EVE does this perfectly with high-sec - while there's still a risk of getting killed, it's very low.
Alas, that is also EVE's achillies heel. It's taking it's highsec population for granted and focusing on the PvP elements of the game. It can only hold onto the people who want to play a 1.0 sec game, but are willing to endure a tiny risk of PvP because of Eve's current uniqueness in the market. As soon as a game comes along with an economy as complex as EVE, but without PvP and with better PVE content, why would a non-PvP player still play EVE?
You are lumping every player into one of two categories.
What about a person in a clan who does gathering some times and clan fights other times?
Basically my philosphy of full loot games is summed up by this famous quote
"Sometimes you are the pidgeon, sometimes you are the statue"
I don't think you understand, so I will clarify things.
Being a PvPer doesn't make you a wolf. Being a crafter doesn't make you a sheep.
In fact, I've seen so many wolf marketeers and scammers that never touched combat, but made sheep so mad just by doing what they do best. Likewise, there's the sheep that think they can PvP but just get dumpstered by the wolf, and go cry on the forums about imbalances.
It may seem like I am lumping every player into one of two categories.. because I am. That clanner could be either.
He could be a wolf surrounded by sheep, in which case he tries to give his sheep mates the protection they need to not get gibbed as he carries them to victory. Maybe he enjoys watching the chaos of the situation - both clannies and enemies dying - but since he is the wolf, the sheep will always look up to him in awe and his enemies - should they be sheep - will simply get dumpstered. Maybe a part of him likes having fans. The wolf will always get what he wants from the sheep - whether that be rage, sadness, or awe.
He could be a wolf among wolves, whose crafting empowers all of them to be the best they can be. The wolf pack is even more capable of preying on sheep, even tightly-grouped herds. When you can simply overpower an enemy by a huge margin, it makes the tears of the sheep that much more pleasurable.
Or he could be a sheep among wolves. Crafting to empower his allies, while he contributes nothing special to the fight. He just makes his friends more capable of carrying him.
Or a sheep among sheep. Trying to give his allies the best advantage they can get when they fight the other sheep clan. Of course, when the wolf pack comes in.. it's over for the sheep.
Wolves and sheep could end up doing the same things in a game. The difference is that the wolf doesn't feel things like 'fear', 'risk', 'challenge', 'suspense', 'attachment', 'addiction', or 'anger'. All they feel is happiness when the sheep it is hunting gets destroyed. The sheep feels all of those because they are attached to the game in an intricate way that does not allow them to become wolves and feed off of another player's misfortune.
There is no in-between or sometimes. You are either attached to the game in a way that prevents you from being the wolf, or you have moved past these emotions and have already become one.
I'm fine with full loot as long as it doesn't end up like Minecraft PvP.
Step 1: Grab a friend and log into a full loot Minecraft PvP server with no chest locking or residence protection.
Step 2: Get iron armor. It is easy enough to get and is durable.
Step 3: Double team on a person who has iron or diamond armor and steal their loot.
Step 4: Raid their chests if you can find them. Steal everything valueable and stick it in a chest somewhere safe. Don't actually build with the stuff, because you're just here to raid houses anyways.
Step 5: Repeat any steps as necessary.
Minecraft PvP is a perfect example of PvP gone wrong, even if you leave out the sandbox parts. If you leave in the sandbox parts it ends up like watching children knocking down eachother's sandcastles.
so all you do in darkfall is kill people and have people kill you and loot each other?
Ya basically Khaeos says, I'll only play darkfall if all I want to do is kill people. Aka be the wolf. I dont' think any sheep want to play that game. So I think most pure gather or crafter will stay out.
@ Khaeros I honestly couldn't disagree more. You are lumping every player into one of two categories. What about a person in a clan who does gathering some times and clan fights other times? Basically my philosphy of full loot games is summed up by this famous quote "Sometimes you are the pidgeon, sometimes you are the statue"
I don't think you understand, so I will clarify things.
Being a PvPer doesn't make you a wolf. Being a crafter doesn't make you a sheep.
In fact, I've seen so many wolf marketeers and scammers that never touched combat, but made sheep so mad just by doing what they do best. Likewise, there's the sheep that think they can PvP but just get dumpstered by the wolf, and go cry on the forums about imbalances.
It may seem like I am lumping every player into one of two categories.. because I am. That clanner could be either.
He could be a wolf surrounded by sheep, in which case he tries to give his sheep mates the protection they need to not get gibbed as he carries them to victory. Maybe he enjoys watching the chaos of the situation - both clannies and enemies dying - but since he is the wolf, the sheep will always look up to him in awe and his enemies - should they be sheep - will simply get dumpstered. Maybe a part of him likes having fans. The wolf will always get what he wants from the sheep - whether that be rage, sadness, or awe.
He could be a wolf among wolves, whose crafting empowers all of them to be the best they can be. The wolf pack is even more capable of preying on sheep, even tightly-grouped herds. When you can simply overpower an enemy by a huge margin, it makes the tears of the sheep that much more pleasurable.
Or he could be a sheep among wolves. Crafting to empower his allies, while he contributes nothing special to the fight. He just makes his friends more capable of carrying him.
Or a sheep among sheep. Trying to give his allies the best advantage they can get when they fight the other sheep clan. Of course, when the wolf pack comes in.. it's over for the sheep.
Wolves and sheep could end up doing the same things in a game. The difference is that the wolf doesn't feel things like 'fear', 'risk', 'challenge', 'suspense', 'attachment', 'addiction', or 'anger'. All they feel is happiness when the sheep it is hunting gets destroyed. The sheep feels all of those because they are attached to the game in an intricate way that does not allow them to become wolves and feed off of another player's misfortune.
There is no in-between or sometimes. You are either attached to the game in a way that prevents you from being the wolf, or you have moved past these emotions and have already become one.
You make some insightful observations in regards to player interactions. However you cannot boil down the entire spectrum of players into either black or white. You sound like Kitty Farmer from Donnie Darko. Professing that love and fear are the deepest of human emotion.
Where does the sheepdog fit into your pretty little pasture? He is not a wolf preying on the weak.
A lot of armchair psychology and economics going on in here. A few points:
1) You'll never get an economy as deep as EVE's in a PVE game, unless ingame items are temporary. That is, they decay until they become useless and must be replaced. The reason is that the foundation of economics -- the very first principle, in fact -- is that resources are scarce, and economies reflect the distribution of those scarce resources. In a PVE game, there's no need for full loot, unless players are stealing gear off of other players when they die in PVE. Thus, there's no need to replace gear, no need to craft gear, and no need to gather resources. In a full loot game, gear gets stolen and must be replaced. Your death benefits the whole system, because you provide a market for the crafters, who in turn provide a market for those gathering resources. This isn't rocket science; in fact, it's basic high school economics. If you don't believe me, ask yourself why the only fully functioning economies in MMOs exist in games with loss of gear. Why has there never been a PVE game with a deep economy?
2) Most people don't wake up in the morning intending to be arseholes. Believe it or not, most griefers don't dedicate their time solely to griefing; they play just as much of the game as anyone else, and they gank a few people on the side. This is a good thing, because they are the ones fueling the economy. Not only that, but they provide the risk that makes every reward that much sweeter. Why is it that themeparks all feel exactly the same? Part of it is the mechanics, but a deeper, more fundamental aspect of it is that there's no reward beyond the skinner box condtioning that the developer is feeding you. You log in, you kill some NPCs that you have no emotional investment in, you get your trinket, repeat ad infinitum. If someone (god forbid) kills you, and dares to impinge on your fun, you run back and keep doing the same boring shit that you were doing before. At least griefers force you to think and play the game, rather than the numbers circlejerk.
and yet people have the nerve to come on here and bash the release of the month for not being innovative or being a WoW clone, yet a game like Darkfall which is totally different from WoW gets no credit, or is deemed "nothing more than a niche". Maybe if more people had some imagination or sense of adventure it wouldnt be a niche
Maybe this show that a the pro innovation group is a niche group
Well, Most MMO players don't like and won't play full loot games. OP does not get people who don't like full loot games. -> OP does not get most MMO players, and the trend of the MMO market.
trend of the MMO market...thats funny
here is the trend for you
MMO Games became MMO Entertainment Softwarre
its not a game if you can't lose...
Huh? In older games when I lost I simply could start all over. How is that different from failing to defeat a raid boss and having to fight again from start?
Full loot games are a niche. You don't need full loot for the gang mentality to creep into the game, just true open world PvP. Killing enemy guild players on sight, fights over grind spots. You call this strong community, with alliances and enemies, but in fact you can get this without the full loot rule as well. Full loot just destroys the PvE aspect of the game and doesn't bring anything else to replace it. Full loot games will always be a niche because they are in fact less of a game than games that don't have this.
A lot of armchair psychology and economics going on in here. A few points:
1) You'll never get an economy as deep as EVE's in a PVE game, unless ingame items are temporary. That is, they decay until they become useless and must be replaced. The reason is that the foundation of economics -- the very first principle, in fact -- is that resources are scarce, and economies reflect the distribution of those scarce resources. In a PVE game, there's no need for full loot, unless players are stealing gear off of other players when they die in PVE. Thus, there's no need to replace gear, no need to craft gear, and no need to gather resources. In a full loot game, gear gets stolen and must be replaced. Your death benefits the whole system, because you provide a market for the crafters, who in turn provide a market for those gathering resources. This isn't rocket science; in fact, it's basic high school economics. If you don't believe me, ask yourself why the only fully functioning economies in MMOs exist in games with loss of gear. Why has there never been a PVE game with a deep economy?
2) Most people don't wake up in the morning intending to be arseholes. Believe it or not, most griefers don't dedicate their time solely to griefing; they play just as much of the game as anyone else, and they gank a few people on the side. This is a good thing, because they are the ones fueling the economy. Not only that, but they provide the risk that makes every reward that much sweeter. Why is it that themeparks all feel exactly the same? Part of it is the mechanics, but a deeper, more fundamental aspect of it is that there's no reward beyond the skinner box condtioning that the developer is feeding you. You log in, you kill some NPCs that you have no emotional investment in, you get your trinket, repeat ad infinitum. If someone (god forbid) kills you, and dares to impinge on your fun, you run back and keep doing the same boring shit that you were doing before. At least griefers force you to think and play the game, rather than the numbers circlejerk.
Oh hey look, a thoughtful and insightful post! Too bad people will graze over it.
Here it is again for people to see. Read what he has to say, instead of making inane responses such as "WALL OF TEXT, DURRR" hey you're on a forum, you're here to read not jerk it, kay?
I never said that wolves are all assholes. Wolves are simply united by the fact that they gain pleasure off of another player's misfortune and they are not attached to the game in a meaningful emotional way.
Sheepdog? They are just sheep that attempt to wrangle some fame from the sheep playerbase. Anti-PK clans? Sheepdog. The wolf isn't affected. They just kill the sheepdogs. Then the sheep. The only people scared of the sheepdog is other sheep that simply do not know how to play.
But I think I've put that analogy through too much use, so I'll try to make it simpler. Hopefully this will make myself look less like an 'armchair psychologist', too.
The dumpster.
The dumpster doesn't care about you losing your loot. In fact, it has no use for it. It does not feel loss, sadness, fear, or anger. It is always emotionless, all the time.
Dumpster does not care about any attempt to keep you away from it. The Anti-PK clan won't protect you from the dumpster. Your friends will not protect you from the dumpster.
It lies in wait, hidden in the places you do not dare to look. The dumpster doesn't even have to move; instead, you end up moving straight towards it, all the time, even if you cant see it.
Dumpster has nothing to risk and faces no challenge, and will not go away, because it exists for one and only one purpose:
How about we put that in every game, you have a 5% chance every day that on logon you will either loose all your shit or get more better shit into your inventory.
The effect is the same as full loot games, what exactly is the fun of that?
I honestly believe that people who enjoy full loot PVP games are just there to grief others. You do not gain anything from having a full loot PVP system beyond the satisfaction of "pwning nabs" and taking their shit.
Thats not at all what I meant. In full loot games, the fact that you can lose your items makes you actually think about what you are doing in the game. Instead of just walking blindly from quest hub to quest hub, you need to be aware of your surroundings which leads to more intense encounters.
Basically I'm trying to say that in themparks today (before some salty EQ vet chastises me) there is no risk to anything.
There's no thought process needed, its just kill these things because this guy asked you to.
a. no, all it makes me do is to look over my shoulder constantly, mistrust everyone and keep away from people. If its EVE, not take any contracts from people at all, don't talk to anyone but people in my closest friends-circle and be paranoid about leaving 1.0 sec
I do not enjoy fear or the feeling or being hunted.
b. The risk is entirely lopsided. Do you really think that pirates in EVE are taking a risk going gate-camping for half an hour?
There is no risk for the griefer, only enjoyment from the kill. For the killed, its constant paranoia and fear.
A lot of armchair psychology and economics going on in here. A few points:
1) You'll never get an economy as deep as EVE's in a PVE game, unless ingame items are temporary. That is, they decay until they become useless and must be replaced. The reason is that the foundation of economics -- the very first principle, in fact -- is that resources are scarce, and economies reflect the distribution of those scarce resources. In a PVE game, there's no need for full loot, unless players are stealing gear off of other players when they die in PVE. Thus, there's no need to replace gear, no need to craft gear, and no need to gather resources. In a full loot game, gear gets stolen and must be replaced. Your death benefits the whole system, because you provide a market for the crafters, who in turn provide a market for those gathering resources. This isn't rocket science; in fact, it's basic high school economics. If you don't believe me, ask yourself why the only fully functioning economies in MMOs exist in games with loss of gear. Why has there never been a PVE game with a deep economy?
2) Most people don't wake up in the morning intending to be arseholes. Believe it or not, most griefers don't dedicate their time solely to griefing; they play just as much of the game as anyone else, and they gank a few people on the side. This is a good thing, because they are the ones fueling the economy. Not only that, but they provide the risk that makes every reward that much sweeter. Why is it that themeparks all feel exactly the same? Part of it is the mechanics, but a deeper, more fundamental aspect of it is that there's no reward beyond the skinner box condtioning that the developer is feeding you. You log in, you kill some NPCs that you have no emotional investment in, you get your trinket, repeat ad infinitum. If someone (god forbid) kills you, and dares to impinge on your fun, you run back and keep doing the same boring shit that you were doing before. At least griefers force you to think and play the game, rather than the numbers circlejerk.
And I don't see how this is any less "armchair" with the empircally unsupported hypotheses you mention.
This thread was pointless seeing as its obvious most of you dont like these kinds of games.
Just remember what I was trying to say thr next time youre playing your MMO of choice and say "this game is too easy"
Because deep down thats how you want it to be
It isn't so much about easy or hard. The thing is most people that play those kind of game do want to kill people.
There are still people playing Eve, even though they are the sheep. But why would you play darkfall unless you want to be the wolve. That's why I asked if all you do in darkfall is kill people or have people kill you and loot each other.
I never said that wolves are all assholes. Wolves are simply united by the fact that they gain pleasure off of another player's misfortune and they are not attached to the game in a meaningful emotional way.
Sheepdog? They are just sheep that attempt to wrangle some fame from the sheep playerbase. Anti-PK clans? Sheepdog. The wolf isn't affected. They just kill the sheepdogs. Then the sheep. The only people scared of the sheepdog is other sheep that simply do not know how to play.
But I think I've put that analogy through too much use, so I'll try to make it simpler. Hopefully this will make myself look less like an 'armchair psychologist', too.
The dumpster.
The dumpster doesn't care about you losing your loot. In fact, it has no use for it. It does not feel loss, sadness, fear, or anger. It is always emotionless, all the time.
Dumpster does not care about any attempt to keep you away from it. The Anti-PK clan won't protect you from the dumpster. Your friends will not protect you from the dumpster.
It lies in wait, hidden in the places you do not dare to look. The dumpster doesn't even have to move; instead, you end up moving straight towards it, all the time, even if you cant see it.
Dumpster has nothing to risk and faces no challenge, and will not go away, because it exists for one and only one purpose:
To put you in it.
Using a dumpster to explain aspects of MMOs...I could be wrong, but I believe you just won the interwebs. I applaud thee.
I posted on mobile version and it didnt come out how it looked on my screen at all, my apologies I will fix when I get home.
But saying it will only ever be a niche saddens me. Why cant people take setbacks in MMOs any more? Why are there no penalties for anything? Everything has to be rewarding. In Darkfall, one day you can get ganked and lose your armor, the next day find a persons gravestone and get even better armor. I understand people want the game to be fun but am I the only one who finds uncertainty in MMOs fun?
Why can't you understand how some people don't like it?
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
How about we put that in every game, you have a 5% chance every day that on logon you will either loose all your shit or get more better shit into your inventory.
The effect is the same as full loot games, what exactly is the fun of that?
I honestly believe that people who enjoy full loot PVP games are just there to grief others. You do not gain anything from having a full loot PVP system beyond the satisfaction of "pwning nabs" and taking their shit.
Thats not at all what I meant. In full loot games, the fact that you can lose your items makes you actually think about what you are doing in the game. Instead of just walking blindly from quest hub to quest hub, you need to be aware of your surroundings which leads to more intense encounters.
Basically I'm trying to say that in themparks today (before some salty EQ vet chastises me) there is no risk to anything.
There's no thought process needed, its just kill these things because this guy asked you to.
a. no, all it makes me do is to look over my shoulder constantly, mistrust everyone and keep away from people. If its EVE, not take any contracts from people at all, don't talk to anyone but people in my closest friends-circle and be paranoid about leaving 1.0 sec
I do not enjoy fear or the feeling or being hunted.
b. The risk is entirely lopsided. Do you really think that pirates in EVE are taking a risk going gate-camping for half an hour?
There is no risk for the griefer, only enjoyment from the kill. For the killed, its constant paranoia and fear.
The pirate always wins, even when he looses.
a. Risk versus reward is not only in combat... you only trust a person as much as you want to risk... if you risk big, your reward will also be big.
example: you trust john doe with 1 billion isk worth of items (tha's a big risk) for him to jump freighter it over enemy territory. if you make it, you then have supplies for 1-2 months, plus a station and modules etc... in your safe(r) destination.
you dont talk to people but the ones in the closest circles? you are missing out on alot of diplomatic or potential allies, again you risk big that they will stab you in the back, or you gain the reward by having a fleet come to your aid during war.
paranoid of leaving 1.0? you are not playing EvE the right way... when i played, 0.0 space was safer than high sec. when i would go in high sec i would never use a T2 ship. in 0.0 always T2, or capitals
b. i do think pirates in eve are taking a risk gatecamping for 30 minutes, ive had my corp, go around and purposefully engage those campers... and we got some pretty good loot from them ON TOP of getting paid to remove the gate camps... ON TOP of having free access to use their jump bridges and very lucrative 0.0 ratting
the whole problem is right there, people do not want to risk anything, not even a penny, if it means they can lose it. Ive sent Fleets of Capital ships (valued in the hundreds of billions) just to claim 1 system... the risk, 100billion worth of ships, the reward, a fucking solar system, with 20+ asteroid belts and ice, not to mention the capability to upgrade it to no ends.
the question how much are you willing to risk?
risk a wooden stick and your reward will be death
risk a platinum sword and you might end up with a full set of armor.
and that's why most players tend to ignore the no risk players... you see a guy running naked with a stick, you know he poses no danger to you, thus no risk, thus no reward, thus why even bother...
How about we put that in every game, you have a 5% chance every day that on logon you will either loose all your shit or get more better shit into your inventory.
The effect is the same as full loot games, what exactly is the fun of that?
I honestly believe that people who enjoy full loot PVP games are just there to grief others. You do not gain anything from having a full loot PVP system beyond the satisfaction of "pwning nabs" and taking their shit.
Thats not at all what I meant. In full loot games, the fact that you can lose your items makes you actually think about what you are doing in the game. Instead of just walking blindly from quest hub to quest hub, you need to be aware of your surroundings which leads to more intense encounters.
Basically I'm trying to say that in themparks today (before some salty EQ vet chastises me) there is no risk to anything.
There's no thought process needed, its just kill these things because this guy asked you to.
a. no, all it makes me do is to look over my shoulder constantly, mistrust everyone and keep away from people. If its EVE, not take any contracts from people at all, don't talk to anyone but people in my closest friends-circle and be paranoid about leaving 1.0 sec
I do not enjoy fear or the feeling or being hunted.
b. The risk is entirely lopsided. Do you really think that pirates in EVE are taking a risk going gate-camping for half an hour?
There is no risk for the griefer, only enjoyment from the kill. For the killed, its constant paranoia and fear.
The pirate always wins, even when he looses.
a. Risk versus reward is not only in combat... you only trust a person as much as you want to risk... if you risk big, your reward will also be big.
Thats bullshit of the highest order. The risk plays no role in reward distribution.
In humanities history the most consistent economic vector is to gain the biggest reward with the least amount of risk. Global companies never risk anything. Playing it safe is the most rational thing you can do.
Once you play low risk - high reward situations, you become a wolf, never loosing, always winning.
Why anyone in their right mind would want to play high risk - high reward situations, as well as high risk - low reward situations, is beyond me.
Game-Theory, it works.
example: you trust john doe with 1 billion isk worth of items (tha's a big risk) for him to jump freighter it over enemy territory. if you make it, you then have supplies for 1-2 months, plus a station and modules etc... in your safe(r) destination.
you dont talk to people but the ones in the closest circles? you are missing out on alot of diplomatic or potential allies, again you risk big that they will stab you in the back, or you gain the reward by having a fleet come to your aid during war.
paranoid of leaving 1.0? you are not playing EvE the right way... when i played, 0.0 space was safer than high sec. when i would go in high sec i would never use a T2 ship. in 0.0 always T2, or capitals
b. i do think pirates in eve are taking a risk gatecamping for 30 minutes, ive had my corp, go around and purposefully engage those campers... and we got some pretty good loot from them ON TOP of getting paid to remove the gate camps... ON TOP of having free access to use their jump bridges and very lucrative 0.0 ratting
And the pirate still lost nothing. They have piles of ISK, resources, ships and equipment. You didn't risk anything either because you showed up in numbers and probably had securities in case of failure.
For every death they suffer they kill 10 of the sheep variety to make up for their loss. There is no risk, only reward. For both of you.
the whole problem is right there, people do not want to risk anything, not even a penny, if it means they can lose it. Ive sent Fleets of Capital ships (valued in the hundreds of billions) just to claim 1 system... the risk, 100billion worth of ships, the reward, a fucking solar system, with 20+ asteroid belts and ice, not to mention the capability to upgrade it to no ends.
Sheep fighting over scraps.
the question how much are you willing to risk?
risk a wooden stick and your reward will be death
risk a platinum sword and you might end up with a full set of armor.
and that's why most players tend to ignore the no risk players... you see a guy running naked with a stick, you know he poses no danger to you, thus no risk, thus no reward, thus why even bother...
Pirates make a living off easy prey, not billion ISK skirmishes. The billion ISK skirmishes have no risk either. The corporations involved in this kind of "hobby" risk nothing more than a stick.
Your illusion comes from thinking that 100 billion ISK is a lot for those people while they risk no more than a fraction of their resources.
Tell me, is 1 million $ a risk for Bill Gates?
Nobody of them risks anything, they are playing with their prey or fighting over scraps, for fun.
Where is that magic "risk/reward" you are talking about, clarly i must be missing it.
Comments
@ Khaeros
I agree with just about everything you said there.
Alas, that is also EVE's achillies heel. It's taking it's highsec population for granted and focusing on the PvP elements of the game. It can only hold onto the people who want to play a 1.0 sec game, but are willing to endure a tiny risk of PvP because of Eve's current uniqueness in the market. As soon as a game comes along with an economy as complex as EVE, but without PvP and with better PVE content, why would a non-PvP player still play EVE?
I don't think you understand, so I will clarify things.
Being a PvPer doesn't make you a wolf. Being a crafter doesn't make you a sheep.
In fact, I've seen so many wolf marketeers and scammers that never touched combat, but made sheep so mad just by doing what they do best. Likewise, there's the sheep that think they can PvP but just get dumpstered by the wolf, and go cry on the forums about imbalances.
It may seem like I am lumping every player into one of two categories.. because I am. That clanner could be either.
He could be a wolf surrounded by sheep, in which case he tries to give his sheep mates the protection they need to not get gibbed as he carries them to victory. Maybe he enjoys watching the chaos of the situation - both clannies and enemies dying - but since he is the wolf, the sheep will always look up to him in awe and his enemies - should they be sheep - will simply get dumpstered. Maybe a part of him likes having fans. The wolf will always get what he wants from the sheep - whether that be rage, sadness, or awe.
He could be a wolf among wolves, whose crafting empowers all of them to be the best they can be. The wolf pack is even more capable of preying on sheep, even tightly-grouped herds. When you can simply overpower an enemy by a huge margin, it makes the tears of the sheep that much more pleasurable.
Or he could be a sheep among wolves. Crafting to empower his allies, while he contributes nothing special to the fight. He just makes his friends more capable of carrying him.
Or a sheep among sheep. Trying to give his allies the best advantage they can get when they fight the other sheep clan. Of course, when the wolf pack comes in.. it's over for the sheep.
Wolves and sheep could end up doing the same things in a game. The difference is that the wolf doesn't feel things like 'fear', 'risk', 'challenge', 'suspense', 'attachment', 'addiction', or 'anger'. All they feel is happiness when the sheep it is hunting gets destroyed. The sheep feels all of those because they are attached to the game in an intricate way that does not allow them to become wolves and feed off of another player's misfortune.
There is no in-between or sometimes. You are either attached to the game in a way that prevents you from being the wolf, or you have moved past these emotions and have already become one.
I'm fine with full loot as long as it doesn't end up like Minecraft PvP.
Step 1: Grab a friend and log into a full loot Minecraft PvP server with no chest locking or residence protection.
Step 2: Get iron armor. It is easy enough to get and is durable.
Step 3: Double team on a person who has iron or diamond armor and steal their loot.
Step 4: Raid their chests if you can find them. Steal everything valueable and stick it in a chest somewhere safe. Don't actually build with the stuff, because you're just here to raid houses anyways.
Step 5: Repeat any steps as necessary.
Minecraft PvP is a perfect example of PvP gone wrong, even if you leave out the sandbox parts. If you leave in the sandbox parts it ends up like watching children knocking down eachother's sandcastles.
Well,
Most MMO players don't like and won't play full loot games.
OP does not get people who don't like full loot games.
-> OP does not get most MMO players, and the trend of the MMO market.
trend of the MMO market...thats funny
here is the trend for you
MMO Games became MMO Entertainment Softwarre
its not a game if you can't lose...
No thanks.
I'm sure you can get a few dozen people to play such a game though.
When I play a FPS, do I get weaker after I die? FFA PvP is full of ganking and griefing. It invites those types.
so all you do in darkfall is kill people and have people kill you and loot each other?
Ya basically Khaeos says, I'll only play darkfall if all I want to do is kill people. Aka be the wolf. I dont' think any sheep want to play that game. So I think most pure gather or crafter will stay out.
Just remember what I was trying to say thr next time youre playing your MMO of choice and say "this game is too easy"
Because deep down thats how you want it to be
I don't think you understand, so I will clarify things.
Being a PvPer doesn't make you a wolf. Being a crafter doesn't make you a sheep.
In fact, I've seen so many wolf marketeers and scammers that never touched combat, but made sheep so mad just by doing what they do best. Likewise, there's the sheep that think they can PvP but just get dumpstered by the wolf, and go cry on the forums about imbalances.
It may seem like I am lumping every player into one of two categories.. because I am. That clanner could be either.
He could be a wolf surrounded by sheep, in which case he tries to give his sheep mates the protection they need to not get gibbed as he carries them to victory. Maybe he enjoys watching the chaos of the situation - both clannies and enemies dying - but since he is the wolf, the sheep will always look up to him in awe and his enemies - should they be sheep - will simply get dumpstered. Maybe a part of him likes having fans. The wolf will always get what he wants from the sheep - whether that be rage, sadness, or awe.
He could be a wolf among wolves, whose crafting empowers all of them to be the best they can be. The wolf pack is even more capable of preying on sheep, even tightly-grouped herds. When you can simply overpower an enemy by a huge margin, it makes the tears of the sheep that much more pleasurable.
Or he could be a sheep among wolves. Crafting to empower his allies, while he contributes nothing special to the fight. He just makes his friends more capable of carrying him.
Or a sheep among sheep. Trying to give his allies the best advantage they can get when they fight the other sheep clan. Of course, when the wolf pack comes in.. it's over for the sheep.
Wolves and sheep could end up doing the same things in a game. The difference is that the wolf doesn't feel things like 'fear', 'risk', 'challenge', 'suspense', 'attachment', 'addiction', or 'anger'. All they feel is happiness when the sheep it is hunting gets destroyed. The sheep feels all of those because they are attached to the game in an intricate way that does not allow them to become wolves and feed off of another player's misfortune.
There is no in-between or sometimes. You are either attached to the game in a way that prevents you from being the wolf, or you have moved past these emotions and have already become one.
You make some insightful observations in regards to player interactions. However you cannot boil down the entire spectrum of players into either black or white. You sound like Kitty Farmer from Donnie Darko. Professing that love and fear are the deepest of human emotion. Where does the sheepdog fit into your pretty little pasture? He is not a wolf preying on the weak.A lot of armchair psychology and economics going on in here. A few points:
1) You'll never get an economy as deep as EVE's in a PVE game, unless ingame items are temporary. That is, they decay until they become useless and must be replaced. The reason is that the foundation of economics -- the very first principle, in fact -- is that resources are scarce, and economies reflect the distribution of those scarce resources. In a PVE game, there's no need for full loot, unless players are stealing gear off of other players when they die in PVE. Thus, there's no need to replace gear, no need to craft gear, and no need to gather resources. In a full loot game, gear gets stolen and must be replaced. Your death benefits the whole system, because you provide a market for the crafters, who in turn provide a market for those gathering resources. This isn't rocket science; in fact, it's basic high school economics. If you don't believe me, ask yourself why the only fully functioning economies in MMOs exist in games with loss of gear. Why has there never been a PVE game with a deep economy?
2) Most people don't wake up in the morning intending to be arseholes. Believe it or not, most griefers don't dedicate their time solely to griefing; they play just as much of the game as anyone else, and they gank a few people on the side. This is a good thing, because they are the ones fueling the economy. Not only that, but they provide the risk that makes every reward that much sweeter. Why is it that themeparks all feel exactly the same? Part of it is the mechanics, but a deeper, more fundamental aspect of it is that there's no reward beyond the skinner box condtioning that the developer is feeding you. You log in, you kill some NPCs that you have no emotional investment in, you get your trinket, repeat ad infinitum. If someone (god forbid) kills you, and dares to impinge on your fun, you run back and keep doing the same boring shit that you were doing before. At least griefers force you to think and play the game, rather than the numbers circlejerk.
Maybe this show that a the pro innovation group is a niche groupPhilosophy of MMO Game Design
trend of the MMO market...thats funny
here is the trend for you
MMO Games became MMO Entertainment Softwarre
its not a game if you can't lose...
Huh? In older games when I lost I simply could start all over. How is that different from failing to defeat a raid boss and having to fight again from start?Philosophy of MMO Game Design
so darkfall is the only possible alternative to WoW, got it.
Full loot games are a niche. You don't need full loot for the gang mentality to creep into the game, just true open world PvP. Killing enemy guild players on sight, fights over grind spots. You call this strong community, with alliances and enemies, but in fact you can get this without the full loot rule as well. Full loot just destroys the PvE aspect of the game and doesn't bring anything else to replace it. Full loot games will always be a niche because they are in fact less of a game than games that don't have this.
Oh hey look, a thoughtful and insightful post! Too bad people will graze over it.
Here it is again for people to see. Read what he has to say, instead of making inane responses such as "WALL OF TEXT, DURRR" hey you're on a forum, you're here to read not jerk it, kay?
My game will have a fully functioning EvE like economy with only pve. You just have to set up the PvE right.
I never said that wolves are all assholes. Wolves are simply united by the fact that they gain pleasure off of another player's misfortune and they are not attached to the game in a meaningful emotional way.
Sheepdog? They are just sheep that attempt to wrangle some fame from the sheep playerbase. Anti-PK clans? Sheepdog. The wolf isn't affected. They just kill the sheepdogs. Then the sheep. The only people scared of the sheepdog is other sheep that simply do not know how to play.
But I think I've put that analogy through too much use, so I'll try to make it simpler. Hopefully this will make myself look less like an 'armchair psychologist', too.
The dumpster.
The dumpster doesn't care about you losing your loot. In fact, it has no use for it. It does not feel loss, sadness, fear, or anger. It is always emotionless, all the time.
Dumpster does not care about any attempt to keep you away from it. The Anti-PK clan won't protect you from the dumpster. Your friends will not protect you from the dumpster.
It lies in wait, hidden in the places you do not dare to look. The dumpster doesn't even have to move; instead, you end up moving straight towards it, all the time, even if you cant see it.
Dumpster has nothing to risk and faces no challenge, and will not go away, because it exists for one and only one purpose:
To put you in it.
a. no, all it makes me do is to look over my shoulder constantly, mistrust everyone and keep away from people. If its EVE, not take any contracts from people at all, don't talk to anyone but people in my closest friends-circle and be paranoid about leaving 1.0 sec
I do not enjoy fear or the feeling or being hunted.
b. The risk is entirely lopsided. Do you really think that pirates in EVE are taking a risk going gate-camping for half an hour?
There is no risk for the griefer, only enjoyment from the kill. For the killed, its constant paranoia and fear.
The pirate always wins, even when he looses.
And I don't see how this is any less "armchair" with the empircally unsupported hypotheses you mention.
It isn't so much about easy or hard. The thing is most people that play those kind of game do want to kill people.
There are still people playing Eve, even though they are the sheep. But why would you play darkfall unless you want to be the wolve. That's why I asked if all you do in darkfall is kill people or have people kill you and loot each other.
Using a dumpster to explain aspects of MMOs...I could be wrong, but I believe you just won the interwebs. I applaud thee.
Why can't you understand how some people don't like it?
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
a. Risk versus reward is not only in combat... you only trust a person as much as you want to risk... if you risk big, your reward will also be big.
example: you trust john doe with 1 billion isk worth of items (tha's a big risk) for him to jump freighter it over enemy territory. if you make it, you then have supplies for 1-2 months, plus a station and modules etc... in your safe(r) destination.
you dont talk to people but the ones in the closest circles? you are missing out on alot of diplomatic or potential allies, again you risk big that they will stab you in the back, or you gain the reward by having a fleet come to your aid during war.
paranoid of leaving 1.0? you are not playing EvE the right way... when i played, 0.0 space was safer than high sec. when i would go in high sec i would never use a T2 ship. in 0.0 always T2, or capitals
b. i do think pirates in eve are taking a risk gatecamping for 30 minutes, ive had my corp, go around and purposefully engage those campers... and we got some pretty good loot from them ON TOP of getting paid to remove the gate camps... ON TOP of having free access to use their jump bridges and very lucrative 0.0 ratting
the whole problem is right there, people do not want to risk anything, not even a penny, if it means they can lose it. Ive sent Fleets of Capital ships (valued in the hundreds of billions) just to claim 1 system... the risk, 100billion worth of ships, the reward, a fucking solar system, with 20+ asteroid belts and ice, not to mention the capability to upgrade it to no ends.
the question how much are you willing to risk?
risk a wooden stick and your reward will be death
risk a platinum sword and you might end up with a full set of armor.
and that's why most players tend to ignore the no risk players... you see a guy running naked with a stick, you know he poses no danger to you, thus no risk, thus no reward, thus why even bother...
Where is that magic "risk/reward" you are talking about, clarly i must be missing it.