I'll give you an example of why "consequences" dont' work in games exactly like they do in real life.
Let's say I've played the game and now I don't have any more money to keep paying the sub fee. Or, I'm bored and ready to play something else. Or I got wife aggro and have to quit, etc.
Now where's your "consequences"? They dont' exist because I'm quitting the game any way. Might as well grief someone just for shits and grins before I quit.
Now what are you going to do to me? Nothing, because I quit.
Most MMO's are RPG's. So it's natural for many people to want to play "as" their character when they're in the game, sorta like living a second life....
Absolutely not true, look at the ratio between non RP and RP servers in most games, and even in the most RPer games look at the ratio of RP and not RP guilds. I would like to think it is but is not natural for many people to want to play their characters as a second life
I didn't mean "play your characters," as in roleplaying. I meant that a person playing a Warrior will do what Warriors do and etc. It's not default mode to play RPG's literally "in character," that's role-play. RPG's is about playing a role, as the name suggests. The roles are laid out for you, and the tools and content is there to help you play your role better. In FFA PvP games, people are rolling whatever class/skillset and playing as thugs, gangsters, and totally ignoring the politics built into the game, how their role is explained in game, and the OTHER things there is to do in the game other than murder everyone that walks by.
Table top games like Dungeons and Dragons are about playing a character.
computer RPGs are NOT about "playing a role" like you define it. YOU may do that in games, but that is NOT the definition of a CRPG.
The defining characteristic of a CRPG is progression and character stats. Your character stats progress, not your real life twitch skills.
NOthing to do with "playing a warrior" it's about the warrior's stats going up.
I am not confused about RPG's and linking wikipedia, which is well known as NOT being a reputable source in colleges, is not helping your case. Anyone and everyone can post whatever they want on that website. I also checked the references for the information written on the page you linked. The information came from FREE online dictionary's, which is not a reputable source, and from an article posted on a gaming website, written not by some notable and well respected writer, but by some nobody. The point I'm making here is that you're using opinions as your source, which are no more valid than my own opinions. My opinions of what RPG's are and should be are based on their origins, which in my eyes hold more weight than some recent formulation of a sub genre, which is defined by a bunch of nobody's.
None of that really matters though, does it? Because in the end, games are available to anyone with the money to buy them, and how that game is defined largely is up to the community. This is why a game like Darkfall, for instance, with all the lore and features it has, has been reduced to Counter-Strike with knives as many reviewers have commented.
Maybe at one point that was the case but Darkfall is evolving. It is a really good game and getting better.
Most MMO's are RPG's. So it's natural for many people to want to play "as" their character when they're in the game, sorta like living a second life....
Absolutely not true, look at the ratio between non RP and RP servers in most games, and even in the most RPer games look at the ratio of RP and not RP guilds. I would like to think it is but is not natural for many people to want to play their characters as a second life
I didn't mean "play your characters," as in roleplaying. I meant that a person playing a Warrior will do what Warriors do and etc. It's not default mode to play RPG's literally "in character," that's role-play. RPG's is about playing a role, as the name suggests. The roles are laid out for you, and the tools and content is there to help you play your role better. In FFA PvP games, people are rolling whatever class/skillset and playing as thugs, gangsters, and totally ignoring the politics built into the game, how their role is explained in game, and the OTHER things there is to do in the game other than murder everyone that walks by.
Table top games like Dungeons and Dragons are about playing a character.
computer RPGs are NOT about "playing a role" like you define it. YOU may do that in games, but that is NOT the definition of a CRPG.
The defining characteristic of a CRPG is progression and character stats. Your character stats progress, not your real life twitch skills.
NOthing to do with "playing a warrior" it's about the warrior's stats going up.
I am not confused about RPG's and linking wikipedia, which is well known as NOT being a reputable source in colleges, is not helping your case. Anyone and everyone can post whatever they want on that website. I also checked the references for the information written on the page you linked. The information came from FREE online dictionary's, which is not a reputable source, and from an article posted on a gaming website, written not by some notable and well respected writer, but by some nobody. The point I'm making here is that you're using opinions as your source, which are no more valid than my own opinions. My opinions of what RPG's are and should be are based on their origins, which in my eyes hold more weight than some recent formulation of a sub genre, which is defined by a bunch of nobody's.
None of that really matters though, does it? Because in the end, games are available to anyone with the money to buy them, and how that game is defined largely is up to the community. This is why a game like Darkfall, for instance, with all the lore and features it has, has been reduced to Counter-Strike with knives as many reviewers have commented.
The "origins" of Computer Role Playing Games are very clear.
They started out as single player games before there was such a thing as the internet. Therefore, you couldn't play a "role" unless you were roleplaying with your computer which would seem pretty odd.
So they kept the only thing they could, progression.
And that evolved into what today is online CRPGs, games with character progression.
If you want an online game where people play roles, it would be a game without combat.
Or, something like was proposed for Dungeons and Dragons 4th edition, which was an online way for people to play with a Dungeon MAster, but they never came through on it.
"I know none of these pro-FFA Full Loot PvPers would like to live in a world where you get your shit stolen from you every 5 min. Why people would want to live that life in a game is beyond me." Can you explain what game this is happening to you in? In on the Fel side of UO I haven't been robbed anything more than once a month, if that often. I really would like to know what MMOs you are playing that you are getting your ass handed to you every 5 minute?
Or is that a false assumption stated as fact in order to reinforce your point? Naww... you wouldn't do such a thing, would you? Which brings us to....
"Most MMO's are RPG's. So it's natural for many people to want to play "as" their character when they're in the game, sorta like living a second life." 1) What you want RPG to mean and what it does mean are two different things
2) roleplaying in an RPG is the extreme minority
"Getting ganked over and over again, and being continously robbed by online thugs is not natural or tolerable for most people. I guess it's not the players fault, since certain games allow it, but I'm well within my rights to say that such games have more in common with Counter Strike than a real RPG and such players don't belong in RPGs, they belong in FPS games." A 'real RPG. I think your confusion is that you probably grew up with CRPGs, which are predominantly single-player. All other forms of roleplaying - PnP, LARPing, MUDs, etc - that offer PVP have been predominantly FFA PVP. You can rob another adventurer in your DnD campaign. You can kill, maim or attack others on your team in most LARP events, if there even are teams to begin with.
"Which brings us to the conclusion that FFA PvP do not belong in role-playing games." It's brings YOU to that conclusion, not US. And there is nothing wrong with that, Nate. YOU don't like it. It doesn't go with what YOU want or expect based on YOUR personal view of what anMMO should be. No one can argue that as you are entitled to your opinion. It's rather arrogant (and completely false) to state, though, that FFA PVP does not belong in roleplaying games.
Aside from my poor choice of words, do you have anything real to say? Obviously I don't speak for everyone, nor could I. Obviously what I said is JUST my opinion. Thank you for pointing out the obvious, Mr. Obvious. Now can we please focus on the reason behind the argument?
I'm arguing that based on reason and sense, that FFA PvP has no business in a RPG and I listed those reasons already. There are good reasons NOT to have FFA PvP that I'm challenging people to argue.
1. FFA PvP games won't work without consequences, which FFA PvP lovers don't like. Since FFA PvPers want free reign to make people miserable, they'll leave if appropriate consequences are introduced, making consequences a waste of coding. The other people who play that RPG will be driven away from the unrealistic griefing. RPGs are made with dozens of features, FFA PvP may only be one of those. However, a game with FFA PvP makes it to where other players cannot enjoy those features, since they're constantly being griefed, as many reviews of Darkfall have pointed out.
2, RPGs bring with it many features unique only to RPGs, which makes it belong to the RPG genre. FFA PvP drives away the people who would like to play these features, because of the unrealistic griefing. So FFA PvP is not conducive to RPG playing. It's more conducive to FPS playing, which makes more sense if a person loves PvP so much that they favor it at the expense of the true RPG features.
The problem is that there isn't consequences to balance FFA PvP, making it a bad feature for RPG's and that the griefers make it the most focused on feature of that RPG, even though it shouldn't be. It'd be like forcing everyone to fish, in order to be competitive in a game. Or everyone must work the AH; buy low, and sell high if they want to compete in the game. It's favoring one feature over all the rest, something only the community has the power to do. The community could use FFA PvP in an intelligent and creative way to enhance the game, but instead it's mostly used to thug around.
Really, that's all that needs to be said. Should I make a post about how living in a world where if someone you are supposedly at war with walks by you you have to ask them if they want to fight?
Don't play FFA if you don't like/can't handle it. It's that simple.
Umm, you're not at war with anyone in game. I mean really, you and someone your at war with is walking around the same town together, or hunting the same grounds? Like that makes a lot of sense. What you call "war" is better described as gang banging. Your guild declares "war" against another guild, so you all feel the need to kill each other whenever you run across each other. That's gang banging, versus two large forces using strategy, tactics, logistics and etc. to overcome each other for some political reason. You won't see two large forces hunting the same ground....alone, they are instead tightly controlled by commanders, battlelines drawn, and one side doesn't go across that line, especially by themselves.
The topic of the thread isn't if a person can handle FFA PvP, it's about FFA PvP not making any sense, thus not belonging in a RPG. If it makes sense, then okay, but I haven't heard one person present an argument that made FFA PvP make sense, much less give a real example of it making sense.
You're walking/driving down the street, wearing a new pair of shoes and a nice outfit, heading over to your girlfriends house to take her out on a date. Some thug out of no where sucker punches you, beats you down, and then takes your shoes, your clothes, and your money. Do you get mad? Would you call the police? What would you do? If this happened every 5 minutes, would you move to another city? That's putting PvP into a real life context that people can understand, because that's what it is. If you can understand the anger and fustration in the above scenario, then you can understand why a person wouldn't want to play a game with FFA PvP w/ full loot. I know none of these pro-FFA Full Loot PvPers would like to live in a world where you get your shit stolen from you every 5 min. Why people would want to live that life in a game is beyond me. Now a game that is a simulation of real life in regards to crime and war is more interesting. There's serious consequences for commiting a crime, but you're free to do so, yet most people don't due to those consequences. A developer wouldn't dare create a game with consequences akin to what you'd find in real life, so I don't think FFA PvP works, which is why it has such a small following. Add real consequences, such as permadeath, blacklisting, criminal status, and real-time jail sentences, then FFA PvP might work and would actually be interesting.
You do know that MMos do not, as a rule, present a society, culture and environment that closely corresponds to western suburbia, right? In other words, you can no more make moral or cultural judgements based on your own life about, say, Darkfall than you can about 15th century Japan, where a Samurai was legally quite entitled to cut down a peasant for simply being in his way, or even just handy because he wanted to test out his new sword. Or Bronze age Greece, where rape was perfectly acceptable, and where warfare was indistinguishable from piracy. Or the Europe of the Celts. Or the Scandinavia of the Vikings. War, rape, pillage, torture, slavery, murder, every kind of savage brutality was perfectly normal. Read Conan for God's sake. Read the collection and count up the number of murders, thefts, rapes, tortures, assassinations, betrayals and cruelties. Would I want to live in Hyboria? Hell no! But it sure is fun to read about it.
If you want to play an MMO where everyone leads a nice, safe law abiding life working a steady job and going to temple on Wodensdays then go for it, Most of us demand a little more excitement than that because that's what our real lives are like and we want something different from a game. You see, we can tell the difference. You apparently can't. In all seriousness, I advise you to step away from MMOs for a while and re-connect with real life a little better.
The lore of every game defines the cultures of each race, and some even define what classes do in that world. Hyboria may be a raw place to live, but there is still guards and some semblance of order. What players do is ignore the lore that tells them how their character should act in that game world, and act like thugs because they know there isn't any consequences for doing so.
Originally posted by nate1980 . 1. FFA PvP games won't work without consequences, which FFA PvP lovers don't like. Since FFA PvPers want free reign to make people miserable, they'll leave if appropriate consequences are introduced, making consequences a waste of coding. The other people who play that RPG will be driven away from the unrealistic griefing. RPGs are made with dozens of features, FFA PvP may only be one of those. However, a game with FFA PvP makes it to where other players cannot enjoy those features, since they're constantly being griefed, as many reviews of Darkfall have pointed out.
Saying that FFA PvP games 'won't work' is taking it a bit too far since that is something very hard to prove.
However, FFA PvP works 'badly' with a lot of other features that entice people to join a MMORPG. Personally I do not like FFA PvP but played EVE becasue of all its other features. Similarly I was interested in Darkfall because of the other features it advertised (falsly). I used to be willing to overlook the FFA PvP features of a game if the rest of the game was interesting. I have since realized that it was a false hope since FFA PvP will affect how everything else in the game plays and is unescapable.
The only solution is for game companies to market the game only to the FFA PvP crowd and downplay the rest of the features. However, this will not sell as many subscriptions. Thus game companies will mislead the players into thinking that the FFA PvP is 'fair', 'avoidable' or 'has consequences' when that is not really possible without gutting the FFA PvP.
You're walking/driving down the street, wearing a new pair of shoes and a nice outfit, heading over to your girlfriends house to take her out on a date. Some thug out of no where sucker punches you, beats you down, and then takes your shoes, your clothes, and your money. Do you get mad? Would you call the police? What would you do? If this happened every 5 minutes, would you move to another city? That's putting PvP into a real life context that people can understand, because that's what it is. If you can understand the anger and fustration in the above scenario, then you can understand why a person wouldn't want to play a game with FFA PvP w/ full loot. I know none of these pro-FFA Full Loot PvPers would like to live in a world where you get your shit stolen from you every 5 min. Why people would want to live that life in a game is beyond me. Now a game that is a simulation of real life in regards to crime and war is more interesting. There's serious consequences for commiting a crime, but you're free to do so, yet most people don't due to those consequences. A developer wouldn't dare create a game with consequences akin to what you'd find in real life, so I don't think FFA PvP works, which is why it has such a small following. Add real consequences, such as permadeath, blacklisting, criminal status, and real-time jail sentences, then FFA PvP might work and would actually be interesting.
You do know that MMos do not, as a rule, present a society, culture and environment that closely corresponds to western suburbia, right? In other words, you can no more make moral or cultural judgements based on your own life about, say, Darkfall than you can about 15th century Japan, where a Samurai was legally quite entitled to cut down a peasant for simply being in his way, or even just handy because he wanted to test out his new sword. Or Bronze age Greece, where rape was perfectly acceptable, and where warfare was indistinguishable from piracy. Or the Europe of the Celts. Or the Scandinavia of the Vikings. War, rape, pillage, torture, slavery, murder, every kind of savage brutality was perfectly normal. Read Conan for God's sake. Read the collection and count up the number of murders, thefts, rapes, tortures, assassinations, betrayals and cruelties. Would I want to live in Hyboria? Hell no! But it sure is fun to read about it.
If you want to play an MMO where everyone leads a nice, safe law abiding life working a steady job and going to temple on Wodensdays then go for it, Most of us demand a little more excitement than that because that's what our real lives are like and we want something different from a game. You see, we can tell the difference. You apparently can't. In all seriousness, I advise you to step away from MMOs for a while and re-connect with real life a little better.
The lore of every game defines the cultures of each race, and some even define what classes do in that world. Hyboria may be a raw place to live, but there is still guards and some semblance of order. What players do is ignore the lore that tells them how their character should act in that game world, and act like thugs because they know there isn't any consequences for doing so.
But there are consequences. You just dont like them, probably because they require some effort, skill or social ability on your part.
You haven't answered the basic question of why you care that other people want to play MMORPGs with FFA and full loot. What do you care? What's it to you that they dont share your conception of what an MMO "should" be? Did some mean ole PKers invade your favourite game and coerce the devs into making it full loot FFA PvP?
Why not let some games be according to your vision, and other games, differ?
In one of my favorite MMO's Face Of Mankind, you could kill anyone anywhere, however there were serious consequences. If a police officer found out you killed someone he could stun you and arrest you, and then you get sent to prison. At prison you had to mine rocks for a long time(Unless you can get some friends to bust you out)...I forget the length of the prison sentence but I remember doing it a few times and it was really boring...it definetly made you think twice about killing someone. If consqeuences like this were added to full loot pvp games it would be more interesting.
Originally posted by Malcanis But there are consequences. You just dont like them, probably because they require some effort, skill or social ability on your part.
These 'consequences' are trivial. At best they act as some sort of personal revenge fantasy but tend to be the equivalent of using a whoopie cushion to get back at someone for breaking both your arms and legs.
Originally posted by Malcanis But there are consequences. You just dont like them, probably because they require some effort, skill or social ability on your part.
These 'consequences' are trivial. At best they act as some sort of personal revenge fantasy but tend to be the equivalent of using a whoopie cushion to get back at someone for breaking both your arms and legs.
So when a PKer gets killed and looted, that's a "whoopie cushion" but when it happens to you, it's a "breaking both arms and legs"?
But there are consequences. You just dont like them, probably because they require some effort, skill or social ability on your part. You haven't answered the basic question of why you care that other people want to play MMORPGs with FFA and full loot. What do you care? What's it to you that they dont share your conception of what an MMO "should" be? Did some mean ole PKers invade your favourite game and coerce the devs into making it full loot FFA PvP? Why not let some games be according to your vision, and other games, differ?
What consequences are there that balance the ability to kill whoever you want whenever you want, and then take their gear and money? The only consequence I really see with most of these games is the ability to exact revenge, but all this does is make might = right, which is not balanced. The reason that isn't balanced, is because it forces players to value getting stronger over all else. We can see from real world examples of how primitive and wrong might = right is. There are other worthy persutes in a game, even games with FFA PvP in it. As I've already said, there are many features RPG games with FFA PvP have, but they're ignored in comparison to the FFA PvP feature.
Many people, including myself, see a lot of value in a game that allows FFA PvP, but the lack of serious consequences makes that feature outwiegh all other features the game offers.
To answer your question, I love to debate and talk, so I sometimes bring up things that something else I read may have made me think about. It doesn't mean I care, it just means I want to talk about it. People talk for many reasons, such as interest, boredom, the need to socialize. I started this thread to see if anyone has thought about FFA PvP from this perspective, and it turns out people really haven't. As with most things people don't understand, they lashed out at my post, completely ignoring the reason and sense in it. I guess I shouldn't have expected anything more from the majority of this community, especially those that favor FFA PvP. By the way, I actually don't care about any of this. In a week, I'll forget this thread exists, nothing said in it making any bit of difference in my life. Gaming isn't serious business after all.
I don't even play MMORPGs currently, and I especially don't care if you have FFA PvP games to play. It makes no difference to me. I just personally love to discuss things, it's entertaining. However, it's not entertaining once the discussion turns into flaming and people argue like teenagers, instead of like educated adults. At this point, playing through Dragon Age a second time is more entertaining than arguing on this forum, so I might not even come back. We'll see.
Originally posted by LynxJSA "I know none of these pro-FFA Full Loot PvPers would like to live in a world where you get your shit stolen from you every 5 min. Why people would want to live that life in a game is beyond me." Can you explain what game this is happening to you in? In on the Fel side of UO I haven't been robbed anything more than once a month, if that often. I really would like to know what MMOs you are playing that you are getting your ass handed to you every 5 minute?Or is that a false assumption stated as fact in order to reinforce your point? Naww... you wouldn't do such a thing, would you? Which brings us to....
"Most MMO's are RPG's. So it's natural for many people to want to play "as" their character when they're in the game, sorta like living a second life." 1) What you want RPG to mean and what it does mean are two different things 2) roleplaying in an RPG is the extreme minority
"Getting ganked over and over again, and being continously robbed by online thugs is not natural or tolerable for most people. I guess it's not the players fault, since certain games allow it, but I'm well within my rights to say that such games have more in common with Counter Strike than a real RPG and such players don't belong in RPGs, they belong in FPS games." A 'real RPG. I think your confusion is that you probably grew up with CRPGs, which are predominantly single-player. All other forms of roleplaying - PnP, LARPing, MUDs, etc - that offer PVP have been predominantly FFA PVP. You can rob another adventurer in your DnD campaign. You can kill, maim or attack others on your team in most LARP events, if there even are teams to begin with.
"Which brings us to the conclusion that FFA PvP do not belong in role-playing games." It's brings YOU to that conclusion, not US. And there is nothing wrong with that, Nate. YOU don't like it. It doesn't go with what YOU want or expect based on YOUR personal view of what anMMO should be. No one can argue that as you are entitled to your opinion. It's rather arrogant (and completely false) to state, though, that FFA PVP does not belong in roleplaying games.
RPG actually stands for Role Playing Game. Do you know what Role Playing is? The fact that most people are lazy or stupid or whatever and do not do this any more, is not really the point I think other people were trying to make. That is what RPG means, whether you like it or not. It is in the very name of the thing, and you cannot get away from it. Even Warcraft has tools in the game for you to take on a role, and play it. The vast majority of people do not actually talk in-character or have ongoing stories they tell with others as I do, but the vast majority DOES collect pets the fit the character they are on, or want housing. These are things that only someone playing a role in a virtual world would want. Those things are not about numbers or character progression. End of story. The fact that you, yourself, do not do these things, does not mean they are not in ever RPG to some extent and that the vast majority of people use them.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
Originally posted by nate1980 . 1. FFA PvP games won't work without consequences, which FFA PvP lovers don't like. Since FFA PvPers want free reign to make people miserable, they'll leave if appropriate consequences are introduced, making consequences a waste of coding. The other people who play that RPG will be driven away from the unrealistic griefing. RPGs are made with dozens of features, FFA PvP may only be one of those. However, a game with FFA PvP makes it to where other players cannot enjoy those features, since they're constantly being griefed, as many reviews of Darkfall have pointed out.
Saying that FFA PvP games 'won't work' is taking it a bit too far since that is something very hard to prove.
However, FFA PvP works 'badly' with a lot of other features that entice people to join a MMORPG. Personally I do not like FFA PvP but played EVE becasue of all its other features. Similarly I was interested in Darkfall because of the other features it advertised (falsly). I used to be willing to overlook the FFA PvP features of a game if the rest of the game was interesting. I have since realized that it was a false hope since FFA PvP will affect how everything else in the game plays and is unescapable.
The only solution is for game companies to market the game only to the FFA PvP crowd and downplay the rest of the features. However, this will not sell as many subscriptions. Thus game companies will mislead the players into thinking that the FFA PvP is 'fair', 'avoidable' or 'has consequences' when that is not really possible without gutting the FFA PvP.
Yeah, I too was looking forward to Darkfall for years. The developers were boasting about all kinds of features, FFA PvP being only one of them. It read to be the ultimate game. The game I've been waiting for. However, the community upon joining the game focused on FFA PvP at the expense of all other features, downplaying their worth as you say. It is the sum of all a games features that makes me want to play the game. Unfortunately, I can never play my dream game, because players who join such a game will always downplay all the cool features for FFA PvP. Oh well.
To answer your question, I love to debate and talk, so I sometimes bring up things that something else I read may have made me think about. It doesn't mean I care, it just means I want to talk about it. People talk for many reasons, such as interest, boredom, the need to socialize. I started this thread to see if anyone has thought about FFA PvP from this perspective, and it turns out people really haven't. As with most things people don't understand, they lashed out at my post, completely ignoring the reason and sense in it. I guess I shouldn't have expected anything more from the majority of this community, especially those that favor FFA PvP. By the way, I actually don't care about any of this. In a week, I'll forget this thread exists, nothing said in it making any bit of difference in my life. Gaming isn't serious business after all. I don't even play MMORPGs currently, and I especially don't care if you have FFA PvP games to play. It makes no difference to me. I just personally love to discuss things, it's entertaining. However, it's not entertaining once the discussion turns into flaming and people argue like teenagers, instead of like educated adults. At this point, playing through Dragon Age a second time is more entertaining than arguing on this forum, so I might not even come back. We'll see.
You seem reluctant to accept that people can understand your ideas perfectly, but still disagree.
There was some reason and sense in your comments, but there is equally plenty coming from many of the PvPers. It looks rather sad when you attempt to patronise people or debunk people just because they think differently from you.
You say you like to discuss things and yet you seem to expect everyone to agree with you. As a neutral in this argument I would assert that many of the arguments against yours are every bit as rational as yours are.
OP you seem like a reasonable person, but the entire point of this thread is completely unreasonable.
Essentially you just want to discuss a specific type of game with the people that enjoy it, and tell them why it's wrong and make naive comparisons with real life. All the while there's a bunch of similar minded players pumping there fists in the background saying how silly (in one case kinky, lol) we all are.
Is this the Twilight Zone?
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
But there are consequences. You just dont like them, probably because they require some effort, skill or social ability on your part. You haven't answered the basic question of why you care that other people want to play MMORPGs with FFA and full loot. What do you care? What's it to you that they dont share your conception of what an MMO "should" be? Did some mean ole PKers invade your favourite game and coerce the devs into making it full loot FFA PvP? Why not let some games be according to your vision, and other games, differ?
What consequences are there that balance the ability to kill whoever you want whenever you want, and then take their gear and money?
I already answered that. The fact that you can do it right back to them, with the additional fillip that you have a lot more motivation to do so.
From your point of view, FFA/full loot gets in the way of the kind of game you want to play. From mine, it's not only acceptable, but it's essential. Since you like to think and debate, rather than just tell you why I consider it essential, I'll challenge you to infer my reasons. You dont have to agree with them, of course, but you can try and work out what they are an an exercise. I'll be interested to see what you come up with.
Why wouldnt it work? There's a segment of the mmorpg player population that play such games, and can handle it. That segment of the population is not big, but its there?
You obviously cant play it, therefore dont buy such a game.....I dont see what there is to consider? Also comparing a game with real life robbery - you people are delusional -
Because in PvP focused MMOs. The POPULATION OF THE FIGHT DETERMINS THE EPICNESS.
But FFA Full Loot scares off players (AKA : REDUCE POPULATION=In Other Words== LESS EPICNESS)
Why wouldnt it work? There's a segment of the mmorpg player population that play such games, and can handle it. That segment of the population is not big, but its there?
You obviously cant play it, therefore dont buy such a game.....I dont see what there is to consider? Also comparing a game with real life robbery - you people are delusional -
Because in PvP focused MMOs. The POPULATION OF THE FIGHT DETERMINS THE EPICNESS.
But FFA Full Loot scares off players (AKA : REDUCE POPULATION=In Other Words== LESS EPICNESS)
EvE regularly has battles with hundreds of players. I believe the record is 1400 in one fight, and 500 or so is a commonplace.
Why wouldnt it work? There's a segment of the mmorpg player population that play such games, and can handle it. That segment of the population is not big, but its there?
You obviously cant play it, therefore dont buy such a game.....I dont see what there is to consider? Also comparing a game with real life robbery - you people are delusional -
Because in PvP focused MMOs. The POPULATION OF THE FIGHT DETERMINS THE EPICNESS.
But FFA Full Loot scares off players (AKA : REDUCE POPULATION=In Other Words== LESS EPICNESS)
EvE regularly has battles with hundreds of players. I believe the record is 1400 in one fight, and 500 or so is a commonplace.
Eve is the exception though since there is only 1 massive server.
Why wouldnt it work? There's a segment of the mmorpg player population that play such games, and can handle it. That segment of the population is not big, but its there?
You obviously cant play it, therefore dont buy such a game.....I dont see what there is to consider? Also comparing a game with real life robbery - you people are delusional -
Because in PvP focused MMOs. The POPULATION OF THE FIGHT DETERMINS THE EPICNESS.
But FFA Full Loot scares off players (AKA : REDUCE POPULATION=In Other Words== LESS EPICNESS)
EvE regularly has battles with hundreds of players. I believe the record is 1400 in one fight, and 500 or so is a commonplace.
Eve is the exception though since there is only 1 massive server.
it does however disprove the assertion that "FFA cant work". Clearly it can; maybe it requires a single server model to work. In fact, I think it's quite likely that single server helps a lot - it makes it harder to escape those consequence thingummies...
Why wouldnt it work? There's a segment of the mmorpg player population that play such games, and can handle it. That segment of the population is not big, but its there?
You obviously cant play it, therefore dont buy such a game.....I dont see what there is to consider? Also comparing a game with real life robbery - you people are delusional -
Because in PvP focused MMOs. The POPULATION OF THE FIGHT DETERMINS THE EPICNESS.
But FFA Full Loot scares off players (AKA : REDUCE POPULATION=In Other Words== LESS EPICNESS)
EvE regularly has battles with hundreds of players. I believe the record is 1400 in one fight, and 500 or so is a commonplace.
Eve is the exception though since there is only 1 massive server.
it does however disprove the assertion that "FFA cant work". Clearly it can; maybe it requires a single server model to work. In fact, I think it's quite likely that single server helps a lot - it makes it harder to escape those consequence thingummies...
You are wrong, the only thing EVE proves is that a FFA PPV game could work if:
a) It's good
b) there are consecuences for killing people
A largue quantity of players(probably more that 50%) in EVE never leaves empire space, and most of them never have been ganked, primary because it will be more costly to the ganker than to the ganked. Yes, you know that it could happen, and sometimes happens, but its a rare exception, and CCP ensure that it will continue that way, because they know that otherwise they are going to lost what make their game profitable
You're walking/driving down the street, wearing a new pair of shoes and a nice outfit, heading over to your girlfriends house to take her out on a date. Some thug out of no where sucker punches you, beats you down, and then takes your shoes, your clothes, and your money. Do you get mad? Would you call the police? What would you do? If this happened every 5 minutes, would you move to another city? That's putting PvP into a real life context that people can understand, because that's what it is. If you can understand the anger and fustration in the above scenario, then you can understand why a person wouldn't want to play a game with FFA PvP w/ full loot. I know none of these pro-FFA Full Loot PvPers would like to live in a world where you get your shit stolen from you every 5 min. Why people would want to live that life in a game is beyond me. Now a game that is a simulation of real life in regards to crime and war is more interesting. There's serious consequences for commiting a crime, but you're free to do so, yet most people don't due to those consequences. A developer wouldn't dare create a game with consequences akin to what you'd find in real life, so I don't think FFA PvP works, which is why it has such a small following. Add real consequences, such as permadeath, blacklisting, criminal status, and real-time jail sentences, then FFA PvP might work and would actually be interesting.
hahahahahahaha, yes, when your pixels get killed, you it damages you in real life. And your thread also suggests that you suck at PvP gaming, whine.
1. FFA PvP games won't work without consequences, which FFA PvP lovers don't like. False. Can you link to an EVE player whose stance is that he likes FFA PVP but doesn't like the associated consequences? 2, RPGs bring with it many features unique only to RPGs, which makes it belong to the RPG genre. FFA PvP drives away the people who would like to play these features. Again, your definition of RPG is incorrect. An RPG is defined primarily by the advancement system and character progression. If you don't want to accept the industry standard definition of an RPG, then there is no way anyone can really have a rational conversation with you on this topic. So, that in mind, what features of an RPG (the real world definition) are people unable to enjoy because of the presence of FFA PVP?
-- Whammy - a 64x64 miniRPG - RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right? - FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
Pretty sure there are at least 4 MMORPGs out there with Full Loot and FFA PvP. Lets see, there's Darkfall, Ultima Online, Shadowbane, and Mortal Online is almost released. Age of Conan is FFA, and you can drop loot if you are a murderer.
Wow you actually count UO as a "current" MMO? And the others have how many people playing right now?
Comments
I'll give you an example of why "consequences" dont' work in games exactly like they do in real life.
Let's say I've played the game and now I don't have any more money to keep paying the sub fee. Or, I'm bored and ready to play something else. Or I got wife aggro and have to quit, etc.
Now where's your "consequences"? They dont' exist because I'm quitting the game any way. Might as well grief someone just for shits and grins before I quit.
Now what are you going to do to me? Nothing, because I quit.
Most MMO's are RPG's. So it's natural for many people to want to play "as" their character when they're in the game, sorta like living a second life....
Absolutely not true, look at the ratio between non RP and RP servers in most games, and even in the most RPer games look at the ratio of RP and not RP guilds. I would like to think it is but is not natural for many people to want to play their characters as a second life
I didn't mean "play your characters," as in roleplaying. I meant that a person playing a Warrior will do what Warriors do and etc. It's not default mode to play RPG's literally "in character," that's role-play. RPG's is about playing a role, as the name suggests. The roles are laid out for you, and the tools and content is there to help you play your role better. In FFA PvP games, people are rolling whatever class/skillset and playing as thugs, gangsters, and totally ignoring the politics built into the game, how their role is explained in game, and the OTHER things there is to do in the game other than murder everyone that walks by.
I think you are confused about RPGs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_role-playing_game
Table top games like Dungeons and Dragons are about playing a character.
computer RPGs are NOT about "playing a role" like you define it. YOU may do that in games, but that is NOT the definition of a CRPG.
The defining characteristic of a CRPG is progression and character stats. Your character stats progress, not your real life twitch skills.
NOthing to do with "playing a warrior" it's about the warrior's stats going up.
I am not confused about RPG's and linking wikipedia, which is well known as NOT being a reputable source in colleges, is not helping your case. Anyone and everyone can post whatever they want on that website. I also checked the references for the information written on the page you linked. The information came from FREE online dictionary's, which is not a reputable source, and from an article posted on a gaming website, written not by some notable and well respected writer, but by some nobody. The point I'm making here is that you're using opinions as your source, which are no more valid than my own opinions. My opinions of what RPG's are and should be are based on their origins, which in my eyes hold more weight than some recent formulation of a sub genre, which is defined by a bunch of nobody's.
None of that really matters though, does it? Because in the end, games are available to anyone with the money to buy them, and how that game is defined largely is up to the community. This is why a game like Darkfall, for instance, with all the lore and features it has, has been reduced to Counter-Strike with knives as many reviewers have commented.
Maybe at one point that was the case but Darkfall is evolving. It is a really good game and getting better.
Most MMO's are RPG's. So it's natural for many people to want to play "as" their character when they're in the game, sorta like living a second life....
Absolutely not true, look at the ratio between non RP and RP servers in most games, and even in the most RPer games look at the ratio of RP and not RP guilds. I would like to think it is but is not natural for many people to want to play their characters as a second life
I didn't mean "play your characters," as in roleplaying. I meant that a person playing a Warrior will do what Warriors do and etc. It's not default mode to play RPG's literally "in character," that's role-play. RPG's is about playing a role, as the name suggests. The roles are laid out for you, and the tools and content is there to help you play your role better. In FFA PvP games, people are rolling whatever class/skillset and playing as thugs, gangsters, and totally ignoring the politics built into the game, how their role is explained in game, and the OTHER things there is to do in the game other than murder everyone that walks by.
I think you are confused about RPGs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_role-playing_game
Table top games like Dungeons and Dragons are about playing a character.
computer RPGs are NOT about "playing a role" like you define it. YOU may do that in games, but that is NOT the definition of a CRPG.
The defining characteristic of a CRPG is progression and character stats. Your character stats progress, not your real life twitch skills.
NOthing to do with "playing a warrior" it's about the warrior's stats going up.
I am not confused about RPG's and linking wikipedia, which is well known as NOT being a reputable source in colleges, is not helping your case. Anyone and everyone can post whatever they want on that website. I also checked the references for the information written on the page you linked. The information came from FREE online dictionary's, which is not a reputable source, and from an article posted on a gaming website, written not by some notable and well respected writer, but by some nobody. The point I'm making here is that you're using opinions as your source, which are no more valid than my own opinions. My opinions of what RPG's are and should be are based on their origins, which in my eyes hold more weight than some recent formulation of a sub genre, which is defined by a bunch of nobody's.
None of that really matters though, does it? Because in the end, games are available to anyone with the money to buy them, and how that game is defined largely is up to the community. This is why a game like Darkfall, for instance, with all the lore and features it has, has been reduced to Counter-Strike with knives as many reviewers have commented.
The "origins" of Computer Role Playing Games are very clear.
They started out as single player games before there was such a thing as the internet. Therefore, you couldn't play a "role" unless you were roleplaying with your computer which would seem pretty odd.
So they kept the only thing they could, progression.
And that evolved into what today is online CRPGs, games with character progression.
If you want an online game where people play roles, it would be a game without combat.
Or, something like was proposed for Dungeons and Dragons 4th edition, which was an online way for people to play with a Dungeon MAster, but they never came through on it.
Aside from my poor choice of words, do you have anything real to say? Obviously I don't speak for everyone, nor could I. Obviously what I said is JUST my opinion. Thank you for pointing out the obvious, Mr. Obvious. Now can we please focus on the reason behind the argument?
I'm arguing that based on reason and sense, that FFA PvP has no business in a RPG and I listed those reasons already. There are good reasons NOT to have FFA PvP that I'm challenging people to argue.
1. FFA PvP games won't work without consequences, which FFA PvP lovers don't like. Since FFA PvPers want free reign to make people miserable, they'll leave if appropriate consequences are introduced, making consequences a waste of coding. The other people who play that RPG will be driven away from the unrealistic griefing. RPGs are made with dozens of features, FFA PvP may only be one of those. However, a game with FFA PvP makes it to where other players cannot enjoy those features, since they're constantly being griefed, as many reviews of Darkfall have pointed out.
2, RPGs bring with it many features unique only to RPGs, which makes it belong to the RPG genre. FFA PvP drives away the people who would like to play these features, because of the unrealistic griefing. So FFA PvP is not conducive to RPG playing. It's more conducive to FPS playing, which makes more sense if a person loves PvP so much that they favor it at the expense of the true RPG features.
The problem is that there isn't consequences to balance FFA PvP, making it a bad feature for RPG's and that the griefers make it the most focused on feature of that RPG, even though it shouldn't be. It'd be like forcing everyone to fish, in order to be competitive in a game. Or everyone must work the AH; buy low, and sell high if they want to compete in the game. It's favoring one feature over all the rest, something only the community has the power to do. The community could use FFA PvP in an intelligent and creative way to enhance the game, but instead it's mostly used to thug around.
Umm, you're not at war with anyone in game. I mean really, you and someone your at war with is walking around the same town together, or hunting the same grounds? Like that makes a lot of sense. What you call "war" is better described as gang banging. Your guild declares "war" against another guild, so you all feel the need to kill each other whenever you run across each other. That's gang banging, versus two large forces using strategy, tactics, logistics and etc. to overcome each other for some political reason. You won't see two large forces hunting the same ground....alone, they are instead tightly controlled by commanders, battlelines drawn, and one side doesn't go across that line, especially by themselves.
The topic of the thread isn't if a person can handle FFA PvP, it's about FFA PvP not making any sense, thus not belonging in a RPG. If it makes sense, then okay, but I haven't heard one person present an argument that made FFA PvP make sense, much less give a real example of it making sense.
You do know that MMos do not, as a rule, present a society, culture and environment that closely corresponds to western suburbia, right? In other words, you can no more make moral or cultural judgements based on your own life about, say, Darkfall than you can about 15th century Japan, where a Samurai was legally quite entitled to cut down a peasant for simply being in his way, or even just handy because he wanted to test out his new sword. Or Bronze age Greece, where rape was perfectly acceptable, and where warfare was indistinguishable from piracy. Or the Europe of the Celts. Or the Scandinavia of the Vikings. War, rape, pillage, torture, slavery, murder, every kind of savage brutality was perfectly normal. Read Conan for God's sake. Read the collection and count up the number of murders, thefts, rapes, tortures, assassinations, betrayals and cruelties. Would I want to live in Hyboria? Hell no! But it sure is fun to read about it.
If you want to play an MMO where everyone leads a nice, safe law abiding life working a steady job and going to temple on Wodensdays then go for it, Most of us demand a little more excitement than that because that's what our real lives are like and we want something different from a game. You see, we can tell the difference. You apparently can't. In all seriousness, I advise you to step away from MMOs for a while and re-connect with real life a little better.
The lore of every game defines the cultures of each race, and some even define what classes do in that world. Hyboria may be a raw place to live, but there is still guards and some semblance of order. What players do is ignore the lore that tells them how their character should act in that game world, and act like thugs because they know there isn't any consequences for doing so.
Saying that FFA PvP games 'won't work' is taking it a bit too far since that is something very hard to prove.
However, FFA PvP works 'badly' with a lot of other features that entice people to join a MMORPG. Personally I do not like FFA PvP but played EVE becasue of all its other features. Similarly I was interested in Darkfall because of the other features it advertised (falsly). I used to be willing to overlook the FFA PvP features of a game if the rest of the game was interesting. I have since realized that it was a false hope since FFA PvP will affect how everything else in the game plays and is unescapable.
The only solution is for game companies to market the game only to the FFA PvP crowd and downplay the rest of the features. However, this will not sell as many subscriptions. Thus game companies will mislead the players into thinking that the FFA PvP is 'fair', 'avoidable' or 'has consequences' when that is not really possible without gutting the FFA PvP.
You do know that MMos do not, as a rule, present a society, culture and environment that closely corresponds to western suburbia, right? In other words, you can no more make moral or cultural judgements based on your own life about, say, Darkfall than you can about 15th century Japan, where a Samurai was legally quite entitled to cut down a peasant for simply being in his way, or even just handy because he wanted to test out his new sword. Or Bronze age Greece, where rape was perfectly acceptable, and where warfare was indistinguishable from piracy. Or the Europe of the Celts. Or the Scandinavia of the Vikings. War, rape, pillage, torture, slavery, murder, every kind of savage brutality was perfectly normal. Read Conan for God's sake. Read the collection and count up the number of murders, thefts, rapes, tortures, assassinations, betrayals and cruelties. Would I want to live in Hyboria? Hell no! But it sure is fun to read about it.
If you want to play an MMO where everyone leads a nice, safe law abiding life working a steady job and going to temple on Wodensdays then go for it, Most of us demand a little more excitement than that because that's what our real lives are like and we want something different from a game. You see, we can tell the difference. You apparently can't. In all seriousness, I advise you to step away from MMOs for a while and re-connect with real life a little better.
The lore of every game defines the cultures of each race, and some even define what classes do in that world. Hyboria may be a raw place to live, but there is still guards and some semblance of order. What players do is ignore the lore that tells them how their character should act in that game world, and act like thugs because they know there isn't any consequences for doing so.
But there are consequences. You just dont like them, probably because they require some effort, skill or social ability on your part.
You haven't answered the basic question of why you care that other people want to play MMORPGs with FFA and full loot. What do you care? What's it to you that they dont share your conception of what an MMO "should" be? Did some mean ole PKers invade your favourite game and coerce the devs into making it full loot FFA PvP?
Why not let some games be according to your vision, and other games, differ?
Give me liberty or give me lasers
In one of my favorite MMO's Face Of Mankind, you could kill anyone anywhere, however there were serious consequences. If a police officer found out you killed someone he could stun you and arrest you, and then you get sent to prison. At prison you had to mine rocks for a long time(Unless you can get some friends to bust you out)...I forget the length of the prison sentence but I remember doing it a few times and it was really boring...it definetly made you think twice about killing someone. If consqeuences like this were added to full loot pvp games it would be more interesting.
These 'consequences' are trivial. At best they act as some sort of personal revenge fantasy but tend to be the equivalent of using a whoopie cushion to get back at someone for breaking both your arms and legs.
These 'consequences' are trivial. At best they act as some sort of personal revenge fantasy but tend to be the equivalent of using a whoopie cushion to get back at someone for breaking both your arms and legs.
So when a PKer gets killed and looted, that's a "whoopie cushion" but when it happens to you, it's a "breaking both arms and legs"?
Interesting. How do you come by that conclusion?
Give me liberty or give me lasers
What consequences are there that balance the ability to kill whoever you want whenever you want, and then take their gear and money? The only consequence I really see with most of these games is the ability to exact revenge, but all this does is make might = right, which is not balanced. The reason that isn't balanced, is because it forces players to value getting stronger over all else. We can see from real world examples of how primitive and wrong might = right is. There are other worthy persutes in a game, even games with FFA PvP in it. As I've already said, there are many features RPG games with FFA PvP have, but they're ignored in comparison to the FFA PvP feature.
Many people, including myself, see a lot of value in a game that allows FFA PvP, but the lack of serious consequences makes that feature outwiegh all other features the game offers.
To answer your question, I love to debate and talk, so I sometimes bring up things that something else I read may have made me think about. It doesn't mean I care, it just means I want to talk about it. People talk for many reasons, such as interest, boredom, the need to socialize. I started this thread to see if anyone has thought about FFA PvP from this perspective, and it turns out people really haven't. As with most things people don't understand, they lashed out at my post, completely ignoring the reason and sense in it. I guess I shouldn't have expected anything more from the majority of this community, especially those that favor FFA PvP. By the way, I actually don't care about any of this. In a week, I'll forget this thread exists, nothing said in it making any bit of difference in my life. Gaming isn't serious business after all.
I don't even play MMORPGs currently, and I especially don't care if you have FFA PvP games to play. It makes no difference to me. I just personally love to discuss things, it's entertaining. However, it's not entertaining once the discussion turns into flaming and people argue like teenagers, instead of like educated adults. At this point, playing through Dragon Age a second time is more entertaining than arguing on this forum, so I might not even come back. We'll see.
RPG actually stands for Role Playing Game. Do you know what Role Playing is? The fact that most people are lazy or stupid or whatever and do not do this any more, is not really the point I think other people were trying to make. That is what RPG means, whether you like it or not. It is in the very name of the thing, and you cannot get away from it. Even Warcraft has tools in the game for you to take on a role, and play it. The vast majority of people do not actually talk in-character or have ongoing stories they tell with others as I do, but the vast majority DOES collect pets the fit the character they are on, or want housing. These are things that only someone playing a role in a virtual world would want. Those things are not about numbers or character progression. End of story. The fact that you, yourself, do not do these things, does not mean they are not in ever RPG to some extent and that the vast majority of people use them.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
WTF? No subscription fee?
Saying that FFA PvP games 'won't work' is taking it a bit too far since that is something very hard to prove.
However, FFA PvP works 'badly' with a lot of other features that entice people to join a MMORPG. Personally I do not like FFA PvP but played EVE becasue of all its other features. Similarly I was interested in Darkfall because of the other features it advertised (falsly). I used to be willing to overlook the FFA PvP features of a game if the rest of the game was interesting. I have since realized that it was a false hope since FFA PvP will affect how everything else in the game plays and is unescapable.
The only solution is for game companies to market the game only to the FFA PvP crowd and downplay the rest of the features. However, this will not sell as many subscriptions. Thus game companies will mislead the players into thinking that the FFA PvP is 'fair', 'avoidable' or 'has consequences' when that is not really possible without gutting the FFA PvP.
Yeah, I too was looking forward to Darkfall for years. The developers were boasting about all kinds of features, FFA PvP being only one of them. It read to be the ultimate game. The game I've been waiting for. However, the community upon joining the game focused on FFA PvP at the expense of all other features, downplaying their worth as you say. It is the sum of all a games features that makes me want to play the game. Unfortunately, I can never play my dream game, because players who join such a game will always downplay all the cool features for FFA PvP. Oh well.
You seem reluctant to accept that people can understand your ideas perfectly, but still disagree.
There was some reason and sense in your comments, but there is equally plenty coming from many of the PvPers. It looks rather sad when you attempt to patronise people or debunk people just because they think differently from you.
You say you like to discuss things and yet you seem to expect everyone to agree with you. As a neutral in this argument I would assert that many of the arguments against yours are every bit as rational as yours are.
OP you seem like a reasonable person, but the entire point of this thread is completely unreasonable.
Essentially you just want to discuss a specific type of game with the people that enjoy it, and tell them why it's wrong and make naive comparisons with real life. All the while there's a bunch of similar minded players pumping there fists in the background saying how silly (in one case kinky, lol) we all are.
Is this the Twilight Zone?
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
What consequences are there that balance the ability to kill whoever you want whenever you want, and then take their gear and money?
I already answered that. The fact that you can do it right back to them, with the additional fillip that you have a lot more motivation to do so.
From your point of view, FFA/full loot gets in the way of the kind of game you want to play. From mine, it's not only acceptable, but it's essential. Since you like to think and debate, rather than just tell you why I consider it essential, I'll challenge you to infer my reasons. You dont have to agree with them, of course, but you can try and work out what they are an an exercise. I'll be interested to see what you come up with.
Give me liberty or give me lasers
Because in PvP focused MMOs. The POPULATION OF THE FIGHT DETERMINS THE EPICNESS.
But FFA Full Loot scares off players (AKA : REDUCE POPULATION=In Other Words== LESS EPICNESS)
Because in PvP focused MMOs. The POPULATION OF THE FIGHT DETERMINS THE EPICNESS.
But FFA Full Loot scares off players (AKA : REDUCE POPULATION=In Other Words== LESS EPICNESS)
EvE regularly has battles with hundreds of players. I believe the record is 1400 in one fight, and 500 or so is a commonplace.
Give me liberty or give me lasers
Because in PvP focused MMOs. The POPULATION OF THE FIGHT DETERMINS THE EPICNESS.
But FFA Full Loot scares off players (AKA : REDUCE POPULATION=In Other Words== LESS EPICNESS)
EvE regularly has battles with hundreds of players. I believe the record is 1400 in one fight, and 500 or so is a commonplace.
Eve is the exception though since there is only 1 massive server.
Because in PvP focused MMOs. The POPULATION OF THE FIGHT DETERMINS THE EPICNESS.
But FFA Full Loot scares off players (AKA : REDUCE POPULATION=In Other Words== LESS EPICNESS)
EvE regularly has battles with hundreds of players. I believe the record is 1400 in one fight, and 500 or so is a commonplace.
Eve is the exception though since there is only 1 massive server.
it does however disprove the assertion that "FFA cant work". Clearly it can; maybe it requires a single server model to work. In fact, I think it's quite likely that single server helps a lot - it makes it harder to escape those consequence thingummies...
Give me liberty or give me lasers
Because in PvP focused MMOs. The POPULATION OF THE FIGHT DETERMINS THE EPICNESS.
But FFA Full Loot scares off players (AKA : REDUCE POPULATION=In Other Words== LESS EPICNESS)
EvE regularly has battles with hundreds of players. I believe the record is 1400 in one fight, and 500 or so is a commonplace.
Eve is the exception though since there is only 1 massive server.
it does however disprove the assertion that "FFA cant work". Clearly it can; maybe it requires a single server model to work. In fact, I think it's quite likely that single server helps a lot - it makes it harder to escape those consequence thingummies...
You are wrong, the only thing EVE proves is that a FFA PPV game could work if:
a) It's good
b) there are consecuences for killing people
A largue quantity of players(probably more that 50%) in EVE never leaves empire space, and most of them never have been ganked, primary because it will be more costly to the ganker than to the ganked. Yes, you know that it could happen, and sometimes happens, but its a rare exception, and CCP ensure that it will continue that way, because they know that otherwise they are going to lost what make their game profitable
hahahahahahaha, yes, when your pixels get killed, you it damages you in real life. And your thread also suggests that you suck at PvP gaming, whine.
- RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right?
- FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
Wow you actually count UO as a "current" MMO? And the others have how many people playing right now?