I find zero correlation between pain in the ass running back to your corpse
- and 'fun' or making it more of a challenge.

At 07:25 PM 9/30/99 -0400, you wrote:

>From: "Garramone, Michael (CCI-Las Vegas)" <Michael.Garramone@...>
>
>sorry i don't see the connection. i advocate not letting melee/hybrid
>classes to be able to bind, making the game harder. how does that make it
>easier to "win" or have anything to do with what you said?
>
>no one likes dying, not just some folks. that's the point, it is bad to
>die. if there were no consequences, there would be no challenge. is this
>what you are referring to, my point of the game being a challenge? this has
>nothing to do with wanting to win, it has only to do with wanting to have
>fun, and not being bored. it is after all a game, and if you are not having
>fun, you shouldn't be playing.
>
>Shada
>
>> From: silky@...
>>
>>
>> Some folks just don't like dying - that in and of itself is
>> enough of a
>> penalty, thank you very much.
>>
>> This is where the paradigm falls back to singlemindset games
>> - that there
>> has to be a way to 'keep score' - that puts the emphasis on
>> advancement and
>> competition with others - instead of living in the world, and
>> working with
>> others.
>>
>> You cannot 'win' in a persistent world - nor should the goals be
>> artificially propped up to encourage that attitude.
>>
>> One of EQs major shortcomings - is there is a perceived
>> 'end'. Games - read
>> 'worlds' of this nature are going to have to mature past the
>> singleplayer
>> game mindset baggage they have towed along with them, for
>> these worlds to
>> truly reach their full potential.
>
>>