I don't understand why some people are saying a game is either PvP or PvE focused...
If a game world is large enough both should be able to exist without one infringing upon the other. To me it seems that myself and a large portion of the PvP proponents simply want PvP to actually matter within the game world as a whole, instead of just being a little mini game within the game.
The world could never be big enough, there would always be PKers hunting out PvE players for easy kills.
Are people seriously so blind to previous MMOs that managed to do this?
DARK AGE OF CAMELOT
Well you cite one example, and you may be right about DAOC. I did not play it because it said PvP on the box, I suspect a great many PvE players had exactly the same reaction.
But just to be clear on this could you be a PvE player and explore, gather resources and engage in other PvE play completely without being subject to the whims of PKers?
Just a side note: WoW made a huge selling point out of PvP and Battlegrounds, and faction vs. faction PvP. They had a section dedicated in the game manual to the battlegrounds(even though they didn't actually get implemented until like a year later). And, look how many people bought that game
I don't think the gap between PvP and PvE players is as vast as it's made out to be(for the average player). Though, it does seem in the case of PvE players and PvP, they tend to favor systems like battlegrounds and instanced PvP more from what I've seen.
My point being, it's really not so black and white. If a player is interested in the setting and the game itself, they will often find themselves a niche in the game regardless.(Obviously, you aren't one of those people, just saying, in general, that's how it seems)
RE WoW, played the game never read the manual. Never noticed the "selling points" you mentioned either. Nor did I have much exposure to PvP play (actually only remember a couple of occasions and I remember them because they were so annoying) despite playing the game for a couple of years.
I have no problem with battlegrounds, instanced PvP or indeed any form of PvP so long as I am not required to do it. Any form of consensual PvP is OK by me. Also a game clearly labelled high PvP FFA is fine, I hope the people that play it enjoy it I just will not be one of them.
Taunts are necessary to control the fight so it's not just a zerg. Guildwars 2 comes to mind most when I think about zerg. There is a concept of agro but it's bounced around to whoever is the closest much of the time. And it changes at the drop of a hat with a whimsical manor that can't be taken seriously. Anyone that has played through any of the dungeon content can tell you this. Once again it leads to every character having to block/dodge/heal/revive/dps/take hits. The dungeon encounter mechanics were in many ways lowered to the point of bosses showing clear telegraphs of impending attacks and then the rest of the time jumping to whoever they thought needed a bonk for no valid reason. I also played several other games with A.I. that was totally nonsense like Mortal Online when it was released. Maybe you just don't like PvE much? Not sure what point you are even driving at anymore....lol.
This all sounds like issues you've had with bad AI (and it sounds like you have some good cause for issue). But poor AI in one or many games does not really prove taunts are necessary by any reasoning I can muster.
Taunt and agro are needed and serve a great purpose in modern day mmorpgs.
Without agro and agro control you have a zerg festival with totally random mob movements and attacks that make no sense. You might as well not have a trinity system and let everyone heal and everyone dodge and everyone revive.....oh wait...this has been done already--->(see GW2)
If a dps related class gets over the tank agro they need to slow down damage or die. Then the tank must use taunt to regain agro. Same with heals. Healer can't over heal or they draw agro and take a dirt nap if the tank isn't fast enuff with taunt. Part of this dynamic also factors in with crowd control, kiting,etc. Basically all these serve purpose well in PvE.
In PvP taunt could maybe be used to switch the target to the tank when tank hits it which would mess with enemy players who had targeted others for heals, buffs, nukes, cc etc.
So taunt would be fun and usable in both PvE and PvP.
Next we have the Age old worry....**they are blocking my PvE with a bunch of people that want to hurt me**
The point of putting dungeons and good crafting nodes out in PvP territory is to make focus spots for PvP to take place as groups battle for the opportunity to hunt in that area. If there are 20 dungeons on release then there will obviously be lots of areas for both PvE and PvP to take place. Even a tough group that was able to kill others and then start into the dungeon may run into another group deeper inside or perhaps a raid. They can choose to fight again or call a truce to get some PvE done or form an alliance for just that session and kick out others that try to come in together.
The outcomes of PvP are up to the players themselves. The game may lay down a ruleset but it's up to us how we work within it.
I get the feeling that "modern day mmo's" that you're referencing are the stale, boring themeparks that almost everybody claims to be sick of. In other words, I could care less what is necessary in your modern day mmo's.
You simply do NOT need to have a taunt ability of any kind, even in games that utilize the holy trinity. There's no reason that you can't have a ranged dps and healer kite mobs and slow down their aggro while the tank continues to pound the mob with melee.
You could even have a situation like this with the most realistic AI: real players! In DFUW there's a healer-type class called the Primalist. One of his abilities is an instant, ranged res that brings people back with most of their stats. A major game changer in any fight basically. Primalists are a high priority target. Ideally you want to kill them as quickly as possible. So what happens? The primalist does his heals, deals a little dmg, etc until an enemy notices him and starts to focus him down. At that point the primalist kites the enemy, uses his shield to block whatever damage he can, all the while his friends are focusing the person that is focusing him. It's up to you and your team to make it not worth the guy's time to focus your squishy target by the squishy target mitigating damage as much as possible and by the rest of the squishy's team to deal damage to the person who is focusing the squishy. You do not need taunts. Taunts are lazy game design and boring.
A taunt is a form of agro. Agro is another way of taunting. They are basically the same thing. I have played about 15 or more mmorpg's over the years. All of them had ways to taunt a mob. As a druid I could use snare and a high taunt spell to kite a mob around the room and once I had enough agro from my taunt, others could attack the mob from behind while I kited around. You may have a little agro in your debate, but my taunt is clearly producing more agro
If you've only played mmo's that have taunts, then why do you think you're qualified to talk about whether games can exist with out it? There are a ton of games that don't have it, trust me.
The fact that your post is basically trying to say that there's no difference between different kinds of taking agro hurts your argument and helps mine. You're supposed to be arguing that taunts are necessary, I'm saying there are other ways to drop and raise agro on mobs. Now you're saying that they're the same thing? Then why are taunts necessary?
Taunts are necessary to control the fight so it's not just a zerg. Guildwars 2 comes to mind most when I think about zerg. There is a concept of agro but it's bounced around to whoever is the closest much of the time. And it changes at the drop of a hat with a whimsical manor that can't be taken seriously. Anyone that has played through any of the dungeon content can tell you this. Once again it leads to every character having to block/dodge/heal/revive/dps/take hits. The dungeon encounter mechanics were in many ways lowered to the point of bosses showing clear telegraphs of impending attacks and then the rest of the time jumping to whoever they thought needed a bonk for no valid reason. I also played several other games with A.I. that was totally nonsense like Mortal Online when it was released. Maybe you just don't like PvE much? Not sure what point you are even driving at anymore....lol.
How can you possibly be unsure of what point I'm driving home? It's clear. I'm saying you don't need TAUNTS to have good pve. In other words, I'm disagreeing with your position that you DO need taunts.
Thank you for the example regarding GW2. I don't know jack about GW2 so I'm not sure what it's supposed to prove other than you found a game that doesn't utilize the holy trinity so you don't like it.
You say taunts are necessary to control the fight so it's not just a zerg. But I've already explained a situation where you can control the fight in a real and organic way that requires more coordination and more skill than just an magical roar that brainwashes mobs to attack the guy who shouldn't be attacking. Like I said, it's lazy game design and it's BORING. The healer SHOULD be in trouble sometimes, so should whatever squishy dps player you have. Taunts are just another example of the way mmo's have been completely watered down and wussified over the years.
Taunts are necessary to control the fight so it's not just a zerg. Guildwars 2 comes to mind most when I think about zerg. There is a concept of agro but it's bounced around to whoever is the closest much of the time. And it changes at the drop of a hat with a whimsical manor that can't be taken seriously. Anyone that has played through any of the dungeon content can tell you this. Once again it leads to every character having to block/dodge/heal/revive/dps/take hits. The dungeon encounter mechanics were in many ways lowered to the point of bosses showing clear telegraphs of impending attacks and then the rest of the time jumping to whoever they thought needed a bonk for no valid reason. I also played several other games with A.I. that was totally nonsense like Mortal Online when it was released. Maybe you just don't like PvE much? Not sure what point you are even driving at anymore....lol.
This all sounds like issues you've had with bad AI (and it sounds like you have some good cause for issue). But poor AI in one or many games does not really prove taunts are necessary by any reasoning I can muster.
taunts done by characters can literally change an impossible fight into a possible one. There are many kinds of taunts that can be used and they all rely on agro control as the key to making them interesting and fun. Without the high agro control abilities (see taunt) none of these more interesting game mechanics would be possible without lowering the overall difficulty of an encounter. Maybe those in favor of this zero taunt have not had the chance to dive into the years of games I have, which is fine.
Taunts are necessary to control the fight so it's not just a zerg. Guildwars 2 comes to mind most when I think about zerg. There is a concept of agro but it's bounced around to whoever is the closest much of the time. And it changes at the drop of a hat with a whimsical manor that can't be taken seriously. Anyone that has played through any of the dungeon content can tell you this. Once again it leads to every character having to block/dodge/heal/revive/dps/take hits. The dungeon encounter mechanics were in many ways lowered to the point of bosses showing clear telegraphs of impending attacks and then the rest of the time jumping to whoever they thought needed a bonk for no valid reason. I also played several other games with A.I. that was totally nonsense like Mortal Online when it was released. Maybe you just don't like PvE much? Not sure what point you are even driving at anymore....lol.
How can you possibly be unsure of what point I'm driving home? It's clear. I'm saying you don't need TAUNTS to have good pve. In other words, I'm disagreeing with your position that you DO need taunts.
Thank you for the example regarding GW2. I don't know jack about GW2 so I'm not sure what it's supposed to prove other than you found a game that doesn't utilize the holy trinity so you don't like it.
You say taunts are necessary to control the fight so it's not just a zerg. But I've already explained a situation where you can control the fight in a real and organic way that requires more coordination and more skill than just an magical roar that brainwashes mobs to attack the guy who shouldn't be attacking. Like I said, it's lazy game design and it's BORING. The healer SHOULD be in trouble sometimes, so should whatever squishy dps player you have. Taunts are just another example of the way mmo's have been completely watered down and wussified over the years.
In a bid of neutrality, by agreeing with both of you, I'd like to point out that GW2's PVE was complete garbage in nearly every way. Yes, it had no real, sensible aggro system or genuine tanking of any kind.
GW2 was a pretty poor example for either side of the argument. Yes, GW2 had no taunt and was a failure in the grouping mechanics regard.
That said, there are much better ways of doing PVE(with or without taunts) than GW2, and I wholeheartedly believe there are quite viable options for taunt-less control(physical blocking, etc.), but I don't know if the current wave of devs are ready to take that leap into the unknown after watching GW2's terrible attempt.
Taunts are necessary to control the fight so it's not just a zerg. Guildwars 2 comes to mind most when I think about zerg. There is a concept of agro but it's bounced around to whoever is the closest much of the time. And it changes at the drop of a hat with a whimsical manor that can't be taken seriously. Anyone that has played through any of the dungeon content can tell you this. Once again it leads to every character having to block/dodge/heal/revive/dps/take hits. The dungeon encounter mechanics were in many ways lowered to the point of bosses showing clear telegraphs of impending attacks and then the rest of the time jumping to whoever they thought needed a bonk for no valid reason. I also played several other games with A.I. that was totally nonsense like Mortal Online when it was released. Maybe you just don't like PvE much? Not sure what point you are even driving at anymore....lol.
How can you possibly be unsure of what point I'm driving home? It's clear. I'm saying you don't need TAUNTS to have good pve. In other words, I'm disagreeing with your position that you DO need taunts.
Thank you for the example regarding GW2. I don't know jack about GW2 so I'm not sure what it's supposed to prove other than you found a game that doesn't utilize the holy trinity so you don't like it.
You say taunts are necessary to control the fight so it's not just a zerg. But I've already explained a situation where you can control the fight in a real and organic way that requires more coordination and more skill than just an magical roar that brainwashes mobs to attack the guy who shouldn't be attacking. Like I said, it's lazy game design and it's BORING. The healer SHOULD be in trouble sometimes, so should whatever squishy dps player you have. Taunts are just another example of the way mmo's have been completely watered down and wussified over the years.
In a bid of neutrality, by agreeing with both of you, I'd like to point out that GW2's PVE was complete garbage in nearly every way. Yes, it had no real, sensible aggro system or genuine tanking of any kind.
GW2 was a pretty poor example for either side of the argument. Yes, GW2 had no taunt and was a failure in the grouping mechanics regard.
That said, there are much better ways of doing PVE(with or without taunts) than GW2, and I wholeheartedly believe there are quite viable options for taunt-less control(physical blocking, etc.), but I don't know if the current wave of devs are ready to take that leap into the unknown after watching GW2's terrible attempt.
At the risk of biting the hand that feeds me, I'd like to point out that GW2's allegedly bad pve doesn't hurt my argument. I'm not saying that every game without taunts will be good, I'm merely saying you don't need taunts to have good pve.
taunts done by characters can literally change an impossible fight into a possible one. There are many kinds of taunts that can be used and they all rely on agro control as the key to making them interesting and fun. Without the high agro control abilities (see taunt) none of these more interesting game mechanics would be possible without lowering the overall difficulty of an encounter. Maybe those in favor of this zero taunt have not had the chance to dive into the years of games I have, which is fine.
No, I assure you I have nearly no life at all. If it were not for my wife I would probably never see another human being that wasn't a pixelated avatar. It has been that way for me with computer games since I first played Ultima 6 when it released. If you can name an MMO I have not played then you have found a truly obscure game.
Yet I do not share your view. Experience with gaming is simply not the issue.
I find the taunt/aggro mechanics you are supporting to be utterly boring and a major source of why I do not enjoy PVE as much as I could in some games.
What I will admit, and I feel you should admit as well, is that there are benefits and drawbacks to your favored system and mine. This is a matter of taste and the taunt/aggro trinity system of WOW or any game isn't simply objectively better than all other possible systems.
Neither way is going to be superior for all of us at every point in time. Perhaps some day there will be one system to rule them all that we can all unite under and PVE happily forever -- but you have no way of knowing if that system will include a taunt mechanic or not and you certainly cannot prove it.
Taunt and agro are needed and serve a great purpose in modern day mmorpgs.
Without agro and agro control you have a zerg festival with totally random mob movements and attacks that make no sense. You might as well not have a trinity system and let everyone heal and everyone dodge and everyone revive.....oh wait...this has been done already--->(see GW2)
If a dps related class gets over the tank agro they need to slow down damage or die. Then the tank must use taunt to regain agro. Same with heals. Healer can't over heal or they draw agro and take a dirt nap if the tank isn't fast enuff with taunt. Part of this dynamic also factors in with crowd control, kiting,etc. Basically all these serve purpose well in PvE.
In PvP taunt could maybe be used to switch the target to the tank when tank hits it which would mess with enemy players who had targeted others for heals, buffs, nukes, cc etc.
So taunt would be fun and usable in both PvE and PvP.
Next we have the Age old worry....**they are blocking my PvE with a bunch of people that want to hurt me**
The point of putting dungeons and good crafting nodes out in PvP territory is to make focus spots for PvP to take place as groups battle for the opportunity to hunt in that area. If there are 20 dungeons on release then there will obviously be lots of areas for both PvE and PvP to take place. Even a tough group that was able to kill others and then start into the dungeon may run into another group deeper inside or perhaps a raid. They can choose to fight again or call a truce to get some PvE done or form an alliance for just that session and kick out others that try to come in together.
The outcomes of PvP are up to the players themselves. The game may lay down a ruleset but it's up to us how we work within it.
I get the feeling that "modern day mmo's" that you're referencing are the stale, boring themeparks that almost everybody claims to be sick of. In other words, I could care less what is necessary in your modern day mmo's.
You simply do NOT need to have a taunt ability of any kind, even in games that utilize the holy trinity. There's no reason that you can't have a ranged dps and healer kite mobs and slow down their aggro while the tank continues to pound the mob with melee.
You could even have a situation like this with the most realistic AI: real players! In DFUW there's a healer-type class called the Primalist. One of his abilities is an instant, ranged res that brings people back with most of their stats. A major game changer in any fight basically. Primalists are a high priority target. Ideally you want to kill them as quickly as possible. So what happens? The primalist does his heals, deals a little dmg, etc until an enemy notices him and starts to focus him down. At that point the primalist kites the enemy, uses his shield to block whatever damage he can, all the while his friends are focusing the person that is focusing him. It's up to you and your team to make it not worth the guy's time to focus your squishy target by the squishy target mitigating damage as much as possible and by the rest of the squishy's team to deal damage to the person who is focusing the squishy. You do not need taunts. Taunts are lazy game design and boring.
A taunt is a form of agro. Agro is another way of taunting. They are basically the same thing. I have played about 15 or more mmorpg's over the years. All of them had ways to taunt a mob. As a druid I could use snare and a high taunt spell to kite a mob around the room and once I had enough agro from my taunt, others could attack the mob from behind while I kited around. You may have a little agro in your debate, but my taunt is clearly producing more agro
If you've only played mmo's that have taunts, then why do you think you're qualified to talk about whether games can exist with out it? There are a ton of games that don't have it, trust me.
The fact that your post is basically trying to say that there's no difference between different kinds of taking agro hurts your argument and helps mine. You're supposed to be arguing that taunts are necessary, I'm saying there are other ways to drop and raise agro on mobs. Now you're saying that they're the same thing? Then why are taunts necessary?
Taunts are necessary to control the fight so it's not just a zerg. Guildwars 2 comes to mind most when I think about zerg. There is a concept of agro but it's bounced around to whoever is the closest much of the time. And it changes at the drop of a hat with a whimsical manor that can't be taken seriously. Anyone that has played through any of the dungeon content can tell you this. Once again it leads to every character having to block/dodge/heal/revive/dps/take hits. The dungeon encounter mechanics were in many ways lowered to the point of bosses showing clear telegraphs of impending attacks and then the rest of the time jumping to whoever they thought needed a bonk for no valid reason. I also played several other games with A.I. that was totally nonsense like Mortal Online when it was released. Maybe you just don't like PvE much? Not sure what point you are even driving at anymore....lol.
How can you possibly be unsure of what point I'm driving home? It's clear. I'm saying you don't need TAUNTS to have good pve. In other words, I'm disagreeing with your position that you DO need taunts.
Thank you for the example regarding GW2. I don't know jack about GW2 so I'm not sure what it's supposed to prove other than you found a game that doesn't utilize the holy trinity so you don't like it.
You say taunts are necessary to control the fight so it's not just a zerg. But I've already explained a situation where you can control the fight in a real and organic way that requires more coordination and more skill than just an magical roar that brainwashes mobs to attack the guy who shouldn't be attacking. Like I said, it's lazy game design and it's BORING. The healer SHOULD be in trouble sometimes, so should whatever squishy dps player you have. Taunts are just another example of the way mmo's have been completely watered down and wussified over the years.
Magical Roar is a type of taunt yes. So is an overheal. So is one to many crit attacks. So is a charm spell that breaks. So is low health. They are all types of taunt that control agro. Without these you just have a zerg game where you need all classes to be able to do most abilities, which waters down the abilitie's uniqueness and makes the game as a whole feel less smart and watered down. I guess I am starting to see that you think I was talking exclusively about the Warrior only taunt skill which was only part of what I was actually trying to get across. So maybe I didn't explain my point well. Fair enough.
Magical Roar is a type of taunt yes. So is an overheal. So is one to many crit attacks. So is a charm spell that breaks. So is low health. They are all types of taunt that control agro. Without these you just have a zerg game where you need all classes to be able to do most abilities, which waters down the abilitie's uniqueness and makes the game as a whole feel less smart and watered down. I guess I am starting to see that you think I was talking exclusively about the Warrior only taunt skill which was only part of what I was actually trying to get across. So maybe I didn't explain my point well. Fair enough.
I for one was mistaken in that I thought you were using the word taunt in reference to those aggro generating abilities in games like WOW that serve no other real purpose in PVE than to generate aggro and get a monster's attention.
I have always referred to those as taunts and everything else as "generating aggro."
Taunt and agro are needed and serve a great purpose in modern day mmorpgs.
Without agro and agro control you have a zerg festival with totally random mob movements and attacks that make no sense. You might as well not have a trinity system and let everyone heal and everyone dodge and everyone revive.....oh wait...this has been done already--->(see GW2)
If a dps related class gets over the tank agro they need to slow down damage or die. Then the tank must use taunt to regain agro. Same with heals. Healer can't over heal or they draw agro and take a dirt nap if the tank isn't fast enuff with taunt. Part of this dynamic also factors in with crowd control, kiting,etc. Basically all these serve purpose well in PvE.
In PvP taunt could maybe be used to switch the target to the tank when tank hits it which would mess with enemy players who had targeted others for heals, buffs, nukes, cc etc.
So taunt would be fun and usable in both PvE and PvP.
Next we have the Age old worry....**they are blocking my PvE with a bunch of people that want to hurt me**
The point of putting dungeons and good crafting nodes out in PvP territory is to make focus spots for PvP to take place as groups battle for the opportunity to hunt in that area. If there are 20 dungeons on release then there will obviously be lots of areas for both PvE and PvP to take place. Even a tough group that was able to kill others and then start into the dungeon may run into another group deeper inside or perhaps a raid. They can choose to fight again or call a truce to get some PvE done or form an alliance for just that session and kick out others that try to come in together.
The outcomes of PvP are up to the players themselves. The game may lay down a ruleset but it's up to us how we work within it.
I get the feeling that "modern day mmo's" that you're referencing are the stale, boring themeparks that almost everybody claims to be sick of. In other words, I could care less what is necessary in your modern day mmo's.
You simply do NOT need to have a taunt ability of any kind, even in games that utilize the holy trinity. There's no reason that you can't have a ranged dps and healer kite mobs and slow down their aggro while the tank continues to pound the mob with melee.
You could even have a situation like this with the most realistic AI: real players! In DFUW there's a healer-type class called the Primalist. One of his abilities is an instant, ranged res that brings people back with most of their stats. A major game changer in any fight basically. Primalists are a high priority target. Ideally you want to kill them as quickly as possible. So what happens? The primalist does his heals, deals a little dmg, etc until an enemy notices him and starts to focus him down. At that point the primalist kites the enemy, uses his shield to block whatever damage he can, all the while his friends are focusing the person that is focusing him. It's up to you and your team to make it not worth the guy's time to focus your squishy target by the squishy target mitigating damage as much as possible and by the rest of the squishy's team to deal damage to the person who is focusing the squishy. You do not need taunts. Taunts are lazy game design and boring.
A taunt is a form of agro. Agro is another way of taunting. They are basically the same thing. I have played about 15 or more mmorpg's over the years. All of them had ways to taunt a mob. As a druid I could use snare and a high taunt spell to kite a mob around the room and once I had enough agro from my taunt, others could attack the mob from behind while I kited around. You may have a little agro in your debate, but my taunt is clearly producing more agro
If you've only played mmo's that have taunts, then why do you think you're qualified to talk about whether games can exist with out it? There are a ton of games that don't have it, trust me.
The fact that your post is basically trying to say that there's no difference between different kinds of taking agro hurts your argument and helps mine. You're supposed to be arguing that taunts are necessary, I'm saying there are other ways to drop and raise agro on mobs. Now you're saying that they're the same thing? Then why are taunts necessary?
Taunts are necessary to control the fight so it's not just a zerg. Guildwars 2 comes to mind most when I think about zerg. There is a concept of agro but it's bounced around to whoever is the closest much of the time. And it changes at the drop of a hat with a whimsical manor that can't be taken seriously. Anyone that has played through any of the dungeon content can tell you this. Once again it leads to every character having to block/dodge/heal/revive/dps/take hits. The dungeon encounter mechanics were in many ways lowered to the point of bosses showing clear telegraphs of impending attacks and then the rest of the time jumping to whoever they thought needed a bonk for no valid reason. I also played several other games with A.I. that was totally nonsense like Mortal Online when it was released. Maybe you just don't like PvE much? Not sure what point you are even driving at anymore....lol.
How can you possibly be unsure of what point I'm driving home? It's clear. I'm saying you don't need TAUNTS to have good pve. In other words, I'm disagreeing with your position that you DO need taunts.
Thank you for the example regarding GW2. I don't know jack about GW2 so I'm not sure what it's supposed to prove other than you found a game that doesn't utilize the holy trinity so you don't like it.
You say taunts are necessary to control the fight so it's not just a zerg. But I've already explained a situation where you can control the fight in a real and organic way that requires more coordination and more skill than just an magical roar that brainwashes mobs to attack the guy who shouldn't be attacking. Like I said, it's lazy game design and it's BORING. The healer SHOULD be in trouble sometimes, so should whatever squishy dps player you have. Taunts are just another example of the way mmo's have been completely watered down and wussified over the years.
Magical Roar is a type of taunt yes. So is an overheal. So is one to many crit attacks. So is a charm spell that breaks. So is low health. They are all types of taunt that control agro. Without these you just have a zerg game where you need all classes to be able to do most abilities, which waters down the abilitie's uniqueness and makes the game as a whole feel less smart and watered down. I guess I am starting to see that you think I was talking exclusively about the Warrior only taunt skill which was only part of what I was actually trying to get across. So maybe I didn't explain my point well. Fair enough.
Those aren't taunts, they're just different ways of measuring aggro. If you think I'm saying pve can exist without measuring aggro, you're mistaken. BTW, is magical roar an ACTUAL ability? LOL, I was trying to belittle the idea of taunts by calling it that.
Taunts are abilities that are primarily used to increase aggro. That's why they exist. It's often, if not always, in the description of the ability. That's wholly different from just using damage abilities while the guy who is being focused slows down his dps or uses kiting or blocking to mitigate damage until the mob (or player) realizes it's not worth his time to attack somebody who is playing defensively and then switches his focus to somebody else. That's not "zerging", that's team coordination and attentiveness.
Not just my definition, it seems to be held by Rama too. As well as being the accepted definition by behavioral psychologists. I expect it is also the definition of the game development community too.
Realism and graphics are factors in increasing the possibility of player immersion, they are not immersive of themselves. Some people will find games with "cartoony' graphics immersive others will find "cartoony" graphics totally preventing immersion. Some people will gain immersion in a game by PvP activity, others like me will find PvP activity totally disconecting.
Fantasy in books, games etc is found to be immersive in a large number of people. Fantasy is not realism. Realism can be a factor in enhancing immersion, it can also be a factor in preventing immersion. Subjective states are like that.
Your idea of immersion always seems to drift towards what people enjoy.
No you always narrowly read what I say as enjoyment. Enjoyment is possible without immersion, immersion is possible without enjoyment (but not commonly think of nightmares).
I bring in things outside of video games in a vain attempt to demonstrate to you that your definition is not correct. Factors that increase the possibility of immersion by a player may be described as immersive but only as a shorthand. As I have already said they are not immersive of themselves.
Here's a good quote from Toby Gard, most known for creating Lara Croft:
"Everyone stores simplified constructions of reality in their mind; schemata that codify the critical features of the world around us. We use our schemata to recognize and interpret everything we experience [...] When we are creating worlds in games, immersion is only possible for the player if we can convince the players that the space is authentic (whether stylized or not.) If the critical features on screen don't match up with the critical features of the player's schemata, then he or she will not be fooled by it."
Your example of a game being cartoony isn't adequate because, as Gard puts it, style is separate from immersion. Immersion is closely tied to realism. Imposing restrictions on pvp is innately an anti-immersive feature. That doesn't mean a game can't be immersive with out it, but it does mean holding all things constant, it's objectively more immersive.
By the way, it may even be immersive for the pve-only crowd. Again, just because they don't like it, doesn't mean it's not immersive. Hell, it could even be TOO immersive for them which is why they don't enjoy it. Maybe they don't like the visceral sensation of being hunted by another player.
Yep good quote, but it does nothing to negate my position. A critical feature of my schemata is that players do not hunt other players.
Your schemata for what exactly? The way Gard is using it is our schemata for our perception of the world. He's saying that in order to create an immersive world, things shouldn't seem unnaturally out of place, not that they should be all of the things you want them to be. It's not your schemata of the real world that says players shouldn't hunt other players, it's your preference in game type.
Nope it is my internal view of the world and of the game world, again a subjective experience. BTW your quote from Toby Gard is about the subjective experience of game play. Far from supporting your position it actually supports mine.
Yet again you try to equate what I am saying about immersion with enjoyment. I do not equate those things.
You can say you're not equating them, but the way you describe immersion seems to be describing how much somebody is enjoying the game, not how immersed they are in the world.
A subjective state can be measured in a test population and some objective evidence obtained about factors that increase the possibility of immersion. But such studies show that any factor can be immersive or non immersive depending on the subject, they also show that at different times the same effects can have a different outcome depending on external factors.
You say that such studies show (which studies by the way???) that any factor can be immersive or non immersive... but only using YOUR definition of immersion. For instance, as I've pointed out, somebody may be immersed in the world but not enjoy it and stop playing the game. That could even be due to being too immersed in the game. I wonder why you ignored that part of my post.
What this all boils down to is if you find PvP immersive that is fine, if you do not that is also fine. If you find PvP immersive on some days and not on others that too is normal. But PvP is never objectively immersive it is always subjectively immersive.
See above. this is nothing new.
Yep been saying that, round and round we go, where we stop nobody knows.
The problem is I am using a generally accepted definition of immersion as a subjective state, you are using your own private definition based on a misinterpretation of comments by others.
Magical Roar is a type of taunt yes. So is an overheal. So is one to many crit attacks. So is a charm spell that breaks. So is low health. They are all types of taunt that control agro. Without these you just have a zerg game where you need all classes to be able to do most abilities, which waters down the abilitie's uniqueness and makes the game as a whole feel less smart and watered down. I guess I am starting to see that you think I was talking exclusively about the Warrior only taunt skill which was only part of what I was actually trying to get across. So maybe I didn't explain my point well. Fair enough.
I for one was mistaken in that I thought you were using the word taunt in reference to those aggro generating abilities in games like WOW that serve no other real purpose in PVE than to generate aggro and get a monster's attention.
I have always referred to those as taunts and everything else as "generating aggro."
This seems to be a cultural/linguistic clash!
I think most people when they hear "taunt" instantly think of those "push button, get instant aggro" abilities that most warriors/tanks have in modern games. That's definitely what I was thinking of.
The other stuff mentioned I just consider a general part of aggro system mechanics, not actual taunts. So, yeah, I agree that there must definitely be aggro mechanics of some kind, but not neccessarily those specific warrior-type taunts.
Another christmas list thread, but I wanted to get some opinions on this and to have some coding knowledgeables give me a reality check.
Basically I would like to see player controlled territory, but seeing how this is the "largest sandbox mmo" by territory I mean huge amounts of space. What I believe this would do, it would create PvE zones within PvP borders. I would also like these borders to be organic, so a neighboring faction could push your border back. In addition I think having NPC's controlled by the players would help. I think that if an enemy army wishes to take your castle it should take more than one battle. They could certainly win in one battle, if the make a lengthy push to eliminate all of your players/NPCs and finally lay siege upon your stronghold, but it would be more likely for the pushes to come in spurts. I hate the idea of sieges being limited to a window time, to me that makes no sense despite being beneficial to the casual players.
This could go a far way to strengthen the bond between PvP and PvE players. PvP players are protecting the lands of the PvE from their bloodthirsty adversaries, while PvE'ers are exploring/crafting/suppressing interior NPC mobs and also helping to provide the resources to keep a healthy NPC force.
So what do you guys think?
so basically, you want it exactly like player run cities were in swg.
Not just my definition, it seems to be held by Rama too. As well as being the accepted definition by behavioral psychologists. I expect it is also the definition of the game development community too.
Realism and graphics are factors in increasing the possibility of player immersion, they are not immersive of themselves. Some people will find games with "cartoony' graphics immersive others will find "cartoony" graphics totally preventing immersion. Some people will gain immersion in a game by PvP activity, others like me will find PvP activity totally disconecting.
Fantasy in books, games etc is found to be immersive in a large number of people. Fantasy is not realism. Realism can be a factor in enhancing immersion, it can also be a factor in preventing immersion. Subjective states are like that.
Your idea of immersion always seems to drift towards what people enjoy.
No you always narrowly read what I say as enjoyment. Enjoyment is possible without immersion, immersion is possible without enjoyment (but not commonly think of nightmares).
I bring in things outside of video games in a vain attempt to demonstrate to you that your definition is not correct. Factors that increase the possibility of immersion by a player may be described as immersive but only as a shorthand. As I have already said they are not immersive of themselves.
Here's a good quote from Toby Gard, most known for creating Lara Croft:
"Everyone stores simplified constructions of reality in their mind; schemata that codify the critical features of the world around us. We use our schemata to recognize and interpret everything we experience [...] When we are creating worlds in games, immersion is only possible for the player if we can convince the players that the space is authentic (whether stylized or not.) If the critical features on screen don't match up with the critical features of the player's schemata, then he or she will not be fooled by it."
Your example of a game being cartoony isn't adequate because, as Gard puts it, style is separate from immersion. Immersion is closely tied to realism. Imposing restrictions on pvp is innately an anti-immersive feature. That doesn't mean a game can't be immersive with out it, but it does mean holding all things constant, it's objectively more immersive.
By the way, it may even be immersive for the pve-only crowd. Again, just because they don't like it, doesn't mean it's not immersive. Hell, it could even be TOO immersive for them which is why they don't enjoy it. Maybe they don't like the visceral sensation of being hunted by another player.
Yep good quote, but it does nothing to negate my position. A critical feature of my schemata is that players do not hunt other players.
Your schemata for what exactly? The way Gard is using it is our schemata for our perception of the world. He's saying that in order to create an immersive world, things shouldn't seem unnaturally out of place, not that they should be all of the things you want them to be. It's not your schemata of the real world that says players shouldn't hunt other players, it's your preference in game type.
Nope it is my internal view of the world and of the game world, again a subjective experience. BTW your quote from Toby Gard is about the subjective experience of game play. Far from supporting your position it actually supports mine.
Your internal view of the world is that people can't attack each other? The point Gard is so obviously making (as am I) is that immersion relies on realism. And maybe his quote is about the subjective experience of game play, I never said game play experiences aren't subjective. What I am saying is that immersion is at least in part objective.
Yet again you try to equate what I am saying about immersion with enjoyment. I do not equate those things.
You can say you're not equating them, but the way you describe immersion seems to be describing how much somebody is enjoying the game, not how immersed they are in the world.
A subjective state can be measured in a test population and some objective evidence obtained about factors that increase the possibility of immersion. But such studies show that any factor can be immersive or non immersive depending on the subject, they also show that at different times the same effects can have a different outcome depending on external factors.
You say that such studies show (which studies by the way???) that any factor can be immersive or non immersive... but only using YOUR definition of immersion. For instance, as I've pointed out, somebody may be immersed in the world but not enjoy it and stop playing the game. That could even be due to being too immersed in the game. I wonder why you ignored that part of my post.
What this all boils down to is if you find PvP immersive that is fine, if you do not that is also fine. If you find PvP immersive on some days and not on others that too is normal. But PvP is never objectively immersive it is always subjectively immersive.
See above. this is nothing new.
Yep been saying that, round and round we go, where we stop nobody knows.
The problem is I am using a generally accepted definition of immersion as a subjective state, you are using your own private definition based on a misinterpretation of comments by others.
Generally accepted by who exactly? The dictionary definition clearly doesn't apply to video games. In my experience the consensus among gamers is that immersion is tied to realism. Unrealistic things take you out of the game.
Again you ignore the point I made about over-immersion. People may not like pvp because it's too immersive... that certainly doesn't mean it's not immersive.
Again you ignore the point I made about over-immersion. People may not like pvp because it's too immersive... that certainly doesn't mean it's not immersive.
Hate to chime in at this late time, but if your point is that realism creates immersion and being able to kill people is realistic, therefore more immersive... how many people have you killed? Where in the world do you live, where you can go around and attack and kill, say 20 people in a given day? If PVP is more likely to get you killed, which it is, are you Jesus Christ, that you can be killed and then reincarnated? By your own argument, PVP is less realistic. Murdering people with very little consequence is about as far from reality as you can get. Resurrection is non-immersive, so any activity you engage in which is likely to cause your character to die (in a non permadeath game) ruins immersion.
That specific aspect aside. It's asinine to argue that realism creates immersion. At best there's a loose correlation. Do you not think that people were immersed in World of Warcraft? The game with spells, trolls and orcs, cartoony graphics, and even 3rd person view? None of that bothered you, but PVP is inherently more immersive? Bull.
Yep been saying that, round and round we go, where we stop nobody knows.
The problem is I am using a generally accepted definition of immersion as a subjective state, you are using your own private definition based on a misinterpretation of comments by others.
Generally accepted by who exactly? The dictionary definition clearly doesn't apply to video games. In my experience the consensus among gamers is that immersion is tied to realism. Unrealistic things take you out of the game.
Again you ignore the point I made about over-immersion. People may not like pvp because it's too immersive... that certainly doesn't mean it's not immersive.
I ignored your point about over-immersion because it is silly. You are either immersed in a game or you are not immersed in a game. You could be immersed in a game and find the experience unpleasant however (see previous reference to nightmare).
No I do not like PvP. But that is a separate issue to some random PKer breaking my immersion in a game by attacking me.
As to your other comment about the consensus achieved among your fellow PvP gamers, well what can I say and still be polite.
[edit]
As to generally accepted I can say that the generally accepted definition or red light is any of a number of similar colors evoked by light in the wavelength range of 630–740 nm. Your saying that amongst your friends it means a song by U2 or the one at the top of a traffic light does not change the real meaning.
Again you ignore the point I made about over-immersion. People may not like pvp because it's too immersive... that certainly doesn't mean it's not immersive.
Hate to chime in at this late time, but if your point is that realism creates immersion and being able to kill people is realistic, therefore more immersive... how many people have you killed? Where in the world do you live, where you can go around and attack and kill, say 20 people in a given day? If PVP is more likely to get you killed, which it is, are you Jesus Christ, that you can be killed and then reincarnated? By your own argument, PVP is less realistic. Murdering people with very little consequence is about as far from reality as you can get. Resurrection is non-immersive, so any activity you engage in which is likely to cause your character to die (in a non permadeath game) ruins immersion.
That specific aspect aside. It's asinine to argue that realism creates immersion. At best there's a loose correlation. Do you not think that people were immersed in World of Warcraft? The game with spells, trolls and orcs, cartoony graphics, and even 3rd person view? None of that bothered you, but PVP is inherently more immersive? Bull.
You're playing a game that's set in a dangerous world. Yes, killing would be commonplace in the world you're playing in. And I agree that resurrection is inherently non-immersive.
And yes I believe people were immersed in world of warcraft. That doesn't mean every aspect of it was immersive, but on the whole yes it was an immersive game. You felt like you were in a real, organic world. I despise the game now but the first time I played it and used a gryffin to travel across large distances, I was incredibly immersed in that world. Creating a world where magic exists, is completely different from an arbitrary force field around a player that says you can't be killed by a sword if another player is holding it.
Again you ignore the point I made about over-immersion. People may not like pvp because it's too immersive... that certainly doesn't mean it's not immersive.
Hate to chime in at this late time, but if your point is that realism creates immersion and being able to kill people is realistic, therefore more immersive... how many people have you killed? Where in the world do you live, where you can go around and attack and kill, say 20 people in a given day? If PVP is more likely to get you killed, which it is, are you Jesus Christ, that you can be killed and then reincarnated? By your own argument, PVP is less realistic. Murdering people with very little consequence is about as far from reality as you can get. Resurrection is non-immersive, so any activity you engage in which is likely to cause your character to die (in a non permadeath game) ruins immersion.
That specific aspect aside. It's asinine to argue that realism creates immersion. At best there's a loose correlation. Do you not think that people were immersed in World of Warcraft? The game with spells, trolls and orcs, cartoony graphics, and even 3rd person view? None of that bothered you, but PVP is inherently more immersive? Bull.
You're playing a game that's set in a dangerous world. Yes, killing would be commonplace in the world you're playing in. And I agree that resurrection is inherently non-immersive.
And yes I believe people were immersed in world of warcraft. That doesn't mean every aspect of it was immersive, but on the whole yes it was an immersive game. You felt like you were in a real, organic world. I despise the game now but the first time I played it and used a gryffin to travel across large distances, I was incredibly immersed in that world. Creating a world where magic exists, is completely different from an arbitrary force field around a player that says you can't be killed by a sword if another player is holding it.
Oh dear the highly intuitive force field argument. ROFLMAO. Do you hate the arbitrary rule that prevents you from running across the top of lakes too?
Do you not think that people were immersed in World of Warcraft?
I think they were in Vanilla. Not so much anymore.
immersion for me isn't about our reality, it's about the reality that's set up within the game you're playing. I think many MMOs didn't pay much attention to that when making their game design.
IF EQN is going to have PVP, it needs to be interwoven in the game design. Why? Immersion. Every mechanic and rule in the game should have immersion tied to it. That's how you sell a virtual world.
Yep been saying that, round and round we go, where we stop nobody knows.
The problem is I am using a generally accepted definition of immersion as a subjective state, you are using your own private definition based on a misinterpretation of comments by others.
Generally accepted by who exactly? The dictionary definition clearly doesn't apply to video games. In my experience the consensus among gamers is that immersion is tied to realism. Unrealistic things take you out of the game.
Again you ignore the point I made about over-immersion. People may not like pvp because it's too immersive... that certainly doesn't mean it's not immersive.
Actually Immersion is based on an individuals choice, regardless if its in movies, literature, gaming, etc. What you find immersive may not be immersive to another. Has nothing to do with reality, but more about how it speaks to ones imagination. To become immersed is to be accepting of a story or subject, real or fiction. Realism is what you may find immersive, but someone else may find fantasy immersive. You may think PvP is immersive, I find it on par with kickball - fun for a bit but not something I really care to do on a daily basis and therefore not immersive.
If immersion is based on reality and general realism, and unrealistic things take you out of the game, breaking your immersion, how do you continue to play games? Calling upon the power of dark gods to shoot fireballs from your fingertips is, last I checked, not real. I have never seen a talking dragon bent on world domination before on my way to Sears... And I seriously cannot recall the time ever running into a reanimated skeleton wielding a sword promising to end my life in ancient dwarven tongue before...
Immersion is in the eye of the beholder, plain and simple.
There are 3 types of people in the world. 1.) Those who make things happen 2.) Those who watch things happen 3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
Yep been saying that, round and round we go, where we stop nobody knows.
The problem is I am using a generally accepted definition of immersion as a subjective state, you are using your own private definition based on a misinterpretation of comments by others.
Generally accepted by who exactly? The dictionary definition clearly doesn't apply to video games. In my experience the consensus among gamers is that immersion is tied to realism. Unrealistic things take you out of the game.
Again you ignore the point I made about over-immersion. People may not like pvp because it's too immersive... that certainly doesn't mean it's not immersive.
I ignored your point about over-immersion because it is silly. You are either immersed in a game or you are not immersed in a game. You could be immersed in a game and find the experience unpleasant however (see previous reference to nightmare).
So I'm sorry but why is my suggestion silly? Think of playing a PvP game the same as a nightmare for you, except it's one you can wake up from at will. That doesn't make it less immersive, just because you weren't enjoying the immersion.
No I do not like PvP. But that is a separate issue to some random PKer breaking my immersion in a game by attacking me.
Ok, I see that you've merely restated your opinion with no further arguments to back it up. Thanks I guess?
As to your other comment about the consensus achieved among your fellow PvP gamers, well what can I say and still be polite.
I didn't say consensus among pvp gamers, though I don't appreciate what you're implying about "pvp gamers."
[edit]
As to generally accepted I can say that the generally accepted definition or red light is any of a number of similar colors evoked by light in the wavelength range of 630–740 nm. Your saying that amongst your friends it means a song by U2 or the one at the top of a traffic light does not change the real meaning.
So are you going to answer my question: Generally accepted by who? And what "studies" were you talking about earlier?
Back to the thread topic. I think EQ Next will find a nice balance with PvE and PvP. They have already sort of eluded to that much.
About 7 days or so and we will all know......
Hopefully so. PvE without leading to PvP just feels hollow. Hurrah I got a glowie sword, but so what? But, if I have a glowie sword and use it to help me in PvP... my enemies will mark me by that glowing sword, and fear it!
Many previous MMOs have found a good balance between PvE and PvP, hopefully this will too.
Though I feel like the focus of EQN is going to be on massive scale story telling, like monthly events and heavy AI.
I don't understand why some people are saying a game is either PvP or PvE focused...
If a game world is large enough both should be able to exist without one infringing upon the other. To me it seems that myself and a large portion of the PvP proponents simply want PvP to actually matter within the game world as a whole, instead of just being a little mini game within the game.
The world could never be big enough, there would always be PKers hunting out PvE players for easy kills.
Are people seriously so blind to previous MMOs that managed to do this?
DARK AGE OF CAMELOT
Well you cite one example, and you may be right about DAOC. I did not play it because it said PvP on the box, I suspect a great many PvE players had exactly the same reaction.
There was actually a huge thriving PvE community in DAoC. But, since you've admitted yourself you know nothing about PvP or any MMOs that have PvP, don't you think you're a poor fit for this discussion?
And yes, you could play it without ever being "harassed" by PvP.
Comments
RE WoW, played the game never read the manual. Never noticed the "selling points" you mentioned either. Nor did I have much exposure to PvP play (actually only remember a couple of occasions and I remember them because they were so annoying) despite playing the game for a couple of years.
I have no problem with battlegrounds, instanced PvP or indeed any form of PvP so long as I am not required to do it. Any form of consensual PvP is OK by me. Also a game clearly labelled high PvP FFA is fine, I hope the people that play it enjoy it I just will not be one of them.
This all sounds like issues you've had with bad AI (and it sounds like you have some good cause for issue). But poor AI in one or many games does not really prove taunts are necessary by any reasoning I can muster.
How can you possibly be unsure of what point I'm driving home? It's clear. I'm saying you don't need TAUNTS to have good pve. In other words, I'm disagreeing with your position that you DO need taunts.
Thank you for the example regarding GW2. I don't know jack about GW2 so I'm not sure what it's supposed to prove other than you found a game that doesn't utilize the holy trinity so you don't like it.
You say taunts are necessary to control the fight so it's not just a zerg. But I've already explained a situation where you can control the fight in a real and organic way that requires more coordination and more skill than just an magical roar that brainwashes mobs to attack the guy who shouldn't be attacking. Like I said, it's lazy game design and it's BORING. The healer SHOULD be in trouble sometimes, so should whatever squishy dps player you have. Taunts are just another example of the way mmo's have been completely watered down and wussified over the years.
taunts done by characters can literally change an impossible fight into a possible one. There are many kinds of taunts that can be used and they all rely on agro control as the key to making them interesting and fun. Without the high agro control abilities (see taunt) none of these more interesting game mechanics would be possible without lowering the overall difficulty of an encounter. Maybe those in favor of this zero taunt have not had the chance to dive into the years of games I have, which is fine.
In a bid of neutrality, by agreeing with both of you, I'd like to point out that GW2's PVE was complete garbage in nearly every way. Yes, it had no real, sensible aggro system or genuine tanking of any kind.
GW2 was a pretty poor example for either side of the argument. Yes, GW2 had no taunt and was a failure in the grouping mechanics regard.
That said, there are much better ways of doing PVE(with or without taunts) than GW2, and I wholeheartedly believe there are quite viable options for taunt-less control(physical blocking, etc.), but I don't know if the current wave of devs are ready to take that leap into the unknown after watching GW2's terrible attempt.
At the risk of biting the hand that feeds me, I'd like to point out that GW2's allegedly bad pve doesn't hurt my argument. I'm not saying that every game without taunts will be good, I'm merely saying you don't need taunts to have good pve.
No, I assure you I have nearly no life at all. If it were not for my wife I would probably never see another human being that wasn't a pixelated avatar. It has been that way for me with computer games since I first played Ultima 6 when it released. If you can name an MMO I have not played then you have found a truly obscure game.
Yet I do not share your view. Experience with gaming is simply not the issue.
I find the taunt/aggro mechanics you are supporting to be utterly boring and a major source of why I do not enjoy PVE as much as I could in some games.
What I will admit, and I feel you should admit as well, is that there are benefits and drawbacks to your favored system and mine. This is a matter of taste and the taunt/aggro trinity system of WOW or any game isn't simply objectively better than all other possible systems.
Neither way is going to be superior for all of us at every point in time. Perhaps some day there will be one system to rule them all that we can all unite under and PVE happily forever -- but you have no way of knowing if that system will include a taunt mechanic or not and you certainly cannot prove it.
Magical Roar is a type of taunt yes. So is an overheal. So is one to many crit attacks. So is a charm spell that breaks. So is low health. They are all types of taunt that control agro. Without these you just have a zerg game where you need all classes to be able to do most abilities, which waters down the abilitie's uniqueness and makes the game as a whole feel less smart and watered down. I guess I am starting to see that you think I was talking exclusively about the Warrior only taunt skill which was only part of what I was actually trying to get across. So maybe I didn't explain my point well. Fair enough.
Back to the thread topic. I think EQ Next will find a nice balance with PvE and PvP. They have already sort of eluded to that much.
About 7 days or so and we will all know......
I for one was mistaken in that I thought you were using the word taunt in reference to those aggro generating abilities in games like WOW that serve no other real purpose in PVE than to generate aggro and get a monster's attention.
I have always referred to those as taunts and everything else as "generating aggro."
This seems to be a cultural/linguistic clash!
Those aren't taunts, they're just different ways of measuring aggro. If you think I'm saying pve can exist without measuring aggro, you're mistaken. BTW, is magical roar an ACTUAL ability? LOL, I was trying to belittle the idea of taunts by calling it that.
Taunts are abilities that are primarily used to increase aggro. That's why they exist. It's often, if not always, in the description of the ability. That's wholly different from just using damage abilities while the guy who is being focused slows down his dps or uses kiting or blocking to mitigate damage until the mob (or player) realizes it's not worth his time to attack somebody who is playing defensively and then switches his focus to somebody else. That's not "zerging", that's team coordination and attentiveness.
Nope it is my internal view of the world and of the game world, again a subjective experience. BTW your quote from Toby Gard is about the subjective experience of game play. Far from supporting your position it actually supports mine.
Yep been saying that, round and round we go, where we stop nobody knows.
The problem is I am using a generally accepted definition of immersion as a subjective state, you are using your own private definition based on a misinterpretation of comments by others.
I think most people when they hear "taunt" instantly think of those "push button, get instant aggro" abilities that most warriors/tanks have in modern games. That's definitely what I was thinking of.
The other stuff mentioned I just consider a general part of aggro system mechanics, not actual taunts. So, yeah, I agree that there must definitely be aggro mechanics of some kind, but not neccessarily those specific warrior-type taunts.
so basically, you want it exactly like player run cities were in swg.
Your internal view of the world is that people can't attack each other? The point Gard is so obviously making (as am I) is that immersion relies on realism. And maybe his quote is about the subjective experience of game play, I never said game play experiences aren't subjective. What I am saying is that immersion is at least in part objective.
Generally accepted by who exactly? The dictionary definition clearly doesn't apply to video games. In my experience the consensus among gamers is that immersion is tied to realism. Unrealistic things take you out of the game.
Again you ignore the point I made about over-immersion. People may not like pvp because it's too immersive... that certainly doesn't mean it's not immersive.
Hate to chime in at this late time, but if your point is that realism creates immersion and being able to kill people is realistic, therefore more immersive... how many people have you killed? Where in the world do you live, where you can go around and attack and kill, say 20 people in a given day? If PVP is more likely to get you killed, which it is, are you Jesus Christ, that you can be killed and then reincarnated? By your own argument, PVP is less realistic. Murdering people with very little consequence is about as far from reality as you can get. Resurrection is non-immersive, so any activity you engage in which is likely to cause your character to die (in a non permadeath game) ruins immersion.
That specific aspect aside. It's asinine to argue that realism creates immersion. At best there's a loose correlation. Do you not think that people were immersed in World of Warcraft? The game with spells, trolls and orcs, cartoony graphics, and even 3rd person view? None of that bothered you, but PVP is inherently more immersive? Bull.
I ignored your point about over-immersion because it is silly. You are either immersed in a game or you are not immersed in a game. You could be immersed in a game and find the experience unpleasant however (see previous reference to nightmare).
No I do not like PvP. But that is a separate issue to some random PKer breaking my immersion in a game by attacking me.
As to your other comment about the consensus achieved among your fellow PvP gamers, well what can I say and still be polite.
[edit]
As to generally accepted I can say that the generally accepted definition or red light is any of a number of similar colors evoked by light in the wavelength range of 630–740 nm. Your saying that amongst your friends it means a song by U2 or the one at the top of a traffic light does not change the real meaning.
You're playing a game that's set in a dangerous world. Yes, killing would be commonplace in the world you're playing in. And I agree that resurrection is inherently non-immersive.
And yes I believe people were immersed in world of warcraft. That doesn't mean every aspect of it was immersive, but on the whole yes it was an immersive game. You felt like you were in a real, organic world. I despise the game now but the first time I played it and used a gryffin to travel across large distances, I was incredibly immersed in that world. Creating a world where magic exists, is completely different from an arbitrary force field around a player that says you can't be killed by a sword if another player is holding it.
Oh dear the highly intuitive force field argument. ROFLMAO. Do you hate the arbitrary rule that prevents you from running across the top of lakes too?
I think they were in Vanilla. Not so much anymore.
immersion for me isn't about our reality, it's about the reality that's set up within the game you're playing. I think many MMOs didn't pay much attention to that when making their game design.
IF EQN is going to have PVP, it needs to be interwoven in the game design. Why? Immersion. Every mechanic and rule in the game should have immersion tied to it. That's how you sell a virtual world.
Actually Immersion is based on an individuals choice, regardless if its in movies, literature, gaming, etc. What you find immersive may not be immersive to another. Has nothing to do with reality, but more about how it speaks to ones imagination. To become immersed is to be accepting of a story or subject, real or fiction. Realism is what you may find immersive, but someone else may find fantasy immersive. You may think PvP is immersive, I find it on par with kickball - fun for a bit but not something I really care to do on a daily basis and therefore not immersive.
If immersion is based on reality and general realism, and unrealistic things take you out of the game, breaking your immersion, how do you continue to play games? Calling upon the power of dark gods to shoot fireballs from your fingertips is, last I checked, not real. I have never seen a talking dragon bent on world domination before on my way to Sears... And I seriously cannot recall the time ever running into a reanimated skeleton wielding a sword promising to end my life in ancient dwarven tongue before...
Immersion is in the eye of the beholder, plain and simple.
There are 3 types of people in the world.
1.) Those who make things happen
2.) Those who watch things happen
3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
You're playing a game? Not immersed. /thread
So I'm sorry but why is my suggestion silly? Think of playing a PvP game the same as a nightmare for you, except it's one you can wake up from at will. That doesn't make it less immersive, just because you weren't enjoying the immersion.
Ok, I see that you've merely restated your opinion with no further arguments to back it up. Thanks I guess?
I didn't say consensus among pvp gamers, though I don't appreciate what you're implying about "pvp gamers."
So are you going to answer my question: Generally accepted by who? And what "studies" were you talking about earlier?
Hopefully so. PvE without leading to PvP just feels hollow. Hurrah I got a glowie sword, but so what? But, if I have a glowie sword and use it to help me in PvP... my enemies will mark me by that glowing sword, and fear it!
Many previous MMOs have found a good balance between PvE and PvP, hopefully this will too.
Though I feel like the focus of EQN is going to be on massive scale story telling, like monthly events and heavy AI.
There was actually a huge thriving PvE community in DAoC. But, since you've admitted yourself you know nothing about PvP or any MMOs that have PvP, don't you think you're a poor fit for this discussion?
And yes, you could play it without ever being "harassed" by PvP.