I wonder who the OP is addressing. I don't hate PvP, I don't hate PvE.
Why would the OP think I* hate anything?
*I in this case the random forum reader as he doesn't seem to address his post to anyone in particular
Why do you think that everyone on the forum is speaking directly to you? This is a thread for people who hate PvP, yet it's filled with a bunch of idiots going "duh, I don't hate PvP!"
If I want PvP, I'll walk over to my neighbors' and belt him in the mouth.
Pixel PvP is for those who wish they could do that but can't.
Only if you like melee.
What if i want range pvp? Or control-magic pvp?
Go to your neighbors house lay out traps then throw things at him when he falls for one of them.
problem solved!
Lol .. i will try that this evening and let you know if i pk him. Incidentally, if i buy a ball to throw at him, is it p2w? Do i need to stick to rocks that i find in my backyard?
If I want PvP, I'll walk over to my neighbors' and belt him in the mouth.
Pixel PvP is for those who wish they could do that but can't.
Only if you like melee.
What if i want range pvp? Or control-magic pvp?
Go to your neighbors house lay out traps then throw things at him when he falls for one of them.
problem solved!
Lol .. i will try that this evening and let you know if i pk him. Incidentally, if i buy a ball to throw at him, is it p2w? Do i need to stick to rocks that i find in my backyard?
well since Real world currency in this case is in game currency then no it's not P2W...in fact I have a some throwing implements I'd be willing to part with for the right price!!!
Originally posted by AlBQuirky Let's go the American Television route. Was "I Love Lucy" a failure compared to "Survivor?" She (Lucy) did not have near the numbers that "Survivor" has. Nevermind that fewer people had TVs back then, there were fewer people, or that people had less free time than now. Was "I Love Lucy" a failure in your eyes?I am curious about how you measure success. Is it merely numbers?
"merely" numbers? Numbers are the most objective measure.In fact, where do you get that I Love Lucy is a failure compared to Survivors? It is the opposite.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Love_Lucy";I Love Lucyremains popular, with an American audience of 40 million each year."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivor_(U.S._TV_series)#U.S._television_ratingsThe highest season is only 28.3M. One show is higher than this 40M number though. But on average, Survivor is a failure compared to I love lucy.
The 40 million viewers each year I read as being from today's numbers, not from when it aired. When I read this: "I Love Lucy is still syndicated in dozens of languages across the world." it helped me with this conclusion. I could be wrong.
Still the question remains, would either I Love Lucy or Survivor be considered a success in your opinion? How about Rush and Classical music in general?
"Merely numbers" was not a good choice of words on my part. A better question would be "Which numbers do you look at for your criteria?" Mass appeal numbers? Monetary numbers? Ratings numbers? Critique numbers? The bottom line numbers? Arbitrary nariusseldon numbers? Personal opinion?
I am trying to figure out how you hand out your "success/failure" awards. I mean, you say UO is a "failure" when in fact, it was very successful for its own time. You say EVE is a "failure" even though it is considered quite the opposite by many people, many of them players
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard Originally posted by maccarthur2004Originally posted by Thorqemada there will be no successfull FFA-PvP MMORPG in the west.
UO, L2 and EVE are proofs you're wrong.The only reason why UO still exists is because it's no longer a forced open world FFA PvP MMORPG.
Same goes for EvE and L2, those game have more or less efficient ways to limit the mindless ganking and allow more play styles to enjoy the game.
All the games who tried unlimited FFA (or limited, but with failed limitations), are all niche games or dead games right now.
Yes.
Another word about Eve. It has shown modest growth since launch, but consider the following: 1. Eve constantly advertises. 2. Eve's time-based xp model encourages retention 3. There are safe areas 4. The galaxy is so vast that you can play a long time and never see another player.
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon. In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
It gets boring. Either you win so much your bored or you lose so much you begin to dislike whatever it is your playing or you just fall in the middle somewhere and its all the same day in and day out. Media has alot to do with it too, now if your not using x strategy from www.gamewinnerselite.com you must be a failure. That strategy gets thrown around and there is no other way its like playing with bots.
2/ The best way to answer a question like this that is intended to be provocative is to answer a different question
3/ people use exploits or if not "edge gaming" to trick others. That's a more difficult thing to address because it is like parasites and the hosts that are in a Darwinian struggle. If the parasites are too effective they kill the hosts and die themselves. There is an optimum that allows both to survive. For fun and profit ^^
I sometimes make spelling and grammar errors but I don't pretend it's because I'm using a phone
Originally posted by AlBQuirky Let's go the American Television route. Was "I Love Lucy" a failure compared to "Survivor?" She (Lucy) did not have near the numbers that "Survivor" has. Nevermind that fewer people had TVs back then, there were fewer people, or that people had less free time than now. Was "I Love Lucy" a failure in your eyes?
I am curious about how you measure success. Is it merely numbers?
"merely" numbers? Numbers are the most objective measure.
In fact, where do you get that I Love Lucy is a failure compared to Survivors? It is the opposite.
The highest season is only 28.3M. One show is higher than this 40M number though. But on average, Survivor is a failure compared to I love lucy.
The 40 million viewers each year I read as being from today's numbers, not from when it aired. When I read this: "I Love Lucy is still syndicated in dozens of languages across the world." it helped me with this conclusion. I could be wrong.
Still the question remains, would either I Love Lucy or Survivor be considered a success in your opinion? How about Rush and Classical music in general?
"Merely numbers" was not a good choice of words on my part. A better question would be "Which numbers do you look at for your criteria?" Mass appeal numbers? Monetary numbers? Ratings numbers? Critique numbers? The bottom line numbers? Arbitrary nariusseldon numbers? Personal opinion?
I am trying to figure out how you hand out your "success/failure" awards. I mean, you say UO is a "failure" when in fact, it was very successful for its own time. You say EVE is a "failure" even though it is considered quite the opposite by many people, many of them players
40M each year now .. way more successful than Survivor now .. very simple.
Back to UO.
UO has half of the subs as EQ .. which was at the same time. How is that successful with so little competition? It only went south there.
Eve .. again ... look at the numbers. Half a mil is pretty bad compared to almost any themepark MMO. And it took Eve so long to get there. And it is only a success in sandbox because other sandboxes are doing worse. In fact, I doubt many consider Eve a success except those who want to push the sandbox agenda since they have no better example.
Comments
Why do you think that everyone on the forum is speaking directly to you? This is a thread for people who hate PvP, yet it's filled with a bunch of idiots going "duh, I don't hate PvP!"
Then maybe the thread isn't for you?
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
Go to your neighbors house lay out traps then throw things at him when he falls for one of them.
problem solved!
Lol .. i will try that this evening and let you know if i pk him. Incidentally, if i buy a ball to throw at him, is it p2w? Do i need to stick to rocks that i find in my backyard?
well since Real world currency in this case is in game currency then no it's not P2W...in fact I have a some throwing implements I'd be willing to part with for the right price!!!
"I Love Lucy is still syndicated in dozens of languages across the world."
it helped me with this conclusion. I could be wrong.
Still the question remains, would either I Love Lucy or Survivor be considered a success in your opinion? How about Rush and Classical music in general?
"Merely numbers" was not a good choice of words on my part. A better question would be "Which numbers do you look at for your criteria?"
Mass appeal numbers?
Monetary numbers?
Ratings numbers?
Critique numbers?
The bottom line numbers?
Arbitrary nariusseldon numbers?
Personal opinion?
I am trying to figure out how you hand out your "success/failure" awards. I mean, you say UO is a "failure" when in fact, it was very successful for its own time. You say EVE is a "failure" even though it is considered quite the opposite by many people, many of them players
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
The only reason why UO still exists is because it's no longer a forced open world FFA PvP MMORPG.
Same goes for EvE and L2, those game have more or less efficient ways to limit the mindless ganking and allow more play styles to enjoy the game.
All the games who tried unlimited FFA (or limited, but with failed limitations), are all niche games or dead games right now.
Yes.
Another word about Eve. It has shown modest growth since launch, but consider the following:
1. Eve constantly advertises.
2. Eve's time-based xp model encourages retention
3. There are safe areas
4. The galaxy is so vast that you can play a long time and never see another player.
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon.
In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
OP:
1/ I don't hate PvP
2/ The best way to answer a question like this that is intended to be provocative is to answer a different question
3/ people use exploits or if not "edge gaming" to trick others. That's a more difficult thing to address because it is like parasites and the hosts that are in a Darwinian struggle. If the parasites are too effective they kill the hosts and die themselves. There is an optimum that allows both to survive. For fun and profit ^^
I sometimes make spelling and grammar errors but I don't pretend it's because I'm using a phone
40M each year now .. way more successful than Survivor now .. very simple.
Back to UO.
UO has half of the subs as EQ .. which was at the same time. How is that successful with so little competition? It only went south there.
Eve .. again ... look at the numbers. Half a mil is pretty bad compared to almost any themepark MMO. And it took Eve so long to get there. And it is only a success in sandbox because other sandboxes are doing worse. In fact, I doubt many consider Eve a success except those who want to push the sandbox agenda since they have no better example.