Originally posted by Dihoru The cynic in me is starting to equate PVEers in the context of this thread as people too lazy to be arsed to study up on things before making a risky decision in-game whereas the optimist is quietly acknowledging that AAA is dead as far real MMOs are concerned with such an entitled community floating around...
No worries, I'm sure a company will eventually create the game of your dreams.
In the meantime, enjoy this for 'both' your sides.
A VR MMO where the Universe may be fictional but the laws within it are based on the real world? (laws of physics, laws given by local entities, etc) Yeah it'll be a while but until then I kinda look at the whole discussion on pvp/pve pure or whatever in this frame of reference: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZsYEGmhEbc with either side taking turns being the club guys from time to time ( neither side realizes that a real MMO has both sides content but not really happy).
So when you say a mutual pvp/pve game, you don't mean one that is roughly equal parts pvp and pve, you mean one that caters to both "types" of players?
If so, yeah it doesn't exist because it can't. I guess you could make 2 separate versions of the same game with different mechanics, but then it's not really the same game is it?
that's weird because I remember having tons of big open world pvp battles in swg all the time then unflagging and going and doing whatever pve stuff I wanted to do.
There were bases to fight over, control of space ports, player cities to raid..all manner of pvp that was way better than any of the lame BS that goes on now in mmos AND we never bothered anyone that was just there to pve. You didn't have to pick all one way or the other in that game.
Yeah and that doesn't cater to my playstyle. That's the playstyle you want. So you're being catered to but I'm not. I want a game where there's risk involved in almost everything you do. Farming is boring to me without the risk of losing what I've earned. It forces me to play safe by banking often, or play greedy and risk losing everything.
Why are your posts so often sarcastic and yet so often blatantly wrong?
Your play style is you want to gank pve players. You've all but said it in every post.
In a flagging system you can just flag all the time and have that risk. Flagged you can be attacked at any moment by a player. If anything there is more risk because you never know when it's coming......but that isn't what you want. It isn't the risk to you you're talking about...even though you really want to make it seem that way. It's the ability to ruin someone's day and know it. That is the only missing factor and I'm so sarcastic to you because that style of play is pathetic. It's the worst aspect of pvp and why so many people get sick of dealing with it and give up on mmo pvp.
It isn't about competition or challenging someone elses skills, it's about being a dick to other people. You and your style of play is why you can't find games that cater to what you want. No one wants to make a game called assholes online.
This is a good point and I agree 100% but I would also point out that the idea of a sandbox is that it in general removes restrictions. An invisible force field around your person which makes him invulnerable to other players' attacks is definitely an example of an artificial restriction.
Although I'd point out that ALL games...and even real world sandboxes have some restriction. For example as much as he might like, a player in a real world sandbox still can't violate the Laws of Physics. A players freedom in a "sandbox" therefore is relative....and I wouldn't consider a game that disallowed PvP or put restrictions on PvP as automaticaly disqualified from being a "sandbox".
Alot to me depends upon the setting and what the designers intended to represent as part of gameplay.
Consider something like WWII Online for example....which is actualy one of the more "sandboxy" MMO's that I've played.
There is alot of latitude for what a player can do....but they can't kill soldiers on thier own side. Why? Well theoreticaly even though there would be no invisable force stopping a soldier from doing so......one who purposefully and repeatedly did so would realisticaly be swiftly and permanantly removed from the battlefield, either by higher authority or thier own comrades. From a gameplay standpoint it would make the game less fun for other players who wanted to play the style of game the situation is supposed to represent.
What would be the point of the Developers building in a feature that would logicaly result in the player being removed from gameplay? How would they even accomplish that if desired, given the player could simply make a new account?
Having those sorts of restrictictions doesn't, however, mean that the Developer need shackle the player into linear Themepark style play in other aspects of the game.
A VR MMO where the Universe may be fictional but the laws within it are based on the real world? (laws of physics, laws given by local entities, etc) Yeah it'll be a while but until then I kinda look at the whole discussion on pvp/pve pure or whatever in this frame of reference: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZsYEGmhEbc with either side taking turns being the club guys from time to time ( neither side realizes that a real MMO has both sides content but not really happy).
All kidding and arguing aside, I completely know where you're coming from and I'm also hoping for something like that, but for now games like DF do not interest me in the least simply for lack of depth (from what I've read and experienced in the first one) and EvE has me bored now. lol
Right now, I'm still looking for an Mmo to call home and maybe it'll be a long wait. Who knows?!
So when you say a mutual pvp/pve game, you don't mean one that is roughly equal parts pvp and pve, you mean one that caters to both "types" of players?
If so, yeah it doesn't exist because it can't. I guess you could make 2 separate versions of the same game with different mechanics, but then it's not really the same game is it?
that's weird because I remember having tons of big open world pvp battles in swg all the time then unflagging and going and doing whatever pve stuff I wanted to do.
There were bases to fight over, control of space ports, player cities to raid..all manner of pvp that was way better than any of the lame BS that goes on now in mmos AND we never bothered anyone that was just there to pve. You didn't have to pick all one way or the other in that game.
Yeah and that doesn't cater to my playstyle. That's the playstyle you want. So you're being catered to but I'm not. I want a game where there's risk involved in almost everything you do. Farming is boring to me without the risk of losing what I've earned. It forces me to play safe by banking often, or play greedy and risk losing everything.
Why are your posts so often sarcastic and yet so often blatantly wrong?
Your play style is you want to gank pve players. You've all but said it in every post.
Wrong. As I said to somebody else earlier, I don't even like fighting people in the open world unless I'm defending. The fact that you have to assume this about me says a lot about you and your argument. Here's what it says: You're wrong and you have to resort to ad hominem attacks. Even if I was somebody who ganked pve players, it would make literally 0 difference in the context of this argument.
I've told you what my playstyle is, and instead of accepting it, you assume I'm lying and say my playstyle is to gank other people.
In a flagging system you can just flag all the time and have that risk. Flagged you can be attacked at any moment by a player. If anything there is more risk because you never know when it's coming......but that isn't what you want. It isn't the risk to you you're talking about...even though you really want to make it seem that way. It's the ability to ruin someone's day and know it. That is the only missing factor and I'm so sarcastic to you because that style of play is pathetic. It's the worst aspect of pvp and why so many people get sick of dealing with it and give up on mmo pvp.
Stop assuming please, it's quite embarassing for you to show how incompentently you can argue your positions.
If I flag myself for pvp constantly, I'm going to lose a certain amount of materials to getting ganked or having to harvest less efficiently by banking often or going out pve'ing in a group rather than solo. The problem with this is a lot of other people are going to get an advantage over me by simply NOT doing it. So while I may be enjoying myself having to look over my shoulder constantly, other people don't have to do that. Also human nature shows that there's a decent chance I'll even fall prey to the same temptations and unflag myself occasionally. I may think I want it at the time, or I may convince myself that it's worth it just this once, but really I'm watering down my experience.
It isn't about competition or challenging someone elses skills, it's about being a dick to other people. You and your style of play is why you can't find games that cater to what you want. No one wants to make a game called assholes online.
Wrong again. I play SC2 at a level higher than anything you've achieved in any game you've ever played and I do it in LITERALLY THE LEAST DICKISH WAY POSSIBLE. I'm quite literally the most legitimate, fair player you can possibly be in that game. And by the way, that game is ALL about competition and challenging someone else's skills.
Keep assuming stuff about me though. It makes you look really smart.
A VR MMO where the Universe may be fictional but the laws within it are based on the real world? (laws of physics, laws given by local entities, etc) Yeah it'll be a while but until then I kinda look at the whole discussion on pvp/pve pure or whatever in this frame of reference: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZsYEGmhEbc with either side taking turns being the club guys from time to time ( neither side realizes that a real MMO has both sides content but not really happy).
All kidding and arguing aside, I completely know where you're coming from and I'm also hoping for something like that, but for now games like DF do not interest me in the least simply for lack of depth (from what I've read and experienced in the first one) and EvE has me bored now. lol
Right now, I'm still looking for an Mmo to call home and maybe it'll be a long wait. Who knows?!
Until we argue again!
Peace
BTW Funny vid!!
It may not be as far off as " not in our life time " That occulus rift thing is still pretty basic but lots of games are starting to support it or at least look at it. Now if when we say VR we mean like actually being in the world...yeah that's probably not in out life time and odds are it wont be the mmo industry that makes it but the porn industry :P
A VR MMO where the Universe may be fictional but the laws within it are based on the real world? (laws of physics, laws given by local entities, etc) Yeah it'll be a while but until then I kinda look at the whole discussion on pvp/pve pure or whatever in this frame of reference: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZsYEGmhEbc with either side taking turns being the club guys from time to time ( neither side realizes that a real MMO has both sides content but not really happy).
All kidding and arguing aside, I completely know where you're coming from and I'm also hoping for something like that, but for now games like DF do not interest me in the least simply for lack of depth (from what I've read and experienced in the first one) and EvE has me bored now. lol
Right now, I'm still looking for an Mmo to call home and maybe it'll be a long wait. Who knows?!
Until we argue again!
Peace
BTW Funny vid!!
It may not be as far off as " not in our life time " That occulus rift thing is still pretty basic but lots of games are starting to support it or at least look at it. Now if when we say VR we mean like actually being in the world...yeah that's probably not in out life time and odds are it wont be the mmo industry that makes it but the porn industry :P
I certainly hope so. I'll still try the new Mmos, I just don't have any excitement I once help for upcoming game. Hype no longer affects me like it did for Vanguard, DF, or even AoC.
MY cynic in me has prevented such and maybe it'll forever kill any chances to find a stable home. lol Still curious though to see where they go.
This is a good point and I agree 100% but I would also point out that the idea of a sandbox is that it in general removes restrictions. An invisible force field around your person which makes him invulnerable to other players' attacks is definitely an example of an artificial restriction.
The lack of permadeath is also an artificial restriction but most players prefer to have it in a MMORPG. At a certain point the level of "realism" just gets too much and the game stops being fun. PvE sandbox players draw that line at non-consensual PvP.
I know that some people draw the line at pvp. The guy I was quoting said that the reason there aren't many pve sandbox games is because they're harder to make. I'm saying yes, that's true, but also in general it's because sandbox games are supposed to be more realistic and organic. It's not that pvp is just one small drop in the bucket of features that are found in sandbox games. The question of whether or not a game will have consensual pvp is one of the biggest single questions people have about new games.
Instead of only selecting the people you feel you can beat in an argument and ignoring the ones who have legitimate points, how about responding to this:
"Why can't you get your risk in a game that has a FFA PvP server alongside the PvE ones. Everyone on the server has the same rule sets and the same risk. No one on that server gets to just opt out. Why would it have to be every server of a game for it to be exciting?"
This is a good point and I agree 100% but I would also point out that the idea of a sandbox is that it in general removes restrictions. An invisible force field around your person which makes him invulnerable to other players' attacks is definitely an example of an artificial restriction.
Although I'd point out that ALL games...and even real world sandboxes have some restriction. For example as much as he might like, a player in a real world sandbox still can't violate the Laws of Physics. A players freedom in a "sandbox" therefore is relative....and I wouldn't consider a game that disallowed PvP or put restrictions on PvP as automaticaly disqualified from being a "sandbox".
Alot to me depends upon the setting and what the designers intended to represent as part of gameplay.
Consider something like WWII Online for example....which is actualy one of the more "sandboxy" MMO's that I've played.
There is alot of latitude for what a player can do....but they can't kill soldiers on thier own side. Why? Well theoreticaly even though there would be no invisable force stopping a soldier from doing so......one who purposefully and repeatedly did so would realisticaly be swiftly and permanantly removed from the battlefield, either by higher authority or thier own comrades. From a gameplay standpoint it would make the game less fun for other players who wanted to play the style of game the situation is supposed to represent.
What would be the point of the Developers building in a feature that would logicaly result in the player being removed from gameplay? How would they even accomplish that if desired, given the player could simply make a new account?
Having those sorts of restrictictions doesn't, however, mean that the Developer need shackle the player into linear Themepark style play in other aspects of the game.
No offense to you personally but it's getting a little boring answering these posts. You're assuming I'm saying something I'm not.
There is no such thing as a true sandbox game. All you have is games that are more or less sandbox-y, inversely related to how themepark-y they are. So me saying a game lacks a certain sandbox feature doesn't mean that said game can't have other sandbox-y features.
Think about it in context. The guy said that non-pvp sandbox games in general don't exist because they're harder to make. I said yes, but also ffa pvp is necessarily a "sandbox" feature so in general sandbox games are going to TEND TO INCLUDE IT. It doesn't mean they have to include it for the community to categorize it as a sandbox, but it does mean holding all things constant, it's not surprising that sandbox games have that sandbox feature.
A VR MMO where the Universe may be fictional but the laws within it are based on the real world? (laws of physics, laws given by local entities, etc) Yeah it'll be a while but until then I kinda look at the whole discussion on pvp/pve pure or whatever in this frame of reference: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZsYEGmhEbc with either side taking turns being the club guys from time to time ( neither side realizes that a real MMO has both sides content but not really happy).
All kidding and arguing aside, I completely know where you're coming from and I'm also hoping for something like that, but for now games like DF do not interest me in the least simply for lack of depth (from what I've read and experienced in the first one) and EvE has me bored now. lol
Right now, I'm still looking for an Mmo to call home and maybe it'll be a long wait. Who knows?!
Until we argue again!
Peace
BTW Funny vid!!
It may not be as far off as " not in our life time " That occulus rift thing is still pretty basic but lots of games are starting to support it or at least look at it. Now if when we say VR we mean like actually being in the world...yeah that's probably not in out life time and odds are it wont be the mmo industry that makes it but the porn industry :P
Damon... the rate at which technology evolves is increasing... add to that the fact that the technological singularity (IE the moment when you could transfer a human "soul" to a computer without any issues) is estimated at current trends to be no later than the mid 2050s and you get the distinct impression that true VR technology (mind-computer control devices, direct sensory projection into the user's mind via non-harmful EM waves) wouldn't be more than 10-20 years in the future... Hell mind-computer control devices already exist in a rudimentary form and have been around for at least half a decade.
This is a good point and I agree 100% but I would also point out that the idea of a sandbox is that it in general removes restrictions. An invisible force field around your person which makes him invulnerable to other players' attacks is definitely an example of an artificial restriction.
The lack of permadeath is also an artificial restriction but most players prefer to have it in a MMORPG. At a certain point the level of "realism" just gets too much and the game stops being fun. PvE sandbox players draw that line at non-consensual PvP.
I know that some people draw the line at pvp. The guy I was quoting said that the reason there aren't many pve sandbox games is because they're harder to make. I'm saying yes, that's true, but also in general it's because sandbox games are supposed to be more realistic and organic. It's not that pvp is just one small drop in the bucket of features that are found in sandbox games. The question of whether or not a game will have consensual pvp is one of the biggest single questions people have about new games.
Instead of only selecting the people you feel you can beat in an argument and ignoring the ones who have legitimate points, how about responding to this:
"Why can't you get your risk in a game that has a FFA PvP server alongside the PvE ones. Everyone on the server has the same rule sets and the same risk. No one on that server gets to just opt out. Why would it have to be every server of a game for it to be exciting?"
Chill. I'm not sure if you've noticed but I'm engaged with a billion different people and a lot of my posting today was done from my phone. Not exactly easy to keep track of.
And to be fair, I've answered similar questions like this before. The main point being, it's kind of a meaningless thing to say. A game has to be crafted around its ruleset. I can't think of a pvp game I enjoy having a "pve" server without ruining the game. If you make 2 seperate versions of the same game with different rulesets, that's not really the same game.
If you want to start a Darkfall server that has no pvp, go ahead. It wouldn't hurt me at all. However, if you want to have a game designed around what YOU want but simply "turn on" pvp, there's a good chance it's not gonna be a good game.
People walking onto a football field are, by definition, accepting that they are playing a contact sport (yes, even the kickers)
People walking onto a golf course aren't (yes even Tiger)
Football wouldn't be the same game, wouldn't have the same feel, and wouldn't be able to support the same rules...if people could simply opt out of contact whenever they wanted to do so.
Same holds true for Open PvP games (whether FFA or not).
Pretty much by definition any time you play a game you are giving your consent for whatever ruleset that game encompases.
Nothing wrong with games that support a Flag/Unflag mechanic.....but it definately creates a VASTLY different game then games that are open PvP. How would you do Planetside 2, for example, with a flag/unflag mechanic and still keep the same gameplay dynamic and focus?
There is nothing wrong with any of these styles...but they are geared toward providing different types of entertainment experiences...just as Golf and Football are.
I some folks have difficulty accepting that the MMO space is a wide and diverse one with room for plenty of different types of games...including ones that don't suit thier preferences.... and accept those as legitimate play-style options for others.
The fact that Developers have for along time fallen into the Hollywood syndrome where they see one Title which has been a success and endlessly try to repeat producing pretty much the same formula in almost every subsequent title hasn't really helped things much in that regard either.
Wrong. As I said to somebody else earlier, I don't even like fighting people in the open world unless I'm defending. The fact that you have to assume this about me says a lot about you and your argument. Here's what it says: You're wrong and you have to resort to ad hominem attacks. Even if I was somebody who ganked pve players, it would make literally 0 difference in the context of this argument.
I've told you what my playstyle is, and instead of accepting it, you assume I'm lying and say my playstyle is to gank other people.
You can say whatever you want about your playstyle. It's not supported by the actual argument you're making. Everything you've said implies that if you can't kill pve players the games restrictions make it no fun....but you don't attack people in the open world ?
So if you can't do something that you'll never do you can't enjoy the game ? If people can farm unflagged they might get some type of advantage over you..
And it does make a difference in the context of this argument. Pve players are saying they don't like ffa pvp because of all the BS ganking that goes along with it ( among many many other reasons ) How exactly does a guy saying a game has to have ffa pvp and it will work ppl just need to have no choice/option and they'll learn to like it...when you're the ganker they don't want to be in the game with....that's a bit like the shark telling you the waters warm you just need to dive in and try it.
Wrong. As I said to somebody else earlier, I don't even like fighting people in the open world unless I'm defending. The fact that you have to assume this about me says a lot about you and your argument. Here's what it says: You're wrong and you have to resort to ad hominem attacks. Even if I was somebody who ganked pve players, it would make literally 0 difference in the context of this argument.
I've told you what my playstyle is, and instead of accepting it, you assume I'm lying and say my playstyle is to gank other people.
You can say whatever you want about your playstyle. It's not supported by the actual argument you're making. Everything you've said implies that if you can't kill pve players the games restrictions make it no fun....but you don't attack people in the open world ?
So if you can't do something that you'll never do you can't enjoy the game ? If people can farm unflagged they might get some type of advantage over you..
And it does make a difference in the context of this argument. Pve players are saying they don't like ffa pvp because of all the BS ganking that goes along with it ( among many many other reasons ) How exactly does a guy saying a game has to have ffa pvp and it will work ppl just need to have no choice/option and they'll learn to like it...when you're the ganker they don't want to be in the game with....that's a bit like the shark telling you the waters warm you just need to dive in and try it.
Dude it completely changes the feel of the game whether you can attack everyone or not. You play the game in a different way when there is PVP and there is a lot more excitement. Also if something can be lost from dying it is even better as the community tends to be less of "OMG NOOBKID TRASH FAGGOT ASSHOLE MORON! HAHAHAHAHA WHAT U GONNA DO YOU CANT ATTACK ME!".
Wrong. As I said to somebody else earlier, I don't even like fighting people in the open world unless I'm defending. The fact that you have to assume this about me says a lot about you and your argument. Here's what it says: You're wrong and you have to resort to ad hominem attacks. Even if I was somebody who ganked pve players, it would make literally 0 difference in the context of this argument.
I've told you what my playstyle is, and instead of accepting it, you assume I'm lying and say my playstyle is to gank other people.
You can say whatever you want about your playstyle. It's not supported by the actual argument you're making. Everything you've said implies that if you can't kill pve players the games restrictions make it no fun....but you don't attack people in the open world ?
So if you can't do something that you'll never do you can't enjoy the game ? If people can farm unflagged they might get some type of advantage over you..
And it does make a difference in the context of this argument. Pve players are saying they don't like ffa pvp because of all the BS ganking that goes along with it ( among many many other reasons ) How exactly does a guy saying a game has to have ffa pvp and it will work ppl just need to have no choice/option and they'll learn to like it...when you're the ganker they don't want to be in the game with....that's a bit like the shark telling you the waters warm you just need to dive in and try it.
Applying logic to human thought processes is like trying to apply for a job position with no prior work experience.
He, just like me, Damon likes the thrill of never being coddled by the game and protected like a special little child. Case and point the best times I've ever had in a MMO are my 0.0 bloc war days in EVE and my wormhole dwelling days ( the former was a zerg fest bar none but being a scout and cloaky fucker meant I could usually just stand by with popcorn and enjoy the show and in the latter case it was pretty much a case of playing Silent Hunter in space).
This is a good point and I agree 100% but I would also point out that the idea of a sandbox is that it in general removes restrictions. An invisible force field around your person which makes him invulnerable to other players' attacks is definitely an example of an artificial restriction.
The lack of permadeath is also an artificial restriction but most players prefer to have it in a MMORPG. At a certain point the level of "realism" just gets too much and the game stops being fun. PvE sandbox players draw that line at non-consensual PvP.
I know that some people draw the line at pvp. The guy I was quoting said that the reason there aren't many pve sandbox games is because they're harder to make. I'm saying yes, that's true, but also in general it's because sandbox games are supposed to be more realistic and organic. It's not that pvp is just one small drop in the bucket of features that are found in sandbox games. The question of whether or not a game will have consensual pvp is one of the biggest single questions people have about new games.
Instead of only selecting the people you feel you can beat in an argument and ignoring the ones who have legitimate points, how about responding to this:
"Why can't you get your risk in a game that has a FFA PvP server alongside the PvE ones. Everyone on the server has the same rule sets and the same risk. No one on that server gets to just opt out. Why would it have to be every server of a game for it to be exciting?"
Chill. I'm not sure if you've noticed but I'm engaged with a billion different people and a lot of my posting today was done from my phone. Not exactly easy to keep track of.
And to be fair, I've answered similar questions like this before. The main point being, it's kind of a meaningless thing to say. A game has to be crafted around its ruleset. I can't think of a pvp game I enjoy having a "pve" server without ruining the game. If you make 2 seperate versions of the same game with different rulesets, that's not really the same game.
If you want to start a Darkfall server that has no pvp, go ahead. It wouldn't hurt me at all. However, if you want to have a game designed around what YOU want but simply "turn on" pvp, there's a good chance it's not gonna be a good game.
You're simply saying that a lot of designers are bad at balance, which is the case even if a game is 100% PvE or 100% PvP.
There is nothing that says you can't have PvP balance in a PvE game. It is more that when people complain about balance they blame it on "the game being PvE with PvP dropped in" when in reality those same imbalances would have existed from the same designers if there was no PvE.
There are no truly separate rulesets. The only difference between PvE and PvP is there you can attack another player, that is one rule in a large set. The other rules would be the same no matter what.
If you make a game where you can:
Kill other players and loot them.
Kill creatures and loot them
Run Quests
Explore areas
Craft
Join a Faction
Play with other Players
And then if you removed PvP from it you now get:
Kill creatures and loot them
Run Quests
Explore areas
Craft
Join a Faction
Play with other Players
It is the same game but in one you can attack other players and in the other you can't. There is no fundamentally different rules sets because you designed around PvE or PvP, the majority of the rules are identical. So it all comes down to balance and there will always be balance issues even if you make a game PvP focused from the start, so it isn't PvE that is causing the imbalances.
Damon... the rate at which technology evolves is increasing... add to that the fact that the technological singularity (IE the moment when you could transfer a human "soul" to a computer without any issues) is estimated at current trends to be no later than the mid 2050s and you get the distinct impression that true VR technology (mind-computer control devices, direct sensory projection into the user's mind via non-harmful EM waves) wouldn't be more than 10-20 years in the future... Hell mind-computer control devices already exist in a rudimentary form and have been around for at least half a decade.
True but sometimes people underestimate the difference between the idea and the actual application. Look at the flying car. Didn't they say everyone would have one by the year 2000 ? they do have flying cars but the practical application and restrictions of people flying killed that dream
Downloading a person into a computer is probably going to be more complex than just developing the technology to do it. At some level the government is going to see a threat and that's were these things tend to get dragged out or die on the table.
But if we can ever go into VR you and I can argue in "person" :P Wouldn't that be fun... lol
Wrong. As I said to somebody else earlier, I don't even like fighting people in the open world unless I'm defending. The fact that you have to assume this about me says a lot about you and your argument. Here's what it says: You're wrong and you have to resort to ad hominem attacks. Even if I was somebody who ganked pve players, it would make literally 0 difference in the context of this argument.
I've told you what my playstyle is, and instead of accepting it, you assume I'm lying and say my playstyle is to gank other people.
You can say whatever you want about your playstyle. It's not supported by the actual argument you're making. Everything you've said implies that if you can't kill pve players the games restrictions make it no fun....but you don't attack people in the open world ?
You're the one making a claim you can't back up. The burden of proof is on you. I've given you my thought process for why I prefer a ffa pvp game. And instead of answering it, you choose to ignore it and attack me personally, because that's all you have, because you're wrong. It creates a completely different atmosphere. If you were knowledgeable about the subject you're choosing to debate, you'd know that.
So if you can't do something that you'll never do you can't enjoy the game ? If people can farm unflagged they might get some type of advantage over you..
What are you even trying to say here? Yes, they'll get an advantage over me. I'd rather not be the only guy struggling to gather resources in a competitive game. I'm not sure how this is hard for you to grasp.
Also what about the other points I made? Human nature would tempt me to unflag myself. But that doesn't mean it'll be a more enjoyable experience. You never used a cheat code on a single player game? only to have your love for that game instantly be drained by the fact that you just got infinite money or god mode and couldn't be killed? You still used the code, right? Even if you haven't (which I'm sure you'll claim because it's obvious you'll say anything to win an argument), other people have.
And it does make a difference in the context of this argument. Pve players are saying they don't like ffa pvp because of all the BS ganking that goes along with it ( among many many other reasons ) How exactly does a guy saying a game has to have ffa pvp and it will work ppl just need to have no choice/option and they'll learn to like it...when you're the ganker they don't want to be in the game with....that's a bit like the shark telling you the waters warm you just need to dive in and try it.
Because my arguments don't require you to assume I'm a nice, non-violent guy. Whether I am the kind of asshat who griefs/ganks people or not, it doesn't change my arguments for the ffa pvp game. Have you seriously never heard of an ad hominem attack?
Damon... the rate at which technology evolves is increasing... add to that the fact that the technological singularity (IE the moment when you could transfer a human "soul" to a computer without any issues) is estimated at current trends to be no later than the mid 2050s and you get the distinct impression that true VR technology (mind-computer control devices, direct sensory projection into the user's mind via non-harmful EM waves) wouldn't be more than 10-20 years in the future... Hell mind-computer control devices already exist in a rudimentary form and have been around for at least half a decade.
True but sometimes people underestimate the difference between the idea and the actual application. Look at the flying car. Didn't they say everyone would have one by the year 2000 ? they do have flying cars but the practical application and restrictions of people flying killed that dream
Downloading a person into a computer is probably going to be more complex than just developing the technology to do it. At some level the government is going to see a threat and that's were these things tend to get dragged out or die on the table.
But if we can ever go into VR you and I can argue in "person" :P Wouldn't that be fun... lol
Indeed it would... -imagines you arguing with him...and him just locking in your location from orbit for his Apocalypse to readily glass-
Wrong. As I said to somebody else earlier, I don't even like fighting people in the open world unless I'm defending. The fact that you have to assume this about me says a lot about you and your argument. Here's what it says: You're wrong and you have to resort to ad hominem attacks. Even if I was somebody who ganked pve players, it would make literally 0 difference in the context of this argument.
I've told you what my playstyle is, and instead of accepting it, you assume I'm lying and say my playstyle is to gank other people.
You can say whatever you want about your playstyle. It's not supported by the actual argument you're making. Everything you've said implies that if you can't kill pve players the games restrictions make it no fun....but you don't attack people in the open world ?
So if you can't do something that you'll never do you can't enjoy the game ? If people can farm unflagged they might get some type of advantage over you..
And it does make a difference in the context of this argument. Pve players are saying they don't like ffa pvp because of all the BS ganking that goes along with it ( among many many other reasons ) How exactly does a guy saying a game has to have ffa pvp and it will work ppl just need to have no choice/option and they'll learn to like it...when you're the ganker they don't want to be in the game with....that's a bit like the shark telling you the waters warm you just need to dive in and try it.
Applying logic to human thought processes is like trying to apply for a job position with no prior work experience.
He, just like me, Damon likes the thrill of never being coddled by the game and protected like a special little child. Case and point the best times I've ever had in a MMO are my 0.0 bloc war days in EVE and my wormhole dwelling days ( the former was a zerg fest bar none but being a scout and cloaky fucker meant I could usually just stand by with popcorn and enjoy the show and in the latter case it was pretty much a case of playing Silent Hunter in space).
But we're not arguing if pvp is fun or not. I've enjoyed many battles in mmo pvp. The argument was about choice, ffa pvp and why it wont work in a game that has competion ( other games people could go to or server types )....at least I think that's what we started out disagreeing on. It has been a lot of posts now and we wandered a lot.
Either way we'll never agree...kind of like when you and I disagree :P So at this point it's just more of a circle and probably time to move on.
This is a good point and I agree 100% but I would also point out that the idea of a sandbox is that it in general removes restrictions. An invisible force field around your person which makes him invulnerable to other players' attacks is definitely an example of an artificial restriction.
The lack of permadeath is also an artificial restriction but most players prefer to have it in a MMORPG. At a certain point the level of "realism" just gets too much and the game stops being fun. PvE sandbox players draw that line at non-consensual PvP.
I know that some people draw the line at pvp. The guy I was quoting said that the reason there aren't many pve sandbox games is because they're harder to make. I'm saying yes, that's true, but also in general it's because sandbox games are supposed to be more realistic and organic. It's not that pvp is just one small drop in the bucket of features that are found in sandbox games. The question of whether or not a game will have consensual pvp is one of the biggest single questions people have about new games.
Instead of only selecting the people you feel you can beat in an argument and ignoring the ones who have legitimate points, how about responding to this:
"Why can't you get your risk in a game that has a FFA PvP server alongside the PvE ones. Everyone on the server has the same rule sets and the same risk. No one on that server gets to just opt out. Why would it have to be every server of a game for it to be exciting?"
Chill. I'm not sure if you've noticed but I'm engaged with a billion different people and a lot of my posting today was done from my phone. Not exactly easy to keep track of.
And to be fair, I've answered similar questions like this before. The main point being, it's kind of a meaningless thing to say. A game has to be crafted around its ruleset. I can't think of a pvp game I enjoy having a "pve" server without ruining the game. If you make 2 seperate versions of the same game with different rulesets, that's not really the same game.
If you want to start a Darkfall server that has no pvp, go ahead. It wouldn't hurt me at all. However, if you want to have a game designed around what YOU want but simply "turn on" pvp, there's a good chance it's not gonna be a good game.
You're simply saying that a lot of designers are bad at balance, which is the case even if a game is 100% PvE or 100% PvP.
There is nothing that says you can't have PvP balance in a PvE game. It is more that when people complain about balance they blame it on "the game being PvE with PvP dropped in" when in reality those same imbalances would have existed from the same designers if there was no PvE.
There are no truly separate rulesets. The only difference between PvE and PvP is there you can attack another player, that is one rule in a large set. The other rules would be the same no matter what.
If you make a game where you can:
Kill other players and loot them.
Kill creatures and loot them
Run Quests
Explore areas
Craft
Join a Faction
Play with other Players
And then if you removed PvP from it you now get:
Kill creatures and loot them
Run Quests
Explore areas
Craft
Join a Faction
Play with other Players
It is the same game but in one you can attack other players and in the other you can't. There is no fundamentally different rules sets because you designed around PvE or PvP, the majority of the rules are identical. So it all comes down to balance and there will always be balance issues even if you make a game PvP focused from the start, so it isn't PvE that is causing the imbalances.
Why are you talking about pvp balance? I'm not saying anything about balancing.
I'm saying games are meticulously made around certain rulesets. The fact that you think "we" will be satisfied by simply TURNING ON pvp, shows how little you understand our position. If what we wanted was to just fight other people, we would be playing non-persistent pvp arena games like Q3, SC2, etc. What we want is an organic, living world that is specifically made to be such. For instance, Darkfall (with all its faults) MUST include pvp. The entire game is about clans building/sieging cities for territory control so they can lock down mob/harvesting spots to gain materials needed to outfit their clan and increase their dominance. There is no game without the idea that pvp exists.
To illustrate my point, I'll reiterate what I said in my previous post. If you want to take a game that was built with pvp in mind and turn off pvp and play that game, go ahead. If, in your mind, there's no difference in making pvp or pve games, then you should be happy with that. And it won't be bother me one bit.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, really. IF you could make a GOOD game that fits the description of my ideal game (or at least a game I'd enjoy), while at the same time turn that game into a version of it you would enjoy, then by all means give it a try.
There is, however, another thing to consider and that's the problem of human nature. People will often tend to pick the easier option if they're given the choice. So it's very possible that people will gravitate towards the "easier" game, leaving the "harder" game less populated. You can say that's indicative of what people want and you may be right, but it also may be the case that people think they want one thing, but then would get bored with it. As I pointed out earlier in this thread, the "easier" games are often the ones that flare up in popularity and then die off.
But again, you're dodging from the original point. You were saying something about the fact that ffa pvp games require "easy kills" says something about our argument? What does it say about it?
It wasn't dodging the point it was making it. You just seem to think that a fall off of population after 4-6 years is the sign of a failed game design not just the nature of mmos. The game continued to grow through 4 more ex packs and yet you still blame that one as it's " down fall " It doesn't show that people get bored and quit if they have a pve option, it shows people get bored of pvp without free kills around.
And given the choice people choose not to be a free lunch and the pvp servers die off. So your argument that they shouldn't be given the choice isn't to make a game better for everyone. It's to keep your pvp game from turning into a ghost town.
So you do realize you're arguing from the position that Trammel DIDN'T kill UO, correct? Are you even aware of the fact that the idea that Trammel killed UO is basically the consensus among people who actually played it?
Anyway, back to why you're wrong about the subs: It was less than a year before the upward trend stopped. So in reality the game had good and steady success for the first 3 years, then trammel is implemented and within a year the growth stops. Then for a couple years there's no growth, but it does survive, until it starts its' near fatal decline. I mean how do you not see that? It goes up before trammel, trammel comes out and it gets a small boost from the new expansion and the shiny new features for a year and then is completely stagnant for a couple years before it dies. Seriously, go check that chart again.
Look at EVE's subs on that chart and compare it to UO's. The only difference is that EVE didn't sell out like UO did it. The reason you think pvp sandbox games aren't successful is because they don't have the enormous huge blowout starts like the crappy themepark games do, but the difference is they have player retention. Good mmo's aren't meant to have huge summer blockbuster-esque opening weekends. That's not sustainable.
But again back to your original point:
"The real reason they argue is because with the option to go to a pve server they wont be free kills on their pvp server and that ruins the fun for them. Which says something about the argument they're trying to make."
The point you're trying to make here is just the modest one that people won't play if there's a pve option? Because it seems very much like you're poking fun at the pvp crowd, saying it says something about us that we only have fun if there are "free kills" for us. It's not the first time I've heard that empty insult and it's total BS.
Why are you talking about pvp balance? I'm not saying anything about balancing.
I'm saying games are meticulously made around certain rulesets. The fact that you think "we" will be satisfied by simply TURNING ON pvp, shows how little you understand our position. If what we wanted was to just fight other people, we would be playing non-persistent pvp arena games like Q3, SC2, etc. What we want is an organic, living world that is specifically made to be such. For instance, Darkfall (with all its faults) MUST include pvp. The entire game is about clans building/sieging cities for territory control so they can lock down mob/harvesting spots to gain materials needed to outfit their clan and increase their dominance. There is no game without the idea that pvp exists.
To illustrate my point, I'll reiterate what I said in my previous post. If you want to take a game that was built with pvp in mind and turn off pvp and play that game, go ahead. If, in your mind, there's no difference in making pvp or pve games, then you should be happy with that. And it won't be bother me one bit.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, really. IF you could make a GOOD game that fits the description of my ideal game (or at least a game I'd enjoy), while at the same time turn that game into a version of it you would enjoy, then by all means give it a try.
There is, however, another thing to consider and that's the problem of human nature. People will often tend to pick the easier option if they're given the choice. So it's very possible that people will gravitate towards the "easier" game, leaving the "harder" game less populated. You can say that's indicative of what people want and you may be right, but it also may be the case that people think they want one thing, but then would get bored with it. As I pointed out earlier in this thread, the "easier" games are often the ones that flare up in popularity and then die off.
You act as if the rulesets between a PvE and PvP game are so different so let's make this easy:
Post the ACTUAL rules that are ACTUALLY different in a PvP and PvE game and also show how those same rules couldn't possibly coexist in a PvE and PvP environment. The only one you'll come up with that can't exist in both is.... killing other players. All other rules are 100% separate from PvP/PvE and can work just fine in either system.
That is what I was saying in the other post. I was trying to give a benefit of the doubt that you were indirectly referring to balance because to say that rules that have nothing to do with a player fighting another player would some how magically be different between a PvE or a PvP game is well, ridiculous.
The only example you even try for is:
"The entire game is about clans building/sieging cities for territory control so they can lock down mob/harvesting spots to gain materials needed to outfit their clan and increase their dominance. There is no game without the idea that pvp exists."
and there is no actual reason that can't exist in a game that has PvE and PvP servers. The game can either only turn the system on for the PvP worlds or they can have the system on both worlds, but have the way the cities are built/sieged/etc. on the PvE worlds done through a separate means such as which faction completes the most quests/gathers the most materials etc. In other words you can just as easily have a territory controlling feature in a game that has PvE and separate PvP servers. Absolutely nothing is stopping that. And since you've eluded to this before, why would you care if the city build/siege system was in fact only on the PvP servers of a game if that feature was 100% supported by the development team?
There are certain types of games that really rely on the existance of certain key mechanics in order for the game to work and provide the type of experience the players were interested in.
For example, how would you make Planetside 2 with players being able to Flag/Unflag as they chose?
- You couldn't stop players from gathering resources to boost thier faction.
- You couldn't stop players from scouting out your factions positions/defenses
- You couldn't stop players from holding onto control points if you couldn't kill them.
etc...
Even if you put in logical restrictions to deal with this.....what would the non-flagged players actualy do, gameplay wise?
You'd essentialy have to create an entirely different game for non-flagged players to play within your game....and you'd have to build in mechanisms to deal with the type of problems (such as above) allowing unflagging would create because it breaks the basic design premise you have for your game.....and that of course would take design focus away from trying to enhance the type of gameplay experience you wanted to deliver for folks doing PvP.....and every single system you built would have to be built to take into account the ability to unflag.
I personaly don't like much FFA PvP games (though I do like faction based ones) but I fully understand what Jeremy is getting at.....a game isn't going to be able to deliver the same game-play experience if FFA PvP is part of it's core design assumptions and that gets switched to flag/unflagg....it becomes an entirely different game with changes that resonate accross almost all areas of game-play.
Comments
A VR MMO where the Universe may be fictional but the laws within it are based on the real world? (laws of physics, laws given by local entities, etc) Yeah it'll be a while but until then I kinda look at the whole discussion on pvp/pve pure or whatever in this frame of reference: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZsYEGmhEbc with either side taking turns being the club guys from time to time ( neither side realizes that a real MMO has both sides content but not really happy).
Your play style is you want to gank pve players. You've all but said it in every post.
In a flagging system you can just flag all the time and have that risk. Flagged you can be attacked at any moment by a player. If anything there is more risk because you never know when it's coming......but that isn't what you want. It isn't the risk to you you're talking about...even though you really want to make it seem that way. It's the ability to ruin someone's day and know it. That is the only missing factor and I'm so sarcastic to you because that style of play is pathetic. It's the worst aspect of pvp and why so many people get sick of dealing with it and give up on mmo pvp.
It isn't about competition or challenging someone elses skills, it's about being a dick to other people. You and your style of play is why you can't find games that cater to what you want. No one wants to make a game called assholes online.
@Jeremy
Although I'd point out that ALL games...and even real world sandboxes have some restriction. For example as much as he might like, a player in a real world sandbox still can't violate the Laws of Physics. A players freedom in a "sandbox" therefore is relative....and I wouldn't consider a game that disallowed PvP or put restrictions on PvP as automaticaly disqualified from being a "sandbox".
Alot to me depends upon the setting and what the designers intended to represent as part of gameplay.
Consider something like WWII Online for example....which is actualy one of the more "sandboxy" MMO's that I've played.
There is alot of latitude for what a player can do....but they can't kill soldiers on thier own side. Why? Well theoreticaly even though there would be no invisable force stopping a soldier from doing so......one who purposefully and repeatedly did so would realisticaly be swiftly and permanantly removed from the battlefield, either by higher authority or thier own comrades. From a gameplay standpoint it would make the game less fun for other players who wanted to play the style of game the situation is supposed to represent.
What would be the point of the Developers building in a feature that would logicaly result in the player being removed from gameplay? How would they even accomplish that if desired, given the player could simply make a new account?
Having those sorts of restrictictions doesn't, however, mean that the Developer need shackle the player into linear Themepark style play in other aspects of the game.
All kidding and arguing aside, I completely know where you're coming from and I'm also hoping for something like that, but for now games like DF do not interest me in the least simply for lack of depth (from what I've read and experienced in the first one) and EvE has me bored now. lol
Right now, I'm still looking for an Mmo to call home and maybe it'll be a long wait. Who knows?!
Until we argue again!
Peace
BTW Funny vid!!
Wrong. As I said to somebody else earlier, I don't even like fighting people in the open world unless I'm defending. The fact that you have to assume this about me says a lot about you and your argument. Here's what it says: You're wrong and you have to resort to ad hominem attacks. Even if I was somebody who ganked pve players, it would make literally 0 difference in the context of this argument.
I've told you what my playstyle is, and instead of accepting it, you assume I'm lying and say my playstyle is to gank other people.
Stop assuming please, it's quite embarassing for you to show how incompentently you can argue your positions.
If I flag myself for pvp constantly, I'm going to lose a certain amount of materials to getting ganked or having to harvest less efficiently by banking often or going out pve'ing in a group rather than solo. The problem with this is a lot of other people are going to get an advantage over me by simply NOT doing it. So while I may be enjoying myself having to look over my shoulder constantly, other people don't have to do that. Also human nature shows that there's a decent chance I'll even fall prey to the same temptations and unflag myself occasionally. I may think I want it at the time, or I may convince myself that it's worth it just this once, but really I'm watering down my experience.
Wrong again. I play SC2 at a level higher than anything you've achieved in any game you've ever played and I do it in LITERALLY THE LEAST DICKISH WAY POSSIBLE. I'm quite literally the most legitimate, fair player you can possibly be in that game. And by the way, that game is ALL about competition and challenging someone else's skills.
Keep assuming stuff about me though. It makes you look really smart.
It may not be as far off as " not in our life time " That occulus rift thing is still pretty basic but lots of games are starting to support it or at least look at it. Now if when we say VR we mean like actually being in the world...yeah that's probably not in out life time and odds are it wont be the mmo industry that makes it but the porn industry :P
I certainly hope so. I'll still try the new Mmos, I just don't have any excitement I once help for upcoming game. Hype no longer affects me like it did for Vanguard, DF, or even AoC.
MY cynic in me has prevented such and maybe it'll forever kill any chances to find a stable home. lol Still curious though to see where they go.
Instead of only selecting the people you feel you can beat in an argument and ignoring the ones who have legitimate points, how about responding to this:
"Why can't you get your risk in a game that has a FFA PvP server alongside the PvE ones. Everyone on the server has the same rule sets and the same risk. No one on that server gets to just opt out. Why would it have to be every server of a game for it to be exciting?"
No offense to you personally but it's getting a little boring answering these posts. You're assuming I'm saying something I'm not.
There is no such thing as a true sandbox game. All you have is games that are more or less sandbox-y, inversely related to how themepark-y they are. So me saying a game lacks a certain sandbox feature doesn't mean that said game can't have other sandbox-y features.
Think about it in context. The guy said that non-pvp sandbox games in general don't exist because they're harder to make. I said yes, but also ffa pvp is necessarily a "sandbox" feature so in general sandbox games are going to TEND TO INCLUDE IT. It doesn't mean they have to include it for the community to categorize it as a sandbox, but it does mean holding all things constant, it's not surprising that sandbox games have that sandbox feature.
Damon... the rate at which technology evolves is increasing... add to that the fact that the technological singularity (IE the moment when you could transfer a human "soul" to a computer without any issues) is estimated at current trends to be no later than the mid 2050s and you get the distinct impression that true VR technology (mind-computer control devices, direct sensory projection into the user's mind via non-harmful EM waves) wouldn't be more than 10-20 years in the future... Hell mind-computer control devices already exist in a rudimentary form and have been around for at least half a decade.
Chill. I'm not sure if you've noticed but I'm engaged with a billion different people and a lot of my posting today was done from my phone. Not exactly easy to keep track of.
And to be fair, I've answered similar questions like this before. The main point being, it's kind of a meaningless thing to say. A game has to be crafted around its ruleset. I can't think of a pvp game I enjoy having a "pve" server without ruining the game. If you make 2 seperate versions of the same game with different rulesets, that's not really the same game.
If you want to start a Darkfall server that has no pvp, go ahead. It wouldn't hurt me at all. However, if you want to have a game designed around what YOU want but simply "turn on" pvp, there's a good chance it's not gonna be a good game.
People walking onto a football field are, by definition, accepting that they are playing a contact sport (yes, even the kickers)
People walking onto a golf course aren't (yes even Tiger)
Football wouldn't be the same game, wouldn't have the same feel, and wouldn't be able to support the same rules...if people could simply opt out of contact whenever they wanted to do so.
Same holds true for Open PvP games (whether FFA or not).
Pretty much by definition any time you play a game you are giving your consent for whatever ruleset that game encompases.
Nothing wrong with games that support a Flag/Unflag mechanic.....but it definately creates a VASTLY different game then games that are open PvP. How would you do Planetside 2, for example, with a flag/unflag mechanic and still keep the same gameplay dynamic and focus?
There is nothing wrong with any of these styles...but they are geared toward providing different types of entertainment experiences...just as Golf and Football are.
I some folks have difficulty accepting that the MMO space is a wide and diverse one with room for plenty of different types of games...including ones that don't suit thier preferences.... and accept those as legitimate play-style options for others.
The fact that Developers have for along time fallen into the Hollywood syndrome where they see one Title which has been a success and endlessly try to repeat producing pretty much the same formula in almost every subsequent title hasn't really helped things much in that regard either.
YMMV.
You can say whatever you want about your playstyle. It's not supported by the actual argument you're making. Everything you've said implies that if you can't kill pve players the games restrictions make it no fun....but you don't attack people in the open world ?
So if you can't do something that you'll never do you can't enjoy the game ? If people can farm unflagged they might get some type of advantage over you..
And it does make a difference in the context of this argument. Pve players are saying they don't like ffa pvp because of all the BS ganking that goes along with it ( among many many other reasons ) How exactly does a guy saying a game has to have ffa pvp and it will work ppl just need to have no choice/option and they'll learn to like it...when you're the ganker they don't want to be in the game with....that's a bit like the shark telling you the waters warm you just need to dive in and try it.
Dude it completely changes the feel of the game whether you can attack everyone or not. You play the game in a different way when there is PVP and there is a lot more excitement. Also if something can be lost from dying it is even better as the community tends to be less of "OMG NOOBKID TRASH FAGGOT ASSHOLE MORON! HAHAHAHAHA WHAT U GONNA DO YOU CANT ATTACK ME!".
Applying logic to human thought processes is like trying to apply for a job position with no prior work experience.
He, just like me, Damon likes the thrill of never being coddled by the game and protected like a special little child. Case and point the best times I've ever had in a MMO are my 0.0 bloc war days in EVE and my wormhole dwelling days ( the former was a zerg fest bar none but being a scout and cloaky fucker meant I could usually just stand by with popcorn and enjoy the show and in the latter case it was pretty much a case of playing Silent Hunter in space).
You're simply saying that a lot of designers are bad at balance, which is the case even if a game is 100% PvE or 100% PvP.
There is nothing that says you can't have PvP balance in a PvE game. It is more that when people complain about balance they blame it on "the game being PvE with PvP dropped in" when in reality those same imbalances would have existed from the same designers if there was no PvE.
There are no truly separate rulesets. The only difference between PvE and PvP is there you can attack another player, that is one rule in a large set. The other rules would be the same no matter what.
If you make a game where you can:
Kill other players and loot them.
Kill creatures and loot them
Run Quests
Explore areas
Craft
Join a Faction
Play with other Players
And then if you removed PvP from it you now get:
Kill creatures and loot them
Run Quests
Explore areas
Craft
Join a Faction
Play with other Players
It is the same game but in one you can attack other players and in the other you can't. There is no fundamentally different rules sets because you designed around PvE or PvP, the majority of the rules are identical. So it all comes down to balance and there will always be balance issues even if you make a game PvP focused from the start, so it isn't PvE that is causing the imbalances.
True but sometimes people underestimate the difference between the idea and the actual application. Look at the flying car. Didn't they say everyone would have one by the year 2000 ? they do have flying cars but the practical application and restrictions of people flying killed that dream
Downloading a person into a computer is probably going to be more complex than just developing the technology to do it. At some level the government is going to see a threat and that's were these things tend to get dragged out or die on the table.
But if we can ever go into VR you and I can argue in "person" :P Wouldn't that be fun... lol
You're the one making a claim you can't back up. The burden of proof is on you. I've given you my thought process for why I prefer a ffa pvp game. And instead of answering it, you choose to ignore it and attack me personally, because that's all you have, because you're wrong. It creates a completely different atmosphere. If you were knowledgeable about the subject you're choosing to debate, you'd know that.
What are you even trying to say here? Yes, they'll get an advantage over me. I'd rather not be the only guy struggling to gather resources in a competitive game. I'm not sure how this is hard for you to grasp.
Also what about the other points I made? Human nature would tempt me to unflag myself. But that doesn't mean it'll be a more enjoyable experience. You never used a cheat code on a single player game? only to have your love for that game instantly be drained by the fact that you just got infinite money or god mode and couldn't be killed? You still used the code, right? Even if you haven't (which I'm sure you'll claim because it's obvious you'll say anything to win an argument), other people have.
Because my arguments don't require you to assume I'm a nice, non-violent guy. Whether I am the kind of asshat who griefs/ganks people or not, it doesn't change my arguments for the ffa pvp game. Have you seriously never heard of an ad hominem attack?
Indeed it would... -imagines you arguing with him...and him just locking in your location from orbit for his Apocalypse to readily glass-
But we're not arguing if pvp is fun or not. I've enjoyed many battles in mmo pvp. The argument was about choice, ffa pvp and why it wont work in a game that has competion ( other games people could go to or server types )....at least I think that's what we started out disagreeing on. It has been a lot of posts now and we wandered a lot.
Either way we'll never agree...kind of like when you and I disagree :P So at this point it's just more of a circle and probably time to move on.
Why are you talking about pvp balance? I'm not saying anything about balancing.
I'm saying games are meticulously made around certain rulesets. The fact that you think "we" will be satisfied by simply TURNING ON pvp, shows how little you understand our position. If what we wanted was to just fight other people, we would be playing non-persistent pvp arena games like Q3, SC2, etc. What we want is an organic, living world that is specifically made to be such. For instance, Darkfall (with all its faults) MUST include pvp. The entire game is about clans building/sieging cities for territory control so they can lock down mob/harvesting spots to gain materials needed to outfit their clan and increase their dominance. There is no game without the idea that pvp exists.
To illustrate my point, I'll reiterate what I said in my previous post. If you want to take a game that was built with pvp in mind and turn off pvp and play that game, go ahead. If, in your mind, there's no difference in making pvp or pve games, then you should be happy with that. And it won't be bother me one bit.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, really. IF you could make a GOOD game that fits the description of my ideal game (or at least a game I'd enjoy), while at the same time turn that game into a version of it you would enjoy, then by all means give it a try.
There is, however, another thing to consider and that's the problem of human nature. People will often tend to pick the easier option if they're given the choice. So it's very possible that people will gravitate towards the "easier" game, leaving the "harder" game less populated. You can say that's indicative of what people want and you may be right, but it also may be the case that people think they want one thing, but then would get bored with it. As I pointed out earlier in this thread, the "easier" games are often the ones that flare up in popularity and then die off.
Damon, you never responded to this.
You act as if the rulesets between a PvE and PvP game are so different so let's make this easy:
Post the ACTUAL rules that are ACTUALLY different in a PvP and PvE game and also show how those same rules couldn't possibly coexist in a PvE and PvP environment. The only one you'll come up with that can't exist in both is.... killing other players. All other rules are 100% separate from PvP/PvE and can work just fine in either system.
That is what I was saying in the other post. I was trying to give a benefit of the doubt that you were indirectly referring to balance because to say that rules that have nothing to do with a player fighting another player would some how magically be different between a PvE or a PvP game is well, ridiculous.
The only example you even try for is:
"The entire game is about clans building/sieging cities for territory control so they can lock down mob/harvesting spots to gain materials needed to outfit their clan and increase their dominance. There is no game without the idea that pvp exists."
and there is no actual reason that can't exist in a game that has PvE and PvP servers. The game can either only turn the system on for the PvP worlds or they can have the system on both worlds, but have the way the cities are built/sieged/etc. on the PvE worlds done through a separate means such as which faction completes the most quests/gathers the most materials etc. In other words you can just as easily have a territory controlling feature in a game that has PvE and separate PvP servers. Absolutely nothing is stopping that. And since you've eluded to this before, why would you care if the city build/siege system was in fact only on the PvP servers of a game if that feature was 100% supported by the development team?
@Snarling
There are certain types of games that really rely on the existance of certain key mechanics in order for the game to work and provide the type of experience the players were interested in.
For example, how would you make Planetside 2 with players being able to Flag/Unflag as they chose?
- You couldn't stop players from gathering resources to boost thier faction.
- You couldn't stop players from scouting out your factions positions/defenses
- You couldn't stop players from holding onto control points if you couldn't kill them.
etc...
Even if you put in logical restrictions to deal with this.....what would the non-flagged players actualy do, gameplay wise?
You'd essentialy have to create an entirely different game for non-flagged players to play within your game....and you'd have to build in mechanisms to deal with the type of problems (such as above) allowing unflagging would create because it breaks the basic design premise you have for your game.....and that of course would take design focus away from trying to enhance the type of gameplay experience you wanted to deliver for folks doing PvP.....and every single system you built would have to be built to take into account the ability to unflag.
I personaly don't like much FFA PvP games (though I do like faction based ones) but I fully understand what Jeremy is getting at.....a game isn't going to be able to deliver the same game-play experience if FFA PvP is part of it's core design assumptions and that gets switched to flag/unflagg....it becomes an entirely different game with changes that resonate accross almost all areas of game-play.