Treating your punishment like a war medal is a way of dodging accountability and avoiding reflection on your anger management and entitlement issues. The behaviour I described above is appalling and completely unacceptable within any constructive social environment.
If you are convinced that D has a personal vendetta against you, I will hand down the next ban myself. This is your warning.
I know this
I'm trying to cut this debate after it's sort of been resolved and I see the sour attitude in some people in the discussion and know where it's coming from. Only cure is to keep playing, gain a bit of perspective, reflect upon it, and in some cases give it up). There were cases where D or whoever literally misinterpreded me, allthough that might be just me not being concise, I don't see it as a vendetta I see it as misunderstanding... I just want to give the long answers to the stuff here, and at the same time don't (because I'd be writing a novel for the benefits of just a few people, and because I see narrow minded answers and attitudes on both sides).
I want to write a long post about what breeds what seems like "entitlement" and "resentment" in this issue, that's what's the real problem - not understanding or not understanding or even liking or disliking this or other design decisions. The "give warning" side is, and probably will always, be driven to keep it up by emotions, and they won't necessarily feel entitled as much as swindled, wornged and hurt. There's strong shades of lashing out and thinly veiled bitterness on that side, and "man up and accept the rules" just breeds that more. Eh... The "gonna get missinterpreted and banned" seems likely if anyone decides I'm hijacking this and derailing it, when in fact I'm trying to get to the root of the problem which is "it's solved yet it keeps going on, why?" Here goes:
I'm a turn based game fan. I'm not bad at games where reactions matter, I played semi-pro HoN and a lot of DotA and of all the FPS games the first AVP was by far my favourite (did everything with everything in that one). But I preffer turn based and puzzly games where I have all the time in the world to make my move. The only game, especially a roguelike, where I'd be expecting something like a DD missclick mishap would be the aforementioned AVP - unless shit's comming out of the goddamned walls by default, I expect to live and die by my decisions not by my reflexes. And I feel strongly about my time, so if I sit down to play a game where death is punished by loss of my time, and is more often the result of something out of my hands - I get progressively more annoyed every time it happens. I wouldn't mind it in a game where I could reasonably expect it, but part of playing a game like DD is being safe from reflex-based deaths. This is the person who's writing this post.Why anger?
I think this is universal. I think very few people can "cope" with a missclick death in DD, and a big part of it is the exact role of death in it's learning curve. It's a game about doing anything not to die. You win by not dieing and killing the other guy, and that comes with good play, reasoning, knowlegde and all that. People who do well start playing faster and get confident - you're beating the game, why should you not feel confident? And then they die! You get punished for being smart, quick, relaxed, not intimidated, for assuming that it's the kind of game where this couldn't happen. Your twitchy fingers, your mouse, or even your cat, can inflict upon you the same punishment that an insane person who would voluntarily click on a red flashing "DEATH" sign sporting monster would inflict upon themselves.
There's two things at play here - the assumption about what kind of game you are playing, and getting punished for "being good at the game". The entitlement issue
If you go about the steam forums or even this forums, you'll come across people very insistent about the idea the DD is a puzzle game. You'll also find people dissapointed with DD as a puzzle game. Sometimes they're dissapointed about DD not being the exact puzzle game they'd want it to be, but sometimes, like with this issue, they feel like someone sold them something presented as a puzzle game, and it turned out that it wasn't one. Now, "you didn't make a game I'd make" arguments can be spotted a mile off, but the complaints about "what's with death in this game" are pretty legit. There's no reason to expect it, and if you're playing it right it's never going to happen except by accident.
Now, dieing by being unattentive or ocd is you'r own damned fault. The lvl1 gorgon and the goblin that you clicked on absent mindedly didn't kill you as a dick move - those guys are designed to be difficult to mop up. Gorgon design in particular reads to me as: "very easy to kill if you're focusing her, but very difficult to kill mid-fight with something else (and other unrelated things)". It doesn't read: "dick move by devs to waste your time". DEATH is a signal that you're not supposed to click on stuff, and those guys go uninteractive when they become popcorn. It's a logical design and challenge, and if you think you have it all figured out but die to a goblin, it means you don't. It feels wrong because you probably could've clicked on any other lvl1 guy and got the desired result, but that's a missasumption on the players part - getting a few levels over monsters doesn't make you invulnerable.
So if you include arguments such as those in a "why is there death in the game" debate, you'll come across as a person who feels entitled to more than anyone is. If you assume it's part of a stupid design decision you'll enter the argument thinking that the devs are a priori idiots, and when a vet or a dev sees you completely missing the point he'll have solid grounds to think you're an idiot too. There's other ways to be an idiot about this, and they all detract from a legit point.The legit point
The legit point is that, unless you use the alternate select modes, you can die through no faut of your own. And every time that happens it's impossibly unfair, demoralizing and can get you solidly pissed off at whoever made it possible. I, for example, used to religiously avoid the cydstepp glyph because it was so powerful that i made me play better and faster, miss a finger or mouse click beat, and die with warlords more often than any other class. It was infuriating - a class who's supposed to click on bossess at low health in a game where faulty hardware can kill you! What sort of person expects you to subject yourself to this? Who designed that? What were they thinking?
So if someone's coming from this (or the "10 clicks with the monk is what I'm supposed to do, if I do 11 I drop dead") perspective you can't really tell them that the game is not for them or that they don't have a legit complaint. When I was making video's someone asked me why I was using only the mouse to shoot fireballs. It was because using both mouse and hotkeys could result in me not activating the fireball and clicking on a monster to die while I was half an hour into a run! So if someone is unaware of the alternate select modes, then yes, it's a very legit complaint.So why is death the way it is?
Two reasons, AFAIK and both make sense, allthough they're a bit hard to believe at first.
1) Monsters that would kill you are simply monsters you're supposed to interact with in ways other than attacking them. That's what drives the "puzzle" - turning the red "DEATH" letters into green "SAFE" ones. "SAFE" also clues you in about opportunities. You see something you want to kill and it's "SAFE" - wohoo, free xp! It sets your goals - you see something you want to kill and it's "DEATH" - hmmm, how do I turn this into XP? It also tells you to give up on stuf - you see 3 things that would take resources to turn into XP: heh, I can only turn one of these guys into XP...
Everything else in the game is/can be a means to turning a monsters or bosses' status to "SAFE". Leveling up turns many lower level monsters from hazards to XP powerups (except first strike monsters who are never really "safe"). This sets up a clear division between things which are safe to interact with and which are not. If it wasn't so people learnign the game would have no solid grounds on which to assume what is ment to be interacted with and what is not (really!). You only need to die once to become sure you don't want to die again, and thus only interact with everything which doesn't kill you (an incredible load of things), and try to make monsters interactable.
Now you may ask, if it's just a "flag", why is it lethal? Because if the price of interacting with a non-interactive feature was low it would, paradoxicaly, lead to more frustration. When D first sayed something like this it didn't make sense to me, but what clued me in on it were the in-game puzzles. Death is really, really cheap in those, so cheap that it might as well be non-existant (in a roundabout way). What happens is that you get frustrated by a puzzle and start doing things randomly and this leads to more failure, more frustration, and you then end up looking for a solution on the boards. And more often than not the solution would've been simple if you didn't get lost along the way.
Without death people would approach it in a "try everything with everything" way that they appreoach point and click adventures, and that doesn't really get you anywhere in DD. Way too many interactions, and way too many ways to waste your resources. You can't just make guessess, you have to make educated guessess. Having a clear goal focuses your efforts. This is also probably why gods are introduced later in the game - gods add another set of goals (gathering piety), and having people do that before they've got comfortable with not dieing and all the ways to turn bossess green (if for a moment while the fireball is asking you to choose a target) is almost certainly too overwhelming.
2) Ok, that makes sense (I hope it does), but why only one-click select? Why let infuriating and unfair accidents happen?
Because of a compromise. What D said on this, and again it was hard to believe when you first hear it, is that any other way slows the game down. Now the compromise here is that DD is sort of marketed as a coffee break game, and it's allready overstepping that. Once I've tried the click to select mode I loved the fact that I couldn't die by accident, but the game was not nearly as fluid as it used to be. The inflation of clicks is sort of substantial enough that I'm only using it when I don't want to be frustrated by an accidental click and just want to take my time and relax. Mopping up popcorn with click-select is twice as time consuming as without it, and so is spamming for piety, killing plants and so on. The drag and select menu I don't like at all - I often end up using an item or drinking a potion by accident. But having tried it, I don't feel bad about an acidental missclick anymore, because I know what I traded in for it, and not using a different mode of select was a choice on my part.Why isn't the alternate select mode, with all it's faults, advertized better?
Beats me, except the devs have shown at times to be overly optimistic and idealistic about the effects of the tutorials. They try to "show don't tell" too hard sometimes, and you can in fact be oblivious to features because you spamclicked through important bits of info.* It does solve most of the issues as far as hardware/muscle memory related missclicks are concerned. It does also slow the gameplay down (not to a crawl, but it's noticable). The people who are expecting DD to be more a more forgiving game would probably not mind that, though, as it solves all legit and grief causing stuff. Sometimes, like me, they end up liking the original design better once they get to see for themselves. The attitude they might have upon coming out with complaints, though, is one of being in a position where they feel cheated and then being told "man up" for no good reason, simply showing them that they have a choice is enough. If it isn't then they really might be feeling a bit to entitled.
*Case in point - when we were debating how to clue people in on leveling catapults or midfight dings, I suggested that the most silly and effective way would be to simply "tell people that they can do it". It's funny that it's the exact thing that happened, with the "Supreme Slayer" achievement - steam told a bunch of people it was possible, and now everyone's doing it. Maybe it should be an achievement - finish a run using an alternate select mode?Conclusion:
None of this is apparent to random, casual people. The random missclick is unfair and gets anyone pissed off because it's possible and very out of place in a game where death is avoided by default and by not being a complete idiot. However, if anyone can immagine the immediate benefits of not having death in the game (I'd still be alive right now!), they should also try to immagine what would the non-immediate detractions be. The devs did add 2 alternate modes which help with the issue, so they're not complete heartless bastards, no matter how many times they made your keyboard or my cat accomplices in murder of warlords.
They might have been a bit unwise in adding the awful red flash, though - you're not supposed to click on something that will kill you, but you're supposed to be able to mouse over it to see WHY it would bloody kill you and formulate a plan without getting a headache. That thing might actually be detrimental to learning stuff.
Ok, so, I hope this gets read, and if anyone feels like it would make sense I can do that point by point analysis of all the "but whyyyyys" and I appologize for the potentially boring and winding structure of all this. I could probably whittle it down somehow into a wiki-friendly FAQ or something. There's a lot to be said about "the nature of DD" and how it manages to still piss off people who aren't fans of roguelikes, even though it went really hard in the opposite direction, kept going, and is very far from the really infuriation experience it was when I joined up the forums originally. ^^