But the "choice" or "compromise" always benefits those wanting the easy game, never those wanting a challenge.
Look at any feature, and you can see this is the case.
FFA PvP. Well, SOME people don't want to be attacked all the time. So it would be better to have a "choice"! like turning on a switch if you want PVP.
How could this possibly benefit the FFA advocate? What does this player gain from this "choice" or compromise? Nothing.
Well it kinda depends on the game doesn't it. I can think of games that are too easy, too hard, and ones with a fairly good balance.
As to solo content and leveling, I can see your point better. As to the text above, I just don't agree. Take a hardcore game with FFA , complete open world PVP, and then compromise and allow carebears the choice of safety in part of the world.
What does the FFA crowd gain? A more complete game, more targets, richer targets, and all around better PVP and game options.
It really only becomes a problem if that balance is destroyed. In fact, I think it really is about compromise, and getting those that want no PVP and nothing but PVP too play together.
How does the FFA crowd gain more targets, when they are in the safe area? The ENTIRE point of an FFA game is to be killed EXACTLY when you don't want to PvP, or to kill someone EXACTLY when they dont' want to PVP.
That's what makes it exciting for the FFA player.
If you can only be killed when you WANT to, that is leave the safe area, you've ruined the entire concept of FFA play.
YES, you've given a GREAT description of how it helps the care bear player, they can be safe.
The ONLY thing the FFA player wants is that no one is EVER safe.
You've done exactly what I was taling about in your example. You've ONLY helped the care bears, done NOTHING for the FFA player, but pretended you made the game great for EVERYONE!
No, you just screwed up the FFA game, that's it, nothing more.
You said it's BETTER PvP. YEs, BETTER for the care bears, and MUCH MUCH worse for the FFA players, because you've ruined the FFA play.
Well, I hope you find a game for you. No, wait I dont. I hope you spend the rest of your life unsatisfied, because people like you never are. You make sure of that.
[...]
The topic is whining. You say otherwise, thats fine. I'll let you kids play now.
Another great couple postings! And no one else see the irony here? You yourself are insatiable. Your implicit desire is that everyone be satisfied, but when others aren't and express it as such, you're not satisfied with them. You are the very stereotype you hate and denounce. Ruffle feathers much? Your postings couldn't be more red herring, off-topic, ironic, and irrelivant... unless of course it's the booze that fuels them, in which case... ya.
The topic was concise, and brings an interesting point of view which, whether you agree to, admit to, or not... again, doesn't matter. The irony, here, again, is that the post clearly states 'compromise', and *you* say it says 'whining' (aka = otherwise). I feel perhaps you better sit the next couple out, killer.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc. We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be. So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away. - MMO_Doubter
But the "choice" or "compromise" always benefits those wanting the easy game, never those wanting a challenge.
Look at any feature, and you can see this is the case.
FFA PvP. Well, SOME people don't want to be attacked all the time. So it would be better to have a "choice"! like turning on a switch if you want PVP.
How could this possibly benefit the FFA advocate? What does this player gain from this "choice" or compromise? Nothing.
Well it kinda depends on the game doesn't it. I can think of games that are too easy, too hard, and ones with a fairly good balance.
As to solo content and leveling, I can see your point better. As to the text above, I just don't agree. Take a hardcore game with FFA , complete open world PVP, and then compromise and allow carebears the choice of safety in part of the world.
What does the FFA crowd gain? A more complete game, more targets, richer targets, and all around better PVP and game options.
It really only becomes a problem if that balance is destroyed. In fact, I think it really is about compromise, and getting those that want no PVP and nothing but PVP too play together.
How does the FFA crowd gain more targets, when they are in the safe area? The ENTIRE point of an FFA game is to be killed EXACTLY when you don't want to PvP, or to kill someone EXACTLY when they dont' want to PVP.
That's what makes it exciting for the FFA player.
If you can only be killed when you WANT to, that is leave the safe area, you've ruined the entire concept of FFA play.
YES, you've given a GREAT description of how it helps the care bear player, they can be safe.
The ONLY thing the FFA player wants is that no one is EVER safe.
You've done exactly what I was taling about in your example. You've ONLY helped the care bears, done NOTHING for the FFA player, but pretended you made the game great for EVERYONE!
No, you just screwed up the FFA game, that's it, nothing more.
You said it's BETTER PvP. YEs, BETTER for the care bears, and MUCH MUCH worse for the FFA players, because you've ruined the FFA play.
Sorry, didn't realize it was the FFA crowd is to good to play with anyone thread. Any time you increase the player base and bring in more targets and money, you are always going to have more variety and wealth in your PVP. You are going to have people moving between the two camps, and you are going to have many more options. As long as the carebears are not given control of the game, and there is a balance between the power the two groups wield in the game world, the game will have more players, more depth, and be a better game. That's what the FFA crowd gains.
But the "choice" or "compromise" always benefits those wanting the easy game, never those wanting a challenge.
Look at any feature, and you can see this is the case.
FFA PvP. Well, SOME people don't want to be attacked all the time. So it would be better to have a "choice"! like turning on a switch if you want PVP.
How could this possibly benefit the FFA advocate? What does this player gain from this "choice" or compromise? Nothing.
Well it kinda depends on the game doesn't it. I can think of games that are too easy, too hard, and ones with a fairly good balance.
As to solo content and leveling, I can see your point better. As to the text above, I just don't agree. Take a hardcore game with FFA , complete open world PVP, and then compromise and allow carebears the choice of safety in part of the world.
What does the FFA crowd gain? A more complete game, more targets, richer targets, and all around better PVP and game options.
It really only becomes a problem if that balance is destroyed. In fact, I think it really is about compromise, and getting those that want no PVP and nothing but PVP too play together.
Allowing Safe Zones for "carebears" in a FFA PvP is a bad idea, mostly because they will never leave the area OR should they ever leave, will complain about the constant PK or "I can't leave the area without getting killed" when the reality is that they see PKers where there aren't.
I don't mind semi-secure zones. Like one of the suggestion that was made on DarkFall (which was supposed to be a feature at launch) was Guards in Race Cities (instead of a Zap Tower). Then again, DarkFall isn't the best exemple, I strongly believe the Alignement System in DarkFall is broken even though many players refuses to admit it.
Though, in a best case scenario: A city is protected by Guards. You can PK in a city and run away without getting killed by the guards, but should the guards ever see your face again, they will attack you. But you can also attack the guards, allowing you to enter the city and kill a few people and run away again. I'll skip the ideas of a balanced Guard System that doesn't allow camping since it's irrelevant.
FFA PvP stands for Free For All Player versus Player. I don't mind semi-secure zone since it gives a chance for players to learn the ropes or recuperate. Pushing "Safe Zone" is basically restricting Free For All PvP.
The topic is whining. You say otherwise, thats fine. I'll let you kids play now.
Oh my. Someone is whining about whining. Never seen that on a forum before.
In the final analysis, whining does not matter. No sane developers are gonig to listen to some very minority group of players whining they are not getting their ways.
It is not like hardcorers are not whining about the WOTLK changes (making raids more accessible). Blizzard is not going back to the old ways. If they want their challenge game, go play hard mode. Otherwise, they are go play something else. Blizzard is not going to let 2% of the players dictate what 98% get.
The topic is whining. You say otherwise, thats fine. I'll let you kids play now.
Oh my. Someone is whining about whining. Never seen that on a forum before.
In the final analysis, whining does not matter. No sane developers are gonig to listen to some very minority group of players whining they are not getting their ways.
It is not like hardcorers are not whining about the WOTLK changes (making raids more accessible). Blizzard is not going back to the old ways. If they want their challenge game, go play hard mode. Otherwise, they are go play something else. Blizzard is not going to let 2% of the players dictate what 98% get.
Developers, and successful games and how much money they make are not the topic of this thread.
The topic is, being honest about what kind of game play you like.
If you like casual game play, say so. But don't pretend a casual game is great for everyone, that's it's casual AND hardcore because it's about Choice! and options! and EVERYOne must like it!
The topic is some features exclude other features. Why not just admit that, instead of trying to change the subject to money or sub numbers?
It's not relevant to the topic what kinds of games are made, or will be made in the future.
I didn't mention anyting about Blizzard going back to the old days, or ask for any particular kind of game to be made in teh Op.
But the "choice" or "compromise" always benefits those wanting the easy game, never those wanting a challenge.
Look at any feature, and you can see this is the case.
FFA PvP. Well, SOME people don't want to be attacked all the time. So it would be better to have a "choice"! like turning on a switch if you want PVP.
How could this possibly benefit the FFA advocate? What does this player gain from this "choice" or compromise? Nothing.
Well it kinda depends on the game doesn't it. I can think of games that are too easy, too hard, and ones with a fairly good balance.
As to solo content and leveling, I can see your point better. As to the text above, I just don't agree. Take a hardcore game with FFA , complete open world PVP, and then compromise and allow carebears the choice of safety in part of the world.
What does the FFA crowd gain? A more complete game, more targets, richer targets, and all around better PVP and game options.
It really only becomes a problem if that balance is destroyed. In fact, I think it really is about compromise, and getting those that want no PVP and nothing but PVP too play together.
How does the FFA crowd gain more targets, when they are in the safe area? The ENTIRE point of an FFA game is to be killed EXACTLY when you don't want to PvP, or to kill someone EXACTLY when they dont' want to PVP.
That's what makes it exciting for the FFA player.
If you can only be killed when you WANT to, that is leave the safe area, you've ruined the entire concept of FFA play.
YES, you've given a GREAT description of how it helps the care bear player, they can be safe.
The ONLY thing the FFA player wants is that no one is EVER safe.
You've done exactly what I was taling about in your example. You've ONLY helped the care bears, done NOTHING for the FFA player, but pretended you made the game great for EVERYONE!
No, you just screwed up the FFA game, that's it, nothing more.
You said it's BETTER PvP. YEs, BETTER for the care bears, and MUCH MUCH worse for the FFA players, because you've ruined the FFA play.
Sorry, didn't realize it was the FFA crowd is to good to play with anyone thread. Any time you increase the player base and bring in more targets and money, you are always going to have more variety and wealth in your PVP. You are going to have people moving between the two camps, and you are going to have many more options. As long as the carebears are not given control of the game, and there is a balance between the power the two groups wield in the game world, the game will have more players, more depth, and be a better game. That's what the FFA crowd gains.
But that's NOT what the FFA crowd wants. That's what YOU want, or what care bears want. Why are you insisting that FFA players want this? They DON"T!
This is what FFA Players want.
They want to kill you when you absolutely do NOT want to be killed. Like when you are crafting, or going to the bank, or down to your last hit point doing PvE.
And they want for there to be absolutely NO Where in the game, where you can't be killed.
That's it. That's what FFA players want. They don't want any of the things you listed. That's what Carebears want. So again, you've changed the game in favor of the carebears,. given the FFA players NOTHING, then said you made the game better for everyone, which is bullshit.
All you did is ruin the FFA game, and make it a carebear game.
This argument is always used by people that want an easy game against those that want something more challenging.
But the "choice" or "compromise" always benefits those wanting the easy game, never those wanting a challenge.
Look at any feature, and you can see this is the case.
FFA PvP. Well, SOME people don't want to be attacked all the time. So it would be better to have a "choice"! like turning on a switch if you want PVP.
How could this possibly benefit the FFA advocate? What does this player gain from this "choice" or compromise? Nothing.
Or, the player that wants a good grouping game.
Well, it should be about choice! You can still group, but we want to solo all the way to the level cap just as fast with the exact same rewards. See, we compromised, we let you group when you want to!
What does the person wanting a challenging grouping game gain from that? Nothing whatsoever.
I don't think choice or compromise can do anything but ruin the game for someone that wants a challenge. You will always, with such a "choice" or "compromise" make the game less challenging.
But do you make ti any MORE challenging for the other players wanting the easy game? Because that would be a compromise, where both sides give somethign up. And the answer is no. The side wanting an easy game, gets it. The side wanting a challenging game, gets a watered down easier game than they like.
.......yea sorry started dozing off there when I hit the words choice and compromise; Long day at the office today...you know how it is... so let me see here....choice... its either give a shit about what your saying or.......go to sleep...hmmmm think ill just not give a shit and get some rest for work tomorrow.....choice is great.
This argument is always used by people that want an easy game against those that want something more challenging.
But the "choice" or "compromise" always benefits those wanting the easy game, never those wanting a challenge.
Look at any feature, and you can see this is the case.
FFA PvP. Well, SOME people don't want to be attacked all the time. So it would be better to have a "choice"! like turning on a switch if you want PVP.
How could this possibly benefit the FFA advocate? What does this player gain from this "choice" or compromise? Nothing.
Or, the player that wants a good grouping game.
Well, it should be about choice! You can still group, but we want to solo all the way to the level cap just as fast with the exact same rewards. See, we compromised, we let you group when you want to!
What does the person wanting a challenging grouping game gain from that? Nothing whatsoever.
I don't think choice or compromise can do anything but ruin the game for someone that wants a challenge. You will always, with such a "choice" or "compromise" make the game less challenging.
But do you make ti any MORE challenging for the other players wanting the easy game? Because that would be a compromise, where both sides give somethign up. And the answer is no. The side wanting an easy game, gets it. The side wanting a challenging game, gets a watered down easier game than they like.
.......yea sorry started dozing off there when I hit the words choice and compromise; Long day at the office today...you know how it is... so let me see here....choice... its either give a shit about what your saying or.......go to sleep...hmmmm think ill just not give a shit and get some rest for work tomorrow.....choice is great.
Thank you so much for sharing what time you go to bed with everyone on the forum.
it's really on topic, and your insight will benefit everyone, I am sure.
Can we just ignore/report troll attempts and get back to the main subject, about Compromise,choices, and hypocrisy by some players?
Also Toquio3, you might not realise it but you are doing the exact same thing you accuse Ihmotepp of doing, whining about people who disagree with the way you see things, claiming that they whine about people who disagree with the way they see things.....it's a vicious circle that will keep on going and going and going, so can we just stop at this point?
Now to go back on subject, Compromise (to use Ihmotepp's words) are indeed game breaking for those who prefer challenge. Allowing players to take an easier path because "they don't have enough time to play" is something that I believe is not acceptable.
And maybe there wouldn't be so much issues regarding compromises if Developers would be more active with the community. I'm pretty sure real compromises could be made where both parties could be happy, and the developers could bring changes that both parties will like. But of course, the call of the Mass-Market always wins and the "hardcore" groups ends up leaving.
Compromises hurt one side no matter WHAT one is talking about. It could be games or life, compromises hurt at least one side in some way.
Someone also noted that mmos are a bussiness and compromises bring in more money... This is also true.
But it is my belief that one should just make a game with 0 compromises to one side or 0 compromises to the other side. This will guarantee that one side is completely happy instead of having one side partially happy and the other side not quite happy at all. Instead of having a fake world...
I would not make a game for both sides of a coin... that just doesn't work.
Compromising will give your game more "depth" I guess, but the game itself will be fake. The best compromise is making PvP and PvE servers, but do not give the player a choice whether they can be killed in the open world or not within the server. That doesn't make sense to the world...
While there is a grain of logic to the OP, there's a lot of spurious assumption too.
You're mentioning "challenge" a lot, and you're just flat out wrong there. A players preference for game mechanics does not dictate his or her desire for an easy or challenging game. That's unique to the individual and there are players in every field of a game that seek out the easy (or hard) options.
Ganking in FFA PvP is clearly not about challenge. Escaping a gank clearly is.
Soloing easy mobs is clearly not about challenge. Hard mobs clearly is.
Grouping to kill easy mobs is clearly not about challenge. Hard mobs clearly is.
The element of truth comes into play with the premise that it is impossible to cater equally for every player. Some preferences are obviously mutually exclusive. FFA PvP is one such mechanic; it's impossible to allow players to kill one another whenever they like and keep a pure PvE player (who never wants to be ganked) happy. Just not going to happen.
Solo/Grouping is not mutually exclusive. AoC is a good example of this; it's possible to level entirely solo or with group content (via instanced zones). Both of the playstyles are catered for and everyone should be happy, right?
But no, the groupers invariably complain that (as soloing is still a viable option) people who prefer to solo won't group with them and as such, they can't consistently get enough people for their playstyle to be uninterrupted by LFG periods.
And yet, the irony of this escapes them. They don't realise (or they do, but don't care) that what they are really asking is for game mechanics that prevent other people from enjoying their chosen preference (soloing) so that they, (the grouper) have more people to group with.
In the early days, that did work .. because there was very little choice in the genre .. nowadays, the solo preferences would simply choose not to play a game without solo content and the grouper would still not be able to get groups.
At the end of the day, it's about numbers. There are veryfew people whose preferences are so extreme that they only every want to do one thing all the time; how many people do you think there are that only solo and never group, or vice-versa?
So yes, games should be about choice; even niche games have a mainstream element (within that niche) that they need to cater for, and there will always be some people who want game mechanics that fall outside of it. I'm not sure what one would call these players who are looking for the nichiest of the niche game mechanics, but I do know that there is nowhere near enough of 'em to warrant any decent developer (even an indy one) from catering to 'em.
Playing: EVE, Final Fantasy 13, Uncharted 2, Need for Speed: Shift
The best out there is EVE at approx 300k subs now. Some of which are dual accounts.
...
FFA is great for those that enjoy it....problem being not many in the RPG ranks do...
The best out there is EVE with 300k subs...? Name me a non-PvP-oriented MMO that has 300k subs and I'll be able to use 2 letters of the alphabet to spell it.
As for RPGers that don't like FFA-PvP, I doubt there are many real ones. Some people like to portray themselves as "roleplayers" because they think it makes them look civilized or something. It doesn't, and the majority of true RPGers would prefer that a game allow complete roleplaying freedom, even if some of them are willing to do without it for the sake of avoiding childish behavior.
As a side note, I'm responding to these 2 particular poorly examined ideas, as far as the thread topic goes - its a joke. Find me a "hardcore" gamer that actually wants a challenge (instead of wanting simply to make sure his awesomeness is unique among the unwashed masses) and I'll trade you a leprechaun for him.
Discounting WoW(as it is a themepark not centered on PVP), EQ held more than 300k for yrs. It took WoW to knock it off its perch. DAoC, UO, AO, SWG, and CoH couldnt off the top of my head for NA subs.
The sub numbers of LoTRO come into question, but Lineage 1/2 and FFXI all have held over that 300k mark. Granted a lot of those numbers come from the eastern model of gaming(cafe shops). That said, it would be wrong to discount the fact that folks were paying money. The kicker is we are talking millions of sub numbers. If you take a ratio of 3 to 1 eastern subs to equal a NA sub, we are still talking way more than 300k each.
One sandbox/ FFA PVP focus game is carrying those numbers. Before it SWG was the place a lot of EVE folks were. I am unsure on Aion...but that also is a PVE /shrug. Same thing for AoC and War(unsure of their subs...dont care to either).
PVP FFA is about the worst system you could implement, for your entire game design, according to the facts I see.
PVP is more popular in games like FPS....where skill wins. Not whoever has the most time to grind. When you add in the ability to grief, it brings out the worst in some folks. Like I said prior...some PVP folks are honorable about it....they are just over-shadowed.
I dont know where you arrive at the idea that folks that play RPGs also want to PVP? Maybe true for those interested in the sandbox style. To encompass those that enjoy PVE, I say you are flat nutz.
And I do agree with your idea of the almighty e-peen acheived by those that can vs those that cant. I contest though that it is for different reasons when you consider PVP and PVE.
I started following my local server guild Afterlife, FoH, and Allakhazam religously after I started EQ in Feb 01. It was cool to see what they were getting for raiding 5/6 nights a week. When I started raiding 2 yrs later it was 2 to 3 nights a week. I didnt mind being behind...but you are correct in your assertion....it was to get the good stuff.
Although in my case it wasnt cutting edge...so it didnt mean anything other than I had complerted content. That only allowed folks to do tougher content. In a PVP oriented game the better gear would of made an "I win" button ala Jedi in SWG when it was alpha.
Which brings us back to the thought train that the PVE game has a different goal than the PVP game. Those that PVP would want to get the stuff to PVP better(I win)....the PVE folks look to be able to do tougher content. Not saying the better gear doesnt make older content farmable...but in a game like EQ it was common knowledge the next expansion would bring bigger challenges.
They both(hardcore PVE and PVP) give the "prestige"....but it is apple to oranges. Being able to one shot folks is different than tackling the next encounter. At least the way I see it.
Asking Devs to make AAA sandbox titles is like trying to get fine dining on a McDonalds dollar menu budget.
This argument is always used by people that want an easy game against those that want something more challenging.
But the "choice" or "compromise" always benefits those wanting the easy game, never those wanting a challenge.
Look at any feature, and you can see this is the case.
FFA PvP. Well, SOME people don't want to be attacked all the time. So it would be better to have a "choice"! like turning on a switch if you want PVP.
How could this possibly benefit the FFA advocate? What does this player gain from this "choice" or compromise? Nothing.
Or, the player that wants a good grouping game.
Well, it should be about choice! You can still group, but we want to solo all the way to the level cap just as fast with the exact same rewards. See, we compromised, we let you group when you want to!
What does the person wanting a challenging grouping game gain from that? Nothing whatsoever.
I don't think choice or compromise can do anything but ruin the game for someone that wants a challenge. You will always, with such a "choice" or "compromise" make the game less challenging.
But do you make ti any MORE challenging for the other players wanting the easy game? Because that would be a compromise, where both sides give somethign up. And the answer is no. The side wanting an easy game, gets it. The side wanting a challenging game, gets a watered down easier game than they like.
Yeah I think it's funny to complain about games not adhering to some diluted and misguided ideal of "challenge" and "comprimise" when all you are advocating for is efficiency and making the path of least resistence, the shortest and easiest path to the top to be YOUR way instead of the other guy's way.
"Make grouping required and content less accessible... so that me and those like me can get to the top/level fastest and be the best!"
"Make the end-game content only accessible to the top 10% of players so we are gauranteed to be the best!"
So Blizzard should go back and remove the Arena ladder competition?
They should remove Heroic difficulty for dungeons?
They should remove Hard Modes and achievements for raiding?
That way, they remove all the "compromises" they have put in to add challenge and a new level of competition for more serious gamers!
Right?
I mean, they continue to "dumb down" the game by adding in things like Hard Modes right?
Hey, how about them removing any need to group while leveling... by adding a system to automatically find you groups for doing party content while leveling! That'd show them whose boss!
And let's get rid of all the PvP servers! As obviously NO ONE plays on them and enjoys them more then the PvE servers!
But that's NOT what the FFA crowd wants. That's what YOU want, or what care bears want. Why are you insisting that FFA players want this? They DON"T!
This is what FFA Players want.
They want to kill you when you absolutely do NOT want to be killed. Like when you are crafting, or going to the bank, or down to your last hit point doing PvE.
And they want for there to be absolutely NO Where in the game, where you can't be killed.
That's it. That's what FFA players want. They don't want any of the things you listed. That's what Carebears want. So again, you've changed the game in favor of the carebears,. given the FFA players NOTHING, then said you made the game better for everyone, which is bullshit.
All you did is ruin the FFA game, and make it a carebear game.
I understand that the FFA players you describe want an easy game with reduced challenge but is that really the type of game you want the devs to make? Personally I prefer my games to be more challenging then what FFA PvP can offer.
But that's NOT what the FFA crowd wants. That's what YOU want, or what care bears want. Why are you insisting that FFA players want this? They DON"T!
This is what FFA Players want.
They want to kill you when you absolutely do NOT want to be killed. Like when you are crafting, or going to the bank, or down to your last hit point doing PvE.
And they want for there to be absolutely NO Where in the game, where you can't be killed.
That's it. That's what FFA players want. They don't want any of the things you listed. That's what Carebears want. So again, you've changed the game in favor of the carebears,. given the FFA players NOTHING, then said you made the game better for everyone, which is bullshit.
All you did is ruin the FFA game, and make it a carebear game.
I understand that the FFA players you describe want an easy game with reduced challenge but is that really the type of game you want the devs to make? Personally I prefer my games to be more challenging then what FFA PvP can offer.
But it's SOO hard and SUCH a challenge and SUCH an AMAZING RUSH to kill another player who has NO IDEA they are about to be attacked because they are crafting, on their way to the bank, or down to their last hit point doing PvE!
I mean, that is SOOO MUCH MORE CHALLENGING then fighting an evenly matched opponent who knows you are coming and is just as ready to fight as you are!
This argument is always used by people that want an easy game against those that want something more challenging.
But the "choice" or "compromise" always benefits those wanting the easy game, never those wanting a challenge.
Look at any feature, and you can see this is the case.
FFA PvP. Well, SOME people don't want to be attacked all the time. So it would be better to have a "choice"! like turning on a switch if you want PVP.
How could this possibly benefit the FFA advocate? What does this player gain from this "choice" or compromise? Nothing.
Or, the player that wants a good grouping game.
Well, it should be about choice! You can still group, but we want to solo all the way to the level cap just as fast with the exact same rewards. See, we compromised, we let you group when you want to!
What does the person wanting a challenging grouping game gain from that? Nothing whatsoever.
I don't think choice or compromise can do anything but ruin the game for someone that wants a challenge. You will always, with such a "choice" or "compromise" make the game less challenging.
But do you make ti any MORE challenging for the other players wanting the easy game? Because that would be a compromise, where both sides give somethign up. And the answer is no. The side wanting an easy game, gets it. The side wanting a challenging game, gets a watered down easier game than they like.
If choice is what games are about why do you want to remove someone elses choice to not participate the same way you want to?
Your point of view seems to stem from the opinion that all games start off as hardcore and only make concessions for casual gameplay. Of course everything is going to look glass half empty if that is how you view the creation of every mmo.
Viewed as casual games adding harder elements and the perspective is totally different and hardcore players are benefiting from the compromise.
In reality I think the real issue is not about forcing people to play one way to make them have challange as you put it, but the real lack of incentives to engage in the more challenging areas of gameplay.
MMO players have always taken the path of least resistance (or greatest reward) and the incentives for the more difficult areas mmos are just not great enough to offset the extra challenge for most players. Maybe the easier parts of the game are to rewarding. Same thing, different perspectives.
Either way, the choices in mmos that you say cannot exist together most certainly can if they are balanced well enough. Forcing people to play one way isn't some great design mechanic when there is an equally compelling option that allows people to enjoy multiple paths of gameplay. More options should be better.
If choice is what games are about why do you want to remove someone elses choice to not participate the same way you want to?
You completely misunderstood his post. He wasn't saying they were about choice, he was explaining that 'choice' is used as an excuse to say that as long as there are options for different play styles then everyone should be happy.
The OP's point is that this is not the case. Many players enjoy facing a harsh challenge and overcoming it in order to receive a valuable reward. When a bunch of casual players have an alternative, much easier, route added just for them to obtain said reward the player who likes the challenge realises that said challenge no longer has any value. As a result there is no real choice involved as there is nothing to be gained from taking the more challenging route. The fun of the challenge is lost because anyone who can't handle it can just 'cheat' instead.
The best example imo has always been the grouping issue. Make things soloable and there is no real reason to group as it is almost always less efficient than the alternative soloable options. At this point the casual players claim that anyone who wants to group can still group. But, of course, in reality anyone who groups now is being punished as their progress will be slower and on top of that it is now much harder for them to ever find a group because everyone else is soloing. When MMOs compromise to add an easier alternative that alternative quickly becomes the only viable option.
The OP is highlighting the hypocrisy of casual players saying that because a game has 'choice' it benefits everyone when in fact it only really benefits them.
Also I'm aware of the 'you can still group for fun' argument. People throw that one at me all the time. But look at it this way. You can group for fun, and just get some fun out of it. The casuals who like to solo for fun not only get fun but more frequent and better rewards from it. It is quite clear that there is a disparity here. Some people also argue that they should just add better incentives to grouping... but that never works. The moment something different, something better, can be obtained via grouping suddenly all the casuals cry foul and demand it be made accessible to them as well. The only way to prevent this issue is to simply not cater to casuals at all...
But that's NOT what the FFA crowd wants. That's what YOU want, or what care bears want. Why are you insisting that FFA players want this? They DON"T!
This is what FFA Players want.
They want to kill you when you absolutely do NOT want to be killed. Like when you are crafting, or going to the bank, or down to your last hit point doing PvE.
And they want for there to be absolutely NO Where in the game, where you can't be killed.
That's it. That's what FFA players want. They don't want any of the things you listed. That's what Carebears want. So again, you've changed the game in favor of the carebears,. given the FFA players NOTHING, then said you made the game better for everyone, which is bullshit.
All you did is ruin the FFA game, and make it a carebear game.
I understand that the FFA players you describe want an easy game with reduced challenge but is that really the type of game you want the devs to make? Personally I prefer my games to be more challenging then what FFA PvP can offer.
But it's SOO hard and SUCH a challenge and SUCH an AMAZING RUSH to kill another player who has NO IDEA they are about to be attacked because they are crafting, on their way to the bank, or down to their last hit point doing PvE!
I mean, that is SOOO MUCH MORE CHALLENGING then fighting an evenly matched opponent who knows you are coming and is just as ready to fight as you are!
Oh, wait, it's not April Fools Day anymore is it?
The part in red: You're using the themepark mentality here and your point is completly wrong. In the case of a FFA PvP game (often sandbox such as DarkFall or Mortal Online), players are AWARE that they may get attacked and will take precautions at all time.
DarkFall players constantly repeat to newer players "Bank Often" or "Empty 1 or 2 node and go bank", because if it's not in your bank, it's not yours. Players are aware of this and act accordingly. So the only real way that players can have no idea they are about to be attacked is when they are AFK, and that's their fault.
As for griefers attacking new players, it's always the same 3-4 PKers at all time while the rest of the community are doing small to large scale PvP/sieges.
Your point of view seems to stem from the opinion that all games start off as hardcore and only make concessions for casual gameplay. Of course everything is going to look glass half empty if that is how you view the creation of every mmo.
Viewed as casual games adding harder elements and the perspective is totally different and hardcore players are benefiting from the compromise.
I'll take an easy and popular exemple.
WoW. Naxx is too hard, BAM! Nerfed. Class "x" in PvP is too strong and Class "y" in PvP is too weak, next patch Class "x" gets nerfed, Class "y" get's buffed... and the cycle continues. Even Blizzard has dumbed down WoW over the years to catter to more "casuals" gamers. There is no actual choices to be made anymore, you either take the easy path or you're in for some serious pain.
Hardcores have hardly ever benefited from such compromise. In most case, it's these compromises that made them leave a specific MMORPG.
This is the same "casual vs. hardcore" debate that well never end, because neither side is willing to give much ground because they like what they like and if a new game comes out that doesn't have what they like, they won't play it.
And both sides are just as picky.
I can list of a handful of semi-popular, long running, top quality AAA MMOs that offer exactly the kind of game play that the OP and others in this thread want, but because they don't have feature X or Y they won't play them.
Or even more true, they choose not to play the games in the way that would make things more challenging and group dependant etc. because it's too hard.
Comments
How does the FFA crowd gain more targets, when they are in the safe area? The ENTIRE point of an FFA game is to be killed EXACTLY when you don't want to PvP, or to kill someone EXACTLY when they dont' want to PVP.
That's what makes it exciting for the FFA player.
If you can only be killed when you WANT to, that is leave the safe area, you've ruined the entire concept of FFA play.
YES, you've given a GREAT description of how it helps the care bear player, they can be safe.
The ONLY thing the FFA player wants is that no one is EVER safe.
You've done exactly what I was taling about in your example. You've ONLY helped the care bears, done NOTHING for the FFA player, but pretended you made the game great for EVERYONE!
No, you just screwed up the FFA game, that's it, nothing more.
You said it's BETTER PvP. YEs, BETTER for the care bears, and MUCH MUCH worse for the FFA players, because you've ruined the FFA play.
Oh my. Someone is whining about whining. Never seen that on a forum before.
Another great couple postings! And no one else see the irony here? You yourself are insatiable. Your implicit desire is that everyone be satisfied, but when others aren't and express it as such, you're not satisfied with them. You are the very stereotype you hate and denounce. Ruffle feathers much? Your postings couldn't be more red herring, off-topic, ironic, and irrelivant... unless of course it's the booze that fuels them, in which case... ya.
The topic was concise, and brings an interesting point of view which, whether you agree to, admit to, or not... again, doesn't matter. The irony, here, again, is that the post clearly states 'compromise', and *you* say it says 'whining' (aka = otherwise). I feel perhaps you better sit the next couple out, killer.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc.
We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be.
So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away.
- MMO_Doubter
Sorry, didn't realize it was the FFA crowd is to good to play with anyone thread. Any time you increase the player base and bring in more targets and money, you are always going to have more variety and wealth in your PVP. You are going to have people moving between the two camps, and you are going to have many more options. As long as the carebears are not given control of the game, and there is a balance between the power the two groups wield in the game world, the game will have more players, more depth, and be a better game. That's what the FFA crowd gains.
Allowing Safe Zones for "carebears" in a FFA PvP is a bad idea, mostly because they will never leave the area OR should they ever leave, will complain about the constant PK or "I can't leave the area without getting killed" when the reality is that they see PKers where there aren't.
I don't mind semi-secure zones. Like one of the suggestion that was made on DarkFall (which was supposed to be a feature at launch) was Guards in Race Cities (instead of a Zap Tower). Then again, DarkFall isn't the best exemple, I strongly believe the Alignement System in DarkFall is broken even though many players refuses to admit it.
Though, in a best case scenario: A city is protected by Guards. You can PK in a city and run away without getting killed by the guards, but should the guards ever see your face again, they will attack you. But you can also attack the guards, allowing you to enter the city and kill a few people and run away again. I'll skip the ideas of a balanced Guard System that doesn't allow camping since it's irrelevant.
FFA PvP stands for Free For All Player versus Player. I don't mind semi-secure zone since it gives a chance for players to learn the ropes or recuperate. Pushing "Safe Zone" is basically restricting Free For All PvP.
In the final analysis, whining does not matter. No sane developers are gonig to listen to some very minority group of players whining they are not getting their ways.
It is not like hardcorers are not whining about the WOTLK changes (making raids more accessible). Blizzard is not going back to the old ways. If they want their challenge game, go play hard mode. Otherwise, they are go play something else. Blizzard is not going to let 2% of the players dictate what 98% get.
Developers, and successful games and how much money they make are not the topic of this thread.
The topic is, being honest about what kind of game play you like.
If you like casual game play, say so. But don't pretend a casual game is great for everyone, that's it's casual AND hardcore because it's about Choice! and options! and EVERYOne must like it!
The topic is some features exclude other features. Why not just admit that, instead of trying to change the subject to money or sub numbers?
It's not relevant to the topic what kinds of games are made, or will be made in the future.
I didn't mention anyting about Blizzard going back to the old days, or ask for any particular kind of game to be made in teh Op.
But that's NOT what the FFA crowd wants. That's what YOU want, or what care bears want. Why are you insisting that FFA players want this? They DON"T!
This is what FFA Players want.
They want to kill you when you absolutely do NOT want to be killed. Like when you are crafting, or going to the bank, or down to your last hit point doing PvE.
And they want for there to be absolutely NO Where in the game, where you can't be killed.
That's it. That's what FFA players want. They don't want any of the things you listed. That's what Carebears want. So again, you've changed the game in favor of the carebears,. given the FFA players NOTHING, then said you made the game better for everyone, which is bullshit.
All you did is ruin the FFA game, and make it a carebear game.
Posted by Ihmotepp on 4/01/10 at 7:58:33 PM
Games should be about "choice"!
This argument is always used by people that want an easy game against those that want something more challenging.
But the "choice" or "compromise" always benefits those wanting the easy game, never those wanting a challenge.
Look at any feature, and you can see this is the case.
FFA PvP. Well, SOME people don't want to be attacked all the time. So it would be better to have a "choice"! like turning on a switch if you want PVP.
How could this possibly benefit the FFA advocate? What does this player gain from this "choice" or compromise? Nothing.
Or, the player that wants a good grouping game.
Well, it should be about choice! You can still group, but we want to solo all the way to the level cap just as fast with the exact same rewards. See, we compromised, we let you group when you want to!
What does the person wanting a challenging grouping game gain from that? Nothing whatsoever.
I don't think choice or compromise can do anything but ruin the game for someone that wants a challenge. You will always, with such a "choice" or "compromise" make the game less challenging.
But do you make ti any MORE challenging for the other players wanting the easy game? Because that would be a compromise, where both sides give somethign up. And the answer is no. The side wanting an easy game, gets it. The side wanting a challenging game, gets a watered down easier game than they like.
.......yea sorry started dozing off there when I hit the words choice and compromise; Long day at the office today...you know how it is... so let me see here....choice... its either give a shit about what your saying or.......go to sleep...hmmmm think ill just not give a shit and get some rest for work tomorrow.....choice is great.
HEAVEN OR HELL
Duel 1
Lets ROCK!
Thank you so much for sharing what time you go to bed with everyone on the forum.
it's really on topic, and your insight will benefit everyone, I am sure.
See? Im a good boy. And yes you can report or block me if you want. So why dont you do that instead of going off topic?
If you stand VERY still, and close your eyes, after a minute you can actually FEEL the universe revolving around PvP.
Can we just ignore/report troll attempts and get back to the main subject, about Compromise,choices, and hypocrisy by some players?
Also Toquio3, you might not realise it but you are doing the exact same thing you accuse Ihmotepp of doing, whining about people who disagree with the way you see things, claiming that they whine about people who disagree with the way they see things.....it's a vicious circle that will keep on going and going and going, so can we just stop at this point?
Now to go back on subject, Compromise (to use Ihmotepp's words) are indeed game breaking for those who prefer challenge. Allowing players to take an easier path because "they don't have enough time to play" is something that I believe is not acceptable.
And maybe there wouldn't be so much issues regarding compromises if Developers would be more active with the community. I'm pretty sure real compromises could be made where both parties could be happy, and the developers could bring changes that both parties will like. But of course, the call of the Mass-Market always wins and the "hardcore" groups ends up leaving.
The OP is right...
Compromises hurt one side no matter WHAT one is talking about. It could be games or life, compromises hurt at least one side in some way.
Someone also noted that mmos are a bussiness and compromises bring in more money... This is also true.
But it is my belief that one should just make a game with 0 compromises to one side or 0 compromises to the other side. This will guarantee that one side is completely happy instead of having one side partially happy and the other side not quite happy at all. Instead of having a fake world...
I would not make a game for both sides of a coin... that just doesn't work.
Compromising will give your game more "depth" I guess, but the game itself will be fake. The best compromise is making PvP and PvE servers, but do not give the player a choice whether they can be killed in the open world or not within the server. That doesn't make sense to the world...
While there is a grain of logic to the OP, there's a lot of spurious assumption too.
You're mentioning "challenge" a lot, and you're just flat out wrong there. A players preference for game mechanics does not dictate his or her desire for an easy or challenging game. That's unique to the individual and there are players in every field of a game that seek out the easy (or hard) options.
Ganking in FFA PvP is clearly not about challenge. Escaping a gank clearly is.
Soloing easy mobs is clearly not about challenge. Hard mobs clearly is.
Grouping to kill easy mobs is clearly not about challenge. Hard mobs clearly is.
The element of truth comes into play with the premise that it is impossible to cater equally for every player. Some preferences are obviously mutually exclusive. FFA PvP is one such mechanic; it's impossible to allow players to kill one another whenever they like and keep a pure PvE player (who never wants to be ganked) happy. Just not going to happen.
Solo/Grouping is not mutually exclusive. AoC is a good example of this; it's possible to level entirely solo or with group content (via instanced zones). Both of the playstyles are catered for and everyone should be happy, right?
But no, the groupers invariably complain that (as soloing is still a viable option) people who prefer to solo won't group with them and as such, they can't consistently get enough people for their playstyle to be uninterrupted by LFG periods.
And yet, the irony of this escapes them. They don't realise (or they do, but don't care) that what they are really asking is for game mechanics that prevent other people from enjoying their chosen preference (soloing) so that they, (the grouper) have more people to group with.
In the early days, that did work .. because there was very little choice in the genre .. nowadays, the solo preferences would simply choose not to play a game without solo content and the grouper would still not be able to get groups.
At the end of the day, it's about numbers. There are very few people whose preferences are so extreme that they only every want to do one thing all the time; how many people do you think there are that only solo and never group, or vice-versa?
So yes, games should be about choice; even niche games have a mainstream element (within that niche) that they need to cater for, and there will always be some people who want game mechanics that fall outside of it. I'm not sure what one would call these players who are looking for the nichiest of the niche game mechanics, but I do know that there is nowhere near enough of 'em to warrant any decent developer (even an indy one) from catering to 'em.
Playing: EVE, Final Fantasy 13, Uncharted 2, Need for Speed: Shift
Discounting WoW(as it is a themepark not centered on PVP), EQ held more than 300k for yrs. It took WoW to knock it off its perch. DAoC, UO, AO, SWG, and CoH couldnt off the top of my head for NA subs.
The sub numbers of LoTRO come into question, but Lineage 1/2 and FFXI all have held over that 300k mark. Granted a lot of those numbers come from the eastern model of gaming(cafe shops). That said, it would be wrong to discount the fact that folks were paying money. The kicker is we are talking millions of sub numbers. If you take a ratio of 3 to 1 eastern subs to equal a NA sub, we are still talking way more than 300k each.
One sandbox/ FFA PVP focus game is carrying those numbers. Before it SWG was the place a lot of EVE folks were. I am unsure on Aion...but that also is a PVE /shrug. Same thing for AoC and War(unsure of their subs...dont care to either).
PVP FFA is about the worst system you could implement, for your entire game design, according to the facts I see.
PVP is more popular in games like FPS....where skill wins. Not whoever has the most time to grind. When you add in the ability to grief, it brings out the worst in some folks. Like I said prior...some PVP folks are honorable about it....they are just over-shadowed.
I dont know where you arrive at the idea that folks that play RPGs also want to PVP? Maybe true for those interested in the sandbox style. To encompass those that enjoy PVE, I say you are flat nutz.
And I do agree with your idea of the almighty e-peen acheived by those that can vs those that cant. I contest though that it is for different reasons when you consider PVP and PVE.
I started following my local server guild Afterlife, FoH, and Allakhazam religously after I started EQ in Feb 01. It was cool to see what they were getting for raiding 5/6 nights a week. When I started raiding 2 yrs later it was 2 to 3 nights a week. I didnt mind being behind...but you are correct in your assertion....it was to get the good stuff.
Although in my case it wasnt cutting edge...so it didnt mean anything other than I had complerted content. That only allowed folks to do tougher content. In a PVP oriented game the better gear would of made an "I win" button ala Jedi in SWG when it was alpha.
Which brings us back to the thought train that the PVE game has a different goal than the PVP game. Those that PVP would want to get the stuff to PVP better(I win)....the PVE folks look to be able to do tougher content. Not saying the better gear doesnt make older content farmable...but in a game like EQ it was common knowledge the next expansion would bring bigger challenges.
They both(hardcore PVE and PVP) give the "prestige"....but it is apple to oranges. Being able to one shot folks is different than tackling the next encounter. At least the way I see it.
Asking Devs to make AAA sandbox titles is like trying to get fine dining on a McDonalds dollar menu budget.
Well said.
Give me liberty or give me lasers
Yeah I think it's funny to complain about games not adhering to some diluted and misguided ideal of "challenge" and "comprimise" when all you are advocating for is efficiency and making the path of least resistence, the shortest and easiest path to the top to be YOUR way instead of the other guy's way.
"Make grouping required and content less accessible... so that me and those like me can get to the top/level fastest and be the best!"
"Make the end-game content only accessible to the top 10% of players so we are gauranteed to be the best!"
So Blizzard should go back and remove the Arena ladder competition?
They should remove Heroic difficulty for dungeons?
They should remove Hard Modes and achievements for raiding?
That way, they remove all the "compromises" they have put in to add challenge and a new level of competition for more serious gamers!
Right?
I mean, they continue to "dumb down" the game by adding in things like Hard Modes right?
Hey, how about them removing any need to group while leveling... by adding a system to automatically find you groups for doing party content while leveling! That'd show them whose boss!
And let's get rid of all the PvP servers! As obviously NO ONE plays on them and enjoys them more then the PvE servers!
I understand that the FFA players you describe want an easy game with reduced challenge but is that really the type of game you want the devs to make? Personally I prefer my games to be more challenging then what FFA PvP can offer.
But it's SOO hard and SUCH a challenge and SUCH an AMAZING RUSH to kill another player who has NO IDEA they are about to be attacked because they are crafting, on their way to the bank, or down to their last hit point doing PvE!
I mean, that is SOOO MUCH MORE CHALLENGING then fighting an evenly matched opponent who knows you are coming and is just as ready to fight as you are!
Oh, wait, it's not April Fools Day anymore is it?
If choice is what games are about why do you want to remove someone elses choice to not participate the same way you want to?
@Ihmotepp
Your point of view seems to stem from the opinion that all games start off as hardcore and only make concessions for casual gameplay. Of course everything is going to look glass half empty if that is how you view the creation of every mmo.
Viewed as casual games adding harder elements and the perspective is totally different and hardcore players are benefiting from the compromise.
In reality I think the real issue is not about forcing people to play one way to make them have challange as you put it, but the real lack of incentives to engage in the more challenging areas of gameplay.
MMO players have always taken the path of least resistance (or greatest reward) and the incentives for the more difficult areas mmos are just not great enough to offset the extra challenge for most players. Maybe the easier parts of the game are to rewarding. Same thing, different perspectives.
Either way, the choices in mmos that you say cannot exist together most certainly can if they are balanced well enough. Forcing people to play one way isn't some great design mechanic when there is an equally compelling option that allows people to enjoy multiple paths of gameplay. More options should be better.
You completely misunderstood his post. He wasn't saying they were about choice, he was explaining that 'choice' is used as an excuse to say that as long as there are options for different play styles then everyone should be happy.
The OP's point is that this is not the case. Many players enjoy facing a harsh challenge and overcoming it in order to receive a valuable reward. When a bunch of casual players have an alternative, much easier, route added just for them to obtain said reward the player who likes the challenge realises that said challenge no longer has any value. As a result there is no real choice involved as there is nothing to be gained from taking the more challenging route. The fun of the challenge is lost because anyone who can't handle it can just 'cheat' instead.
The best example imo has always been the grouping issue. Make things soloable and there is no real reason to group as it is almost always less efficient than the alternative soloable options. At this point the casual players claim that anyone who wants to group can still group. But, of course, in reality anyone who groups now is being punished as their progress will be slower and on top of that it is now much harder for them to ever find a group because everyone else is soloing. When MMOs compromise to add an easier alternative that alternative quickly becomes the only viable option.
The OP is highlighting the hypocrisy of casual players saying that because a game has 'choice' it benefits everyone when in fact it only really benefits them.
Also I'm aware of the 'you can still group for fun' argument. People throw that one at me all the time. But look at it this way. You can group for fun, and just get some fun out of it. The casuals who like to solo for fun not only get fun but more frequent and better rewards from it. It is quite clear that there is a disparity here. Some people also argue that they should just add better incentives to grouping... but that never works. The moment something different, something better, can be obtained via grouping suddenly all the casuals cry foul and demand it be made accessible to them as well. The only way to prevent this issue is to simply not cater to casuals at all...
The part in red: You're using the themepark mentality here and your point is completly wrong. In the case of a FFA PvP game (often sandbox such as DarkFall or Mortal Online), players are AWARE that they may get attacked and will take precautions at all time.
DarkFall players constantly repeat to newer players "Bank Often" or "Empty 1 or 2 node and go bank", because if it's not in your bank, it's not yours. Players are aware of this and act accordingly. So the only real way that players can have no idea they are about to be attacked is when they are AFK, and that's their fault.
As for griefers attacking new players, it's always the same 3-4 PKers at all time while the rest of the community are doing small to large scale PvP/sieges.
I'll take an easy and popular exemple.
WoW. Naxx is too hard, BAM! Nerfed. Class "x" in PvP is too strong and Class "y" in PvP is too weak, next patch Class "x" gets nerfed, Class "y" get's buffed... and the cycle continues. Even Blizzard has dumbed down WoW over the years to catter to more "casuals" gamers. There is no actual choices to be made anymore, you either take the easy path or you're in for some serious pain.
Hardcores have hardly ever benefited from such compromise. In most case, it's these compromises that made them leave a specific MMORPG.
This is the same "casual vs. hardcore" debate that well never end, because neither side is willing to give much ground because they like what they like and if a new game comes out that doesn't have what they like, they won't play it.
And both sides are just as picky.
I can list of a handful of semi-popular, long running, top quality AAA MMOs that offer exactly the kind of game play that the OP and others in this thread want, but because they don't have feature X or Y they won't play them.
Or even more true, they choose not to play the games in the way that would make things more challenging and group dependant etc. because it's too hard.