slot, so you take a slug on your gold/xp/whatever.
That's the "price" of continuing. If you don't want to continue, you don't have to.



Yes it's possible for people to change... perhaps the death of a hardcore character or some other character has instilled such hatred for penalty on any games. I will pray for you.
To the best of my knowledge, that character is still alive. I quit playing it once the botters took over the Ladder race and I was pushed off the list. I left off my Ladder Hardcore character and went back to my Singleplayer Hardcore characters.
The point, which was unsurprisingly missed by you yet again, was that I'm perfectly happy playing a game like this in Hardcore mode, and can even excel in it.

But it has to be by choice!



Games like Monopoly, Poker, Tennis are all games with competition. And competition can even be done in single player where you and your buddy could compete with characters items/stats after 3 weeks of playing.
I can't remember the last time I died in Monopoly, Poker or Tennis. Great examples.
If you want to compete with someone then you can work out the terms of the competition between yourselves. Much as you can have "house rules" in Monopoly, since you brought it up. That is external to the game design though.
Dungeon Lords is not designed to be a competition, and whether you decide to compete with someone else or not is up to you. The point still stands - another character doing "better" than you whilst dying a lot should not impact your enjoyment of the game.
If it does, well, that's your problem, not everyone else's. Perhaps you should stop "crying"?

What you are complaining about is akin to someone playing a pure Melee character, then getting upset when someone spends an equal amount of time using the Mage skills and doing a lot better.
You could've picked Mage skills (or could've worried less about dying) but that was not what you wanted to do.



Yes we are both expressing our opinions.
Indeed. It's just a shame that you have to keep attacking me instead of talking about the facts.

I really don't know how else to address your constant, ridiculous claim that I want to play the game in Super Immortal God Mode With French Fries. It's completely, unequivocally not true.

Perhaps you should pull your head out of your ****** cavity and quit behaving like a prat. Just because you can't defeat my argument with logic is no reason to keep making it personal and to keep telling me what my opinion is.
There's really no other way to say that. You keep deliberately warping my argument and then trying to poke holes in that warped version and continue to make disparaging remarks about me.

There's just no need for it. You're going to make the place unfriendly if you can't rein in your bad attitude.

I'm placing you on my ignore list, because I didn't come here for **** like this. Have fun completely misinterpreting everything I said above. :)

[LordHS]

Strongly Disagree with the original poster
such a no-save feature will totally ruin the game, there is another game coming out that are using such a feature (called Restricted Area) and it is a horrible idea, probably not going to buy that game because of that.

[LordHS]

guys who support no-save or steep death penalty
remember this:
its an RPG, NOT an MMORPG (massive multiplayer online rpg like everquest)
people play it for fun, there is NO balance issues, and NO pvp.
people can play their game however they want.
if you want to start over when your character die, great, nobody is gonna stop your from torturing yourself, go ahead and do it
but for many others who don't want to get frustrated and wanna play casual and have fun, they can still do that.
Forcing cacual players to suffer for the masochist ideals of a few so called "hardcore" players is NOT right.

[Tenka]

guys who support no-save or steep death penalty
remember this:
its an RPG, NOT an MMORPG (massive multiplayer online rpg like everquest)
people play it for fun, there is NO balance issues, and NO pvp.
people can play their game however they want.
if you want to start over when your character die, great, nobody is gonna stop your from torturing yourself, go ahead and do it
but for many others who don't want to get frustrated and wanna play casual and have fun, they can still do that.
Forcing cacual players to suffer for the masochist ideals of a few so called "hardcore" players is NOT right.

All good points however consider:

No where did anyone ever say that they game should be set hardcore mode only, in all games wherever a hardcore mode exists it is always optional and sometimes only available after beating the game. The game may not be MMO, but it is MP, playable via internet (in full version).. there will be sufficient cause to vouch for 'steep death penalties' in MP only at least. Also, PvP is not supported but it is (or at least was originally planned to be) included.. it would be nice to hear some more words about this whether or not there are still plans to put it in.

I think some of you need to get some things in perspective, we're not talking about play-balance and penalties here, we're talking about SP vs MP, SP needs more lenient gameplay since the player has no-one to impress but himself whereas in MP the player needs to conform to a group mentality and respect the ability to fight harder for/against friends.

[NancyDrewFreak]

I like how the saving works. But they need a pause or something. I noticed that when I play, I always press Esc button, but everything around u is still moving. Which means that a monster can still kill u or someone could take ur stuff (if u drop them) But I like how the saving works. :)

[Vampire_X]

would have been better if they didnt add a multiplayer they shoulda just focused on the single player , i wont be playing the multi player nothing beats a single player with a story :)

[NancyDrewFreak]

Isn't multipplayer when u can go on the internet and play with other ppl? If it is then I sometimes like it. The single player is always the better way to go though. Then ur beating the monsters for urselves, and no one gets ur stuff. :)

[NancyDrewFreak]

I meant urself.

[Tenka]

would have been better if they didnt add a multiplayer they shoulda just focused on the single player , i wont be playing the multi player nothing beats a single player with a story :)

Speak for yourself, the multiplayer in this game rocks!

[mkreku]

If you can get a group of friends together and go through the single player story in co-op mode, then it rocks. I know Sacred allowed up to four of us (I think) to play together and solve quests and stuff. It was great fun! I'm hoping the multiplayer in Dungeon Lords will work the same way.

[Vampire_X]

Speak for yourself, the multiplayer in this game rocks!

its pointless

[NTJedi]

I'm not emotional nor stressed out. Frustrated perhaps.
You're re-interpreting the word "immortal" to suit your own ridiculous attack. It doesn't matter if a character can come back to life, that is not immortality.

According to Dictionary.com
Immortality = perpetual life after death
Perpetual = Lasting for eternity

You just fail to understand its definition.



Immortality is "god mode". Doesn't matter how much damage you sustain, you never ever hit the deck.

WRONG... Dictionary.com:
Immortality = perpetual life after death
Perpetual = Lasting for eternity

"God mode" as you so call it would be a type of immortality but is not the only type.



If you want to make yet another accusation, perhaps you should actually check the definition for yourself (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=immortal)

Yes lets look at the definitions listed... ahhh here we go:
Immortality = perpetual life after death
Immortality = Endless life or existence
JUST THE FACTS.... you want your character to have endless lasting lives
Perpetual = Lasting for eternity


I'm glad to have educated you.



You're continuing with the absurd presumption that everyone only equates character death with some big penalty. The actual death of a character is not permanent unless some sufficient or penalty does exist. When no long term lasting penalty exists then the character has perpetual life after death the exact definition of immortality.






The point, which was unsurprisingly missed by you yet again, was that I'm perfectly happy playing a game like this in Hardcore mode, and can even excel in it.

But it has to be by choice!

Yes I also recommend different difficult settings for the effects of death... as I mentioned within earlier posts.




I can't remember the last time I died in Monopoly, Poker or Tennis. Great examples.

You must be one dammmmm good player... most people will have had their piece/character in the game of Monopoly die when all money and property are gone. And those playing Poker where money is required will also no longer exist within the game once their money has run out... thus their character representation in the game has died. See it's possible to lose and cease character representation in these games of competition as well.



If you want to compete with someone then you can work out the terms of the competition between yourselves. Much as you can have "house rules" in Monopoly, since you brought it up. That is external to the game design though.

Exactly that was my point... competition exists in most games.



Dungeon Lords is not designed to be a competition, and whether you decide to compete with someone else or not is up to you. The point still stands - another character ....

And my point still stands that in any game... Reckless, Careless and Stupid behavior should be punished allowing a realistic fear to exist thus preventing more reckless, careless and stupid behavior. Otherwise what's to stop someone from taking a shortcut and jumping off a cliff and dying to reach a town instead of the longer journey thru some caverns. Also what's going to stop someone from being killed 10 times as they recklessly bash a chest open... nothing.



What you are complaining about is akin to someone playing a pure Melee character, then getting upset when someone spends an equal amount of time using the Mage skills and doing a lot better.

No... that has nothing to do with it. I've never mentioned or described the different classes... I've explained earlier what the purpose of a death penalty.



I really don't know how else to address your constant, ridiculous claim that I want to play the game in Super Immortal God Mode With French Fries. It's completely, unequivocally not true.
Just because you can't defeat my argument with logic....

You are asking for no longterm penalty after the result of dying... a clear definition of immortality says:
Immortality = perpetual life after death
Immortality = Endless life or existence
JUST THE FACTS.... you want your character to have endless life



I'm placing you on my ignore list, because I didn't come here for **** like this. :)

I believe you've finally accepted or found the truth of Immortality within dictionary.com or someplace else yet too stubborn to admit you're wrong.

[Vampire_X]

lol that was amusing to read jedi alot of useless typing all that should have just ignored the moron.

Immortality can be alot of different things when people think of it , it doesnt just mean you can never die.

for example Vampires live for ever they never die UNLESS they are stabbed in the heart or go out in sunlight see what i mean?

Gods like in hercules and greek mythology live forever and are immortal BUT you can kill them with hines blood.

Theres alot of different immortalities like all those rpg games we play and we fight some "mighty powerful god" but we can still kill them if there a god then they shouldnt take any damage.

Theres usually always a way to kill some of if they live for ever like gods or vampires but its very hard because there so powerful :)