And AGAIN, defending the lack of choice is not the same as the same as defending the freedom of it because the freedom of it offeres everything the LACK OF IT HAS AND MORE.
Argument 1: I want a game with only 1 attack.
Argument 2: I want a game with 20 attacks.
1. Hey, how dare you limit my choices by rejecting what I want.
2. No, you can still just press the same damn attack over and over and let me have my 20.
not equal. does not apply. try your approach again please because having the freedom to chose faction and race still allows you to pretend to be limited in game while everyone else has the FREEDOM to chose. It is a ROLYPLAYING game afterall, role play you are a mindless slave forced to serve a faction and never leave their lands.
again you make my argument for me. A game with 20 attacks is fne as a choice, so is a game with only one (bit of exageration there but it is your number) is also a choice. Telling me that if I like a game with 1 attack then play the game with 20 attacks and use the one I like, is not offering me a choice of the style I like but telling me I am wrong to want what I want.
And again you prove mine by stating that the choice that fits one is the same as the choice that fits all...so so closed minded.
You do know almost every single MMO ever made has/had PvE, RP, PvERP, PvP and PvPRP servers for a reason right? Cause they wanted to provid servers for MANY play types right? yeah...the base game is the same. Make a game with 1 attack, lose everyone that wants more, give more...and those that want 1 can play with 1.
I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson
And AGAIN, defending the lack of choice is not the same as the same as defending the freedom of it because the freedom of it offeres everything the LACK OF IT HAS AND MORE.
Argument 1: I want a game with only 1 attack.
Argument 2: I want a game with 20 attacks.
1. Hey, how dare you limit my choices by rejecting what I want.
2. No, you can still just press the same damn attack over and over and let me have my 20.
not equal. does not apply. try your approach again please because having the freedom to chose faction and race still allows you to pretend to be limited in game while everyone else has the FREEDOM to chose. It is a ROLYPLAYING game afterall, role play you are a mindless slave forced to serve a faction and never leave their lands.
again you make my argument for me. A game with 20 attacks is fne as a choice, so is a game with only one (bit of exageration there but it is your number) is also a choice. Telling me that if I like a game with 1 attack then play the game with 20 attacks and use the one I like, is not offering me a choice of the style I like but telling me I am wrong to want what I want.
And again you prove mine by stating that the choice that fits one is the same as the choice that fits all...so so closed minded.
You do know almost every single MMO ever made has/had PvE, RP, PvERP, PvP and PvPRP servers for a reason right? Cause they wanted to provid servers for MANY play types right? yeah...the base game is the same. Make a game with 1 attack, lose everyone that wants more, give more...and those that want 1 can play with 1.
Yes they provided servers of various types to offer choice of playstyles. They did not make every server a PvPRP server and say "see we have offered you choice on these servers you can PvE, RP, PvERP, PvP and PvPRP whichever you choose".
Stopped reading there. You obviously have no clue about the industry.
Darkfall is one of the only MMOs in the last 8 years to grow after launch.
The dev team went from about 20 devs, on a one million dollar budget, making a game over the course of 5 years.
They've since, started selling boxed copies, opened a second server, hired 40 more developers, moved into a bigger office. Released 3 expansions AND a sequel.
How do you do that if you're a dismal financial failure?
And never exceeeded 50k subscribers ( a very generous overestimation) or paid back the multi million dollar loans and investments taken out over a period of years. The sequal is an even worse disaster. Do you know anything about the history of Aventurine?
Yeah, he summed it up pretty well.
The original DF was certainly not a roaring success, but to call it a "dismal failure", is a display of ignorance.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
And again you prove mine by stating that the choice that fits one is the same as the choice that fits all...so so closed minded.
You do know almost every single MMO ever made has/had PvE, RP, PvERP, PvP and PvPRP servers for a reason right? Cause they wanted to provid servers for MANY play types right? yeah...the base game is the same. Make a game with 1 attack, lose everyone that wants more, give more...and those that want 1 can play with 1.
Yes they provided servers of various types to offer choice of playstyles. They did not make every server a PvPRP server and say "see we have offered you choice on these servers you can PvE, RP, PvERP, PvP and PvPRP whichever you choose".
And yet again you prove me right that you cannot make equal comparrisons...one cannot have "PvE" for PvEers on a PvP server. One can however have PvP for PvPers on a PvE server.
In order for your comparrison to work with the option you are defending is my way. Factions, in an open faction choice enviorment where those that want closed factions can still play as if that is the case...you cannot do that the opposite way. So again, you claim the lack of being able to choose is the same as being able to chose.
I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson
And again you prove mine by stating that the choice that fits one is the same as the choice that fits all...so so closed minded.
You do know almost every single MMO ever made has/had PvE, RP, PvERP, PvP and PvPRP servers for a reason right? Cause they wanted to provid servers for MANY play types right? yeah...the base game is the same. Make a game with 1 attack, lose everyone that wants more, give more...and those that want 1 can play with 1.
Yes they provided servers of various types to offer choice of playstyles. They did not make every server a PvPRP server and say "see we have offered you choice on these servers you can PvE, RP, PvERP, PvP and PvPRP whichever you choose".
And yet again you prove me right that you cannot make equal comparrisons...one cannot have "PvE" for PvEers on a PvP server. One can however have PvP for PvPers on a PvE server.
In order for your comparrison to work with the option you are defending is my way. Factions, in an open faction choice enviorment where those that want closed factions can still play as if that is the case...you cannot do that the opposite way. So again, you claim the lack of being able to choose is the same as being able to chose.
Well actually the reason you cannot combine PvE and FFA PvP playstyles on the same server is that one choice over rides the other. It is the same in the option you are suggesting if the choice you wish to make is having races tied to factions, then the choice of not having races tied to factions over rides this. One or the other, which is selected in a particular game is up to the developers. Players then have the choice of which game to play. Campaigning for a particular option in a particular game is not campaigning for choice in general, it is campaigning for the selection of a particular choice. The choice you prefer.
i cant even believe that POS darkfall made it into this thread . That company has done nothing at all but money steal from their own customers including myself when i had to put out a fraud charge with my credit card company on them because their game was completely and utterly unplayable. They then fought me on the chargebacks after multiple emails sent to them saying the game was unplayable on my pc yet they still tried everything they could to keep their 30 bucks. That company by far deserves to be put out of business its so shady. Sorry for the rant , but comparing Darkfall to any real realm vs realm game isnt even justice to even an indie studio compared to darkfall.
Originally posted by cronius77 i cant even believe that POS darkfall made it into this thread . That company has done nothing at all but money steal from their own customers including myself when i had to put out a fraud charge with my credit card company on them because their game was completely and utterly unplayable. They then fought me on the chargebacks after multiple emails sent to them saying the game was unplayable on my pc yet they still tried everything they could to keep their 30 bucks. That company by far deserves to be put out of business its so shady. Sorry for the rant , but comparing Darkfall to any real realm vs realm game isnt even justice to even an indie studio compared to darkfall.
DF:UW isn't even released yet and you thought beta is always free playtime. And because of that you fraud charge them? What an asshole you are :P You gonna use that 30 bucks to save up for a pc upgrade or something?
Originally posted by cronius77 i cant even believe that POS darkfall made it into this thread . That company has done nothing at all but money steal from their own customers including myself when i had to put out a fraud charge with my credit card company on them because their game was completely and utterly unplayable. They then fought me on the chargebacks after multiple emails sent to them saying the game was unplayable on my pc yet they still tried everything they could to keep their 30 bucks. That company by far deserves to be put out of business its so shady. Sorry for the rant , but comparing Darkfall to any real realm vs realm game isnt even justice to even an indie studio compared to darkfall.
DF:UW isn't even released yet and you thought beta is always free playtime. And because of that you fraud charge them? What an asshole you are :P You gonna use that 30 bucks to save up for a pc upgrade or something?
it has nothing at all to do with what you are saying it has to do with optimus driver packages know it all. Go troll elsewhere.
Well actually the reason you cannot combine PvE and FFA PvP playstyles on the same server is that one choice over rides the other. It is the same in the option you are suggesting not true because you can have both if the choice you wish to make is having races tied to factions, then the choice of not having races tied to factions over rides this not true again because you can chose to roleplay races are tied to factions. One or the other, which is selected in a particular game is up to the developers which is a copout and has nothing to do with a player asking for a choice. Players then have the choice of which game to play which is the case no matter what and has nothing to do with it. Campaigning for a particular option in a particular game is not campaigning for choice in general, it is campaigning for the selection of a particular choice False dichotomy which is the entire arugement of choice by asking for no choice as if all are equal and that there are no other alternatives. The choice you prefer which includes all choices.
This is fun, you may actually eventually touch on something tangible.
one choice includes all, another has no choice.
I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson
Well actually the reason you cannot combine PvE and FFA PvP playstyles on the same server is that one choice over rides the other. It is the same in the option you are suggesting not true because you can have both if the choice you wish to make is having races tied to factions, then the choice of not having races tied to factions over rides this not true again because you can chose to roleplay races are tied to factions. One or the other, which is selected in a particular game is up to the developers which is a copout and has nothing to do with a player asking for a choice. Players then have the choice of which game to play which is the case no matter what and has nothing to do with it. Campaigning for a particular option in a particular game is not campaigning for choice in general, it is campaigning for the selection of a particular choice False dichotomy which is the entire arugement of choice by asking for no choice as if all are equal and that there are no other alternatives. The choice you prefer which includes all choices.
This is fun, you may actually eventually touch on something tangible.
one choice includes all, another has no choice.
Actaully we seem to be repeating the argument sketch from Monty Python.
If you are in a game that does not tie races to factions then simply "role playing a race as if it is tied to a faction" does not work, the next member of your race you encounter may or may not be in the same faction as you and this will effect the PvP and other consequences of encountering them.
So whether or not to tie races to faction is a game level choice, and it is one that is ultimately made by the developers. Again if you want one or other option feel free to campaign for it, that is your choice. Just do not suggest that your preference offers more "choices" than the other when it opens up some options and closes others.
Actaully we seem to be repeating the argument sketch from Monty Python.
If you are in a game that does not tie races to factions then simply "role playing a race as if it is tied to a faction" does not work, the next member of your race you encounter may or may not be in the same faction as you and this will effect the PvP and other consequences of encountering them.
So whether or not to tie races to faction is a game level choice, and it is one that is ultimately made by the developers. Again if you want one or other option feel free to campaign for it, that is your choice. Just do not suggest that your preference offers more "choices" than the other when it opens up some options and closes others.
And now a for something completely different, a man with three buttocks.
Anyway, yes...yes you CAN roleplay race faction restricitions even IF you see someone else playing your race in the other faction...by seeing them as a traitor...not a very good roleplayer are you?
Guess that knocks the eff out of the rest of the arugment you posted...and falls right back into the false dichotomy catagory.
I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson
Actaully we seem to be repeating the argument sketch from Monty Python.
If you are in a game that does not tie races to factions then simply "role playing a race as if it is tied to a faction" does not work, the next member of your race you encounter may or may not be in the same faction as you and this will effect the PvP and other consequences of encountering them.
So whether or not to tie races to faction is a game level choice, and it is one that is ultimately made by the developers. Again if you want one or other option feel free to campaign for it, that is your choice. Just do not suggest that your preference offers more "choices" than the other when it opens up some options and closes others.
And now a for something completely different, a man with three buttocks.
Anyway, yes...yes you CAN roleplay race faction restricitions even IF you see someone else playing your race in the other faction...by seeing them as a traitor...not a very good roleplayer are you?
Guess that knocks the eff out of the rest of the arugment you posted...and falls right back into the false dichotomy catagory.
So a dwarf walks up to another dwarf and says I dont like Orcs much and the second dwarf cuts the first in half because he is actually a servant of the dark lord.
It is called "false flagging", it is intended to give a player in PvP an advantage by appearing to be on the same side as another player allowing them to get a postional advantage before attacking them.
Yes you can role play a 'traitor" but it is an option you select a game on. Once the choice is made by a developer to not tie race to faction then you must adjust to it while playing the game. It is a game level choice that makes a difference to everyone that plays the game.
All through this I have tried to make no judgement as to which option I prefer. What I continue to maintain is that neither option, of itself, enhances players choices. You continue to maintain that it does, this is an impasse and one I do not think we will resolve,
So 90% (or some other immersion breaking high percentage) of your race are traitors? It subtracts from the lore. If you don't care obout lore that's fine but it can't be both ways.
Lore is created with the game, so if the game is not made in such a way...there is no lore to break. thanks for trying.
I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson
So a dwarf walks up to another dwarf and says I dont like Orcs much and the second dwarf cuts the first in half because he is actually a servant of the dark lord.
It is called "false flagging", it is intended to give a player in PvP an advantage by appearing to be on the same side as another player allowing them to get a postional advantage before attacking them.
In other words, every single game that doesn have factions but has races was unfair? lol...
No wonder the makers of TESO basically stated they believe players are so stupid they must make it so the enemy is clear...you wouldnt stand much a chance in games like Anarchy Online, Star Wars Galaxies, Age of Conan and a dozen others where PvP had people of the same race on both sides...did you quit playing WoW when suddenly both sides had elves?!?
I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson
So a dwarf walks up to another dwarf and says I dont like Orcs much and the second dwarf cuts the first in half because he is actually a servant of the dark lord.
It is called "false flagging", it is intended to give a player in PvP an advantage by appearing to be on the same side as another player allowing them to get a postional advantage before attacking them.
In other words, every single game that doesn have factions but has races was unfair? lol...
No wonder the makers of TESO basically stated they believe players are so stupid they must make it so the enemy is clear...you wouldnt stand much a chance in games like Anarchy Online, Star Wars Galaxies, Age of Conan and a dozen others where PvP had people of the same race on both sides...did you quit playing WoW when suddenly both sides had elves?!?
No I did not say that, you are trying to move the argument on to whether or not I think tying race to faction is a good thing. I am not arguing that very deliberately. It is a design choice, I have said that a number of times already.
What I have said and continue to say is that the making of this design choice has an impact on every player, choosing to not tie race to faction does not enhance player choice it just puts the game in that category rather than the other. If you know that it is possible for any race to be in any faction you have one set of options if you know that a race is tied to a faction you have another set of options.
So a dwarf walks up to another dwarf and says I dont like Orcs much and the second dwarf cuts the first in half because he is actually a servant of the dark lord.
It is called "false flagging", it is intended to give a player in PvP an advantage by appearing to be on the same side as another player allowing them to get a postional advantage before attacking them.
In other words, every single game that doesn have factions but has races was unfair? lol...
No wonder the makers of TESO basically stated they believe players are so stupid they must make it so the enemy is clear...you wouldnt stand much a chance in games like Anarchy Online, Star Wars Galaxies, Age of Conan and a dozen others where PvP had people of the same race on both sides...did you quit playing WoW when suddenly both sides had elves?!?
No I did not say that, you are trying to move the argument on to whether or not I think tying race to faction is a good thing. I am not arguing that very deliberately.
Clearly, you did. You said the design allows players an advantage over the other...
And that is why so many people say that DaoC was PvP for PvE carebare players. It was hand holding PvP(along with other implimentations) and many of the games developers say it PUBLICLY as can be seen on the TESO website. Factions with race restrictions is to CLEARLY DEFINE who the enemy is by keeping the factions different.
And sadly, even Jacobs said today on the massively stream...CU will have factions to hold players hands...if you are arthurian you will only be able to play with arthurians and cant attack or be attack by other arthurians...for realm pride...lol. pride? that isnt pride. Pride is beating your enemies which can also be done in open world pvp!
Simple, if you need protection in PvP by developers like walls to protect you...should you really be doing it?
Themepark is bad enough, themepark PvP...gawd damn...take the guide rails off.
I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson
So a dwarf walks up to another dwarf and says I dont like Orcs much and the second dwarf cuts the first in half because he is actually a servant of the dark lord.
It is called "false flagging", it is intended to give a player in PvP an advantage by appearing to be on the same side as another player allowing them to get a postional advantage before attacking them.
In other words, every single game that doesn have factions but has races was unfair? lol...
No wonder the makers of TESO basically stated they believe players are so stupid they must make it so the enemy is clear...you wouldnt stand much a chance in games like Anarchy Online, Star Wars Galaxies, Age of Conan and a dozen others where PvP had people of the same race on both sides...did you quit playing WoW when suddenly both sides had elves?!?
No I did not say that, you are trying to move the argument on to whether or not I think tying race to faction is a good thing. I am not arguing that very deliberately.
Clearly, you did. You said the design allows players an advantage over the other...
And that is why so many people say that DaoC was PvP for PvE carebare players. It was hand holding PvP(along with other implimentations) and many of the games developers say it PUBLICLY as can be seen on the TESO website. Factions with race restrictions is to CLEARLY DEFINE who the enemy is by keeping the factions different.
And sadly, even Jacobs said today on the massively stream...CU will have factions to hold players hands...if you are arthurian you will only be able to play with arthurians and cant attack or be attack by other arthurians...for realm pride...lol. pride? that isnt pride. Pride is beating your enemies which can also be done in open world pvp!
Simple, if you need protection in PvP by developers like walls to protect you...should you really be doing it?
Themepark is bad enough, themepark PvP...gawd damn...take the guide rails off.
Ahh back to "PK scum" versus "Carebears" good luck with that attitude bye.
Ahh back to "PK scum" versus "Carebears" good luck with that attitude bye.
Ahh back to the, counter point was made I cannot refute and was shown I made a poor argument so im going to act like a child.
Sorry, but if DaoC had such a great idea with its closed off RvR PvP then please point out to me the other popular RvR games where its so damn well loved...oh wait, there arent any...games have gone battlegrounds or went back to non-closed PvP areas outside of Guild Wars 2 and its World v World which only works because it isnt a CC heavy or gear heavy game, it removes the PvE factor in PvP...and just the bunker elementalist alone requires more skill to use than a bunch of classes in PvE based PvP games put together.
BTW, at no point in any of the threads we have posted in together have I ever said anything about FREE FOR ALL PvP.
Open world PvP and Free for all is NOT the same thing. Open world PvP only means that PvP can take place EVERYWHERE, its supposed to be a WAR afterall.
I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson
A big name in the industry wanting to make a successor to one of the insutry's big names...and he is resorting to public funding?
It doesn't compute. If he wanted to make a low budget MMO he should have no problem securing funding, and the freedom to make the game he wanted to make.
But instead he is choosing to take advantage of the public, using the Camelot name to secure free capital he doesnt need to pay back. The whole thing seems off to me.
Just consider: If you use borrowed money, you have incentive to succeed. If you use free money, then it doesnt matter, you dont have to pay anyone back.
Kickstarter for a startup company of unknown developers is one thing. For a big name person developing a big name game though...It doesnt add up.
You made a thread asking why someone would try to secure interest-free capital vs. capital with interest attached...
Why give to a MMO kickstarter? It's whether you view gaming as an industry or as an art/entertainment.
If you view gaming as strictly a company-to-consumer relationship than sure a Kickstarter makes absolutely no sense. However, I've spent enough of my life gaming where I honestly view MMOs as more of an art. I want developers to design games that aren't strictly maximizing ROI but rather implementing features that appeal to my specific gaming tastes, and perhaps buck the current MMO trend.
It's like donating to a city orchestra. You could argue WTF is someone giving money to an organization that all wear tuxedos and mainly has a clientelle of rich old people who like to listen to songs composed by dead rich europeans? Reason being many people enjoy live classical music, and an orchestra wouldn't surive without donations in today's society because it's become a Niche. So if you like classical music you give money to it so you can enjoy it. CU is a MMO equivelent of an orchestra in my eyes. I like RvR, crafting, sandboxes, and swords, so I'll donate to the CU kickstarter. If you don't then don't.
I'm not sure if serious posts are supposed to be made past page 15 but i did it anyway.
And that is why so many people say that DaoC was PvP for PvE carebare players. It was hand holding PvP(along with other implimentations) and many of the games developers say it PUBLICLY as can be seen on the TESO website. Factions with race restrictions is to CLEARLY DEFINE who the enemy is by keeping the factions different.
And sadly, even Jacobs said today on the massively stream...CU will have factions to hold players hands...if you are arthurian you will only be able to play with arthurians and cant attack or be attack by other arthurians...for realm pride...lol. pride? that isnt pride. Pride is beating your enemies which can also be done in open world pvp!
You have no idea of the realm pride you are speaking of here. Sure you are happy if you can pwn someone in an open world pvp. which is FFA if you do not have any restrictions.
But realm pride is created by knowing with whom and against whom you are fighting. Suddenly you are fighting not for your own, but for your faction (realm). To bind races at factions is a clever idea to amplify the feeling of togetherness, which results at the end in the pretense of real purpose. Which is a strong motivator to stick in that game and forms a strong (factionwide) community which is again a reason to stick to that game.
For me it is ok if you do not want to have restriction in which faction you are with your race or who you want to kill in an open world. But then camelot uncained is nothing for you, since it is not player vs player but realm vs realm
MMO's played so far: UO,EQ,DAOC,EQ2,GW,ROM,WOW,WAR,AOC,LOTRO,RIFT,TSW,GW2,POE Looking forward to: Camelot Unchained, Star Citizen
corporate investors are about as good for a game as cars are for our environment.
LFD tools are great for cramming people into content, but quality > quantity. I am, usually on the sandbox .. more "hardcore" side of things, but I also do just want to have fun. So lighten up already
Comments
And again you prove mine by stating that the choice that fits one is the same as the choice that fits all...so so closed minded.
You do know almost every single MMO ever made has/had PvE, RP, PvERP, PvP and PvPRP servers for a reason right? Cause they wanted to provid servers for MANY play types right? yeah...the base game is the same. Make a game with 1 attack, lose everyone that wants more, give more...and those that want 1 can play with 1.
I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson
Yes they provided servers of various types to offer choice of playstyles. They did not make every server a PvPRP server and say "see we have offered you choice on these servers you can PvE, RP, PvERP, PvP and PvPRP whichever you choose".
Yeah, he summed it up pretty well.
The original DF was certainly not a roaring success, but to call it a "dismal failure", is a display of ignorance.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
And yet again you prove me right that you cannot make equal comparrisons...one cannot have "PvE" for PvEers on a PvP server. One can however have PvP for PvPers on a PvE server.
In order for your comparrison to work with the option you are defending is my way. Factions, in an open faction choice enviorment where those that want closed factions can still play as if that is the case...you cannot do that the opposite way. So again, you claim the lack of being able to choose is the same as being able to chose.
I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson
Well actually the reason you cannot combine PvE and FFA PvP playstyles on the same server is that one choice over rides the other. It is the same in the option you are suggesting if the choice you wish to make is having races tied to factions, then the choice of not having races tied to factions over rides this. One or the other, which is selected in a particular game is up to the developers. Players then have the choice of which game to play. Campaigning for a particular option in a particular game is not campaigning for choice in general, it is campaigning for the selection of a particular choice. The choice you prefer.
DF:UW isn't even released yet and you thought beta is always free playtime. And because of that you fraud charge them? What an asshole you are :P You gonna use that 30 bucks to save up for a pc upgrade or something?
https://www.facebook.com/FUtilez ||| https://twitter.com/FUtilez ||| https://www.youtube.com/futilezguild
it has nothing at all to do with what you are saying it has to do with optimus driver packages know it all. Go troll elsewhere.
This is fun, you may actually eventually touch on something tangible.
one choice includes all, another has no choice.
I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson
Actaully we seem to be repeating the argument sketch from Monty Python.
If you are in a game that does not tie races to factions then simply "role playing a race as if it is tied to a faction" does not work, the next member of your race you encounter may or may not be in the same faction as you and this will effect the PvP and other consequences of encountering them.
So whether or not to tie races to faction is a game level choice, and it is one that is ultimately made by the developers. Again if you want one or other option feel free to campaign for it, that is your choice. Just do not suggest that your preference offers more "choices" than the other when it opens up some options and closes others.
And now a for something completely different, a man with three buttocks.
Anyway, yes...yes you CAN roleplay race faction restricitions even IF you see someone else playing your race in the other faction...by seeing them as a traitor...not a very good roleplayer are you?
Guess that knocks the eff out of the rest of the arugment you posted...and falls right back into the false dichotomy catagory.
I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson
So a dwarf walks up to another dwarf and says I dont like Orcs much and the second dwarf cuts the first in half because he is actually a servant of the dark lord.
It is called "false flagging", it is intended to give a player in PvP an advantage by appearing to be on the same side as another player allowing them to get a postional advantage before attacking them.
Yes you can role play a 'traitor" but it is an option you select a game on. Once the choice is made by a developer to not tie race to faction then you must adjust to it while playing the game. It is a game level choice that makes a difference to everyone that plays the game.
All through this I have tried to make no judgement as to which option I prefer. What I continue to maintain is that neither option, of itself, enhances players choices. You continue to maintain that it does, this is an impasse and one I do not think we will resolve,
This is one derailed thread lol
DWARFS RULE that is all
Lore is created with the game, so if the game is not made in such a way...there is no lore to break. thanks for trying.
I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson
In other words, every single game that doesn have factions but has races was unfair? lol...
No wonder the makers of TESO basically stated they believe players are so stupid they must make it so the enemy is clear...you wouldnt stand much a chance in games like Anarchy Online, Star Wars Galaxies, Age of Conan and a dozen others where PvP had people of the same race on both sides...did you quit playing WoW when suddenly both sides had elves?!?
I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson
No I did not say that, you are trying to move the argument on to whether or not I think tying race to faction is a good thing. I am not arguing that very deliberately. It is a design choice, I have said that a number of times already.
What I have said and continue to say is that the making of this design choice has an impact on every player, choosing to not tie race to faction does not enhance player choice it just puts the game in that category rather than the other. If you know that it is possible for any race to be in any faction you have one set of options if you know that a race is tied to a faction you have another set of options.
Clearly, you did. You said the design allows players an advantage over the other...
And that is why so many people say that DaoC was PvP for PvE carebare players. It was hand holding PvP(along with other implimentations) and many of the games developers say it PUBLICLY as can be seen on the TESO website. Factions with race restrictions is to CLEARLY DEFINE who the enemy is by keeping the factions different.
And sadly, even Jacobs said today on the massively stream...CU will have factions to hold players hands...if you are arthurian you will only be able to play with arthurians and cant attack or be attack by other arthurians...for realm pride...lol. pride? that isnt pride. Pride is beating your enemies which can also be done in open world pvp!
Simple, if you need protection in PvP by developers like walls to protect you...should you really be doing it?
Themepark is bad enough, themepark PvP...gawd damn...take the guide rails off.
I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson
Ahh back to "PK scum" versus "Carebears" good luck with that attitude bye.
Ahh back to the, counter point was made I cannot refute and was shown I made a poor argument so im going to act like a child.
Sorry, but if DaoC had such a great idea with its closed off RvR PvP then please point out to me the other popular RvR games where its so damn well loved...oh wait, there arent any...games have gone battlegrounds or went back to non-closed PvP areas outside of Guild Wars 2 and its World v World which only works because it isnt a CC heavy or gear heavy game, it removes the PvE factor in PvP...and just the bunker elementalist alone requires more skill to use than a bunch of classes in PvE based PvP games put together.
BTW, at no point in any of the threads we have posted in together have I ever said anything about FREE FOR ALL PvP.
Open world PvP and Free for all is NOT the same thing. Open world PvP only means that PvP can take place EVERYWHERE, its supposed to be a WAR afterall.
I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson
You made a thread asking why someone would try to secure interest-free capital vs. capital with interest attached...
Are you being intentionally obtuse?
Why give to a MMO kickstarter? It's whether you view gaming as an industry or as an art/entertainment.
If you view gaming as strictly a company-to-consumer relationship than sure a Kickstarter makes absolutely no sense. However, I've spent enough of my life gaming where I honestly view MMOs as more of an art. I want developers to design games that aren't strictly maximizing ROI but rather implementing features that appeal to my specific gaming tastes, and perhaps buck the current MMO trend.
It's like donating to a city orchestra. You could argue WTF is someone giving money to an organization that all wear tuxedos and mainly has a clientelle of rich old people who like to listen to songs composed by dead rich europeans? Reason being many people enjoy live classical music, and an orchestra wouldn't surive without donations in today's society because it's become a Niche. So if you like classical music you give money to it so you can enjoy it. CU is a MMO equivelent of an orchestra in my eyes. I like RvR, crafting, sandboxes, and swords, so I'll donate to the CU kickstarter. If you don't then don't.
I'm not sure if serious posts are supposed to be made past page 15 but i did it anyway.
You have no idea of the realm pride you are speaking of here. Sure you are happy if you can pwn someone in an open world pvp. which is FFA if you do not have any restrictions.
But realm pride is created by knowing with whom and against whom you are fighting. Suddenly you are fighting not for your own, but for your faction (realm). To bind races at factions is a clever idea to amplify the feeling of togetherness, which results at the end in the pretense of real purpose. Which is a strong motivator to stick in that game and forms a strong (factionwide) community which is again a reason to stick to that game.
For me it is ok if you do not want to have restriction in which faction you are with your race or who you want to kill in an open world. But then camelot uncained is nothing for you, since it is not player vs player but realm vs realm
MMO's played so far:
UO,EQ,DAOC,EQ2,GW,ROM,WOW,WAR,AOC,LOTRO,RIFT,TSW,GW2,POE
Looking forward to: Camelot Unchained, Star Citizen
Or perhaps servers vs servers in an isolated box like your current game?
Because this game is just a cash in on DAoC becoming a buzzword last year?
its simple really.
corporate investors are about as good for a game as cars are for our environment.
LFD tools are great for cramming people into content, but quality > quantity.
I am, usually on the sandbox .. more "hardcore" side of things, but I also do just want to have fun. So lighten up already