I agree with the Bioware devs. SWTOR will be heavily gearbased. A lvl1 player could play whack-a-mole on an afk max lvl (max geared) toon and barely leave a scratch. While the max lvl toon can 1-shot the lowlvl when he gets back. This alone already makes allowing low lvl ganking ridiculous.
The game uses tabbased combat and because of how stat number work passively, better gear totally destroys any playerskill at high lvl difference and also for this reason you dont want high lvl differences in PVP.
And stop comparing this with unfairness in real life war. A lethal bullet in rl doesnt care if it comes from a gun in the hands of an experienced soldier, or from a gun in the hands of a child. Not to mention that rl war has nothing to do with what a game is about.
Originally posted by thanoskkk Originally posted by OkhamsRazor Name one mainstream game with world pvp ( apart from AoC ) where there much ganking of newbies anyway these days . Warcraft used to have plenty but since the cross server looking for a group system its extremly rare you'll get ganked or find many other people playing for that matter . Essentially they made every server into a pve server which imo is THE dumbest thing ever done by Blizzard and literally killed the game for those that enjoy world pvp . Warhammer has limits to its tiers if you go back to another one you get turned into a chicken . Rift . I've been ganked a couple of times but again its rare and most people are in instanced play . Age of Conan of course is the exception here . You play on a pvp server and pretty much everyone and anyone will gank you . Personally I like the ability to gank and to be ganked at lower levels . Sure its a pain when it happens to you but thats what pvp servers are for . I would love to see a game like the original WoW because for me that still is the watermark for this type of mmo .
When warhammer launched, me and some other poor order toons couldnt even leave the 1st house where questgivers were. There were dozens of destros outside for hours making the game unplayable and you can imagine how much we wanted to play since it was the launch day
That sounds like Mortal Online. Especially the bit where you're stuck in a house while somebody kills you. Surprise, surprise, Mortal Online and Warhammer did not do well from launch.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Name one mainstream game with world pvp ( apart from AoC ) where there much ganking of newbies anyway these days .
Warcraft used to have plenty but since the cross server looking for a group system its extremly rare you'll get ganked or find many other people playing for that matter . Essentially they made every server into a pve server which imo is THE dumbest thing ever done by Blizzard and literally killed the game for those that enjoy world pvp .
Warhammer has limits to its tiers if you go back to another one you get turned into a chicken .
Rift . I've been ganked a couple of times but again its rare and most people are in instanced play .
Age of Conan of course is the exception here . You play on a pvp server and pretty much everyone and anyone will gank you .
Personally I like the ability to gank and to be ganked at lower levels . Sure its a pain when it happens to you but thats what pvp servers are for . I would love to see a game like the original WoW because for me that still is the watermark for this type of mmo .
When warhammer launched, me and some other poor order toons couldnt even leave the 1st house where questgivers were. There were dozens of destros outside for hours making the game unplayable and you can imagine how much we wanted to play since it was the launch day
That sounds like Mortal Online. Especially the bit where you're stuck in a house while somebody kills you. Surprise, surprise, Mortal Online and Warhammer did not do well from launch.
Taking aside the point of the actual thread (i.e. newb ganking in TOR, something which I am against). People citing pvp mechanics as being essentially too 'hardcore' as the reason games like WAR/MO and DF failed to attract numerous subs is disingenuous at best and at worst just completely and utterly wrong.
The vast majority of people who pay for an mmo with what are considered to be hardcore rules, or pay for an mmo and then actively choose to play on a server with hardcore rules, know exactly what to expect. A minority will be clueless and give up after being killed a handful of times. funnily enough this minority is then the most vocal in crying about it on game forums, go figure.
Not being funny but if someone is moaning about being 'boxed in' on a pvp server in a game which offers them the choice to actually roll on a non pvp server. Then they have little leg to stand on as far as I am concerned. You know the rules when you choose the server or game. It's like me crying about the ability to not gank newb character after having chosen to play on the RP/PVE server of Lotro.
The actual reason for games like WAR/MO and DF struggling has nothing to do with the pvp ruleset and everything to do with the lack of quality and complete mismanagment of the games in question.
Darkfall would no doubt have droves of players if the developers realised that having to grind 24/7 to be competitive in what most anticipated to be a pvp centric skill based mmo was a ludicrous idea.
MO would be well populated if the concept of the game (to be an updated UO) had been taken on and pushed though by a developer which happened to have some clue as to what they were doing (not like the totally inept SV in other words).
WAR, well let's just say the problems with that game are of the same magnitude as tose in DF and MO, which makes it all the worse considering it was meant to be a AAA title which appealed to the crowd who considered themselves hardcore pvpers but who were not really ready to take the leap into games with full loot and ffa.
Then again you will always get people who want to push their own playstyle on every single mmo out there. In this thread we can see a few crying about not being able to gank in a AAA, casual mmo which is frankly mind boggling. But then in pretty much every thread on ffa we see people crying about it even though the vast majorty of mmos cater towards the casual crowd. It's all really rather pathetic.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
I noticed the following on the official forums and thought it was an interesting tidbit of info for those who shy away from games like Darkfall for just this reason.
The following quote is directly from Bioware:
"there will be no ganking of newbie players in The Old Republic as all Origin Worlds are sanctuaries that can not be invaded by the other faction. We have no interest in allowing high level players to choke off the supply of new players into the game by ganking them over and over before they have learned the ropes of their class.
To put it bluntly: If that is your fantasy, you will have to find another game, because The Old Republic will not cater to that. For every player who enjoys that particular fantasy, there are a lot of players that don't enjoy being on the receiving end of it. That's a fact, a business lesson learned from existing, still running MMOs.
We think we have plenty of great options for PvP in our game, from Warzones, to Open PvP Objective Areas to Open World PvP on Contested Planets, which will be dangerous territory outside the protective reach of guards and fair game for conflicts.
But if you are expecting something akin to the original Ultima Online or DAoC's Mordred server, you need to look elsewhere."
Good to know, at least some mature developers. Cheers.
Originally posted by bunnyhopper Taking aside the point of the actual thread (i.e. newb ganking in TOR, something which I am against). People citing pvp mechanics as being essentially too 'hardcore' as the reason games like WAR/MO and DF failed to attract numerous subs is disingenuous at best and at worst just completely and utterly wrong.
The vast majority of people who pay for an mmo with what are considered to be hardcore rules, or pay for an mmo and then actively choose to play on a server with hardcore rules, know exactly what to expect. A minority will be clueless and give up after being killed a handful of times. funnily enough this minority is then the most vocal in crying about it on game forums, go figure.
Not being funny but if someone is moaning about being 'boxed in' on a pvp server in a game which offers them the choice to actually roll on a non pvp server. Then they have little leg to stand on as far as I am concerned. You know the rules when you choose the server or game. It's like me crying about the ability to not gank newb character after having chosen to play on the RP/PVE server of Lotro.
The actual reason for games like WAR/MO and DF struggling has nothing to do with the pvp ruleset and everything to do with the lack of quality and complete mismanagment of the games in question.
Darkfall would no doubt have droves of players if the developers realised that having to grind 24/7 to be competitive in what most anticipated to be a pvp centric skill based mmo was a ludicrous idea.
MO would be well populated if the concept of the game (to be an updated UO) had been taken on and pushed though by a developer which happened to have some clue as to what they were doing (not like the totally inept SV in other words).
WAR, well let's just say the problems with that game are of the same magnitude as tose in DF and MO, which makes it all the worse considering it was meant to be a AAA title which appealed to the crowd who considered themselves hardcore pvpers but who were not really ready to take the leap into games with full loot and ffa.
Then again you will always get people who want to push their own playstyle on every single mmo out there. In this thread we can see a few crying about not being able to gank in a AAA, casual mmo which is frankly mind boggling. But then in pretty much every thread on ffa we see people crying about it even though the vast majorty of mmos cater towards the casual crowd. It's all really rather pathetic.
In any MMO, attracting new players is important. If the initial experience is unpleasant in the extreme, then that game will not keep new players and will attract fewer new players as the unhappy players spread the word.
This is true even of players on a server with a PvP ruleset. There is an expectation, whether it is reasonable or not, of some options in a fight, not a mindless slaughter by established players. Give new players some options, even if that option is to successfully run away and you'll keep more of them. Have the only option be mindlessly getting killed by high level players and you will keep fewer new players.
Players have their expectations because of how a game is marketed and what is presented to potential players. Both MO and War attracted players with idea that they would be warriors, fighting against other warriors, not sitting stuck in a house (or in the case of MO, stuck in a wall). The actual experience, for a lot of players was hiding, hoping no high level players came along to kill them.
Could MO or War overcome their other issues by creating more options for newbie players? Probably not. Their issues were too numerous. The initial game experience was just a bullet point in the list of mistakes they made.
SW:ToR's audience is going to be pretty different from the people who would tryout MO or War, and Bioware has made the right choice with their rulesets for the game. They are also letting people know what to expect before they play. At least in regards to the PvP.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Taking aside the point of the actual thread (i.e. newb ganking in TOR, something which I am against). People citing pvp mechanics as being essentially too 'hardcore' as the reason games like WAR/MO and DF failed to attract numerous subs is disingenuous at best and at worst just completely and utterly wrong.
The vast majority of people who pay for an mmo with what are considered to be hardcore rules, or pay for an mmo and then actively choose to play on a server with hardcore rules, know exactly what to expect. A minority will be clueless and give up after being killed a handful of times. funnily enough this minority is then the most vocal in crying about it on game forums, go figure.
When you have only PvP servers you limit your audience. Mortal only has PvP Servers, DarkFall only has PvP servers, Ganking is a fact of life and is not what people want to fork money out for.
Some people play games to relax and have fun, not spend the whole of their time stuck in a building or being griefed by 'Leet Pwners'
Not being funny but if someone is moaning about being 'boxed in' on a pvp server in a game which offers them the choice to actually roll on a non pvp server. Then they have little leg to stand on as far as I am concerned. You know the rules when you choose the server or game. It's like me crying about the ability to not gank newb character after having chosen to play on the RP/PVE server of Lotro.
You are totally missing the point.......
People can avoid games that are PvP only if its their cup of tea, People who ONLY have a PvP to play on are stuck, Esp when the lower skilled players get griefed to hell from the moment they start playing
The actual reason for games like WAR/MO and DF struggling has nothing to do with the pvp ruleset and everything to do with the lack of quality and complete mismanagment of the games in question.
what? How is the mismanagment of a game going to affect how players play the game? Weird logic, you must explain. DF struggle precisely due to its Ruleset, Currently its no Zerg vs Zerg. No repercussions for ganking new players.
Darkfall would no doubt have droves of players if the developers realised that having to grind 24/7 to be competitive in what most anticipated to be a pvp centric skill based mmo was a ludicrous idea.
Instead you would have EvE style play where players log in to train skills then log back out again?
MO would be well populated if the concept of the game (to be an updated UO) had been taken on and pushed though by a developer which happened to have some clue as to what they were doing (not like the totally inept SV in other words).
*sigh* I have to agree, I had such hopes for Mortal, but getting hit by guy with sword outside town then chaisng him down only to have him scream 'Guards' and you get slain instead kinda sucked...
Then again you will always get people who want to push their own playstyle on every single mmo out there. In this thread we can see a few crying about not being able to gank in a AAA, casual mmo which is frankly mind boggling. But then in pretty much every thread on ffa we see people crying about it even though the vast majorty of mmos cater towards the casual crowd. It's all really rather pathetic.
This is true, Personally I prefer how it has been done on TOR, No PvP unless you want it, It is how PvP should work, PvP should be consenual, not forced on a player.
Okay first off, saying most people in the world DO slaughter women and children is one of the most off things Ive heard in a long time. If that were the case there would be rampant murder and chaos in every corner of the planet. All governments have laws against murder. Geneva Convetion or not. I assume you brought that up because of war. Regardless, the entire planet isnt covered in warring armies either, slaughtering women and children. Otherwise there would be no women and children. Wrong again.
But my main point is I consider griefing in a game wrong. Is it immoral? Is it wrong? How is it any different than bullying a smaller child when you were in school. Oh yea...its just a game. So I'll address that now.
If Im playing a game, and I give someone a thousand gold as a generous gift does it not matter? Is it less valid or less generous than giving someone ten bucks in real life? How so? The act is the same. The feeling of the person you've affected is the same. They are just as grateful either way, and it holds just as much value.
So if I gank a person in UO for instance or EvE, and take all their belongings? Im stealing. But its just a game? No difference. The act was still commited. There are people who would much rather me steal 50 bucks from their wallet than trash their ship in EvE and take all the goodies off it. Its stealing. It holds just as much weight, game or not, and the victim affected feels it all the same.
So for those of you who think griefing is fun? You're bullying. You're aggravating another person for your personal pleasure. Game or not. The action is still there. A living breathing person was affected. If you loot items off a player corpse or steal from the guild bank? You've stolen. Game or not. The action is still exactly the same and the victims are equally affected. If you lie, steal, hurt, annoy, give a gift, help someone in need? These actions are just as valid in a game as they are in real life. You are affecting a real breathing person by your actions.
Its only a game? No. Thats only a REAL person you are messing with in some way. The only difference is if you did it out on the street a cop would likely tackle you to the ground. Only difference. Morally, you are still responsible. This is how it is when dealing with real people. Game or not.
The vast majority of people who pay for an mmo with what are considered to be hardcore rules, or pay for an mmo and then actively choose to play on a server with hardcore rules, know exactly what to expect. A minority will be clueless and give up after being killed a handful of times. funnily enough this minority is then the most vocal in crying about it on game forums, go figure.
When you have only PvP servers you limit your audience. Mortal only has PvP Servers, DarkFall only has PvP servers, Ganking is a fact of life and is not what people want to fork money out for.
Some people play games to relax and have fun, not spend the whole of their time stuck in a building or being griefed by 'Leet Pwners'
MO and DF have "pvp only servers" because they are pvp centric games... Why would people looking to chill out and not be part of hectic combat (those that don't find that fun and relaxing) be playing games expressely designed for that and then cry about it all the time?
You would look pretty stupid paying for Lotro and then complaining all the time that you cannot gank newbs trying to do quests. People look just as stupid paying for games made for the ffa pvp crowd and then complaining about ffa pvp.
Not being funny but if someone is moaning about being 'boxed in' on a pvp server in a game which offers them the choice to actually roll on a non pvp server. Then they have little leg to stand on as far as I am concerned. You know the rules when you choose the server or game. It's like me crying about the ability to not gank newb character after having chosen to play on the RP/PVE server of Lotro.
You are totally missing the point.......
People can avoid games that are PvP only if its their cup of tea, People who ONLY have a PvP to play on are stuck, Esp when the lower skilled players get griefed to hell from the moment they start playing
No you appear to be missing the point. Games which only have pvp servers are games specifically catered to pvp players. There is a whole range of games out there which provide, no newb ganking casual fun and non ffa pvp. Why are people not playing those instead of selecting the handful of titles with ffa pvp and then crying about them? That is just as bad as the people expecting to have ffa pvp in a game like TOR.
The actual reason for games like WAR/MO and DF struggling has nothing to do with the pvp ruleset and everything to do with the lack of quality and complete mismanagment of the games in question.
what? How is the mismanagment of a game going to affect how players play the game? Weird logic, you must explain. DF struggle precisely due to its Ruleset, Currently its no Zerg vs Zerg. No repercussions for ganking new players.
The bugs, the endless grind and the lack of content is what has severely hampered games like DF. War has been killed by crippling realm inbalance, shite open rvr, broken keeps, endgame rvr which is in fact a boring pve grind and a dev team unable to balance classes. That is not to say ffa or dedicated pvp games will have millions upon millions of players, but they would be doing a hell of a lot better than they are if they where not A) broken to hell or being run by inept dev teams who are incapable of actually creating half the stuff they promise.
Darkfall would no doubt have droves of players if the developers realised that having to grind 24/7 to be competitive in what most anticipated to be a pvp centric skill based mmo was a ludicrous idea.
Instead you would have EvE style play where players log in to train skills then log back out again?
1. Countless players are more than happy with EVE and it's systems.
2. Or you could just, you know reduce the fking grind in the game and add some content?
MO would be well populated if the concept of the game (to be an updated UO) had been taken on and pushed though by a developer which happened to have some clue as to what they were doing (not like the totally inept SV in other words).
*sigh* I have to agree, I had such hopes for Mortal, but getting hit by guy with sword outside town then chaisng him down only to have him scream 'Guards' and you get slain instead kinda sucked...
Yep MO has plenty of problems, the biggest of which is it's developer.
Then again you will always get people who want to push their own playstyle on every single mmo out there. In this thread we can see a few crying about not being able to gank in a AAA, casual mmo which is frankly mind boggling. But then in pretty much every thread on ffa we see people crying about it even though the vast majorty of mmos cater towards the casual crowd. It's all really rather pathetic.
This is true, Personally I prefer how it has been done on TOR, No PvP unless you want it, It is how PvP should work, PvP should be consenual, not forced on a player.
People have a choice to play a game with ffa pvp or not. They are not forced at gun point to go and buy a copy of Darkfall and then get whaled on 24/7.
Don't get me wrong. In no way should a game like TOR have fully open pvp and newb ganking/player looting. But people who actively purchase ffa pvp games fully aware that they can get ganked, who then moan on and on about it have no sympathy from me.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
But my main point is I consider griefing in a game wrong. Is it immoral? Is it wrong? How is it any different than bullying a smaller child when you were in school. Oh yea...its just a game. So I'll address that now.
If Im playing a game, and I give someone a thousand gold as a generous gift does it not matter? Is it less valid or less generous than giving someone ten bucks in real life? How so? The act is the same. The feeling of the person you've affected is the same. They are just as grateful either way, and it holds just as much value.
So if I gank a person in UO for instance or EvE, and take all their belongings? Im stealing. But its just a game? No difference. The act was still commited. There are people who would much rather me steal 50 bucks from their wallet than trash their ship in EvE and take all the goodies off it. Its stealing. It holds just as much weight, game or not, and the victim affected feels it all the same.
So for those of you who think griefing is fun? You're bullying. You're aggravating another person for your personal pleasure. Game or not. The action is still there. A living breathing person was affected. If you loot items off a player corpse or steal from the guild bank? You've stolen. Game or not. The action is still exactly the same and the victims are equally affected. If you lie, steal, hurt, annoy, give a gift, help someone in need? These actions are just as valid in a game as they are in real life. You are affecting a real breathing person by your actions.
Its only a game? No. Thats only a REAL person you are messing with in some way. The only difference is if you did it out on the street a cop would likely tackle you to the ground. Only difference. Morally, you are still responsible. This is how it is when dealing with real people. Game or not.
Umm why is this thread still going with the above poster WON THE INTERNET with this amazing post.
Okay first off, saying most people in the world DO slaughter women and children is one of the most off things Ive heard in a long time. If that were the case there would be rampant murder and chaos in every corner of the planet. All governments have laws against murder. Geneva Convetion or not. I assume you brought that up because of war. Regardless, the entire planet isnt covered in warring armies either, slaughtering women and children. Otherwise there would be no women and children. Wrong again.
But my main point is I consider griefing in a game wrong. Is it immoral? Is it wrong? How is it any different than bullying a smaller child when you were in school. Oh yea...its just a game. So I'll address that now.
If Im playing a game, and I give someone a thousand gold as a generous gift does it not matter? Is it less valid or less generous than giving someone ten bucks in real life? How so? The act is the same. The feeling of the person you've affected is the same. They are just as grateful either way, and it holds just as much value.
So if I gank a person in UO for instance or EvE, and take all their belongings? Im stealing. But its just a game? No difference. The act was still commited. There are people who would much rather me steal 50 bucks from their wallet than trash their ship in EvE and take all the goodies off it. Its stealing. It holds just as much weight, game or not, and the victim affected feels it all the same.
So for those of you who think griefing is fun? You're bullying. You're aggravating another person for your personal pleasure. Game or not. The action is still there. A living breathing person was affected. If you loot items off a player corpse or steal from the guild bank? You've stolen. Game or not. The action is still exactly the same and the victims are equally affected. If you lie, steal, hurt, annoy, give a gift, help someone in need? These actions are just as valid in a game as they are in real life. You are affecting a real breathing person by your actions.
Its only a game? No. Thats only a REAL person you are messing with in some way. The only difference is if you did it out on the street a cop would likely tackle you to the ground. Only difference. Morally, you are still responsible. This is how it is when dealing with real people. Game or not.
Okay first off, saying most people in the world DO slaughter women and children is one of the most off things Ive heard in a long time. If that were the case there would be rampant murder and chaos in every corner of the planet. All governments have laws against murder. Geneva Convetion or not. I assume you brought that up because of war. Regardless, the entire planet isnt covered in warring armies either, slaughtering women and children. Otherwise there would be no women and children. Wrong again.
But my main point is I consider griefing in a game wrong. Is it immoral? Is it wrong? How is it any different than bullying a smaller child when you were in school. Oh yea...its just a game. So I'll address that now.
If Im playing a game, and I give someone a thousand gold as a generous gift does it not matter? Is it less valid or less generous than giving someone ten bucks in real life? How so? The act is the same. The feeling of the person you've affected is the same. They are just as grateful either way, and it holds just as much value.
So if I gank a person in UO for instance or EvE, and take all their belongings? Im stealing. But its just a game? No difference. The act was still commited. There are people who would much rather me steal 50 bucks from their wallet than trash their ship in EvE and take all the goodies off it. Its stealing. It holds just as much weight, game or not, and the victim affected feels it all the same.
So for those of you who think griefing is fun? You're bullying. You're aggravating another person for your personal pleasure. Game or not. The action is still there. A living breathing person was affected. If you loot items off a player corpse or steal from the guild bank? You've stolen. Game or not. The action is still exactly the same and the victims are equally affected. If you lie, steal, hurt, annoy, give a gift, help someone in need? These actions are just as valid in a game as they are in real life. You are affecting a real breathing person by your actions.
Its only a game? No. Thats only a REAL person you are messing with in some way. The only difference is if you did it out on the street a cop would likely tackle you to the ground. Only difference. Morally, you are still responsible. This is how it is when dealing with real people. Game or not.
Right oh. So by that token when you kill those 10 wolves you are in effect a psychopathic animal abuser? When you take part in RVR or a battle field and kill another player, you are a sociopathic murder?
Those people that you have looted have actively chosen to pay for and play that game with that exact mechanic in it you realise ofc? Probably with the intention of taking advantage of it themselves at some point...
People seem to completely miss the fact that everyone in the game has willing signed up to play it, complete with all it's mechanics.
Perhaps if someone had payed £10 to walk down a dodgy ally with the express knowledge that his payment had bought him the chance to get mugged you would have a point, as it stands you don't.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Okay first off, saying most people in the world DO slaughter women and children is one of the most off things Ive heard in a long time. If that were the case there would be rampant murder and chaos in every corner of the planet. All governments have laws against murder. Geneva Convetion or not. I assume you brought that up because of war. Regardless, the entire planet isnt covered in warring armies either, slaughtering women and children. Otherwise there would be no women and children. Wrong again.
But my main point is I consider griefing in a game wrong. Is it immoral? Is it wrong? How is it any different than bullying a smaller child when you were in school. Oh yea...its just a game. So I'll address that now.
If Im playing a game, and I give someone a thousand gold as a generous gift does it not matter? Is it less valid or less generous than giving someone ten bucks in real life? How so? The act is the same. The feeling of the person you've affected is the same. They are just as grateful either way, and it holds just as much value.
So if I gank a person in UO for instance or EvE, and take all their belongings? Im stealing. But its just a game? No difference. The act was still commited. There are people who would much rather me steal 50 bucks from their wallet than trash their ship in EvE and take all the goodies off it. Its stealing. It holds just as much weight, game or not, and the victim affected feels it all the same.
So for those of you who think griefing is fun? You're bullying. You're aggravating another person for your personal pleasure. Game or not. The action is still there. A living breathing person was affected. If you loot items off a player corpse or steal from the guild bank? You've stolen. Game or not. The action is still exactly the same and the victims are equally affected. If you lie, steal, hurt, annoy, give a gift, help someone in need? These actions are just as valid in a game as they are in real life. You are affecting a real breathing person by your actions.
Its only a game? No. Thats only a REAL person you are messing with in some way. The only difference is if you did it out on the street a cop would likely tackle you to the ground. Only difference. Morally, you are still responsible. This is how it is when dealing with real people. Game or not.
Right oh. So by that token when you kill those 10 wolves you are in effect a psychopathic animal abuser? When you take part in RVR or a battle field and kill another player, you are a sociopathic murder?
Those people that you have looted have actively chosen to pay for and play that game with that exact mechanic in it you realise ofc? Probably with the intention of taking advantage of it themselves at some point...
People seem to completely miss the fact that everyone in the game has willing signed up to play it, complete with all it's mechanics.
Perhaps if someone had payed £10 to walk down a dodgy ally with the express knowledge that his payment had bought him the chance to get mugged you would have a point, as it stands you don't.
No one willingly signed up to be harrassed and bullied. People sign up to play the game and are not reponsible for other players action who choose to abuse the mechanics. That is why devs step in to make sure it doesn't happen.
By killing wolves well.....you are just killing wolves and not dealing with a real person behind the screen. in RVR you are killing someone who is willingly entered RVR area for a fight. it is not same as harassing or bullying a low level players who have no intention to fight or engage in PVP. Sorry but your examples made no sense at all.
Originally posted by bunnyhopper Originally posted by ZenMorph
Okay first off, saying most people in the world DO slaughter women and children is one of the most off things Ive heard in a long time. If that were the case there would be rampant murder and chaos in every corner of the planet. All governments have laws against murder. Geneva Convetion or not. I assume you brought that up because of war. Regardless, the entire planet isnt covered in warring armies either, slaughtering women and children. Otherwise there would be no women and children. Wrong again. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- But my main point is I consider griefing in a game wrong. Is it immoral? Is it wrong? How is it any different than bullying a smaller child when you were in school. Oh yea...its just a game. So I'll address that now. If Im playing a game, and I give someone a thousand gold as a generous gift does it not matter? Is it less valid or less generous than giving someone ten bucks in real life? How so? The act is the same. The feeling of the person you've affected is the same. They are just as grateful either way, and it holds just as much value. So if I gank a person in UO for instance or EvE, and take all their belongings? Im stealing. But its just a game? No difference. The act was still commited. There are people who would much rather me steal 50 bucks from their wallet than trash their ship in EvE and take all the goodies off it. Its stealing. It holds just as much weight, game or not, and the victim affected feels it all the same. So for those of you who think griefing is fun? You're bullying. You're aggravating another person for your personal pleasure. Game or not. The action is still there. A living breathing person was affected. If you loot items off a player corpse or steal from the guild bank? You've stolen. Game or not. The action is still exactly the same and the victims are equally affected. If you lie, steal, hurt, annoy, give a gift, help someone in need? These actions are just as valid in a game as they are in real life. You are affecting a real breathing person by your actions. Its only a game? No. Thats only a REAL person you are messing with in some way. The only difference is if you did it out on the street a cop would likely tackle you to the ground. Only difference. Morally, you are still responsible. This is how it is when dealing with real people. Game or not.
Right oh. So by that token when you kill those 10 wolves you are in effect a psychopathic animal abuser? When you take part in RVR or a battle field and kill another player, you are a sociopathic murder?
Those people that you have looted have actively chosen to pay for and play that game with that exact mechanic in it you realise ofc? Probably with the intention of taking advantage of it themselves at some point...
People seem to completely miss the fact that everyone in the game has willing signed up to play it, complete with all it's mechanics.
Perhaps if someone had payed £10 to walk down a dodgy ally with the express knowledge that his payment had bought him the chance to get mugged you would have a point, as it stands you don't.
There is no human on the other side of those virtual wolves. You aren't killing the wolves for the express purpose of ruining their day because you can't...they is no intelligence operating the wolves for you to ruin the day of.
Everyone in a game willingly signs up for what the developer has advertised, not what the game is. I have yet to see a developer or publisher advertise being a weak character at the mercy of every high level player who just happens to walk through. Not once have I seen an advertising slogan to the effect of "You will get ganked until you play the game long enough to start ganking other people." They advertise being a mighty warrior fighting other mighty warriors, which is not the case for new players in mmorpg.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Okay first off, saying most people in the world DO slaughter women and children is one of the most off things Ive heard in a long time. If that were the case there would be rampant murder and chaos in every corner of the planet. All governments have laws against murder. Geneva Convetion or not. I assume you brought that up because of war. Regardless, the entire planet isnt covered in warring armies either, slaughtering women and children. Otherwise there would be no women and children. Wrong again.
But my main point is I consider griefing in a game wrong. Is it immoral? Is it wrong? How is it any different than bullying a smaller child when you were in school. Oh yea...its just a game. So I'll address that now.
If Im playing a game, and I give someone a thousand gold as a generous gift does it not matter? Is it less valid or less generous than giving someone ten bucks in real life? How so? The act is the same. The feeling of the person you've affected is the same. They are just as grateful either way, and it holds just as much value.
So if I gank a person in UO for instance or EvE, and take all their belongings? Im stealing. But its just a game? No difference. The act was still commited. There are people who would much rather me steal 50 bucks from their wallet than trash their ship in EvE and take all the goodies off it. Its stealing. It holds just as much weight, game or not, and the victim affected feels it all the same.
So for those of you who think griefing is fun? You're bullying. You're aggravating another person for your personal pleasure. Game or not. The action is still there. A living breathing person was affected. If you loot items off a player corpse or steal from the guild bank? You've stolen. Game or not. The action is still exactly the same and the victims are equally affected. If you lie, steal, hurt, annoy, give a gift, help someone in need? These actions are just as valid in a game as they are in real life. You are affecting a real breathing person by your actions.
Its only a game? No. Thats only a REAL person you are messing with in some way. The only difference is if you did it out on the street a cop would likely tackle you to the ground. Only difference. Morally, you are still responsible. This is how it is when dealing with real people. Game or not.
Right oh. So by that token when you kill those 10 wolves you are in effect a psychopathic animal abuser? When you take part in RVR or a battle field and kill another player, you are a sociopathic murder?
Those people that you have looted have actively chosen to pay for and play that game with that exact mechanic in it you realise ofc? Probably with the intention of taking advantage of it themselves at some point...
People seem to completely miss the fact that everyone in the game has willing signed up to play it, complete with all it's mechanics.
Perhaps if someone had payed £10 to walk down a dodgy ally with the express knowledge that his payment had bought him the chance to get mugged you would have a point, as it stands you don't.
There is no human on the other side of those virtual wolves. You aren't killing the wolves for the express purpose of ruining their day because you can't...they is no intelligence operating the wolves for you to ruin the day of.
Everyone in a game willingly signs up for what the developer has advertised, not what the game is. I have yet to see a developer or publisher advertise being a weak character at the mercy of every high level player who just happens to walk through. Not once have I seen an advertising slogan to the effect of "You will get ganked until you play the game long enough to start ganking other people." They advertise being a mighty warrior fighting other mighty warriors, which is not the case for new players in mmorpg.
Well said. And just to emphasize, I don't think anyone here has a problem with basically even level sides battling it out, it is the immature players attacking people 10+ levels below them that is the real problem.
"If half of what you tell me is a lie, how can I believe any of it?"
Right oh. So by that token when you kill those 10 wolves you are in effect a psychopathic animal abuser? When you take part in RVR or a battle field and kill another player, you are a sociopathic murder?
Those people that you have looted have actively chosen to pay for and play that game with that exact mechanic in it you realise ofc? Probably with the intention of taking advantage of it themselves at some point...
People seem to completely miss the fact that everyone in the game has willing signed up to play it, complete with all it's mechanics.
Perhaps if someone had payed £10 to walk down a dodgy ally with the express knowledge that his payment had bought him the chance to get mugged you would have a point, as it stands you don't.
No one willingly signed up to be harrassed and bullied. People sign up to play the game and are not reponsible for other players action who choose to abuse the mechanics. That is why devs step in to make sure it doesn't happen.
By killing wolves well.....you are just killing wolves and not dealing with a real person behind the screen. in RVR you are killing someone who is willingly entered RVR area for a fight. it is not same as harassing or bullying a low level players who have no intention to fight or engage in PVP. Sorry but your examples made no sense at all.
They made perfect sense, some are just unwilling to accept the fact that by proactively choosing to pay for and play a game with ffa full loot in it, people are not bullied victims akin to the poor sods who get mugged on the street.
There is also MASSIVE difference between killing a character in the hope of getting loot or killing someone and then moving on and the act of harassment by repeatedly killing the same person over and over again just to piss them off.
If people are totally and utterly against the notion of completely open pvp and looting, why in the name of God are they actively buying a game with exactly those mechanics in them? Surely they should look for a game which removes the fear of getting killed as a starting character? The mechanics are there with the express reason to mean that anyone at any time can be killed.
Are people saying here that every game should have exactly the same pvp rule set? That no games should cater to complete open pvp just incase someone who has to actively pay and chose to play said games might feel victimised? If people are syaing that then lol, just lol.
If though people are not saying that, and that there should be games catering to all styles, well, then wtf are people crying about 'victims' for when the players have had to go out of their way to pick to a ffa pvp mmo in a market saturated with non ffa games?
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Right oh. So by that token when you kill those 10 wolves you are in effect a psychopathic animal abuser? When you take part in RVR or a battle field and kill another player, you are a sociopathic murder?
Those people that you have looted have actively chosen to pay for and play that game with that exact mechanic in it you realise ofc? Probably with the intention of taking advantage of it themselves at some point...
People seem to completely miss the fact that everyone in the game has willing signed up to play it, complete with all it's mechanics.
Perhaps if someone had payed £10 to walk down a dodgy ally with the express knowledge that his payment had bought him the chance to get mugged you would have a point, as it stands you don't.
There is no human on the other side of those virtual wolves. You aren't killing the wolves for the express purpose of ruining their day because you can't...they is no intelligence operating the wolves for you to ruin the day of.
Everyone in a game willingly signs up for what the developer has advertised, not what the game is. I have yet to see a developer or publisher advertise being a weak character at the mercy of every high level player who just happens to walk through. Not once have I seen an advertising slogan to the effect of "You will get ganked until you play the game long enough to start ganking other people." They advertise being a mighty warrior fighting other mighty warriors, which is not the case for new players in mmorpg.
It is a point of morals. You are still in essence going through the act of killing an animal. See how far the level of ridiculous reasoning on this theme can be taken?
As for the second part, it also doesn't say that I shouldn't put my head in the microwave oven..
It should be pretty clear to anyone that a game that has ffa pvp, full looting and no safe zones is going to see the potential chance that you can be killed as a newb.
If people are not intelligent enough to understand when they pay for a product that ffa and no safe zones means exactly that, then you have to worry about the state of the education system in all honesty.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Right oh. So by that token when you kill those 10 wolves you are in effect a psychopathic animal abuser? When you take part in RVR or a battle field and kill another player, you are a sociopathic murder?
Those people that you have looted have actively chosen to pay for and play that game with that exact mechanic in it you realise ofc? Probably with the intention of taking advantage of it themselves at some point...
People seem to completely miss the fact that everyone in the game has willing signed up to play it, complete with all it's mechanics.
Perhaps if someone had payed £10 to walk down a dodgy ally with the express knowledge that his payment had bought him the chance to get mugged you would have a point, as it stands you don't.
There is no human on the other side of those virtual wolves. You aren't killing the wolves for the express purpose of ruining their day because you can't...they is no intelligence operating the wolves for you to ruin the day of.
Everyone in a game willingly signs up for what the developer has advertised, not what the game is. I have yet to see a developer or publisher advertise being a weak character at the mercy of every high level player who just happens to walk through. Not once have I seen an advertising slogan to the effect of "You will get ganked until you play the game long enough to start ganking other people." They advertise being a mighty warrior fighting other mighty warriors, which is not the case for new players in mmorpg.
It is a point of morals. You are still in essence going through the act of killing an animal. See how far the level of ridiculous reasoning on this theme can be taken?
As for the second part, it also doesn't say that I shouldn't put my head in the microwave oven..
It should be pretty clear to anyone that a game that has ffa pvp, full looting and no safe zones is going to see the potential chance that you can be killed as a newb.
If people are not intelligent enough to understand when they pay for a product that ffa and no safe zones means exactly that, then you have to worry about the state of the education system in all honest.
It seems to me that you are the one that has the ridiculous reasoning bunnyhopper. Killing a virtual animal is nothing like beating on someone who has no chance or defending himself and them stealing everything he own. Some immature players may feel that is appropriate, but that doesn't stop the more mature ones from refusing to do it AND personally I applaud BioWare for having the guts to go this route.
"If half of what you tell me is a lie, how can I believe any of it?"
It seems to me that you are the one that has the ridiculous reasoning bunnyhopper. Killing a virtual animal is nothing like beating on someone who has no chance or defending himself and them stealing everything he own. Some immature players may feel that is appropriate, but that doesn't stop the more mature ones from refusing to do it AND personally I applaud BioWare for having the guts to go this route.
I have already stated that BW are right not to have ffa/open/full loot pvp in TOR. I have already stated my surprise at people expecting anything like that to be added to the game. I have also mentioned that those people crying about not being able to gank players should go play the dedicated ffa full loot games. I guess you missed all that.
The wolf analogy worked perfectly well in highlighting the sheer insanity of trying to apply a real life model of moralistic reasoning to an online game domain. I am sorry but someone mugging or killing someone in real life is in no way, shape, or form anything like killing and looting a player who has actively chosen to play a game with that ruleset, more than likely with the intention of doing it him/herself.
Tell me, without resorting to hyperbole, why exactly are players who are so utterly against the idea of being killed by anyone at any time, choosing to play a game with that very mechanic in place when there are countless alternatives out there with safe zones and no looting on death? Other posters in this thread seem to think it is because the players are some how retarded and don't understand that the ffa full loot rules can also apply to them, as such they are victims. What is your view?
If someone is constantly singling out a person to harass them and ruin their game time then that has nothing to do with the system and everything to do with the person being a jerk. Funnily enough not everyone who has ever killed a new player falls into that catagory. I've killed a newb, and then afterwards given him plenty of items and chatted to them. In turn I have had vets whale on me only to give me advice and then give me far more gear and gold then I could have hoped to have made in a week. The fact is everyone should be aware of the ruleset of the game they are playing. If it is a ffa pvp game that you have actively decided to play, to then go crying about getting killed in it smacks of being rather daft.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
I think this thread has gotten way out of control.
It's not a matter of "debate" as to whether or not TOR will have noob ganking or not, it's a fact that it won't.
This thread has become "is ganking or or why is it done etc." and there are a couple other threads out there on it...
As someone involved in the derail, yeah I agree with that. The main fact is TOR will not allow for new players to be ganked and that is a good thing in a AAA title trying to appeal to as many players as possible.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Originally posted by bunnyhopper Originally posted by lizardbones
Originally posted by bunnyhopper
Originally posted by ZenMorph
Right oh. So by that token when you kill those 10 wolves you are in effect a psychopathic animal abuser? When you take part in RVR or a battle field and kill another player, you are a sociopathic murder?
Those people that you have looted have actively chosen to pay for and play that game with that exact mechanic in it you realise ofc? Probably with the intention of taking advantage of it themselves at some point...
People seem to completely miss the fact that everyone in the game has willing signed up to play it, complete with all it's mechanics.
Perhaps if someone had payed £10 to walk down a dodgy ally with the express knowledge that his payment had bought him the chance to get mugged you would have a point, as it stands you don't. There is no human on the other side of those virtual wolves. You aren't killing the wolves for the express purpose of ruining their day because you can't...they is no intelligence operating the wolves for you to ruin the day of.
Everyone in a game willingly signs up for what the developer has advertised, not what the game is. I have yet to see a developer or publisher advertise being a weak character at the mercy of every high level player who just happens to walk through. Not once have I seen an advertising slogan to the effect of "You will get ganked until you play the game long enough to start ganking other people." They advertise being a mighty warrior fighting other mighty warriors, which is not the case for new players in mmorpg. It is a point of morals. You are still in essence going through the act of killing an animal. See how far the level of ridiculous reasoning on this theme can be taken?
As for the second part, it also doesn't say that I shouldn't put my head in the microwave oven..
It should be pretty clear to anyone that a game that has ffa pvp, full looting and no safe zones is going to see the potential chance that you can be killed as a newb.
If people are not intelligent enough to understand when they pay for a product that ffa and no safe zones means exactly that, then you have to worry about the state of the education system in all honesty.
Killing virtual wolves have nothing to do with morals. You're not killing them because they aren't alive. You're not actually killing other players when you kill their avatar. What you're doing is affecting their game play experience.
A microwave manufacturer doesn't have to tell you not to cook your head in a microwave because they've disabled your ability to operate the microwave when the door is open. For the most part, if a developer doesn't want you doing something in their games, they'll prevent you from doing it. This is what Bioware is doing.
If you buy a game and step into the game and your experience is markedly different from what you were lead to believe based on advertising from the developer, you're not likely to keep playing the game. It doesn't matter if the game is FFA PvP or a Faction based PvP game.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Killing virtual wolves have nothing to do with morals. You're not killing them because they aren't alive. You're not actually killing other players when you kill their avatar. What you're doing is affecting their game play experience.
A microwave manufacturer doesn't have to tell you not to cook your head in a microwave because they've disabled your ability to operate the microwave when the door is open. For the most part, if a developer doesn't want you doing something in their games, they'll prevent you from doing it. This is what Bioware is doing.
If you buy a game and step into the game and your experience is markedly different from what you were lead to believe based on advertising from the developer, you're not likely to keep playing the game. It doesn't matter if the game is FFA PvP or a Faction based PvP game.
I have already stated I agree with what Bioware are doing. What other people are (for want of a better word) crying about recently is that people who actively choose to play ffa full loot games are suddenly hard done by victims as soon as they fall foul of the very mechanics they were seeking in the first place.
You are having an impact upon the gameplay experience of those people who have actively chosen and agreed to the chance that said impact may occur. They have chosen to pay for and play a game where that chance was possible after having decided not to play games where that chance is totally removed.
If I was going to be greatly upset and feel bullied everytime some random higher level character happened to kill me, guess what, I wouldn't play ffa open full loot pvp mmos with no safe zones. Simple really isn't it.
Are people really trying to argue here that the people actively playing full loot pvp games with no safe zones are doing so under the notion that they themselves can never be killed as a newb and that it is then fine for them to cry victim? Jesus wept. Yes repeatedly harassing someone in any game is a very bad thing, but this victim mentality and treating everyone like a grade a moron with an IQ of 4 as soon as they get wtfpwnt in a game they have actively chosen to play is a bit much.
Nevermind, 99% of the people who cry on about the unfairness of open pvp games have never actually set foot in one anyway.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Originally posted by bunnyhopper Originally posted by lizardbones
Originally posted by bunnyhopper
Originally posted by lizardbones
Originally posted by bunnyhopper
Originally posted by ZenMorph
Killing virtual wolves have nothing to do with morals. You're not killing them because they aren't alive. You're not actually killing other players when you kill their avatar. What you're doing is affecting their game play experience.
A microwave manufacturer doesn't have to tell you not to cook your head in a microwave because they've disabled your ability to operate the microwave when the door is open. For the most part, if a developer doesn't want you doing something in their games, they'll prevent you from doing it. This is what Bioware is doing.
If you buy a game and step into the game and your experience is markedly different from what you were lead to believe based on advertising from the developer, you're not likely to keep playing the game. It doesn't matter if the game is FFA PvP or a Faction based PvP game.
I have already stated I agree with what Bioware is doing. What other people are (for want of a better word) crying about recently is that people who actively choose to play ffa full loot games are suddenly hard done by victims as soon as they fall foul of the very mechanics they were seeking in the first place.
You are having an impact upon the gameplay experience of those people who have actively chosen and agreed to the chance that said impact may occur. They have chosen to pay for and play a game where that chance was possible after having decided not to play games where that chance is totally removed.
If I was going to be greatly upset and feel bullied everytime some random higher level character happened to kill me, guess what, I wouldn't play ffa open full loot pvp mmos with no safe zones. Simple really isn't it.
Are people really trying to argue here that the people actively playing full loot pvp games with no safe zones are doing so under the notion that they themselves can never be killed as a newb and that it is then fine for them to cry victim? Jesus whept. Yes repeatedly harassing someone in any game is a very bad thing, but this victim mentality and treating everyone like a grade a moron with an IQ of 4 as soon as they get wtfpwnt in a game they have actively chosen to play is a bit much.
Nevermind, 99% of the people who cry on about the unfairness of open pvp games have never actually set foot in one anyway.
There are people who don't know what to expect because of how the games are marketed and advertised. Those are new players. It doesn't matter if a game is FFA PvP or not. If you don't give those new players a happy experience, or at least an experience that is similar to what you've advertised to them, you're going to lose those new players. Expecting players to know how a game really works, regardless of how it's advertised is very short sighted, and will not lead to having more players.
I do, however, agree with a lot of what you're saying. If you don't want to get killed or participate in a game where you're going to get killed, then FFA PvP games probably aren't for you. Don't whine about it and don't call people jerks for doing it; just don't play the games. The same applies for the FFA PvP crowd and games like SW:ToR. If you don't like games where you can't run around killing anyone you see, then you probably shouldn't play games like that. Don't whine about it, or call people carebears for not wanting FFA PvP; just don't play the games.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Comments
I agree with the Bioware devs. SWTOR will be heavily gearbased. A lvl1 player could play whack-a-mole on an afk max lvl (max geared) toon and barely leave a scratch. While the max lvl toon can 1-shot the lowlvl when he gets back. This alone already makes allowing low lvl ganking ridiculous.
The game uses tabbased combat and because of how stat number work passively, better gear totally destroys any playerskill at high lvl difference and also for this reason you dont want high lvl differences in PVP.
And stop comparing this with unfairness in real life war. A lethal bullet in rl doesnt care if it comes from a gun in the hands of an experienced soldier, or from a gun in the hands of a child. Not to mention that rl war has nothing to do with what a game is about.
That sounds like Mortal Online. Especially the bit where you're stuck in a house while somebody kills you. Surprise, surprise, Mortal Online and Warhammer did not do well from launch.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Taking aside the point of the actual thread (i.e. newb ganking in TOR, something which I am against). People citing pvp mechanics as being essentially too 'hardcore' as the reason games like WAR/MO and DF failed to attract numerous subs is disingenuous at best and at worst just completely and utterly wrong.
The vast majority of people who pay for an mmo with what are considered to be hardcore rules, or pay for an mmo and then actively choose to play on a server with hardcore rules, know exactly what to expect. A minority will be clueless and give up after being killed a handful of times. funnily enough this minority is then the most vocal in crying about it on game forums, go figure.
Not being funny but if someone is moaning about being 'boxed in' on a pvp server in a game which offers them the choice to actually roll on a non pvp server. Then they have little leg to stand on as far as I am concerned. You know the rules when you choose the server or game. It's like me crying about the ability to not gank newb character after having chosen to play on the RP/PVE server of Lotro.
The actual reason for games like WAR/MO and DF struggling has nothing to do with the pvp ruleset and everything to do with the lack of quality and complete mismanagment of the games in question.
Darkfall would no doubt have droves of players if the developers realised that having to grind 24/7 to be competitive in what most anticipated to be a pvp centric skill based mmo was a ludicrous idea.
MO would be well populated if the concept of the game (to be an updated UO) had been taken on and pushed though by a developer which happened to have some clue as to what they were doing (not like the totally inept SV in other words).
WAR, well let's just say the problems with that game are of the same magnitude as tose in DF and MO, which makes it all the worse considering it was meant to be a AAA title which appealed to the crowd who considered themselves hardcore pvpers but who were not really ready to take the leap into games with full loot and ffa.
Then again you will always get people who want to push their own playstyle on every single mmo out there. In this thread we can see a few crying about not being able to gank in a AAA, casual mmo which is frankly mind boggling. But then in pretty much every thread on ffa we see people crying about it even though the vast majorty of mmos cater towards the casual crowd. It's all really rather pathetic.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Good to know, at least some mature developers. Cheers.
Nothing ruins a gamer faster then its own community.
Always true, always will be.
If you gives players the power, they will use it and abuse it - fact.
Sometimes all of this "developer hand holding and coddling" people complain about really IS for our best interests.
Many, many people are too stupid to actually know what is best for themselves.
Camping newbies spawns and preventing new players from enjoying the game and giving it a proper chance?
Shooting yourself in the foot.
I could not agree more with you. Thank God the developers were smart enough to see this too. Kudos to Bioware for how they handled this!!!
In any MMO, attracting new players is important. If the initial experience is unpleasant in the extreme, then that game will not keep new players and will attract fewer new players as the unhappy players spread the word.
This is true even of players on a server with a PvP ruleset. There is an expectation, whether it is reasonable or not, of some options in a fight, not a mindless slaughter by established players. Give new players some options, even if that option is to successfully run away and you'll keep more of them. Have the only option be mindlessly getting killed by high level players and you will keep fewer new players.
Players have their expectations because of how a game is marketed and what is presented to potential players. Both MO and War attracted players with idea that they would be warriors, fighting against other warriors, not sitting stuck in a house (or in the case of MO, stuck in a wall). The actual experience, for a lot of players was hiding, hoping no high level players came along to kill them.
Could MO or War overcome their other issues by creating more options for newbie players? Probably not. Their issues were too numerous. The initial game experience was just a bullet point in the list of mistakes they made.
SW:ToR's audience is going to be pretty different from the people who would tryout MO or War, and Bioware has made the right choice with their rulesets for the game. They are also letting people know what to expect before they play. At least in regards to the PvP.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/ab/Norsefire-logo.png
Don't get me wrong. In no way should a game like TOR have fully open pvp and newb ganking/player looting. But people who actively purchase ffa pvp games fully aware that they can get ganked, who then moan on and on about it have no sympathy from me.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Umm why is this thread still going with the above poster WON THE INTERNET with this amazing post.
+1289731687131
Wish I could explain it like this
Right oh. So by that token when you kill those 10 wolves you are in effect a psychopathic animal abuser? When you take part in RVR or a battle field and kill another player, you are a sociopathic murder?
Those people that you have looted have actively chosen to pay for and play that game with that exact mechanic in it you realise ofc? Probably with the intention of taking advantage of it themselves at some point...
People seem to completely miss the fact that everyone in the game has willing signed up to play it, complete with all it's mechanics.
Perhaps if someone had payed £10 to walk down a dodgy ally with the express knowledge that his payment had bought him the chance to get mugged you would have a point, as it stands you don't.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
No one willingly signed up to be harrassed and bullied. People sign up to play the game and are not reponsible for other players action who choose to abuse the mechanics. That is why devs step in to make sure it doesn't happen.
By killing wolves well.....you are just killing wolves and not dealing with a real person behind the screen. in RVR you are killing someone who is willingly entered RVR area for a fight. it is not same as harassing or bullying a low level players who have no intention to fight or engage in PVP. Sorry but your examples made no sense at all.
Right oh. So by that token when you kill those 10 wolves you are in effect a psychopathic animal abuser? When you take part in RVR or a battle field and kill another player, you are a sociopathic murder?
Those people that you have looted have actively chosen to pay for and play that game with that exact mechanic in it you realise ofc? Probably with the intention of taking advantage of it themselves at some point...
People seem to completely miss the fact that everyone in the game has willing signed up to play it, complete with all it's mechanics.
Perhaps if someone had payed £10 to walk down a dodgy ally with the express knowledge that his payment had bought him the chance to get mugged you would have a point, as it stands you don't.
There is no human on the other side of those virtual wolves. You aren't killing the wolves for the express purpose of ruining their day because you can't...they is no intelligence operating the wolves for you to ruin the day of.
Everyone in a game willingly signs up for what the developer has advertised, not what the game is. I have yet to see a developer or publisher advertise being a weak character at the mercy of every high level player who just happens to walk through. Not once have I seen an advertising slogan to the effect of "You will get ganked until you play the game long enough to start ganking other people." They advertise being a mighty warrior fighting other mighty warriors, which is not the case for new players in mmorpg.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Well said. And just to emphasize, I don't think anyone here has a problem with basically even level sides battling it out, it is the immature players attacking people 10+ levels below them that is the real problem.
"If half of what you tell me is a lie, how can I believe any of it?"
They made perfect sense, some are just unwilling to accept the fact that by proactively choosing to pay for and play a game with ffa full loot in it, people are not bullied victims akin to the poor sods who get mugged on the street.
There is also MASSIVE difference between killing a character in the hope of getting loot or killing someone and then moving on and the act of harassment by repeatedly killing the same person over and over again just to piss them off.
If people are totally and utterly against the notion of completely open pvp and looting, why in the name of God are they actively buying a game with exactly those mechanics in them? Surely they should look for a game which removes the fear of getting killed as a starting character? The mechanics are there with the express reason to mean that anyone at any time can be killed.
Are people saying here that every game should have exactly the same pvp rule set? That no games should cater to complete open pvp just incase someone who has to actively pay and chose to play said games might feel victimised? If people are syaing that then lol, just lol.
If though people are not saying that, and that there should be games catering to all styles, well, then wtf are people crying about 'victims' for when the players have had to go out of their way to pick to a ffa pvp mmo in a market saturated with non ffa games?
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
It is a point of morals. You are still in essence going through the act of killing an animal. See how far the level of ridiculous reasoning on this theme can be taken?
As for the second part, it also doesn't say that I shouldn't put my head in the microwave oven..
It should be pretty clear to anyone that a game that has ffa pvp, full looting and no safe zones is going to see the potential chance that you can be killed as a newb.
If people are not intelligent enough to understand when they pay for a product that ffa and no safe zones means exactly that, then you have to worry about the state of the education system in all honesty.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
I think this thread has gotten way out of control.
It's not a matter of "debate" as to whether or not TOR will have noob ganking or not, it's a fact that it won't.
This thread has become "is ganking or or why is it done etc." and there are a couple other threads out there on it...
It seems to me that you are the one that has the ridiculous reasoning bunnyhopper. Killing a virtual animal is nothing like beating on someone who has no chance or defending himself and them stealing everything he own. Some immature players may feel that is appropriate, but that doesn't stop the more mature ones from refusing to do it AND personally I applaud BioWare for having the guts to go this route.
"If half of what you tell me is a lie, how can I believe any of it?"
I have already stated that BW are right not to have ffa/open/full loot pvp in TOR. I have already stated my surprise at people expecting anything like that to be added to the game. I have also mentioned that those people crying about not being able to gank players should go play the dedicated ffa full loot games. I guess you missed all that.
The wolf analogy worked perfectly well in highlighting the sheer insanity of trying to apply a real life model of moralistic reasoning to an online game domain. I am sorry but someone mugging or killing someone in real life is in no way, shape, or form anything like killing and looting a player who has actively chosen to play a game with that ruleset, more than likely with the intention of doing it him/herself.
Tell me, without resorting to hyperbole, why exactly are players who are so utterly against the idea of being killed by anyone at any time, choosing to play a game with that very mechanic in place when there are countless alternatives out there with safe zones and no looting on death? Other posters in this thread seem to think it is because the players are some how retarded and don't understand that the ffa full loot rules can also apply to them, as such they are victims. What is your view?
If someone is constantly singling out a person to harass them and ruin their game time then that has nothing to do with the system and everything to do with the person being a jerk. Funnily enough not everyone who has ever killed a new player falls into that catagory. I've killed a newb, and then afterwards given him plenty of items and chatted to them. In turn I have had vets whale on me only to give me advice and then give me far more gear and gold then I could have hoped to have made in a week. The fact is everyone should be aware of the ruleset of the game they are playing. If it is a ffa pvp game that you have actively decided to play, to then go crying about getting killed in it smacks of being rather daft.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
As someone involved in the derail, yeah I agree with that. The main fact is TOR will not allow for new players to be ganked and that is a good thing in a AAA title trying to appeal to as many players as possible.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Right oh. So by that token when you kill those 10 wolves you are in effect a psychopathic animal abuser? When you take part in RVR or a battle field and kill another player, you are a sociopathic murder?
Those people that you have looted have actively chosen to pay for and play that game with that exact mechanic in it you realise ofc? Probably with the intention of taking advantage of it themselves at some point...
People seem to completely miss the fact that everyone in the game has willing signed up to play it, complete with all it's mechanics.
Perhaps if someone had payed £10 to walk down a dodgy ally with the express knowledge that his payment had bought him the chance to get mugged you would have a point, as it stands you don't.
There is no human on the other side of those virtual wolves. You aren't killing the wolves for the express purpose of ruining their day because you can't...they is no intelligence operating the wolves for you to ruin the day of.
Everyone in a game willingly signs up for what the developer has advertised, not what the game is. I have yet to see a developer or publisher advertise being a weak character at the mercy of every high level player who just happens to walk through. Not once have I seen an advertising slogan to the effect of "You will get ganked until you play the game long enough to start ganking other people." They advertise being a mighty warrior fighting other mighty warriors, which is not the case for new players in mmorpg.
It is a point of morals. You are still in essence going through the act of killing an animal. See how far the level of ridiculous reasoning on this theme can be taken?
As for the second part, it also doesn't say that I shouldn't put my head in the microwave oven..
It should be pretty clear to anyone that a game that has ffa pvp, full looting and no safe zones is going to see the potential chance that you can be killed as a newb.
If people are not intelligent enough to understand when they pay for a product that ffa and no safe zones means exactly that, then you have to worry about the state of the education system in all honesty.
Killing virtual wolves have nothing to do with morals. You're not killing them because they aren't alive. You're not actually killing other players when you kill their avatar. What you're doing is affecting their game play experience.
A microwave manufacturer doesn't have to tell you not to cook your head in a microwave because they've disabled your ability to operate the microwave when the door is open. For the most part, if a developer doesn't want you doing something in their games, they'll prevent you from doing it. This is what Bioware is doing.
If you buy a game and step into the game and your experience is markedly different from what you were lead to believe based on advertising from the developer, you're not likely to keep playing the game. It doesn't matter if the game is FFA PvP or a Faction based PvP game.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I have already stated I agree with what Bioware are doing. What other people are (for want of a better word) crying about recently is that people who actively choose to play ffa full loot games are suddenly hard done by victims as soon as they fall foul of the very mechanics they were seeking in the first place.
You are having an impact upon the gameplay experience of those people who have actively chosen and agreed to the chance that said impact may occur. They have chosen to pay for and play a game where that chance was possible after having decided not to play games where that chance is totally removed.
If I was going to be greatly upset and feel bullied everytime some random higher level character happened to kill me, guess what, I wouldn't play ffa open full loot pvp mmos with no safe zones. Simple really isn't it.
Are people really trying to argue here that the people actively playing full loot pvp games with no safe zones are doing so under the notion that they themselves can never be killed as a newb and that it is then fine for them to cry victim? Jesus wept. Yes repeatedly harassing someone in any game is a very bad thing, but this victim mentality and treating everyone like a grade a moron with an IQ of 4 as soon as they get wtfpwnt in a game they have actively chosen to play is a bit much.
Nevermind, 99% of the people who cry on about the unfairness of open pvp games have never actually set foot in one anyway.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Killing virtual wolves have nothing to do with morals. You're not killing them because they aren't alive. You're not actually killing other players when you kill their avatar. What you're doing is affecting their game play experience.
A microwave manufacturer doesn't have to tell you not to cook your head in a microwave because they've disabled your ability to operate the microwave when the door is open. For the most part, if a developer doesn't want you doing something in their games, they'll prevent you from doing it. This is what Bioware is doing.
If you buy a game and step into the game and your experience is markedly different from what you were lead to believe based on advertising from the developer, you're not likely to keep playing the game. It doesn't matter if the game is FFA PvP or a Faction based PvP game.
I have already stated I agree with what Bioware is doing. What other people are (for want of a better word) crying about recently is that people who actively choose to play ffa full loot games are suddenly hard done by victims as soon as they fall foul of the very mechanics they were seeking in the first place.
You are having an impact upon the gameplay experience of those people who have actively chosen and agreed to the chance that said impact may occur. They have chosen to pay for and play a game where that chance was possible after having decided not to play games where that chance is totally removed.
If I was going to be greatly upset and feel bullied everytime some random higher level character happened to kill me, guess what, I wouldn't play ffa open full loot pvp mmos with no safe zones. Simple really isn't it.
Are people really trying to argue here that the people actively playing full loot pvp games with no safe zones are doing so under the notion that they themselves can never be killed as a newb and that it is then fine for them to cry victim? Jesus whept. Yes repeatedly harassing someone in any game is a very bad thing, but this victim mentality and treating everyone like a grade a moron with an IQ of 4 as soon as they get wtfpwnt in a game they have actively chosen to play is a bit much.
Nevermind, 99% of the people who cry on about the unfairness of open pvp games have never actually set foot in one anyway.
There are people who don't know what to expect because of how the games are marketed and advertised. Those are new players. It doesn't matter if a game is FFA PvP or not. If you don't give those new players a happy experience, or at least an experience that is similar to what you've advertised to them, you're going to lose those new players. Expecting players to know how a game really works, regardless of how it's advertised is very short sighted, and will not lead to having more players.
I do, however, agree with a lot of what you're saying. If you don't want to get killed or participate in a game where you're going to get killed, then FFA PvP games probably aren't for you. Don't whine about it and don't call people jerks for doing it; just don't play the games. The same applies for the FFA PvP crowd and games like SW:ToR. If you don't like games where you can't run around killing anyone you see, then you probably shouldn't play games like that. Don't whine about it, or call people carebears for not wanting FFA PvP; just don't play the games.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.