Say there's this NPC who drives a wagon from one town to the next.
.
I wan't to rob him so I chop down a tree to block the road.
.
Simple right?
.
What MMO will give me the freedom to do this?
.
None, really, unless you know of an MMO that wants to deal with every jackass and his brother covering the roads with trees.
Lofty philosophical and social babble aside, that scenario simply needs to be examined by its core components - collision detection and the placement of objects in the game world.
From a design standpoint, the issue isn't tech or mechanics. The issue how badly and how often the small number of douchebags in your community will ruin the game for everyone with the tech or mechanic.
This, and only this.
I can even use actual examples from a game that at one time had plenty of freedom built in, SWG. Which had placeable objects that could be used in the wrong manner (to grief). Terminals as an example could be placed in front of doors, blocking players inside.
Another occurance (im not sure how often this actually happened). The incident was known as the Rayen petting zoo on my server. In short a player was rezzed while 4 players sat terminals around him trapping him in place. Of course these players were banned, so was the player who was trapped if I recall correctly.
This is why we most likely will never see freedom in the scale the OP is calling for. While it would be great if it would work, it wouldn't be long before people started abusing those freedoms. I really can't see it turning out any other way.
Of course you can't have absolute freedom, but with map zoning, and the ability to server hop at will, the trapped player could easily escape.
It can be done to a certain extent, but it is all about implementation. I love obstacle usage in games.. countless hours of amusement... I am so easily amused.
So, the Dev's should waste how many precious man hours of time/effort, talent and creativity to appeal to what is really a very small percentage of the general player base? Its become obvious over the years that most players do NOT want all of this "freedom" that the OP speaks of.
That is just one of the reasons for the rise of theme park games, and the decline of games in the west that allow (or encourage) ganking and griefing. Unless the Dev's wish to engage in an endless arms race with such types, its best to keep human nature in mind. Look at the evolution of Concord and the high sec rule set in EVE as an example of how even a PvP centric company like CCP has to protect its business model.
1. Socializers, social games, farmville. Do an association thinking and you should understand.
2. Players never had a taste of a well designed game with good implementation, like we are discussing on this topic.
People dont want what they experienced. But what they experienced was crap. I dont blame them, But from that concluding by induction that there isnt a market from what we are talking about. Falacy.
Personal experience, and understanding of human nature and history demonstrates that this "freedom" approach gets abused by a certain number of gankers/griefers. Its happened time after time after time. I didn't say there is NO market, I stated that the appeal of such games is limited (in other words niche). But given the time and money these games take to create, its entirely understandable that they be focused at the much larger audience that doesn't want all of those above "freedoms".
The abuse of freedom you talk about happened because those games had bad design, they lacked the tools Im mentioning. People's hands were wrapped, they, themselfs, didnt got freedom to do anything about the "gankers/griefers".
If you offered them freedom to do anything about. No, Im not talking about "gank them back". Im talking about in depth system of consequences far more detailed and complex than that.
The games you mentioned (that you didnt mentioned, but we are talking about the same games), lacked a social contract, a structured society with its own laws and criminal persecution, methods of prevention of crimes, and tools of justice, security.
Im talking generically, but to see the bigger picture, think about how real life works. The whole idea derives from how real life works.
If we were to make a paralel about these games with freedom that failed due to excessive ganking/griefing, it would be like comparing real life to a barbaric society, pre-dating even medieval times, because even in medieval times (where most of these games are set) already have their own methods of dealing with "real life gankers".
so? too much freedom makes a bad game. i dont see the need of all those freedoms in games.
I dont see evidence that too much freedom makes a bad game. All I see is evidence that bad design (i.e. lack of tools) around the existance of freedom makes a bad game.
That all depends on what the "freedom" allows the bad acters to do. Personally, I'd consider it an example of Bad Design, if it allows ganking and/or griefing. Its not a "lack of tools" thats the problem. Its more a "lack of experience with human nature" that results in many design flaws, and results in a lack of player retention. Rather few people are going to hang around to be others punching bags, when there are so many other options that do not require that.
You have to have both.
Its only knowing player nature that you will develop tools around it.
In real life we have tools to deal with gankers, in games we dont. The human nature is still the same. In real life people care about their personal/public image, in game they dont. Well, we give them tools to start caring about their public image as well.
Freedom to assembly three hundred players in the same screen. YEAH. Freedom of 2d games, really poor graphics, or magic low ping connections
I laughed at just about every one of your "rebuttals" but the one that took the cake was saying that the only way to get 300 people on screen is to have 2D graphics.
That's just sad, that MMOs have fallen so far, that such a simple goal seems like an impossibility to the simple minded like you.
You realize that Dark Age of Camelot, a game from 2001 that had state of the art graphics of its time, regularly had 400+ people on the screen in large battles?
And I didn't know that freedom was something only pretentious people liked. I'm sorry, but wanting to think/struggle a little in a game does not make one pretentious.
You absolutely disgust me.
I can't believe you would try to argue that, when "state of the art in it's time" is "really poor graphics" now. Every one of his points is sound, and you need to be hit with a rolled-up newspaper for being dense. Try fitting 300 people into a small space within a modern game and see what happens. anyone remembering the event in TR where the server blew up will tell you that it's impossible without the "state of the art graphics" from 1999. Idiot.
First off, you missed the point entirely. Just goes to show, the type of people that defend dumbed down games are usually dumb themselves. I said that, in 2001 (not 1999, wtf) there was a game (Dark Age of Camelot) that allowed you the freedom to bring as many people together as you wanted. The largest battle on my low pop server that I remember was a 250 vs 200 vs 350 man battle, and guess what, the server held and the battle is one of the most memorable MMORPG experiences of my 12 years of playing. If it was possible to have 500+ people fighting with the extremely limited tech of 2001 (30 man dev team, mostly dial up connections, and the graphics of the game were REALLY demanding at the time) then there is absolutely no reason it should be impossible today.
This doesn't even take into account how many more actions are logged in modern games, compared to "state of the art 10 years ago" crap.
Really? Because almost all modern MMOs give characters far less abilities, and have slower simpler combat than in Dark Age of Camelot.
Here's an example of the graphics in the "1999 crap" game, this is from 2003, this game could handle 500+ people fighting with siege towers, battering rams, boiling oil, trebuchets, bows, crossbows, magic, and every melee weapon imaginable.
If a small dev team could do that back in 2001, then the 200+ dev team of Blizzard should have figured out a way to do it now, especially considering its graphics are far FAR less complicated than Dark Age of Camelot's.
Originally posted by khanstruct
300+ characters on the screen at one time is... not likely.
Wrong. Multiple MMORPGs have done it, see above. Dark Age of Camelot did it. Darkfall currently does it, and Darkfall's combat system is far more complicated than anything else on the market. AAA MMO devs are just lazy and uninspired, that's why they rely on instancing so much, and keep getting WoW clones.
DAoC is a great example of how siege warfare should be done. It amazes me that people can even be content with the poo on a platter they serve up these days they try to call " pvp" combat. I guess if they have never tasted anything better they have not been able to develop a taste for it yet.
Seems like it. And its adorable how GTWander can rant and rave about the technical impossibilities, then you call him out, prove him wrong, and he completely ignores your post. Methinks he's just a troll at this point.
If you are going to lie, do it right.
Those pics are from the catacombs xpac, from 2004, which came with a graphical update - and again - graphics create user lag, not server lag. The reason you could fit that many people in one spot and have it work was because the game was simple as buttered toast, there isn't even a fraction of the information being sent to the server as compared to a *modern* game.
Calling me a troll is calling the kettle black.
Writer / Musician / Game Designer
Now Playing: Skyrim, Wurm Online, Tropico 4 Waiting On: GW2, TSW, Archeage, The Rapture
You guys noticed that in all possible derived roots of freedom and its different applications we ended up focusing on the
"Crime" aspect, specifically the "murder" one?
Straight away exactly what people relate freedom in games with is the freedom to commit a crime, like murder.
In the whole spectrum of aplications of freedom, there would be severe modifications into the game itself that murdering someone, even though possible, would play an insignificant part.
People wouldnt think about "I will murder him' and actually do it. People are having a hard time trying to imagine a system where consequences would prevent people from acting like that, just like it works in real life.
From time to time people kill each other for stupid reasons, but they get caught and suffer consequences. Implementing the last part very well would work as a moral shackle, just like it does in real life. All that assuming the gameplay is not limited or revolve around some unreal theme of "you mass murder a million of creatures for power and loot".
Because if you try to implement the freedom in a game like that, without doing the necessary addaptations, off course it wont work.
Like the guy who mentioned Faces of Mankind... the game was so empty and boring that the only character interaction was shooting stuff and eventually people had a mental breakdown and had to start shooting stuff. But off course, that was the only interaction tool meaningfull available....
Same thing as Rockstar's GTA. People can drive vehicles and shoot people and thats the extent of their interactions with the world, no wonder everyone runs around DOING JUST THAT.
Now think of a game where combat is just 10% of it... Like a game where people can craft, or farm, or explore and make maps, or sky jump from a dragon....
Freedom to assembly three hundred players in the same screen. YEAH. Freedom of 2d games, really poor graphics, or magic low ping connections
I laughed at just about every one of your "rebuttals" but the one that took the cake was saying that the only way to get 300 people on screen is to have 2D graphics.
That's just sad, that MMOs have fallen so far, that such a simple goal seems like an impossibility to the simple minded like you.
You realize that Dark Age of Camelot, a game from 2001 that had state of the art graphics of its time, regularly had 400+ people on the screen in large battles?
And I didn't know that freedom was something only pretentious people liked. I'm sorry, but wanting to think/struggle a little in a game does not make one pretentious.
You absolutely disgust me.
I can't believe you would try to argue that, when "state of the art in it's time" is "really poor graphics" now. Every one of his points is sound, and you need to be hit with a rolled-up newspaper for being dense. Try fitting 300 people into a small space within a modern game and see what happens. anyone remembering the event in TR where the server blew up will tell you that it's impossible without the "state of the art graphics" from 1999. Idiot.
First off, you missed the point entirely. Just goes to show, the type of people that defend dumbed down games are usually dumb themselves. I said that, in 2001 (not 1999, wtf) there was a game (Dark Age of Camelot) that allowed you the freedom to bring as many people together as you wanted. The largest battle on my low pop server that I remember was a 250 vs 200 vs 350 man battle, and guess what, the server held and the battle is one of the most memorable MMORPG experiences of my 12 years of playing. If it was possible to have 500+ people fighting with the extremely limited tech of 2001 (30 man dev team, mostly dial up connections, and the graphics of the game were REALLY demanding at the time) then there is absolutely no reason it should be impossible today.
This doesn't even take into account how many more actions are logged in modern games, compared to "state of the art 10 years ago" crap.
Really? Because almost all modern MMOs give characters far less abilities, and have slower simpler combat than in Dark Age of Camelot.
Here's an example of the graphics in the "1999 crap" game, this is from 2003, this game could handle 500+ people fighting with siege towers, battering rams, boiling oil, trebuchets, bows, crossbows, magic, and every melee weapon imaginable.
If a small dev team could do that back in 2001, then the 200+ dev team of Blizzard should have figured out a way to do it now, especially considering its graphics are far FAR less complicated than Dark Age of Camelot's.
Originally posted by khanstruct
300+ characters on the screen at one time is... not likely.
Wrong. Multiple MMORPGs have done it, see above. Dark Age of Camelot did it. Darkfall currently does it, and Darkfall's combat system is far more complicated than anything else on the market. AAA MMO devs are just lazy and uninspired, that's why they rely on instancing so much, and keep getting WoW clones.
DAoC is a great example of how siege warfare should be done. It amazes me that people can even be content with the poo on a platter they serve up these days they try to call " pvp" combat. I guess if they have never tasted anything better they have not been able to develop a taste for it yet.
Seems like it. And its adorable how GTWander can rant and rave about the technical impossibilities, then you call him out, prove him wrong, and he completely ignores your post. Methinks he's just a troll at this point.
If you are going to lie, do it right.
Those pics are from the catacombs xpac, from 2004, which came with a graphical update - and again - graphics create user lag, not server lag. The reason you could fit that many people in one spot and have it work was because the game was simple as buttered toast, there isn't even a fraction of the information being sent to the server as compared to a *modern* game.
Calling me a troll is calling the kettle black.
Oh adorable. In your first post you were off by two years, in my post I was off by 1 year. However, it makes absolutely no difference and my point still stands.
If graphics only cause user lag, then how come you said to fit 300 people on screen at once the game would have to be 2D? Dark Age of camelot clearly proves you wrong there.
As for the game being simple, it's combat system was far far FAR more advanced, and has more abilities being fired faster than the majority of modern MMOs. People say Camelot combat was slow and there's a lot of standing around? Maybe at level one, but in RvR the heaviest tank in the game can die within 3 seconds, so sorry, but you're wrong again.
And lastly, there is a modern game that CAN have 500 people on the screen WITH a physics engine, hitboxes, collision detection, realm time spell aiming and sword swinging, and it runs fine. That is Darkfall. If a team of 30 devs from Greece could do that, then couldn't your precious AAA devs?
Those pics are from the catacombs xpac, from 2004, which came with a graphical update - and again - graphics create user lag, not server lag. The reason you could fit that many people in one spot and have it work was because the game was simple as buttered toast, there isn't even a fraction of the information being sent to the server as compared to a *modern* game.
Calling me a troll is calling the kettle black.
Oh adorable. In your first post you were off by two years, in my post I was off by 1 year. However, it makes absolutely no difference and my point still stands.
So it's ok you you to jump on me for claiming a game that was started in 1999, and released in 2001 to have "1999 graphics", but I can't call you on trying to sumbit pictures from a graphical update in 2004 claiming it was from launch?
No, homie don't play that.
Anyway, the years have nothing to do with it, you just need something to base your arguement on. The fact of the matter is that the graphics would only chug *your* computer if it can't handle it, the host servers don't deal with graphics - *you* do. The simplified gameplay of the game is what allowed all those people to be there at once and still play correctly.
Like I told Sovrarth;
Expect a modern game that allows that many people on screen to play like a 10 year old game as well.
~You are also lying about 500 people fighting at once in Darkfall as well, you really need to kick this fibbing habit.
Nevermind, I just did some research and it seems there are others saying this as well, but damned if I can explain how. Unless the entire world shards off to a mirror copy for the specific battle, it seems impossible to me. I can only imagine that if it did happen, it wasn't pretty to say the least. I doubt it went off without a hitch.
Writer / Musician / Game Designer
Now Playing: Skyrim, Wurm Online, Tropico 4 Waiting On: GW2, TSW, Archeage, The Rapture
so? too much freedom makes a bad game. i dont see the need of all those freedoms in games.
I dont see evidence that too much freedom makes a bad game. All I see is evidence that bad design (i.e. lack of tools) around the existance of freedom makes a bad game.
That all depends on what the "freedom" allows the bad acters to do. Personally, I'd consider it an example of Bad Design, if it allows ganking and/or griefing. Its not a "lack of tools" thats the problem. Its more a "lack of experience with human nature" that results in many design flaws, and results in a lack of player retention. Rather few people are going to hang around to be others punching bags, when there are so many other options that do not require that.
You have to have both.
Its only knowing player nature that you will develop tools around it.
In real life we have tools to deal with gankers, in games we dont. The human nature is still the same. In real life people care about their personal/public image, in game they dont. Well, we give them tools to start caring about their public image as well.
I think you're missing the point. First, most people want to play the game. Whether or not they can "take care of the gankers" by setting traps, etc, isn't the point. The point is, they don't want to spend their time dealing with griefers. That's not why they play the game. They aren't combat-oriented people. It doesn't matter if you're telling them to enter combat or spend their time protecting themselves from combat. That's not what they're there for.
Second, yes, that is more like real life. If real life had no real consequences, which is what essentially releases everyone's inner douche. But the main point is, we deal with crap in real life because we have to. In a virtual world, if I'm being oppressed or annoyed, I can just pull the plug and leave. And people will.
Those pics are from the catacombs xpac, from 2004, which came with a graphical update - and again - graphics create user lag, not server lag. The reason you could fit that many people in one spot and have it work was because the game was simple as buttered toast, there isn't even a fraction of the information being sent to the server as compared to a *modern* game.
Calling me a troll is calling the kettle black.
Oh adorable. In your first post you were off by two years, in my post I was off by 1 year. However, it makes absolutely no difference and my point still stands.
So it's ok you you to jump on me for claiming a game that was started in 1999, and released in 2001 to have "1999 graphics", but I can't call you on trying to sumbit pictures from a graphical update in 2004 claiming it was from launch?
No, homie don't play that.
I didn't claim it was from launch, I claimed it was from 2003. Launch was in 2001. You just keep tripping over yourself here. It helps to read something before you reply.
Anyway, the years have nothing to do with it, you just need something to base your arguement on. The fact of the matter is that the graphics would only chug *your* computer if it can't handle it, the host servers don't deal with graphics - *you* do. The simplified gameplay of the game is what allowed all those people to be there at once and still play correctly.
And I explained that there was nothing simple about the gameplay. I actually played the game, it seems you did not. What was so simple about the game compared to newer MMORPGs? Because I honestly haven't found a better combat system until Darkfall.
Like I told Sovrarth;
Expect a modern game that allows that many people on screen to play like a 10 year old game as well.
And again, I point out that that logic is broken beyond reason. Dark Age of Camelot played like a modern game for its time, and managed to have that many players at once despite the limited tech of the time. The mechanics of DAoC aren't even outdated by now.
~You are also lying about 500 people fighting at once in Darkfall as well, you really need to kick this fibbing habit.
Really? Because I've played Darkfall as well, and it seems, again, you have not. Sieges that bring out the entire server have brought battles together as large as 1000 people strong, but by the time you had that many, the server was lagging pretty badly. 500 however, ran fine. So I'm sorry, you can shove your head in the sand and edit out my counter points from your replies all you want, but it doesn't make you right.
EDIT Just read your edit, good to see you're at least willing to admit when you've goofed up. Darkfall manages it by having a dev team that actually tried to code something unique, and made their own engine, instead of the modern AAA MMORPGs that just buy engines and pump out WoW clones with instances and limited server structures.
I keep looking for proof of this 500+ man battle in darkfall, and all I get is people saying it's a made up number.
Can you link a vid or dev diary saying it happened, or is it just the players of that game blowing smoke?
All I see is people saying it peaked at 600+ on EU at launch, with some saying it was displaced all over the server, and others saying it was in one place and fubar, and others saying it worked perfectly and came with handjobs after. I don't know who to believe here.
Writer / Musician / Game Designer
Now Playing: Skyrim, Wurm Online, Tropico 4 Waiting On: GW2, TSW, Archeage, The Rapture
Freedom to cause effects over others and over the game world. Freedom to gank and grief and break stuff
Freedom to no be limited by balance. Freedom to make a crappy character or an OP cookie cutter build
Freedom to engage others in combat, even if its a mistake. Freedom to PK and lose maybe
Freedom for making mistakes. Freedom to gimp your character and die
Freedom for being held accountable for said mistakes. Freedom to have harsh death penalties
Freedom to seek justice on whoever is accountable for mistakes. Freedom to PK PKers
Freedom for making whatever type of character they can think of without any boundaries of classes/levels. Freedom of having a skill based system that gives the illusion of meaningful choice
Freedom to evolve my character in any way I want. Freedom to use said skill based leveling system
Freedom to crash or inflate the game economy. Freedom to have the whole economy ran on player made items with no auction house
Freedom to let random numbers generators go crazy. Freedom of shallow but random content
Freedom to customize everything in my game. Freedom to make a character that will soon be covered up in generic armor and maybe change some colors of stuff later
Freedom to to own anything on my account and do whatever I want with it. Freedom to have a house and hang out there
Freedom to go/do wherever I want too and feel the consequences. Freedom to run into a high level area and die
Freedom to not understand the game mechanics. Freedom from having to read about a game
Freedom to not be held by the hand. Freedom from developer made content
Freedom to not be forced to follow any kind of linear script. Freedom from story, plot or deeper meaning
Freedom to assembly three hundred players in the same screen. YEAH. Freedom of 2d games, really poor graphics, or magic low ping connections
Freedom to not be forced to save the princess or slay the dragon, but rape the princess and marry the dragon. Freedom to aimlessly destroy stuff in the world and ruin other people's fun
Old enough to know better - young enough to do it anyway.
Freedom to cause effects over others and over the game world. Freedom to gank and grief and break stuff
Freedom to no be limited by balance. Freedom to make a crappy character or an OP cookie cutter build
Freedom to engage others in combat, even if its a mistake. Freedom to PK and lose maybe
Freedom for making mistakes. Freedom to gimp your character and die
Freedom for being held accountable for said mistakes. Freedom to have harsh death penalties
Freedom to seek justice on whoever is accountable for mistakes. Freedom to PK PKers
Freedom for making whatever type of character they can think of without any boundaries of classes/levels. Freedom of having a skill based system that gives the illusion of meaningful choice
Freedom to evolve my character in any way I want. Freedom to use said skill based leveling system
Freedom to crash or inflate the game economy. Freedom to have the whole economy ran on player made items with no auction house
Freedom to let random numbers generators go crazy. Freedom of shallow but random content
Freedom to customize everything in my game. Freedom to make a character that will soon be covered up in generic armor and maybe change some colors of stuff later
Freedom to to own anything on my account and do whatever I want with it. Freedom to have a house and hang out there
Freedom to go/do wherever I want too and feel the consequences. Freedom to run into a high level area and die
Freedom to not understand the game mechanics. Freedom from having to read about a game
Freedom to not be held by the hand. Freedom from developer made content
Freedom to not be forced to follow any kind of linear script. Freedom from story, plot or deeper meaning
Freedom to assembly three hundred players in the same screen. YEAH. Freedom of 2d games, really poor graphics, or magic low ping connections
Freedom to not be forced to save the princess or slay the dragon, but rape the princess and marry the dragon. Freedom to aimlessly destroy stuff in the world and ruin other people's fun
Not really, most of thoes bullets were cleanly debunked, especially the one about 2D games.
Expect a modern game that allows that many people on screen to play like a 10 year old game as well.
As far as pvp goes, I don't mind that.
I think any game that cuts back a bit on things like graphic or as you point out collsion detection and a lot of information that clogs up the webweays is fine by me.
Heck, even the 2004 graphics of DAoC are tolerable as long as they changed the animations.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Ok, to help this 500+ battle issue. It is possible to have an infinite number of people in a battle (assuming you did your server load-balancing correctly. However, hundreds of characters "on the screen" is a different beast altogether. That's not only unlikely, its also pointless. There is no reason you should ever have that many people on the screen at any given time. That just shows poor map design.
Remember the movie Aliens? Remember how many aliens there were? Tons! Wow! Aliens everywhere! There were actually only 6 ever on the screen at any given time.
Watching those Darkfall videos. I think I never saw more than 15 to 20 characters on the screen at any given time. Funny how people's minds just translate a "lot" into "hundreds", when a "lot" is actually only a couple dozen.
Well after seeing those Darkfall vids, I don't know what to believe.
Granted the actual fighting in them gets spaced out, but there really was 100+ on screen, easily, when they are standing around in a line. I wonder if they game starts disabling features like collision once that many people get in close vicinity or something. There has to be something to it that allows it to happen, even if servers thread with each other once it starts, it's pretty much unreal from what I've seen - defies all the logic I've seen to date.
i've seen that many people in one spot in TR and had time itself freeze within the game.
Writer / Musician / Game Designer
Now Playing: Skyrim, Wurm Online, Tropico 4 Waiting On: GW2, TSW, Archeage, The Rapture
Freedom to cause effects over others and over the game world. Freedom to gank and grief and break stuff
Freedom to no be limited by balance. Freedom to make a crappy character or an OP cookie cutter build
Freedom to engage others in combat, even if its a mistake. Freedom to PK and lose maybe
Freedom for making mistakes. Freedom to gimp your character and die
Freedom for being held accountable for said mistakes. Freedom to have harsh death penalties
Freedom to seek justice on whoever is accountable for mistakes. Freedom to PK PKers
Freedom for making whatever type of character they can think of without any boundaries of classes/levels. Freedom of having a skill based system that gives the illusion of meaningful choice
Freedom to evolve my character in any way I want. Freedom to use said skill based leveling system
Freedom to crash or inflate the game economy. Freedom to have the whole economy ran on player made items with no auction house
Freedom to let random numbers generators go crazy. Freedom of shallow but random content
Freedom to customize everything in my game. Freedom to make a character that will soon be covered up in generic armor and maybe change some colors of stuff later
Freedom to to own anything on my account and do whatever I want with it. Freedom to have a house and hang out there
Freedom to go/do wherever I want too and feel the consequences. Freedom to run into a high level area and die
Freedom to not understand the game mechanics. Freedom from having to read about a game
Freedom to not be held by the hand. Freedom from developer made content
Freedom to not be forced to follow any kind of linear script. Freedom from story, plot or deeper meaning
Freedom to assembly three hundred players in the same screen. YEAH. Freedom of 2d games, really poor graphics, or magic low ping connections
Freedom to not be forced to save the princess or slay the dragon, but rape the princess and marry the dragon. Freedom to aimlessly destroy stuff in the world and ruin other people's fun
Not really, most of thoes bullets were cleanly debunked, especially the one about 2D games.
Not really, those battles may have a bunch of people in them but not close to 300 or more on the screen at once doing stuff. Nor would you want to, since that would just be a random cluster f*ck.
All men think they're fascinating. In my case, it's justified
All i got to say is I play video games to escape reality and with all that freedom it seem like to much reality too me (although freedom is really a false sense of reality because most of our freedoms are just perceptions)
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read.
Freedom to cause effects over others and over the game world. Freedom to gank and grief and break stuff
Freedom to no be limited by balance. Freedom to make a crappy character or an OP cookie cutter build
Freedom to engage others in combat, even if its a mistake. Freedom to PK and lose maybe
Freedom for making mistakes. Freedom to gimp your character and die
Freedom for being held accountable for said mistakes. Freedom to have harsh death penalties
Freedom to seek justice on whoever is accountable for mistakes. Freedom to PK PKers
Freedom for making whatever type of character they can think of without any boundaries of classes/levels. Freedom of having a skill based system that gives the illusion of meaningful choice
Freedom to evolve my character in any way I want. Freedom to use said skill based leveling system
Freedom to crash or inflate the game economy. Freedom to have the whole economy ran on player made items with no auction house
Freedom to let random numbers generators go crazy. Freedom of shallow but random content
Freedom to customize everything in my game. Freedom to make a character that will soon be covered up in generic armor and maybe change some colors of stuff later
Freedom to to own anything on my account and do whatever I want with it. Freedom to have a house and hang out there
Freedom to go/do wherever I want too and feel the consequences. Freedom to run into a high level area and die
Freedom to not understand the game mechanics. Freedom from having to read about a game
Freedom to not be held by the hand. Freedom from developer made content
Freedom to not be forced to follow any kind of linear script. Freedom from story, plot or deeper meaning
Freedom to assembly three hundred players in the same screen. YEAH. Freedom of 2d games, really poor graphics, or magic low ping connections
Freedom to not be forced to save the princess or slay the dragon, but rape the princess and marry the dragon. Freedom to aimlessly destroy stuff in the world and ruin other people's fun
Not really, most of thoes bullets were cleanly debunked, especially the one about 2D games.
Not really, those battles may have a bunch of people in them but not close to 300 or more on the screen at once doing stuff. Nor would you want to, since that would just be a random cluster f*ck.
LOL it completely depends on the organization of the guild itself. I did large scale pvp combat for years, and we were very organized and effective. Here is how it works:
I was leading 600 ops into battle, I of course have several alts planted on battlefield prior to battle- they pretty much just stayed camped there so I never lose site of the battle during battle. Teams are broken down into 20 person teams , the teams are all on headset wih their team leaders. The team leaders are all on headset with their team members and the war leaders. The war leaders are all on headset with me. So I just talk to the few people directing the battle and the orders get passed down the line. Each team leader already knows what to do, that is how they became the team leaders. There is no cluster f*ck unless you have people who have no clue what they are doing in charge.
Well after seeing those Darkfall vids, I don't know what to believe.
Granted the actual fighting in them gets spaced out, but there really was 100+ on screen, easily, when they are standing around in a line. I wonder if they game starts disabling features like collision once that many people get in close vicinity or something. There has to be something to it that allows it to happen, even if servers thread with each other once it starts, it's pretty much unreal from what I've seen - defies all the logic I've seen to date.
i've seen that many people in one spot in TR and had time itself freeze within the game.
Well, I have no experience in Darkfall so I can't really make any useful comments there.
I've seen very large numbers in Warhammer at times and of course most of my large scale battles were in Lineage 2.
I've been in some large scale Aion battles but for the most part my computer wasn't up to the task.
But I have been in some huge battles and given at least the age of L2, it was very possible. Aion... my first huge battle (which was massive) my computer was "ok" but for some reason, over the course of time it became almost impossible for me to do them.
Then again, my computer is a mid range machine at this point. If I'm lucky : (
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Not really, those battles may have a bunch of people in them but not close to 300 or more on the screen at once doing stuff. Nor would you want to, since that would just be a random cluster f*ck.
LOL it completely depends on the organization of the guild itself. I did large scale pvp combat for years, and we were very organized and effective. Here is how it works:
I was leading 600 ops into battle, I of course have several alts planted on battlefield prior to battle- they pretty much just stayed camped there so I never lose site of the battle during battle. Teams are broken down into 20 person teams , the teams are all on headset wih their team leaders. The team leaders are all on headset with their team members and the war leaders. The war leaders are all on headset with me. So I just talk to the few people directing the battle and the orders get passed down the line. Each team leader already knows what to do, that is how they became the team leaders. There is no cluster f*ck unless you have people who have no clue what they are doing in charge.
You said it yourself, 20 person teams,
You can do big battles when you break it up into a series of smaller battles, its like the game MAG, 256 people in a battle but you end up fighting in smaller squads. If you had 300 people in a big group fighting each other, throwing out AoEs and the like, not only would all the particle effects and lighting effects, animations and models lag your game, all the random AoE effects would make any strategy unlikely.
All men think they're fascinating. In my case, it's justified
I sorry but the problem with your desire for a more self-governing MMO community is finding enough players that wish to govern and enough who are willing to be governed. The thing is most MMO players and most people on this forum do not think very highly of their fellow players. This can be seen by just heading over to any past topic that covered the ReadID debacle and you too can witness for yourself all kinds of colorful characters they think populate the games we play.
And this leads me to my next point......anonymity. This will be a thorn in the side of any self-governing community, yet alone a online one where players wish to kick back a bit. Until you can remove most of the bureaucracy and mental legwork associated with such a system, you will never find enough players to uphold it.
I believe a semi-automated system is required. Hear me out for a second:
In the event of a crime you would have a perp, victim and possible witnesses. Say that you have a witness system in place that flags any given player as a witness if they see a crime, but it automatically reports that crime to npc guards if that person reaches a town. Then the npc system kicks in to send out a warning notice to all npc guards to fine on sight and merchants to increase the price of doing business to shady players.
This helps keep your game running smoothly without overburdening your playerbase. Now the victim of the crime gets the option of either opening a bounty on their killer (for pvpers to participate) or curse them (which would take effect immediately) with a effect that debuffs who they group with for 1 hour. So the victim is left with a decision of either take cash from a possible bounty or label their killer a outcast. This puts some power in the hands of victims.
The last thing we come to is the perp, who also has some decisions to make. They can either kill someone with a bounty on their head (which removes their curse and pays the bounty out) or kill an innocent (nets them FFA loot)
Now what ever system is put in place, it has to be able to do 3 things:
Not really, those battles may have a bunch of people in them but not close to 300 or more on the screen at once doing stuff. Nor would you want to, since that would just be a random cluster f*ck.
LOL it completely depends on the organization of the guild itself. I did large scale pvp combat for years, and we were very organized and effective. Here is how it works:
I was leading 600 ops into battle, I of course have several alts planted on battlefield prior to battle- they pretty much just stayed camped there so I never lose site of the battle during battle. Teams are broken down into 20 person teams , the teams are all on headset wih their team leaders. The team leaders are all on headset with their team members and the war leaders. The war leaders are all on headset with me. So I just talk to the few people directing the battle and the orders get passed down the line. Each team leader already knows what to do, that is how they became the team leaders. There is no cluster f*ck unless you have people who have no clue what they are doing in charge.
You said it yourself, 20 person teams,
You can do big battles when you break it up into a series of smaller battles, its like the game MAG, 256 people in a battle but you end up fighting in smaller squads. If you had 300 people in a big group fighting each other, throwing out AoEs and the like, not only would all the particle effects and lighting effects, animations and models lag your game, all the random AoE effects would make any strategy unlikely.
It isn't exactly a series of smaller battles, as all of this is occuring at the same time. Many of the teams are doing the same thing at the same time. The break up into teams is just for organizational purposes so that you don;t have everyone talking at once and just randomly doing their own thing. NO one could think or get anything accomplished with that many people trying to talk at once. LOL
There was lag in game, there were fewer animations/ effects even seen during battle, most of the time you would not be able to tell where an attack came from tbh.
Most of the battles were more like 180- 200 vs 180- 200 ops, we were just a very large guild and even when 3 guilds teamed up to fight us wasn't usually enough to match the number of members we had, so most battles were smaller and had less lag than the insanely massive ones. It was also very difficult to even get all members on the same server due to server capacity. You can have 200 ops fighting at the same time pretty easily though as long as graphix requirements aren't overbearing.
I think they would have to suspend animations and special effects or have the ability to turn them off for this to even somewhat work in a modern game.
Jesus this thread is depressing. Seriously, you people? Freedom being a good thing didn't use to be controversial, let alone a minority opinion.
Well I guess this explains a lot about MMOs. Shit, it explains a lot about the world in general. I guess I'm out of touch. Sorry if I caused any trouble here.
Generally when I hear the word freedom it means some 25 year old kiddie who wants to be free to act in the most obnoxious way possible, to exploit the game mechanics however he wants, or simply to ruin someone elses play expereince. They simply do not like the restrictions the real world puts upon them and want a game world with no rules where they can act out freely.
When these children complain about the lack of freedom or restrictions in their game they have no one else to blame but themselves. It is their childish behavior, desire to exploit and treat others badly that forces developers to restrict choices to protect the integrity of the game and the welfare of other players against anomyous children running free on the internet.
In other words freedom cannot exist without responsible mature behavior. Something the internet kiddies are incapable of understanding. Because it is all about them and their own experience. No one else matters to them. But again thats part of being a pre adult 15-25 year old child. Kids that age simply lack the physical and emotional maturity to develop empathy and understanding of needs outside their own. It does not make them bad people. It just means they are young and in the process of maturing. Young peoples brains do not fully develop until around age 25 when they can start understanding concepts like empathy.
Comments
The abuse of freedom you talk about happened because those games had bad design, they lacked the tools Im mentioning. People's hands were wrapped, they, themselfs, didnt got freedom to do anything about the "gankers/griefers".
If you offered them freedom to do anything about. No, Im not talking about "gank them back". Im talking about in depth system of consequences far more detailed and complex than that.
The games you mentioned (that you didnt mentioned, but we are talking about the same games), lacked a social contract, a structured society with its own laws and criminal persecution, methods of prevention of crimes, and tools of justice, security.
Im talking generically, but to see the bigger picture, think about how real life works. The whole idea derives from how real life works.
If we were to make a paralel about these games with freedom that failed due to excessive ganking/griefing, it would be like comparing real life to a barbaric society, pre-dating even medieval times, because even in medieval times (where most of these games are set) already have their own methods of dealing with "real life gankers".
You have to have both.
Its only knowing player nature that you will develop tools around it.
In real life we have tools to deal with gankers, in games we dont. The human nature is still the same. In real life people care about their personal/public image, in game they dont. Well, we give them tools to start caring about their public image as well.
If you are going to lie, do it right.
Those pics are from the catacombs xpac, from 2004, which came with a graphical update - and again - graphics create user lag, not server lag. The reason you could fit that many people in one spot and have it work was because the game was simple as buttered toast, there isn't even a fraction of the information being sent to the server as compared to a *modern* game.
Calling me a troll is calling the kettle black.
Writer / Musician / Game Designer
Now Playing: Skyrim, Wurm Online, Tropico 4
Waiting On: GW2, TSW, Archeage, The Rapture
You guys noticed that in all possible derived roots of freedom and its different applications we ended up focusing on the
"Crime" aspect, specifically the "murder" one?
Straight away exactly what people relate freedom in games with is the freedom to commit a crime, like murder.
In the whole spectrum of aplications of freedom, there would be severe modifications into the game itself that murdering someone, even though possible, would play an insignificant part.
People wouldnt think about "I will murder him' and actually do it. People are having a hard time trying to imagine a system where consequences would prevent people from acting like that, just like it works in real life.
From time to time people kill each other for stupid reasons, but they get caught and suffer consequences. Implementing the last part very well would work as a moral shackle, just like it does in real life. All that assuming the gameplay is not limited or revolve around some unreal theme of "you mass murder a million of creatures for power and loot".
Because if you try to implement the freedom in a game like that, without doing the necessary addaptations, off course it wont work.
Like the guy who mentioned Faces of Mankind... the game was so empty and boring that the only character interaction was shooting stuff and eventually people had a mental breakdown and had to start shooting stuff. But off course, that was the only interaction tool meaningfull available....
Same thing as Rockstar's GTA. People can drive vehicles and shoot people and thats the extent of their interactions with the world, no wonder everyone runs around DOING JUST THAT.
Now think of a game where combat is just 10% of it... Like a game where people can craft, or farm, or explore and make maps, or sky jump from a dragon....
Oh adorable. In your first post you were off by two years, in my post I was off by 1 year. However, it makes absolutely no difference and my point still stands.
If graphics only cause user lag, then how come you said to fit 300 people on screen at once the game would have to be 2D? Dark Age of camelot clearly proves you wrong there.
As for the game being simple, it's combat system was far far FAR more advanced, and has more abilities being fired faster than the majority of modern MMOs. People say Camelot combat was slow and there's a lot of standing around? Maybe at level one, but in RvR the heaviest tank in the game can die within 3 seconds, so sorry, but you're wrong again.
And lastly, there is a modern game that CAN have 500 people on the screen WITH a physics engine, hitboxes, collision detection, realm time spell aiming and sword swinging, and it runs fine. That is Darkfall. If a team of 30 devs from Greece could do that, then couldn't your precious AAA devs?
So it's ok you you to jump on me for claiming a game that was started in 1999, and released in 2001 to have "1999 graphics", but I can't call you on trying to sumbit pictures from a graphical update in 2004 claiming it was from launch?
No, homie don't play that.
Anyway, the years have nothing to do with it, you just need something to base your arguement on. The fact of the matter is that the graphics would only chug *your* computer if it can't handle it, the host servers don't deal with graphics - *you* do. The simplified gameplay of the game is what allowed all those people to be there at once and still play correctly.
Like I told Sovrarth;
Expect a modern game that allows that many people on screen to play like a 10 year old game as well.
~You are also lying about 500 people fighting at once in Darkfall as well, you really need to kick this fibbing habit.
Nevermind, I just did some research and it seems there are others saying this as well, but damned if I can explain how. Unless the entire world shards off to a mirror copy for the specific battle, it seems impossible to me. I can only imagine that if it did happen, it wasn't pretty to say the least. I doubt it went off without a hitch.
Writer / Musician / Game Designer
Now Playing: Skyrim, Wurm Online, Tropico 4
Waiting On: GW2, TSW, Archeage, The Rapture
I think you're missing the point. First, most people want to play the game. Whether or not they can "take care of the gankers" by setting traps, etc, isn't the point. The point is, they don't want to spend their time dealing with griefers. That's not why they play the game. They aren't combat-oriented people. It doesn't matter if you're telling them to enter combat or spend their time protecting themselves from combat. That's not what they're there for.
Second, yes, that is more like real life. If real life had no real consequences, which is what essentially releases everyone's inner douche. But the main point is, we deal with crap in real life because we have to. In a virtual world, if I'm being oppressed or annoyed, I can just pull the plug and leave. And people will.
Done and done
I keep looking for proof of this 500+ man battle in darkfall, and all I get is people saying it's a made up number.
Can you link a vid or dev diary saying it happened, or is it just the players of that game blowing smoke?
All I see is people saying it peaked at 600+ on EU at launch, with some saying it was displaced all over the server, and others saying it was in one place and fubar, and others saying it worked perfectly and came with handjobs after. I don't know who to believe here.
Writer / Musician / Game Designer
Now Playing: Skyrim, Wurm Online, Tropico 4
Waiting On: GW2, TSW, Archeage, The Rapture
Why would they have to blow smoke? There are dozens of (usually poor) youtube videos of some of the larger battles.
Just accept that most AAA devs don't want to bother putting time into makng anything massive. Its not a tech issue.
Cactus-Man nailed it:
Freedom to cause effects over others and over the game world. Freedom to gank and grief and break stuff
Freedom to no be limited by balance. Freedom to make a crappy character or an OP cookie cutter build
Freedom to engage others in combat, even if its a mistake. Freedom to PK and lose maybe
Freedom for making mistakes. Freedom to gimp your character and die
Freedom for being held accountable for said mistakes. Freedom to have harsh death penalties
Freedom to seek justice on whoever is accountable for mistakes. Freedom to PK PKers
Freedom for making whatever type of character they can think of without any boundaries of classes/levels. Freedom of having a skill based system that gives the illusion of meaningful choice
Freedom to evolve my character in any way I want. Freedom to use said skill based leveling system
Freedom to crash or inflate the game economy. Freedom to have the whole economy ran on player made items with no auction house
Freedom to let random numbers generators go crazy. Freedom of shallow but random content
Freedom to customize everything in my game. Freedom to make a character that will soon be covered up in generic armor and maybe change some colors of stuff later
Freedom to to own anything on my account and do whatever I want with it. Freedom to have a house and hang out there
Freedom to go/do wherever I want too and feel the consequences. Freedom to run into a high level area and die
Freedom to not understand the game mechanics. Freedom from having to read about a game
Freedom to not be held by the hand. Freedom from developer made content
Freedom to not be forced to follow any kind of linear script. Freedom from story, plot or deeper meaning
Freedom to assembly three hundred players in the same screen. YEAH. Freedom of 2d games, really poor graphics, or magic low ping connections
Freedom to not be forced to save the princess or slay the dragon, but rape the princess and marry the dragon. Freedom to aimlessly destroy stuff in the world and ruin other people's fun
Old enough to know better - young enough to do it anyway.
Not really, most of thoes bullets were cleanly debunked, especially the one about 2D games.
As far as pvp goes, I don't mind that.
I think any game that cuts back a bit on things like graphic or as you point out collsion detection and a lot of information that clogs up the webweays is fine by me.
Heck, even the 2004 graphics of DAoC are tolerable as long as they changed the animations.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Ok, to help this 500+ battle issue. It is possible to have an infinite number of people in a battle (assuming you did your server load-balancing correctly. However, hundreds of characters "on the screen" is a different beast altogether. That's not only unlikely, its also pointless. There is no reason you should ever have that many people on the screen at any given time. That just shows poor map design.
Remember the movie Aliens? Remember how many aliens there were? Tons! Wow! Aliens everywhere! There were actually only 6 ever on the screen at any given time.
Watching those Darkfall videos. I think I never saw more than 15 to 20 characters on the screen at any given time. Funny how people's minds just translate a "lot" into "hundreds", when a "lot" is actually only a couple dozen.
@ Sovrath and Khanstruct
Well after seeing those Darkfall vids, I don't know what to believe.
Granted the actual fighting in them gets spaced out, but there really was 100+ on screen, easily, when they are standing around in a line. I wonder if they game starts disabling features like collision once that many people get in close vicinity or something. There has to be something to it that allows it to happen, even if servers thread with each other once it starts, it's pretty much unreal from what I've seen - defies all the logic I've seen to date.
i've seen that many people in one spot in TR and had time itself freeze within the game.
Writer / Musician / Game Designer
Now Playing: Skyrim, Wurm Online, Tropico 4
Waiting On: GW2, TSW, Archeage, The Rapture
Not really, those battles may have a bunch of people in them but not close to 300 or more on the screen at once doing stuff. Nor would you want to, since that would just be a random cluster f*ck.
All men think they're fascinating. In my case, it's justified
All i got to say is I play video games to escape reality and with all that freedom it seem like to much reality too me (although freedom is really a false sense of reality because most of our freedoms are just perceptions)
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read.
Groucho Marx
LOL it completely depends on the organization of the guild itself. I did large scale pvp combat for years, and we were very organized and effective. Here is how it works:
I was leading 600 ops into battle, I of course have several alts planted on battlefield prior to battle- they pretty much just stayed camped there so I never lose site of the battle during battle. Teams are broken down into 20 person teams , the teams are all on headset wih their team leaders. The team leaders are all on headset with their team members and the war leaders. The war leaders are all on headset with me. So I just talk to the few people directing the battle and the orders get passed down the line. Each team leader already knows what to do, that is how they became the team leaders. There is no cluster f*ck unless you have people who have no clue what they are doing in charge.
Well, I have no experience in Darkfall so I can't really make any useful comments there.
I've seen very large numbers in Warhammer at times and of course most of my large scale battles were in Lineage 2.
I've been in some large scale Aion battles but for the most part my computer wasn't up to the task.
But I have been in some huge battles and given at least the age of L2, it was very possible. Aion... my first huge battle (which was massive) my computer was "ok" but for some reason, over the course of time it became almost impossible for me to do them.
Then again, my computer is a mid range machine at this point. If I'm lucky : (
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
You said it yourself, 20 person teams,
You can do big battles when you break it up into a series of smaller battles, its like the game MAG, 256 people in a battle but you end up fighting in smaller squads. If you had 300 people in a big group fighting each other, throwing out AoEs and the like, not only would all the particle effects and lighting effects, animations and models lag your game, all the random AoE effects would make any strategy unlikely.
All men think they're fascinating. In my case, it's justified
Now this is an idea I could get behind!
It isn't exactly a series of smaller battles, as all of this is occuring at the same time. Many of the teams are doing the same thing at the same time. The break up into teams is just for organizational purposes so that you don;t have everyone talking at once and just randomly doing their own thing. NO one could think or get anything accomplished with that many people trying to talk at once. LOL
There was lag in game, there were fewer animations/ effects even seen during battle, most of the time you would not be able to tell where an attack came from tbh.
Most of the battles were more like 180- 200 vs 180- 200 ops, we were just a very large guild and even when 3 guilds teamed up to fight us wasn't usually enough to match the number of members we had, so most battles were smaller and had less lag than the insanely massive ones. It was also very difficult to even get all members on the same server due to server capacity. You can have 200 ops fighting at the same time pretty easily though as long as graphix requirements aren't overbearing.
I think they would have to suspend animations and special effects or have the ability to turn them off for this to even somewhat work in a modern game.
Jesus this thread is depressing. Seriously, you people? Freedom being a good thing didn't use to be controversial, let alone a minority opinion.
Well I guess this explains a lot about MMOs. Shit, it explains a lot about the world in general. I guess I'm out of touch. Sorry if I caused any trouble here.
Give me liberty or give me lasers
I don't think we need to encourage sexual crimes against persons of royalty or bestiality with magnificent beasts of legend.
Generally when I hear the word freedom it means some 25 year old kiddie who wants to be free to act in the most obnoxious way possible, to exploit the game mechanics however he wants, or simply to ruin someone elses play expereince. They simply do not like the restrictions the real world puts upon them and want a game world with no rules where they can act out freely.
When these children complain about the lack of freedom or restrictions in their game they have no one else to blame but themselves. It is their childish behavior, desire to exploit and treat others badly that forces developers to restrict choices to protect the integrity of the game and the welfare of other players against anomyous children running free on the internet.
In other words freedom cannot exist without responsible mature behavior. Something the internet kiddies are incapable of understanding. Because it is all about them and their own experience. No one else matters to them. But again thats part of being a pre adult 15-25 year old child. Kids that age simply lack the physical and emotional maturity to develop empathy and understanding of needs outside their own. It does not make them bad people. It just means they are young and in the process of maturing. Young peoples brains do not fully develop until around age 25 when they can start understanding concepts like empathy.