Originally posted by karat76 After reading through many of the posts on here it seems many of are pvpers want virtual prison yards. People are violent animals we need law and order with punishment to keep are true nature in check and even that does not work as some of us are too far gone. Virtual world with no real punishment lets most people be their true selves. Many people are little more than rabid dogs that happen to wear pants from time to time. Pvp is fine for competition or realm bragging rights but FFA is little more than a large prison yard with roving hordes raping and pillaging away with no guards to put them down .
This is a bit raw, but the sad truth. Anonymous + FFA PvP turns everyone into a bully.
You reality equals your truth. You still can be and in this case are wrong.
If you're still talking about AoW, they you know yourself that you're wrong. AoW is not unrestricted FFA PvP.
...It is. you can kill anyone anywhere at anytime. Guildmates. friends, close friends, schoolmates, who ever. Yet, and still it's a Civil virtual world.
`"Dear lord this is getting silly. I explained that the systems in sandbox games are just simulations of the steps that humans have taken to protect people. I said a system that relies on people to form their own in-game government etc is too complex so they put rules in to SIMULATE the rules we have in the real world.
Then you for some reason said that wouldn't work because people won't be online all the time and the in-game cops won't take their jobs seriously or whatever. But I never said the in-game cops have to be humans. That's the whole point! Where the system becomes too complex for it to exist in a game is where the developers should prop it up: npc guards, etc. Get it?"
Yes I agree it is getting silly.
The simulations are poor simulations.
Players running bounty systems IMO is not very effective because it requires the co-operation of someone else that may decide they don`t want to. `Yes I get which is why I think npc policeman would work better than people. I don't agree that it should end at the city gate, I do believe it should extend into the world.
UO had many guilds that were dedicated to exactly that. In fact, until recently I was running one of the biggest guilds on a new UO server and I can tell you that you're very mistaken about the effectiveness of a player run system like this. You'd run into a group of reds in a dungeon, mention it to faction members in IRC and they would be at the dungeon in a few seconds. This wasn't an unusual occurrence.
That's fine that you think it should extend into the world, but do you see the point I'm making about freedom? In the real world, people are free to kill/grief/whatever, and we're free to fight back and create governments and laws. That's what freedom is. Freedom isn't an invisible force field saying nobody can touch me. Sandbox players want as much player control AS POSSIBLE. Obviously there are technical limitations and logisitical limitations.
"There SHOULD be danger, criminals, vigilantes to make the game more fun. If the goal were to just live a successful and peaceful life (like it is in the real world), then yes the developers should snap their fingers and give everybody invulnerability and infinite resources. But we don't want that. We want a challenge and we want depth to our games.":
That is the game you are looking for. That is not the sandbox game a pve sandbox fan is looking for, which is what the thread was about, a sandbox pve game.
The thread is about the difference between the two. Don't try and act like this thread is merely to discuss pve games.
And many consider UO pre trammel to be a horrible gankfest, therefore in their minds the anti-pk guilds were ineffective. In the real world we agree to sacrifice certain freedoms in order to have longer, more successfull and more enjoyable lives. In a game players policing themselves (so far) imo have not worked very well.
This thread is about making a sandbox pve game, the op belives there are enough sandbox pve, but few sandbox pve. People have hijacked it to discuss their particular agenda.
You're committing a huge logical fallacy. Just because some people think UO was a horrible gankfest, doesn't mean that the anti-pk guilds were ineffective. You're assuming that. The thing we're discussing is the ability of people to police themselves, and I'm telling you that it was (and still is) a big success in UO.
`"Dear lord this is getting silly. I explained that the systems in sandbox games are just simulations of the steps that humans have taken to protect people. I said a system that relies on people to form their own in-game government etc is too complex so they put rules in to SIMULATE the rules we have in the real world.
Then you for some reason said that wouldn't work because people won't be online all the time and the in-game cops won't take their jobs seriously or whatever. But I never said the in-game cops have to be humans. That's the whole point! Where the system becomes too complex for it to exist in a game is where the developers should prop it up: npc guards, etc. Get it?"
Yes I agree it is getting silly.
The simulations are poor simulations.
Players running bounty systems IMO is not very effective because it requires the co-operation of someone else that may decide they don`t want to. `Yes I get which is why I think npc policeman would work better than people. I don't agree that it should end at the city gate, I do believe it should extend into the world.
UO had many guilds that were dedicated to exactly that. In fact, until recently I was running one of the biggest guilds on a new UO server and I can tell you that you're very mistaken about the effectiveness of a player run system like this. You'd run into a group of reds in a dungeon, mention it to faction members in IRC and they would be at the dungeon in a few seconds. This wasn't an unusual occurrence.
That's fine that you think it should extend into the world, but do you see the point I'm making about freedom? In the real world, people are free to kill/grief/whatever, and we're free to fight back and create governments and laws. That's what freedom is. Freedom isn't an invisible force field saying nobody can touch me. Sandbox players want as much player control AS POSSIBLE. Obviously there are technical limitations and logisitical limitations.
"There SHOULD be danger, criminals, vigilantes to make the game more fun. If the goal were to just live a successful and peaceful life (like it is in the real world), then yes the developers should snap their fingers and give everybody invulnerability and infinite resources. But we don't want that. We want a challenge and we want depth to our games.":
That is the game you are looking for. That is not the sandbox game a pve sandbox fan is looking for, which is what the thread was about, a sandbox pve game.
The thread is about the difference between the two. Don't try and act like this thread is merely to discuss pve games.
And many consider UO pre trammel to be a horrible gankfest, therefore in their minds the anti-pk guilds were ineffective. In the real world we agree to sacrifice certain freedoms in order to have longer, more successfull and more enjoyable lives. In a game players policing themselves (so far) imo have not worked very well.
This thread is about making a sandbox pve game, the op belives there are enough sandbox pve, but few sandbox pve. People have hijacked it to discuss their particular agenda.
You're committing a huge logical fallacy. Just because some people think UO was a horrible gankfest, doesn't mean that the anti-pk guilds were ineffective. You're assuming that. The thing we're discussing is the ability of people to police themselves, and I'm telling you that it was (and still is) a big success in UO.
and in Wushu. Player catches the bad guys, the game punishes them. I think that may be the subtle but important difference in this case.
`"Dear lord this is getting silly. I explained that the systems in sandbox games are just simulations of the steps that humans have taken to protect people. I said a system that relies on people to form their own in-game government etc is too complex so they put rules in to SIMULATE the rules we have in the real world.
Then you for some reason said that wouldn't work because people won't be online all the time and the in-game cops won't take their jobs seriously or whatever. But I never said the in-game cops have to be humans. That's the whole point! Where the system becomes too complex for it to exist in a game is where the developers should prop it up: npc guards, etc. Get it?"
Yes I agree it is getting silly.
The simulations are poor simulations.
Players running bounty systems IMO is not very effective because it requires the co-operation of someone else that may decide they don`t want to. `Yes I get which is why I think npc policeman would work better than people. I don't agree that it should end at the city gate, I do believe it should extend into the world.
UO had many guilds that were dedicated to exactly that. In fact, until recently I was running one of the biggest guilds on a new UO server and I can tell you that you're very mistaken about the effectiveness of a player run system like this. You'd run into a group of reds in a dungeon, mention it to faction members in IRC and they would be at the dungeon in a few seconds. This wasn't an unusual occurrence.
That's fine that you think it should extend into the world, but do you see the point I'm making about freedom? In the real world, people are free to kill/grief/whatever, and we're free to fight back and create governments and laws. That's what freedom is. Freedom isn't an invisible force field saying nobody can touch me. Sandbox players want as much player control AS POSSIBLE. Obviously there are technical limitations and logisitical limitations.
"There SHOULD be danger, criminals, vigilantes to make the game more fun. If the goal were to just live a successful and peaceful life (like it is in the real world), then yes the developers should snap their fingers and give everybody invulnerability and infinite resources. But we don't want that. We want a challenge and we want depth to our games.":
That is the game you are looking for. That is not the sandbox game a pve sandbox fan is looking for, which is what the thread was about, a sandbox pve game.
The thread is about the difference between the two. Don't try and act like this thread is merely to discuss pve games.
And many consider UO pre trammel to be a horrible gankfest, therefore in their minds the anti-pk guilds were ineffective. In the real world we agree to sacrifice certain freedoms in order to have longer, more successfull and more enjoyable lives. In a game players policing themselves (so far) imo have not worked very well.
This thread is about making a sandbox pve game, the op belives there are enough sandbox pve, but few sandbox pve. People have hijacked it to discuss their particular agenda.
You're committing a huge logical fallacy. Just because some people think UO was a horrible gankfest, doesn't mean that the anti-pk guilds were ineffective. You're assuming that. The thing we're discussing is the ability of people to police themselves, and I'm telling you that it was (and still is) a big success in UO.
and in Wushu. Player catches the bad guys, the game punishes them. I think that may be the subtle but important difference in this case.
I've often thought about getting into Wushu, it just seemed so daunting at first... probably a good sign to be honest.
At any rate, yeah UO could've done a lot of stuff better, which goes to show that a well done ffa pvp game could absolutely be a success. For instance, the player run policing in UO was simply killing the pk's and taking THEIR stuff. There weren't very harsh penalties on them. There's a lot of room for improvement, I'm glad to hear a game (Wushu) is doing it well.
I didn't say, nor do I think Eve is an exception. I stated it took many years and many changes to reach a point it was successfull, and if it released today in the same state it released in 2003 I do not believe it would be successfull.
In other words, in order for a ffa pvp game to be successfull there needs to be safety measures, at least like eve has with high sec space (which is pretty darn big, much bigger than just a city size).
I also am not sure about the features. I think we have all become a bit spoiled and if a game releases without all that content and those features (whatever those are) it will have a harder time. Sandbox does need the tools to manipulate the sand, most sandbox games have not had those tools (see Ryzom), and so IMO are not or are barely sandbox. So again we'll use Eve, Eve did not release with those tools or high sec space. I say if Eve released today without those tools or high sec it would not be sucessful. It would have a much tougher time today than in 2003.
I"m not talking about bugs/lag... although those were there too. I am specifially talking about tools to manipulate things in game and large safe areas.
I am stating any sandbox game (pvp or pve) that releases without tools to change things in the world (terrain, city building...) is not a sandbox and will not be successfull. I'm saying that any pvp sandbox game without methods for keeping people that don't want to pvp safe, or have an expectation of relative safety anyway, will not be successfull.
edit - the question comes in what if a game has all those bells and whistles but no safe or very little safe areas of methods of protection. I'm thinking Age of Wushu for this one, tonnes of stuff, tonnes of content, a lot of tools but very few safe areas. I dont' know, time will tell for this one.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Originally posted by karat76 After reading through many of the posts on here it seems many of are pvpers want virtual prison yards. People are violent animals we need law and order with punishment to keep are true nature in check and even that does not work as some of us are too far gone. Virtual world with no real punishment lets most people be their true selves. Many people are little more than rabid dogs that happen to wear pants from time to time. Pvp is fine for competition or realm bragging rights but FFA is little more than a large prison yard with roving hordes raping and pillaging away with no guards to put them down .
This is a bit raw, but the sad truth. Anonymous + FFA PvP turns everyone into a bully.
This has to be either the stupidest thing ever said on a forum or a tacit admission to one's own nature. It is often those who cry wolf who are instead wolves in hiding waiting for the group to leave for them to reap their bloody tally.
I am in-game who I am in real life, I do not separate the two and believe it or not I am up front about who I am , who I really am, to those around me who care enough to know. The sociopaths or psychopaths are those amongst us who view something ethically evil (killing other beings for sheer amusement , be it sentient or not, torturing other beings, etc), it is the thrill of committing something forbidden which lures the more debased individuals to commit such acts... the weaker the will the stronger the push the stronger the pull, this is why some people, who are indeed barely restrained killers in real life, let loose with such gusto in-game... because they view it as something wrong to do and they do it for the satisfaction of doing it in a virtual world when in the real one they couldn't. To combat this simple fact you need to make it not wrong (in a way, do not complain, do not anger, do not retaliate against their violence) and enforce as much retribution as possible, rob them of the satisfaction and burn them in return (retaliation but of a cold and calculated way, rob them of their fun by ganking them back days or weeks after so they do not expect it, if they are truly psychopaths then they will retaliate in ever more instinctive ways and as a individual you need to see it coming and put it down decisively, once you do this you have won, if they are not psychopaths but instead merely frustrated individuals venting online they will either rage or simply say "good fight" and walk away giving you some measure of satisfaction and a measure of respect from him/her).
Sorry for the eyestrain.
@Venge: Kindly stop talking about EVE, I've been playing it since 2005 and while it wasn't much to look at it was a far better game than even WoW back then from a feature set stand point and what has happened since wasn't evolution but polishing that 05 core game and expanding upon it (if memory does not fail it's been 4-5 years since the last "true expansion" in a content sense because since Apocrypha content expansions have been focused on ships, equipment and iteration on existing items, that's pretty much it).
I didn't say, nor do I think Eve is an exception. I stated it took many years and many changes to reach a point it was successfull, and if it released today in the same state it released in 2003 I do not believe it would be successfull.
In other words, in order for a ffa pvp game to be successfull there needs to be safety measures, at least like eve has with high sec space (which is pretty darn big, much bigger than just a city size).
I also am not sure about the features. I think we have all become a bit spoiled and if a game releases without all that content and those features (whatever those are) it will have a harder time. Sandbox does need the tools to manipulate the sand, most sandbox games have not had those tools (see Ryzom), and so IMO are not or are barely sandbox. So again we'll use Eve, Eve did not release with those tools or high sec space. I say if Eve released today without those tools or high sec it would not be sucessful. It would have a much tougher time today than in 2003.
I"m not talking about bugs/lag... although those were there too. I am specifially talking about tools to manipulate things in game and large safe areas.
I am stating any sandbox game (pvp or pve) that releases without tools to change things in the world (terrain, city building...) is not a sandbox and will not be successfull. I'm saying that any pvp sandbox game without methods for keeping people that don't want to pvp safe, or have an expectation of relative safety anyway, will not be successfull.
If I'm misrepresenting things you're saying, it's only because I'm trying to figure out the point you're making, so I may be making logical connections in my mind that you're not trying to make.
I don't play eve and certainly didn't play it when it came out, so I can't really offer a good argument related to whether or not eve launched with tools enough to make the game interesting. Obviously it did at the time, but your point is that people now wouldn't accept it. That's fine. That may be true but there are a couple of problems with this example:
1. You're assuming that it wouldn't be easier (read: cheaper) for a game to launch with a lot of the stuff eve was missing at launch. Developers can learn from the mistakes of other developers, and can take ideas from them as well. So even if the original eve wouldn't survive today, that doesn't really mean much because it's not reasonable to assume somebody would launch an equivalent game now.
2. EvE is a really really complex game. A game that is less complex could probably afford to spend more time on implementing sandbox tools.
Originally posted by karat76 After reading through many of the posts on here it seems many of are pvpers want virtual prison yards. People are violent animals we need law and order with punishment to keep are true nature in check and even that does not work as some of us are too far gone. Virtual world with no real punishment lets most people be their true selves. Many people are little more than rabid dogs that happen to wear pants from time to time. Pvp is fine for competition or realm bragging rights but FFA is little more than a large prison yard with roving hordes raping and pillaging away with no guards to put them down .
This is a bit raw, but the sad truth. Anonymous + FFA PvP turns everyone into a bully.
You reality equals your truth. You still can be and in this case are wrong.
If you're still talking about AoW, they you know yourself that you're wrong. AoW is not unrestricted FFA PvP.
...It is. you can kill anyone anywhere at anytime. Guildmates. friends, close friends, schoolmates, who ever. Yet, and still it's a Civil virtual world.
What is your definition of unrestricted FFA pvp?
What are the consequences for doing so? Please remind us...
Yeah, AoW did some things right.
Well it's not a one layer process.
Let's say you kill a schoolmate. The person killed can place a bounty. The bounty will be anywhere from 20mins-5 hours in jail where the time does not tick unless you're logged in. Also you will face discipline from your school, which will be a 30% attack debuff ranging from 30-to 3 hours or so.
Let's say you just went on a rampage and started killing people, at about 5 (if someone doesn;t place a bounty before) you can no longer enter cites w/o guards attacking you, and any player can kill you and send you to jail. time is dependent on you infamy. When you go to jail like this it takes about 2 hours for infamy to go down at it's minimum level
What if you keep going, no one has placed a bounty, and you have not been caught by city guards or players. Once you reach about 8k infamy you will be put on death row when caught and executed at noon the next day if friends don't break you out. People can through eggs at you and stuff. The death penalty is a 24hour 30% debuff.
Now there are other systems in place for the criiminal as well to try and avoid justice. Very high risk options.
"@Venge: Kindly stop talking about EVE, I've been playing it since 2005 and while it wasn't much to look at it was a far better game than even WoW back then from a feature set stand point and what has happened since wasn't evolution but polishing that 05 core game and expanding upon it (if memory does not fail it's been 4-5 years since the last "true expansion" in a content sense because since Apocrypha content expansions have been focused on ships, equipment and iteration on existing items, that's pretty much it)."
A far better game is opinion.
Things have changed in Eve since release, that is a fact. It did not release with high sec space for one. I also didn't start the expansion, someone else that they released them and people bought them. But looking at wikipedia apparently it has had 19 expansions, I don't know if they are player bought or not.
Even now there are rebalance and skill changes going on.
Your committing the same fallacy and another. Just because you think it was effective doesn't mean it actually was.
I also didnt' state that it actually was or was not effective. I stated in those players minds that thought it was a gankfest it was ineffective.
I'm telling you that in many people's eyes, people policing themselves in UO pre-trammel was ineffective.
I'm not committing the same fallacy. I'm not committing any fallacy. I'm offering an opinion as something that is meant to strengthen my argument, it's not meant to be proof. You don't have to take my word for it, you can even say I'm lying, you're allowed to do that. But as somebody who has played a lot of UO and RECENTLY saw the effectiveness of such a system, I'm offering my opinion on the matter. It's not a fallacy to offer an opinion. Aside from that one, what's the other fallacy?
The mistake you're making is by saying that because people thought UO was a gankfest, that means they think the policing wasn't successful. That isn't necessarily true. Those people very possibly haven't even played UO, let alone played it enough to experience the player-policing that went on. There may be some people that truly did play the game quite a bit and have the explicit opinion that player-policing specifically did not work, and that's fine. That's their opinion. I never said my opinion was uncontested. But it's a little silly for me to offer my first-hand experience and for you to swat it down with something so tenuous as an assumption like that.
Originally posted by karat76 After reading through many of the posts on here it seems many of are pvpers want virtual prison yards. People are violent animals we need law and order with punishment to keep are true nature in check and even that does not work as some of us are too far gone. Virtual world with no real punishment lets most people be their true selves. Many people are little more than rabid dogs that happen to wear pants from time to time. Pvp is fine for competition or realm bragging rights but FFA is little more than a large prison yard with roving hordes raping and pillaging away with no guards to put them down .
This is a bit raw, but the sad truth. Anonymous + FFA PvP turns everyone into a bully.
You reality equals your truth. You still can be and in this case are wrong.
If you're still talking about AoW, they you know yourself that you're wrong. AoW is not unrestricted FFA PvP.
...It is. you can kill anyone anywhere at anytime. Guildmates. friends, close friends, schoolmates, who ever. Yet, and still it's a Civil virtual world.
What is your definition of unrestricted FFA pvp?
What are the consequences for doing so? Please remind us...
Yeah, AoW did some things right.
Well it's not a one layer process.
Let's say you kill a schoolmate. The person killed can place a bounty. The bounty will be anywhere from 20mins-5 hours in jail where the time does not tick unless you're logged in. Also you will face discipline from your school, which will be a 30% attack debuff ranging from 30-to 3 hours or so.
Let's say you just went on a rampage and started killing people, at about 5 (if someone doesn;t place a bounty before) you can no longer enter cites w/o guards attacking you, and any player can kill you and send you to jail. time is dependent on you infamy. When you go to jail like this it takes about 2 hours for infamy to go down at it's minimum level
What if you keep going, no one has placed a bounty, and you have not been caught by city guards or players. Once you reach about 8k infamy you will be put on death row when caught and executed at noon the next day if friends don't break you out. People can through eggs at you and stuff. The death penalty is a 24hour 30% debuff.
Now there are other systems in place for the criiminal as well to try and avoid justice. Very high risk options.
FYI - he's probably going to respond by saying when he says "ffa pvp" he means a system with literally 0 rules, even though nobody (or next to nobody) has asked for such a system. It won't stop him from claiming it though.
"pve gets old real fast" is a funny argument that is only based on preferences. To me pvp gets dull and repetetive real fast because to me the gameplay and tactical elements often turn simplistic. It is not that I dislike pvp, I just like it in small dozes and as soon as I spot the optimal tactics either used by others or myself, I loose interest. So that argument goes both ways depending on what You prefer. I would argue pve players mostly play games for the rpg elements, while pvp players mostly play games for the competetive elements.
I couldn't agree more. I've been saying that for a long time. I have no problems with PVP centric games, and in fact ive played many of them heavily (DAOC and Warhammer: Online). What i do have a problem is games that try to mix both. They invariably make changes to balance PVE that screw PVP or vice versa, and its a problem for both communities.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
I didn't say, nor do I think Eve is an exception. I stated it took many years and many changes to reach a point it was successfull, and if it released today in the same state it released in 2003 I do not believe it would be successfull.
In other words, in order for a ffa pvp game to be successfull there needs to be safety measures, at least like eve has with high sec space (which is pretty darn big, much bigger than just a city size).
I also am not sure about the features. I think we have all become a bit spoiled and if a game releases without all that content and those features (whatever those are) it will have a harder time. Sandbox does need the tools to manipulate the sand, most sandbox games have not had those tools (see Ryzom), and so IMO are not or are barely sandbox. So again we'll use Eve, Eve did not release with those tools or high sec space. I say if Eve released today without those tools or high sec it would not be sucessful. It would have a much tougher time today than in 2003.
I"m not talking about bugs/lag... although those were there too. I am specifially talking about tools to manipulate things in game and large safe areas.
I am stating any sandbox game (pvp or pve) that releases without tools to change things in the world (terrain, city building...) is not a sandbox and will not be successfull. I'm saying that any pvp sandbox game without methods for keeping people that don't want to pvp safe, or have an expectation of relative safety anyway, will not be successfull.
If I'm misrepresenting things you're saying, it's only because I'm trying to figure out the point you're making, so I may be making logical connections in my mind that you're not trying to make.
I don't play eve and certainly didn't play it when it came out, so I can't really offer a good argument related to whether or not eve launched with tools enough to make the game interesting. Obviously it did at the time, but your point is that people now wouldn't accept it. That's fine. That may be true but there are a couple of problems with this example:
1. You're assuming that it wouldn't be easier (read: cheaper) for a game to launch with a lot of the stuff eve was missing at launch. Developers can learn from the mistakes of other developers, and can take ideas from them as well. So even if the original eve wouldn't survive today, that doesn't really mean much because it's not reasonable to assume somebody would launch an equivalent game now.
2. EvE is a really really complex game. A game that is less complex could probably afford to spend more time on implementing sandbox tools.
Generally I agree with you here.
It is very reasonable to assume that someone would launch an equivalent game today. It seems like most of the sandbox pvp games that have been discussed in the last few years are just that. Games without the tools to manipulate the sand and games without reasonable efforts to keep the population safe.
While the tech is different the same problems still exist. Eve realized early on they needed High-sec space, that was there solution to either redice pking or keep people safe that did not want to engage in pvp. I think there are a great many devs today that have not learned this lesson.
2. Totally agree.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
I didn't say, nor do I think Eve is an exception. I stated it took many years and many changes to reach a point it was successfull, and if it released today in the same state it released in 2003 I do not believe it would be successfull.
In other words, in order for a ffa pvp game to be successfull there needs to be safety measures, at least like eve has with high sec space (which is pretty darn big, much bigger than just a city size).
I also am not sure about the features. I think we have all become a bit spoiled and if a game releases without all that content and those features (whatever those are) it will have a harder time. Sandbox does need the tools to manipulate the sand, most sandbox games have not had those tools (see Ryzom), and so IMO are not or are barely sandbox. So again we'll use Eve, Eve did not release with those tools or high sec space. I say if Eve released today without those tools or high sec it would not be sucessful. It would have a much tougher time today than in 2003.
I"m not talking about bugs/lag... although those were there too. I am specifially talking about tools to manipulate things in game and large safe areas.
I am stating any sandbox game (pvp or pve) that releases without tools to change things in the world (terrain, city building...) is not a sandbox and will not be successfull. I'm saying that any pvp sandbox game without methods for keeping people that don't want to pvp safe, or have an expectation of relative safety anyway, will not be successfull.
If I'm misrepresenting things you're saying, it's only because I'm trying to figure out the point you're making, so I may be making logical connections in my mind that you're not trying to make.
I don't play eve and certainly didn't play it when it came out, so I can't really offer a good argument related to whether or not eve launched with tools enough to make the game interesting. Obviously it did at the time, but your point is that people now wouldn't accept it. That's fine. That may be true but there are a couple of problems with this example:
1. You're assuming that it wouldn't be easier (read: cheaper) for a game to launch with a lot of the stuff eve was missing at launch. Developers can learn from the mistakes of other developers, and can take ideas from them as well. So even if the original eve wouldn't survive today, that doesn't really mean much because it's not reasonable to assume somebody would launch an equivalent game now.
2. EvE is a really really complex game. A game that is less complex could probably afford to spend more time on implementing sandbox tools.
Generally I agree with you here.
It is very reasonable to assume that someone would launch an equivalent game today. It seems like most of the sandbox pvp games that have been discussed in the last few years are just that. Games without the tools to manipulate the sand and games without reasonable efforts to keep the population safe.
While the tech is different the same problems still exist. Eve realized early on they needed High-sec space, that was there solution to either redice pking or keep people safe that did not want to engage in pvp. I think there are a great many devs today that have not learned this lesson.
2. Totally agree.
Well I'd agree that the sandbox games released lately have left much to desire. Some of us would argue that's because the mmo genre has been inundated with get rich quick themeparks, so high quality developers have been pumping them out rather than good sandboxes. The only sandbox games that get made are ones made by indie developers, and even those are few and far between.... for now.
The next couple of years will surely change the debate quite a bit. There are a few sandbox games coming down the pipe
"@Venge: Kindly stop talking about EVE, I've been playing it since 2005 and while it wasn't much to look at it was a far better game than even WoW back then from a feature set stand point and what has happened since wasn't evolution but polishing that 05 core game and expanding upon it (if memory does not fail it's been 4-5 years since the last "true expansion" in a content sense because since Apocrypha content expansions have been focused on ships, equipment and iteration on existing items, that's pretty much it)."
A far better game is opinion.
Things have changed in Eve since release, that is a fact. It did not release with high sec space for one. I also didn't start the expansion, someone else that they released them and people bought them. But looking at wikipedia apparently it has had 19 expansions, I don't know if they are player bought or not.
Even now there are rebalance and skill changes going on.
Impressive lack of any knowledge regarding the topic.
1. At the start of things it was High-sec (safe zone) and Low-sec (unsafe zone), later in one of the expansions they added in the first bits of 0.0 space (unsafe, conquerable space).
2. Rebalances are due to changes within the game's meta brought about by the iterations I was talking about earlier and that is to maintain a fair system (at one point it was fair to have nano-fitted ships which could orbit around your ship at 2000 + m/s without an microwarp drive or have cruisers be able to achieve 14 km/s with an afterburner but as the game evolved and was expanded upon in terms of ships and weapons this changed, more so after the introduction of capital ships and the usage of said ships picking up). It was not a perfectly fair system in terms of balance but it gave enough tools to players to be able to balance the imbalances as it where (for example in the late 2000s early 2010s a favourite tactic was to use drake blobs in alliance battle doctrines, this went on for a while until someone noticed that a certain other type of ship could both outrange a drake and deal the types of damage required to take them down faster than expected, thus the hellcat fleet doctrines were born which in turn were hard countered by maelstrom doctrines in time, if not mistaken here I was at that point an observer having retired 3 years prior, and the cycle continues to this day, it is a virtual arms race).
3.Skills in themselves have been expanded upon in the past to account for new ships and new weapons and only once has the skill pool actually gone down when the learning skills were removed from the game to reduce unnecessary training time for newer players. The Summer 2013 skill changes are CCP renaming some skills to be more easily understandable to new players , reshuffling them around to make more sense, again to new players and splitting up ship line skills better to reduce a little the tendency to be able to be a jack of all trades too quickly in-game (so basically they've only made skills easier to understand for a novice player and made the progression in racial ship skills more easily understood, that is all).
Your committing the same fallacy and another. Just because you think it was effective doesn't mean it actually was.
I also didnt' state that it actually was or was not effective. I stated in those players minds that thought it was a gankfest it was ineffective.
I'm telling you that in many people's eyes, people policing themselves in UO pre-trammel was ineffective.
I'm not committing the same fallacy. I'm not committing any fallacy. I'm offering an opinion as something that is meant to strengthen my argument, it's not meant to be proof. You don't have to take my word for it, you can even say I'm lying, you're allowed to do that. But as somebody who has played a lot of UO and RECENTLY saw the effectiveness of such a system, I'm offering my opinion on the matter. It's not a fallacy to offer an opinion. Aside from that one, what's the other fallacy?
The mistake you're making is by saying that because people thought UO was a gankfest, that means they think the policing wasn't successful. That isn't necessarily true. Those people very possibly haven't even played UO, let alone played it enough to experience the player-policing that went on. There may be some people that truly did play the game quite a bit and have the explicit opinion that player-policing specifically did not work, and that's fine. That's their opinion. I never said my opinion was uncontested. But it's a little silly for me to offer my first-hand experience and for you to swat it down with something so tenuous as an assumption like that.
You said I was making that fallacy when I was merely stating what other players have stated. They offered their opinions. You offered yours. Therefore if I am guilty of that fallacy, than you are as well.
fallacy 1. People stating their opinions means that it actually they way it was. You stated it wasn't that way based on what you experienced. They state it was that way based on their experience. Which is true? I don't know, it's all opinion.
You stated. "You're committing a huge logical fallacy. Just because some people think UO was a horrible gankfest, doesn't mean that the anti-pk guilds were ineffective. You're assuming that. The thing we're discussing is the ability of people to police themselves, and I'm telling you that it was (and still is) a big success in UO."
You state this as fact based on your opinion, making it not a fact just an opinion. You hold that opinion to be correct based on your experiences. Which is exactly what the other did and which you said was a logical fallacy. If it's a fallay for them, than it's a fallacy for you.
So fallacy number one: was a person believing their opinion to be true.
fallacy number 2: Not recognizing that they were doing the same thing by offering an opinion.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
i don't mind if they have PvP like SWG did back in the day... when I never flagged and never noticed it.
It had hubs where people would flag up and Jedi were always flagged... I'm fine with that. Just let me, a PvE CRAFTER exist in a sandbox where I don't constantly have to wait for some jackass to ruin my game experience. PvP all you want, just do it over THERE and leave me alone.
Your committing the same fallacy and another. Just because you think it was effective doesn't mean it actually was.
I also didnt' state that it actually was or was not effective. I stated in those players minds that thought it was a gankfest it was ineffective.
I'm telling you that in many people's eyes, people policing themselves in UO pre-trammel was ineffective.
I'm not committing the same fallacy. I'm not committing any fallacy. I'm offering an opinion as something that is meant to strengthen my argument, it's not meant to be proof. You don't have to take my word for it, you can even say I'm lying, you're allowed to do that. But as somebody who has played a lot of UO and RECENTLY saw the effectiveness of such a system, I'm offering my opinion on the matter. It's not a fallacy to offer an opinion. Aside from that one, what's the other fallacy?
The mistake you're making is by saying that because people thought UO was a gankfest, that means they think the policing wasn't successful. That isn't necessarily true. Those people very possibly haven't even played UO, let alone played it enough to experience the player-policing that went on. There may be some people that truly did play the game quite a bit and have the explicit opinion that player-policing specifically did not work, and that's fine. That's their opinion. I never said my opinion was uncontested. But it's a little silly for me to offer my first-hand experience and for you to swat it down with something so tenuous as an assumption like that.
You said I was making that fallacy when I was merely stating what other players have stated. They offered their opinions. You offered yours. Therefore if I am guilty of that fallacy, than you are as well.
But you're asserting their opinion about the self-policing aspect. You're giving their opinion about UO in general, and assuming that means they don't think clans policed the game well enough. It's very possible they don't want to be ganked no matter WHAT the consequences are. If UO had a system where NPC guards went out and caught the guy who killed them and punished him, those people you're talking about may still consider UO a gankfest. Therefore it's wrong to assume that because they think it's a gankfest, that necessarily means they were let down by the self-policing aspect.
fallacy 1. People stating their opinions means that it actually they way it was. You stated it wasn't that way based on what you experienced. They state it was that way based on their experience. Which is true? I don't know, it's all opinion.
I never said my opinion was fact. No fallacy here.
You stated. "You're committing a huge logical fallacy. Just because some people think UO was a horrible gankfest, doesn't mean that the anti-pk guilds were ineffective. You're assuming that. The thing we're discussing is the ability of people to police themselves, and I'm telling you that it was (and still is) a big success in UO."
You state this as fact based on your opinion, making it not a fact just an opinion. You hold that opinion to be correct based on your experiences. Which is exactly what the other did and which you said was a logical fallacy. If it's a fallay for them, than it's a fallacy for you.
So fallacy number one: was a person believing their opinion to be true.
fallacy number 2: Not recognizing that they were doing the same thing by offering an opinion.
I never said it was a fact or meant it to sound like a fact. My quote that you showed was meant to expose the fact you're making a jump that isn't necssarily there.
Your committing the same fallacy and another. Just because you think it was effective doesn't mean it actually was.
I also didnt' state that it actually was or was not effective. I stated in those players minds that thought it was a gankfest it was ineffective.
I'm telling you that in many people's eyes, people policing themselves in UO pre-trammel was ineffective.
I'm not committing the same fallacy. I'm not committing any fallacy. I'm offering an opinion as something that is meant to strengthen my argument, it's not meant to be proof. You don't have to take my word for it, you can even say I'm lying, you're allowed to do that. But as somebody who has played a lot of UO and RECENTLY saw the effectiveness of such a system, I'm offering my opinion on the matter. It's not a fallacy to offer an opinion. Aside from that one, what's the other fallacy?
The mistake you're making is by saying that because people thought UO was a gankfest, that means they think the policing wasn't successful. That isn't necessarily true. Those people very possibly haven't even played UO, let alone played it enough to experience the player-policing that went on. There may be some people that truly did play the game quite a bit and have the explicit opinion that player-policing specifically did not work, and that's fine. That's their opinion. I never said my opinion was uncontested. But it's a little silly for me to offer my first-hand experience and for you to swat it down with something so tenuous as an assumption like that.
You said I was making that fallacy when I was merely stating what other players have stated. They offered their opinions. You offered yours. Therefore if I am guilty of that fallacy, than you are as well.
But you're asserting their opinion about the self-policing aspect. You're giving their opinion about UO in general, and assuming that means they don't think clans policed the game well enough. It's very possible they don't want to be ganked no matter WHAT the consequences are. If UO had a system where NPC guards went out and caught the guy who killed them and punished him, those people you're talking about may still consider UO a gankfest. Therefore it's wrong to assume that because they think it's a gankfest, that necessarily means they were let down by the self-policing aspect.
fallacy 1. People stating their opinions means that it actually they way it was. You stated it wasn't that way based on what you experienced. They state it was that way based on their experience. Which is true? I don't know, it's all opinion.
I never said my opinion was fact. No fallacy here.
You stated. "You're committing a huge logical fallacy. Just because some people think UO was a horrible gankfest, doesn't mean that the anti-pk guilds were ineffective. You're assuming that. The thing we're discussing is the ability of people to police themselves, and I'm telling you that it was (and still is) a big success in UO."
You state this as fact based on your opinion, making it not a fact just an opinion. You hold that opinion to be correct based on your experiences. Which is exactly what the other did and which you said was a logical fallacy. If it's a fallay for them, than it's a fallacy for you.
So fallacy number one: was a person believing their opinion to be true.
fallacy number 2: Not recognizing that they were doing the same thing by offering an opinion.
I never said it was a fact or meant it to sound like a fact. My quote that you showed was meant to expose the fact you're making a jump that isn't necssarily there.
"The thing we're discussing is the ability of people to police themselves, and I'm telling you that it was (and still is) a big success in UO"
This is not presented as opinion. You are stating this is the way it is. It is not, it is just the way you believe it.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Your committing the same fallacy and another. Just because you think it was effective doesn't mean it actually was.
I also didnt' state that it actually was or was not effective. I stated in those players minds that thought it was a gankfest it was ineffective.
I'm telling you that in many people's eyes, people policing themselves in UO pre-trammel was ineffective.
I'm not committing the same fallacy. I'm not committing any fallacy. I'm offering an opinion as something that is meant to strengthen my argument, it's not meant to be proof. You don't have to take my word for it, you can even say I'm lying, you're allowed to do that. But as somebody who has played a lot of UO and RECENTLY saw the effectiveness of such a system, I'm offering my opinion on the matter. It's not a fallacy to offer an opinion. Aside from that one, what's the other fallacy?
The mistake you're making is by saying that because people thought UO was a gankfest, that means they think the policing wasn't successful. That isn't necessarily true. Those people very possibly haven't even played UO, let alone played it enough to experience the player-policing that went on. There may be some people that truly did play the game quite a bit and have the explicit opinion that player-policing specifically did not work, and that's fine. That's their opinion. I never said my opinion was uncontested. But it's a little silly for me to offer my first-hand experience and for you to swat it down with something so tenuous as an assumption like that.
You said I was making that fallacy when I was merely stating what other players have stated. They offered their opinions. You offered yours. Therefore if I am guilty of that fallacy, than you are as well.
But you're asserting their opinion about the self-policing aspect. You're giving their opinion about UO in general, and assuming that means they don't think clans policed the game well enough. It's very possible they don't want to be ganked no matter WHAT the consequences are. If UO had a system where NPC guards went out and caught the guy who killed them and punished him, those people you're talking about may still consider UO a gankfest. Therefore it's wrong to assume that because they think it's a gankfest, that necessarily means they were let down by the self-policing aspect.
fallacy 1. People stating their opinions means that it actually they way it was. You stated it wasn't that way based on what you experienced. They state it was that way based on their experience. Which is true? I don't know, it's all opinion.
I never said my opinion was fact. No fallacy here.
You stated. "You're committing a huge logical fallacy. Just because some people think UO was a horrible gankfest, doesn't mean that the anti-pk guilds were ineffective. You're assuming that. The thing we're discussing is the ability of people to police themselves, and I'm telling you that it was (and still is) a big success in UO."
You state this as fact based on your opinion, making it not a fact just an opinion. You hold that opinion to be correct based on your experiences. Which is exactly what the other did and which you said was a logical fallacy. If it's a fallay for them, than it's a fallacy for you.
So fallacy number one: was a person believing their opinion to be true.
fallacy number 2: Not recognizing that they were doing the same thing by offering an opinion.
I never said it was a fact or meant it to sound like a fact. My quote that you showed was meant to expose the fact you're making a jump that isn't necssarily there.
"The thing we're discussing is the ability of people to police themselves, and I'm telling you that it was (and still is) a big success in UO"
This is not presented as opinion. You are stating this is the way it is. It is not, it is just the way you believe it.
No, that's how people talk. I don't have to tell you that what I say is my opinion, it's implied every time I talk. Again, the point of me reiterating my opinion like that is to point out that THEIR opinion isn't about players policing the game, their opinion was about the game being a gankfest. So then I say the above quote.
Also, you've ignored the parts about the other people's opinions. You're making the connection for them, and that's not necessarily accurate.
Your committing the same fallacy and another. Just because you think it was effective doesn't mean it actually was.
I also didnt' state that it actually was or was not effective. I stated in those players minds that thought it was a gankfest it was ineffective.
I'm telling you that in many people's eyes, people policing themselves in UO pre-trammel was ineffective.
I'm not committing the same fallacy. I'm not committing any fallacy. I'm offering an opinion as something that is meant to strengthen my argument, it's not meant to be proof. You don't have to take my word for it, you can even say I'm lying, you're allowed to do that. But as somebody who has played a lot of UO and RECENTLY saw the effectiveness of such a system, I'm offering my opinion on the matter. It's not a fallacy to offer an opinion. Aside from that one, what's the other fallacy?
The mistake you're making is by saying that because people thought UO was a gankfest, that means they think the policing wasn't successful. That isn't necessarily true. Those people very possibly haven't even played UO, let alone played it enough to experience the player-policing that went on. There may be some people that truly did play the game quite a bit and have the explicit opinion that player-policing specifically did not work, and that's fine. That's their opinion. I never said my opinion was uncontested. But it's a little silly for me to offer my first-hand experience and for you to swat it down with something so tenuous as an assumption like that.
You said I was making that fallacy when I was merely stating what other players have stated. They offered their opinions. You offered yours. Therefore if I am guilty of that fallacy, than you are as well.
But you're asserting their opinion about the self-policing aspect. You're giving their opinion about UO in general, and assuming that means they don't think clans policed the game well enough. It's very possible they don't want to be ganked no matter WHAT the consequences are. If UO had a system where NPC guards went out and caught the guy who killed them and punished him, those people you're talking about may still consider UO a gankfest. Therefore it's wrong to assume that because they think it's a gankfest, that necessarily means they were let down by the self-policing aspect.
fallacy 1. People stating their opinions means that it actually they way it was. You stated it wasn't that way based on what you experienced. They state it was that way based on their experience. Which is true? I don't know, it's all opinion.
I never said my opinion was fact. No fallacy here.
You stated. "You're committing a huge logical fallacy. Just because some people think UO was a horrible gankfest, doesn't mean that the anti-pk guilds were ineffective. You're assuming that. The thing we're discussing is the ability of people to police themselves, and I'm telling you that it was (and still is) a big success in UO."
You state this as fact based on your opinion, making it not a fact just an opinion. You hold that opinion to be correct based on your experiences. Which is exactly what the other did and which you said was a logical fallacy. If it's a fallay for them, than it's a fallacy for you.
So fallacy number one: was a person believing their opinion to be true.
fallacy number 2: Not recognizing that they were doing the same thing by offering an opinion.
I never said it was a fact or meant it to sound like a fact. My quote that you showed was meant to expose the fact you're making a jump that isn't necssarily there.
"The thing we're discussing is the ability of people to police themselves, and I'm telling you that it was (and still is) a big success in UO"
This is not presented as opinion. You are stating this is the way it is. It is not, it is just the way you believe it.
I've seen it done via videos on youtube on the officials shards (both older footage and newer) and on private shards first hand. People do attempt to police themselves, fact, the success is situational but there are multiple instances I can recall where PKers got hunted down days or weeks after the crime and ganked.
Your committing the same fallacy and another. Just because you think it was effective doesn't mean it actually was.
I also didnt' state that it actually was or was not effective. I stated in those players minds that thought it was a gankfest it was ineffective.
I'm telling you that in many people's eyes, people policing themselves in UO pre-trammel was ineffective.
I'm not committing the same fallacy. I'm not committing any fallacy. I'm offering an opinion as something that is meant to strengthen my argument, it's not meant to be proof. You don't have to take my word for it, you can even say I'm lying, you're allowed to do that. But as somebody who has played a lot of UO and RECENTLY saw the effectiveness of such a system, I'm offering my opinion on the matter. It's not a fallacy to offer an opinion. Aside from that one, what's the other fallacy?
The mistake you're making is by saying that because people thought UO was a gankfest, that means they think the policing wasn't successful. That isn't necessarily true. Those people very possibly haven't even played UO, let alone played it enough to experience the player-policing that went on. There may be some people that truly did play the game quite a bit and have the explicit opinion that player-policing specifically did not work, and that's fine. That's their opinion. I never said my opinion was uncontested. But it's a little silly for me to offer my first-hand experience and for you to swat it down with something so tenuous as an assumption like that.
You said I was making that fallacy when I was merely stating what other players have stated. They offered their opinions. You offered yours. Therefore if I am guilty of that fallacy, than you are as well.
But you're asserting their opinion about the self-policing aspect. You're giving their opinion about UO in general, and assuming that means they don't think clans policed the game well enough. It's very possible they don't want to be ganked no matter WHAT the consequences are. If UO had a system where NPC guards went out and caught the guy who killed them and punished him, those people you're talking about may still consider UO a gankfest. Therefore it's wrong to assume that because they think it's a gankfest, that necessarily means they were let down by the self-policing aspect.
fallacy 1. People stating their opinions means that it actually they way it was. You stated it wasn't that way based on what you experienced. They state it was that way based on their experience. Which is true? I don't know, it's all opinion.
I never said my opinion was fact. No fallacy here.
You stated. "You're committing a huge logical fallacy. Just because some people think UO was a horrible gankfest, doesn't mean that the anti-pk guilds were ineffective. You're assuming that. The thing we're discussing is the ability of people to police themselves, and I'm telling you that it was (and still is) a big success in UO."
You state this as fact based on your opinion, making it not a fact just an opinion. You hold that opinion to be correct based on your experiences. Which is exactly what the other did and which you said was a logical fallacy. If it's a fallay for them, than it's a fallacy for you.
So fallacy number one: was a person believing their opinion to be true.
fallacy number 2: Not recognizing that they were doing the same thing by offering an opinion.
I never said it was a fact or meant it to sound like a fact. My quote that you showed was meant to expose the fact you're making a jump that isn't necssarily there.
"The thing we're discussing is the ability of people to police themselves, and I'm telling you that it was (and still is) a big success in UO"
This is not presented as opinion. You are stating this is the way it is. It is not, it is just the way you believe it.
No, that's how people talk. I don't have to tell you that what I say is my opinion, it's implied every time I talk. Again, the point of me reiterating my opinion like that is to point out that THEIR opinion isn't about players policing the game, their opinion was about the game being a gankfest. So then I say the above quote.
Also, you've ignored the parts about the other people's opinions. You're making the connection for them, and that's not necessarily accurate.
When people say, "Something is something" they are not presenting it as opinion, they are presenting it as fact.
I'm perfectly willing to accept that the other people's opinion may be wrong.
Edit - I don't really believe anything anyone tells me, give me the data I'll decide for myself.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Your committing the same fallacy and another. Just because you think it was effective doesn't mean it actually was.
I also didnt' state that it actually was or was not effective. I stated in those players minds that thought it was a gankfest it was ineffective.
I'm telling you that in many people's eyes, people policing themselves in UO pre-trammel was ineffective.
I'm not committing the same fallacy. I'm not committing any fallacy. I'm offering an opinion as something that is meant to strengthen my argument, it's not meant to be proof. You don't have to take my word for it, you can even say I'm lying, you're allowed to do that. But as somebody who has played a lot of UO and RECENTLY saw the effectiveness of such a system, I'm offering my opinion on the matter. It's not a fallacy to offer an opinion. Aside from that one, what's the other fallacy?
The mistake you're making is by saying that because people thought UO was a gankfest, that means they think the policing wasn't successful. That isn't necessarily true. Those people very possibly haven't even played UO, let alone played it enough to experience the player-policing that went on. There may be some people that truly did play the game quite a bit and have the explicit opinion that player-policing specifically did not work, and that's fine. That's their opinion. I never said my opinion was uncontested. But it's a little silly for me to offer my first-hand experience and for you to swat it down with something so tenuous as an assumption like that.
You said I was making that fallacy when I was merely stating what other players have stated. They offered their opinions. You offered yours. Therefore if I am guilty of that fallacy, than you are as well.
But you're asserting their opinion about the self-policing aspect. You're giving their opinion about UO in general, and assuming that means they don't think clans policed the game well enough. It's very possible they don't want to be ganked no matter WHAT the consequences are. If UO had a system where NPC guards went out and caught the guy who killed them and punished him, those people you're talking about may still consider UO a gankfest. Therefore it's wrong to assume that because they think it's a gankfest, that necessarily means they were let down by the self-policing aspect.
fallacy 1. People stating their opinions means that it actually they way it was. You stated it wasn't that way based on what you experienced. They state it was that way based on their experience. Which is true? I don't know, it's all opinion.
I never said my opinion was fact. No fallacy here.
You stated. "You're committing a huge logical fallacy. Just because some people think UO was a horrible gankfest, doesn't mean that the anti-pk guilds were ineffective. You're assuming that. The thing we're discussing is the ability of people to police themselves, and I'm telling you that it was (and still is) a big success in UO."
You state this as fact based on your opinion, making it not a fact just an opinion. You hold that opinion to be correct based on your experiences. Which is exactly what the other did and which you said was a logical fallacy. If it's a fallay for them, than it's a fallacy for you.
So fallacy number one: was a person believing their opinion to be true.
fallacy number 2: Not recognizing that they were doing the same thing by offering an opinion.
I never said it was a fact or meant it to sound like a fact. My quote that you showed was meant to expose the fact you're making a jump that isn't necssarily there.
"The thing we're discussing is the ability of people to police themselves, and I'm telling you that it was (and still is) a big success in UO"
This is not presented as opinion. You are stating this is the way it is. It is not, it is just the way you believe it.
I've seen it done via videos on youtube on the officials shards (both older footage and newer) and on private shards first hand. People do attempt to police themselves, fact, the success is situational but there are multiple instances I can recall where PKers got hunted down days or weeks after the crime and ganked.
I've seen it done too. What I haven't seen is any stats (and I seriously doubt there are) on how often or how successfull it is, or if was actually effective in detering/preventing pking.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Your committing the same fallacy and another. Just because you think it was effective doesn't mean it actually was.
I also didnt' state that it actually was or was not effective. I stated in those players minds that thought it was a gankfest it was ineffective.
I'm telling you that in many people's eyes, people policing themselves in UO pre-trammel was ineffective.
I'm not committing the same fallacy. I'm not committing any fallacy. I'm offering an opinion as something that is meant to strengthen my argument, it's not meant to be proof. You don't have to take my word for it, you can even say I'm lying, you're allowed to do that. But as somebody who has played a lot of UO and RECENTLY saw the effectiveness of such a system, I'm offering my opinion on the matter. It's not a fallacy to offer an opinion. Aside from that one, what's the other fallacy?
The mistake you're making is by saying that because people thought UO was a gankfest, that means they think the policing wasn't successful. That isn't necessarily true. Those people very possibly haven't even played UO, let alone played it enough to experience the player-policing that went on. There may be some people that truly did play the game quite a bit and have the explicit opinion that player-policing specifically did not work, and that's fine. That's their opinion. I never said my opinion was uncontested. But it's a little silly for me to offer my first-hand experience and for you to swat it down with something so tenuous as an assumption like that.
You said I was making that fallacy when I was merely stating what other players have stated. They offered their opinions. You offered yours. Therefore if I am guilty of that fallacy, than you are as well.
But you're asserting their opinion about the self-policing aspect. You're giving their opinion about UO in general, and assuming that means they don't think clans policed the game well enough. It's very possible they don't want to be ganked no matter WHAT the consequences are. If UO had a system where NPC guards went out and caught the guy who killed them and punished him, those people you're talking about may still consider UO a gankfest. Therefore it's wrong to assume that because they think it's a gankfest, that necessarily means they were let down by the self-policing aspect.
fallacy 1. People stating their opinions means that it actually they way it was. You stated it wasn't that way based on what you experienced. They state it was that way based on their experience. Which is true? I don't know, it's all opinion.
I never said my opinion was fact. No fallacy here.
You stated. "You're committing a huge logical fallacy. Just because some people think UO was a horrible gankfest, doesn't mean that the anti-pk guilds were ineffective. You're assuming that. The thing we're discussing is the ability of people to police themselves, and I'm telling you that it was (and still is) a big success in UO."
You state this as fact based on your opinion, making it not a fact just an opinion. You hold that opinion to be correct based on your experiences. Which is exactly what the other did and which you said was a logical fallacy. If it's a fallay for them, than it's a fallacy for you.
So fallacy number one: was a person believing their opinion to be true.
fallacy number 2: Not recognizing that they were doing the same thing by offering an opinion.
I never said it was a fact or meant it to sound like a fact. My quote that you showed was meant to expose the fact you're making a jump that isn't necssarily there.
"The thing we're discussing is the ability of people to police themselves, and I'm telling you that it was (and still is) a big success in UO"
This is not presented as opinion. You are stating this is the way it is. It is not, it is just the way you believe it.
No, that's how people talk. I don't have to tell you that what I say is my opinion, it's implied every time I talk. Again, the point of me reiterating my opinion like that is to point out that THEIR opinion isn't about players policing the game, their opinion was about the game being a gankfest. So then I say the above quote.
Also, you've ignored the parts about the other people's opinions. You're making the connection for them, and that's not necessarily accurate.
When people say, "Something is something" they are not presenting it as opinion, they are presenting it as fact.
I'm perfectly willing to accept that the other people's opinion may be wrong.
Oh come on man, are you kidding? It's not that they're wrong, it's that they never said it. By saying UO is a gankfest, they're not saying anything about the policing aspect of the community. You are making that connection and THAT is the fallacy I initially referred to.
And again, that's not presenting it as a fact. If you look through posts here (or anywhere!) I guarantee there will be multiple instances of people doing the exact same thing because it's just how people talk.
Comments
...It is. you can kill anyone anywhere at anytime. Guildmates. friends, close friends, schoolmates, who ever. Yet, and still it's a Civil virtual world.
What is your definition of unrestricted FFA pvp?
You're committing a huge logical fallacy. Just because some people think UO was a horrible gankfest, doesn't mean that the anti-pk guilds were ineffective. You're assuming that. The thing we're discussing is the ability of people to police themselves, and I'm telling you that it was (and still is) a big success in UO.
and in Wushu. Player catches the bad guys, the game punishes them. I think that may be the subtle but important difference in this case.
I've often thought about getting into Wushu, it just seemed so daunting at first... probably a good sign to be honest.
At any rate, yeah UO could've done a lot of stuff better, which goes to show that a well done ffa pvp game could absolutely be a success. For instance, the player run policing in UO was simply killing the pk's and taking THEIR stuff. There weren't very harsh penalties on them. There's a lot of room for improvement, I'm glad to hear a game (Wushu) is doing it well.
I didn't say, nor do I think Eve is an exception. I stated it took many years and many changes to reach a point it was successfull, and if it released today in the same state it released in 2003 I do not believe it would be successfull.
In other words, in order for a ffa pvp game to be successfull there needs to be safety measures, at least like eve has with high sec space (which is pretty darn big, much bigger than just a city size).
I also am not sure about the features. I think we have all become a bit spoiled and if a game releases without all that content and those features (whatever those are) it will have a harder time. Sandbox does need the tools to manipulate the sand, most sandbox games have not had those tools (see Ryzom), and so IMO are not or are barely sandbox. So again we'll use Eve, Eve did not release with those tools or high sec space. I say if Eve released today without those tools or high sec it would not be sucessful. It would have a much tougher time today than in 2003.
I"m not talking about bugs/lag... although those were there too. I am specifially talking about tools to manipulate things in game and large safe areas.
I am stating any sandbox game (pvp or pve) that releases without tools to change things in the world (terrain, city building...) is not a sandbox and will not be successfull. I'm saying that any pvp sandbox game without methods for keeping people that don't want to pvp safe, or have an expectation of relative safety anyway, will not be successfull.
edit - the question comes in what if a game has all those bells and whistles but no safe or very little safe areas of methods of protection. I'm thinking Age of Wushu for this one, tonnes of stuff, tonnes of content, a lot of tools but very few safe areas. I dont' know, time will tell for this one.
This has to be either the stupidest thing ever said on a forum or a tacit admission to one's own nature. It is often those who cry wolf who are instead wolves in hiding waiting for the group to leave for them to reap their bloody tally.
I am in-game who I am in real life, I do not separate the two and believe it or not I am up front about who I am , who I really am, to those around me who care enough to know. The sociopaths or psychopaths are those amongst us who view something ethically evil (killing other beings for sheer amusement , be it sentient or not, torturing other beings, etc), it is the thrill of committing something forbidden which lures the more debased individuals to commit such acts... the weaker the will the stronger the push the stronger the pull, this is why some people, who are indeed barely restrained killers in real life, let loose with such gusto in-game... because they view it as something wrong to do and they do it for the satisfaction of doing it in a virtual world when in the real one they couldn't. To combat this simple fact you need to make it not wrong (in a way, do not complain, do not anger, do not retaliate against their violence) and enforce as much retribution as possible, rob them of the satisfaction and burn them in return (retaliation but of a cold and calculated way, rob them of their fun by ganking them back days or weeks after so they do not expect it, if they are truly psychopaths then they will retaliate in ever more instinctive ways and as a individual you need to see it coming and put it down decisively, once you do this you have won, if they are not psychopaths but instead merely frustrated individuals venting online they will either rage or simply say "good fight" and walk away giving you some measure of satisfaction and a measure of respect from him/her).
Sorry for the eyestrain.
@Venge: Kindly stop talking about EVE, I've been playing it since 2005 and while it wasn't much to look at it was a far better game than even WoW back then from a feature set stand point and what has happened since wasn't evolution but polishing that 05 core game and expanding upon it (if memory does not fail it's been 4-5 years since the last "true expansion" in a content sense because since Apocrypha content expansions have been focused on ships, equipment and iteration on existing items, that's pretty much it).
Your committing the same fallacy and another. Just because you think it was effective doesn't mean it actually was.
I also didnt' state that it actually was or was not effective. I stated in those players minds that thought it was a gankfest it was ineffective.
I'm telling you that in many people's eyes, people policing themselves in UO pre-trammel was ineffective.
If I'm misrepresenting things you're saying, it's only because I'm trying to figure out the point you're making, so I may be making logical connections in my mind that you're not trying to make.
I don't play eve and certainly didn't play it when it came out, so I can't really offer a good argument related to whether or not eve launched with tools enough to make the game interesting. Obviously it did at the time, but your point is that people now wouldn't accept it. That's fine. That may be true but there are a couple of problems with this example:
1. You're assuming that it wouldn't be easier (read: cheaper) for a game to launch with a lot of the stuff eve was missing at launch. Developers can learn from the mistakes of other developers, and can take ideas from them as well. So even if the original eve wouldn't survive today, that doesn't really mean much because it's not reasonable to assume somebody would launch an equivalent game now.
2. EvE is a really really complex game. A game that is less complex could probably afford to spend more time on implementing sandbox tools.
Well it's not a one layer process.
Let's say you kill a schoolmate. The person killed can place a bounty. The bounty will be anywhere from 20mins-5 hours in jail where the time does not tick unless you're logged in. Also you will face discipline from your school, which will be a 30% attack debuff ranging from 30-to 3 hours or so.
Let's say you just went on a rampage and started killing people, at about 5 (if someone doesn;t place a bounty before) you can no longer enter cites w/o guards attacking you, and any player can kill you and send you to jail. time is dependent on you infamy. When you go to jail like this it takes about 2 hours for infamy to go down at it's minimum level
What if you keep going, no one has placed a bounty, and you have not been caught by city guards or players. Once you reach about 8k infamy you will be put on death row when caught and executed at noon the next day if friends don't break you out. People can through eggs at you and stuff. The death penalty is a 24hour 30% debuff.
Now there are other systems in place for the criiminal as well to try and avoid justice. Very high risk options.
"@Venge: Kindly stop talking about EVE, I've been playing it since 2005 and while it wasn't much to look at it was a far better game than even WoW back then from a feature set stand point and what has happened since wasn't evolution but polishing that 05 core game and expanding upon it (if memory does not fail it's been 4-5 years since the last "true expansion" in a content sense because since Apocrypha content expansions have been focused on ships, equipment and iteration on existing items, that's pretty much it)."
A far better game is opinion.
Things have changed in Eve since release, that is a fact. It did not release with high sec space for one. I also didn't start the expansion, someone else that they released them and people bought them. But looking at wikipedia apparently it has had 19 expansions, I don't know if they are player bought or not.
Even now there are rebalance and skill changes going on.
http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/74234
I'm not committing the same fallacy. I'm not committing any fallacy. I'm offering an opinion as something that is meant to strengthen my argument, it's not meant to be proof. You don't have to take my word for it, you can even say I'm lying, you're allowed to do that. But as somebody who has played a lot of UO and RECENTLY saw the effectiveness of such a system, I'm offering my opinion on the matter. It's not a fallacy to offer an opinion. Aside from that one, what's the other fallacy?
The mistake you're making is by saying that because people thought UO was a gankfest, that means they think the policing wasn't successful. That isn't necessarily true. Those people very possibly haven't even played UO, let alone played it enough to experience the player-policing that went on. There may be some people that truly did play the game quite a bit and have the explicit opinion that player-policing specifically did not work, and that's fine. That's their opinion. I never said my opinion was uncontested. But it's a little silly for me to offer my first-hand experience and for you to swat it down with something so tenuous as an assumption like that.
FYI - he's probably going to respond by saying when he says "ffa pvp" he means a system with literally 0 rules, even though nobody (or next to nobody) has asked for such a system. It won't stop him from claiming it though.
I couldn't agree more. I've been saying that for a long time. I have no problems with PVP centric games, and in fact ive played many of them heavily (DAOC and Warhammer: Online). What i do have a problem is games that try to mix both. They invariably make changes to balance PVE that screw PVP or vice versa, and its a problem for both communities.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
Generally I agree with you here.
It is very reasonable to assume that someone would launch an equivalent game today. It seems like most of the sandbox pvp games that have been discussed in the last few years are just that. Games without the tools to manipulate the sand and games without reasonable efforts to keep the population safe.
While the tech is different the same problems still exist. Eve realized early on they needed High-sec space, that was there solution to either redice pking or keep people safe that did not want to engage in pvp. I think there are a great many devs today that have not learned this lesson.
2. Totally agree.
Well I'd agree that the sandbox games released lately have left much to desire. Some of us would argue that's because the mmo genre has been inundated with get rich quick themeparks, so high quality developers have been pumping them out rather than good sandboxes. The only sandbox games that get made are ones made by indie developers, and even those are few and far between.... for now.
The next couple of years will surely change the debate quite a bit. There are a few sandbox games coming down the pipe
Impressive lack of any knowledge regarding the topic.
1. At the start of things it was High-sec (safe zone) and Low-sec (unsafe zone), later in one of the expansions they added in the first bits of 0.0 space (unsafe, conquerable space).
2. Rebalances are due to changes within the game's meta brought about by the iterations I was talking about earlier and that is to maintain a fair system (at one point it was fair to have nano-fitted ships which could orbit around your ship at 2000 + m/s without an microwarp drive or have cruisers be able to achieve 14 km/s with an afterburner but as the game evolved and was expanded upon in terms of ships and weapons this changed, more so after the introduction of capital ships and the usage of said ships picking up). It was not a perfectly fair system in terms of balance but it gave enough tools to players to be able to balance the imbalances as it where (for example in the late 2000s early 2010s a favourite tactic was to use drake blobs in alliance battle doctrines, this went on for a while until someone noticed that a certain other type of ship could both outrange a drake and deal the types of damage required to take them down faster than expected, thus the hellcat fleet doctrines were born which in turn were hard countered by maelstrom doctrines in time, if not mistaken here I was at that point an observer having retired 3 years prior, and the cycle continues to this day, it is a virtual arms race).
3.Skills in themselves have been expanded upon in the past to account for new ships and new weapons and only once has the skill pool actually gone down when the learning skills were removed from the game to reduce unnecessary training time for newer players. The Summer 2013 skill changes are CCP renaming some skills to be more easily understandable to new players , reshuffling them around to make more sense, again to new players and splitting up ship line skills better to reduce a little the tendency to be able to be a jack of all trades too quickly in-game (so basically they've only made skills easier to understand for a novice player and made the progression in racial ship skills more easily understood, that is all).
You said I was making that fallacy when I was merely stating what other players have stated. They offered their opinions. You offered yours. Therefore if I am guilty of that fallacy, than you are as well.
fallacy 1. People stating their opinions means that it actually they way it was. You stated it wasn't that way based on what you experienced. They state it was that way based on their experience. Which is true? I don't know, it's all opinion.
You stated. "You're committing a huge logical fallacy. Just because some people think UO was a horrible gankfest, doesn't mean that the anti-pk guilds were ineffective. You're assuming that. The thing we're discussing is the ability of people to police themselves, and I'm telling you that it was (and still is) a big success in UO."
You state this as fact based on your opinion, making it not a fact just an opinion. You hold that opinion to be correct based on your experiences. Which is exactly what the other did and which you said was a logical fallacy. If it's a fallay for them, than it's a fallacy for you.
So fallacy number one: was a person believing their opinion to be true.
fallacy number 2: Not recognizing that they were doing the same thing by offering an opinion.
i don't mind if they have PvP like SWG did back in the day... when I never flagged and never noticed it.
It had hubs where people would flag up and Jedi were always flagged... I'm fine with that. Just let me, a PvE CRAFTER exist in a sandbox where I don't constantly have to wait for some jackass to ruin my game experience. PvP all you want, just do it over THERE and leave me alone.
No bitchers.
But you're asserting their opinion about the self-policing aspect. You're giving their opinion about UO in general, and assuming that means they don't think clans policed the game well enough. It's very possible they don't want to be ganked no matter WHAT the consequences are. If UO had a system where NPC guards went out and caught the guy who killed them and punished him, those people you're talking about may still consider UO a gankfest. Therefore it's wrong to assume that because they think it's a gankfest, that necessarily means they were let down by the self-policing aspect.
I never said my opinion was fact. No fallacy here.
I never said it was a fact or meant it to sound like a fact. My quote that you showed was meant to expose the fact you're making a jump that isn't necssarily there.
"The thing we're discussing is the ability of people to police themselves, and I'm telling you that it was (and still is) a big success in UO"
This is not presented as opinion. You are stating this is the way it is. It is not, it is just the way you believe it.
No, that's how people talk. I don't have to tell you that what I say is my opinion, it's implied every time I talk. Again, the point of me reiterating my opinion like that is to point out that THEIR opinion isn't about players policing the game, their opinion was about the game being a gankfest. So then I say the above quote.
Also, you've ignored the parts about the other people's opinions. You're making the connection for them, and that's not necessarily accurate.
I've seen it done via videos on youtube on the officials shards (both older footage and newer) and on private shards first hand. People do attempt to police themselves, fact, the success is situational but there are multiple instances I can recall where PKers got hunted down days or weeks after the crime and ganked.
When people say, "Something is something" they are not presenting it as opinion, they are presenting it as fact.
I'm perfectly willing to accept that the other people's opinion may be wrong.
Edit - I don't really believe anything anyone tells me, give me the data I'll decide for myself.
I've seen it done too. What I haven't seen is any stats (and I seriously doubt there are) on how often or how successfull it is, or if was actually effective in detering/preventing pking.
Oh come on man, are you kidding? It's not that they're wrong, it's that they never said it. By saying UO is a gankfest, they're not saying anything about the policing aspect of the community. You are making that connection and THAT is the fallacy I initially referred to.
And again, that's not presenting it as a fact. If you look through posts here (or anywhere!) I guarantee there will be multiple instances of people doing the exact same thing because it's just how people talk.