Mission failure needs to be rewarding, or people will leave the moment it looks shaky.

[Orrion_the_Kitsune]

24 minutes ago, (NSW)BalticBarbarian said:

So what you are saying is that people in the real world do take unnecessary risks irrespective of whether or not they can afford them - but in a video game (where the risks are significantly lower due to it being just a video game) they would not take fairly insignificant risks (88 circuits was the number you used) for the sake of having fun? And in terms of affordability - everyone can afford an extra hour of playing a game before they reach an in-game goal! Because it's just a game, and all the goals are consequence-free! So the relevant number is not the 5% figure from your statistics - it's the 80% one!

But I do apologise for trying to find an interpretation of your words that makes any logical sense whatsoever - I should have realised that logic is not something to be expected there.

And really, what's the mythical risk that you are claiming people are trying so hard to avoid? Having to go play a video game for an extra hour? You've created such a long and convoluted explanation about why people keep abandoning missions you are in (because same doesn't really happen much to me) - but have you never considered that you might be the problem?

A bunch of posts ago, I gave you a link to the "how to give good feedback". Have you tried giving that a read? Because the feedback you are giving is very much lacking in quality!

 

 

BTW, the first link you presented about how gambling addiction is not at all widely spread is from "casino.org". Do you seriously not understand how that source might not be the most trustworthy on the topic? Have you never heard the phrase "conflict of interest"?

You seriously think that people don't take risk into consideration when playing a game. You actually believe that. Thank you for admitting it, at least, but it's self-evidently stupid enough a take that I don't need to say much more about it. It's a real shame then that the meta's fundamentally built around what's the best, i.e. what brings the minimum risk and maximum reward. Such a shame, that... and Dark Souls. Dark Souls is such a shame too.

I'm sorry you don't have enough psychological expertise to understand that risk/reward factors into literally everything we do as humans, but it does. If you want, I can give you a few papers on that as well but if you're not going to read them then there's no point. You're already complaining about something that would have zero effect on you and for reasons that are tenuous at best, so I won't put it past you to ignore sources completely.

You going to ignore the other two sites, both of which are reputable and about the specifics of gambling disorders? I only cited that specific site to show you just how many people gamble on a regular basis. They have no reason to lie about how many people gamble, and their statistics measure up with other sources so it's irrelevant anyway. The other two links contain in-depth info about gambling disorders, not how common gambling is, but you'd only know this if you took the time to read them.

[(NSW)BalticBarbarian]

3 minutes ago, Orrion_the_Kitsune said:

Oh wow, you seriously think that people don't take risk into consideration when playing a game.

Unless the person has serious gaming addiction issues, any in-game risk is a risk they can afford. Because it's just a game! According to your statistics, 80% of people happily take such risks on a regular basis in real life. In a video game, considering how minuscule the risk is (88 circuits was your number) and how big the payoff is (adrenaline/dopamine rush is a powerful thing!), these are the risks people happily take without a second thought!

16 minutes ago, Orrion_the_Kitsune said:

BTW: You going to ignore the other two, both of which are reputable and about the specifics of gambling disorders?

It is customary to put the more reputable sources first, and considering how trash your first source was, why would anyone bother with the other two? Especially since re-typing acronyms into the address bar is a bit of a pain (surely, even you would know not to click random links posted on a forum?)

[(NSW)BalticBarbarian]

1 hour ago, Orrion_the_Kitsune said:

We say "humans have five fingers" but yet that isn't always true. We say "humans eat food" but yet some people need to have their food pumped into their stomach. Do you even understand how we use English? Too bad for you, I actually think about the things I say. I'm truly sorry you can't relate, it must be miserable.

Now I'll do it to you for funsies.

10 hours ago, (NSW)BalticBarbarian said:

People do it all the time, even in real life!

Wrong. Some casinos are only open during daylight, and many of them will ask you to leave if you stay for extended periods of time. Humans also need sleep, so no, "all the time" is completely incorrect!

10 hours ago, (NSW)BalticBarbarian said:

People take risks because it's fun. 

Nope. Some people do it because it's fun. 'People' is too broad after all, and doesn't include all of those statistical anomalies.

10 hours ago, (NSW)BalticBarbarian said:

There will, of course, be times when people will be trying to get something specific out of a mission

Wrong again. You mean 'some people' because again, statistical anomalies.

10 hours ago, (NSW)BalticBarbarian said:

And they go into longer missions purely to push themselves - in which case enemy drops would really not matter in the slightest!

Wrong yet again. Some people do it to push themselves, while others do it for the rewards.

See how ridiculous it would be to try this semantic trolling after everything you've written? Humans use language broadly. End of story.

I've tried to take your threads seriously (even though you deserve being laughed at after the previous threads you've posted), but this is clearly a fool's errant! You might have had a little bit of credibility had you at least stuck to your story - but you seem to compulsively edit every single one of your posts after the fact. Had you only done that to one or two of them - there could have been a valid explanation for it. But with this many - this is clearly just a sign of dishonesty.

Furthermore, whenever someone disagrees with you and finds holes in your arguments that you can't easily edit out - you start calling them a troll. If you find such behaviour helpful in your real life - then you must be living a very sheltered existence!

But now I'm done! I won't waste any more of my time on you - because you are beyond help! I really hope you are just a child - then you still have a chance to grow out of this phase. If you are an adult - then my sympathy goes to the people around you!

 

[(XBOX)Rez090]

Yeah, this man-baby cannot be taken seriously with how they edit every single post to make it appear that they "won" the argument. They still have never said how changing mission failure rewards would affect them. I wouldn't be surprised if people keep leaving them in missions because they get tired of dealing with them if they aren't pulling their weight. Later game players are not going to care about mission failure rewards, since unless the situation turns in a second against them or they're deliberately trying to fail, nothing will change. Early game players, this most definitely should not be allowed, because then they will adopt the mindset that they don't need to finish missions because they're still getting rewarded either way. So this most definitely will not nor ever be a thing.

[Orrion_the_Kitsune]

4 hours ago, (NSW)BalticBarbarian said:

I've tried to take your threads seriously (even though you deserve being laughed at after the previous threads you've posted), but this is clearly a fool's errant! You might have had a little bit of credibility had you at least stuck to your story - but you seem to compulsively edit every single one of your posts after the fact. Had you only done that to one or two of them - there could have been a valid explanation for it. But with this many - this is clearly just a sign of dishonesty.

Furthermore, whenever someone disagrees with you and finds holes in your arguments that you can't easily edit out - you start calling them a troll. If you find such behaviour helpful in your real life - then you must be living a very sheltered existence!

But now I'm done! I won't waste any more of my time on you - because you are beyond help! I really hope you are just a child - then you still have a chance to grow out of this phase. If you are an adult - then my sympathy goes to the people around you!

 

Ah yes, there's totally no reason for the edit function. Let's just look at the meaning of the word 'edit' and...

...oh would you look at that. By the way, it's pretty easy for people to see that my posts are almost mirrors of their edits with filler removed and clarifications made, especially with quote/edit/post history at the click of a button. If you're going to pull the "don't edit" thing, then I guess I have two words for you: "make me." If the edit button had no purpose, it wouldn't be there. It's that simple.

[(NSW)Greybones]

Pretty sure this thread has gotten off-topic

[Orrion_the_Kitsune]

5 hours ago, (NSW)BalticBarbarian said:

Unless the person has serious gaming addiction issues, any in-game risk is a risk they can afford. Because it's just a game! According to your statistics, 80% of people happily take such risks on a regular basis in real life. In a video game, considering how minuscule the risk is (88 circuits was your number) and how big the payoff is (adrenaline/dopamine rush is a powerful thing!), these are the risks people happily take without a second thought!

It is customary to put the more reputable sources first, and considering how trash your first source was, why would anyone bother with the other two? Especially since re-typing acronyms into the address bar is a bit of a pain (surely, even you would know not to click random links posted on a forum?)

Nice meme brother, it's just a shame I'm the only one here to see it. "I don't like this first source so I'm going to ignore all of them" has to be the most childish thing I've ever read in recent memory. Needless to say, it's pretty silly.

If my arguments are so bad, why are you spending so much time and effort trying to rebuke them? If I'm a troll, all you're doing is feeding me which is something I would want. If I'm genuine, you ended the last thread with the "can't talk to these people" cope in response to my response and followed me to this thread to whine some more. Have you ever thought that it's too obvious that me comparing your responses to the responses on boards like 4chan and 8chan got to you? You're hate-following my "content" at this point. This thread has survived for days, thanks to you. Without your help it would've probably gotten buried on the second page within hours, regardless of whether DE saw it or not. You single-handedly kept this going, and I as the author am just doing my job of producing supporting arguments for my thread.

[(XBOX)Rez090]

1 hour ago, (NSW)Greybones said:

Pretty sure this thread has gotten off-topic

This thread never had a topic to begin with, it's only an opinion piece.

[Teridax68]

I don't think it would really break the game or kill the economy if players were allowed to retain the loot they collected and extract normally on mission failure. There would still be reasons to drop out (if one needs to actually successfully complete the mission to progress towards something, for example), but the above would certainly reduce frustration. It would also carry the benefit of mitigating issues tied to disconnects and other network problems: if a surprise host migration ends up borking the mission, or takes so long that the failure condition is met, allowing players to continue with what they've obtained would take the sting out of an unavoidable defeat.

[Digressive]

Locking this thread as it appears to have gone off-topic and there's a lot of back and forth arguing.

Thanks