And a PvE player would want that world because of the satisfying nature of a game that has risk/reward. Is that really so hard to understand? It's more satisfying to earn something if there's a chance you're going to lose it. That's like the whole IDEA behind the age-old concept of risk/reward. The riskier the situation is, the more rewarding it is.
On the topic of what a PVE player may want.
I think this is a very strong point you bring up that goes a bit deeper than is usually given credit. How often is it in life that we don't exactly always know what we want? Can we predict with certainty what art we will enjoy or what music will move us? Is our gaming hobby not also in some way like that?
I never participated in PvP in any games aside from when i was "forced" by a game I enjoyed that had FFA pvp (M59). it wasn't until my sister mocked me in WOW because she was doing well in battlegrounds that I did some just so she would not be able to lord that over me. I forced myself to play a game type that I had never enjoyed and I learned that I could enjoy it.
I'm not claiming everyone out there who avoids PvP is a PvP lover deep down inside and just doesn't know it. I'm simply submitting the question -- Can we ever be absolutely certain what we will love today, tomorrow, and next year? Especially if that thing is new to us in some way.
My answer is that anyone who claims certainty in this is either a person far advanced beyond what I am, or being at least somewhat dishonest with themselves.
I have played PvP in a number of games, often successfully. I did it because it gave some benefit in PvE, I did not like it.
Will I like it in some new game, implemented in some new way: quite possibly.
BUT I want to make the choice as to when I will and will not undertake PvP activity and I want the reason why I choose PvP to be based solely on fun and not because it gives an advantage in PvE or is forced on me by random PKers.
Sounds nice in principle but PvP combat breaks PvE game mechanics. So PvP makes PvE gameplay suck.... So no thanks unless the PvP is an add on option on PvE gameplay. Meaning there isn't any adjustment to balance PvP skills etc. I want all those abilities that PvP stole from the PvE gameplay. Long crowd control, rooting, charming, unbalanced classes, pure melee pure healer, bufs and debufs, etc. Real class differenciation not just different shades of the same thing with different graphics and effects.
"he PvE crowd doesn't need to compromise. They are the one's saying they want separate PvE and PvP servers. In other words, they can do without PvPers. PvPers, on the other hand, do not want separate servers. They want everyone in one server. Why do you think that is? Well, because without PvEers, PvPers have no one to populate their server."
This, as Ramana pointed out, is way off base. I pointed it out to you too. Your view makes it seem like everybody is either a killer or a victim and the killers need the victims more than the victims need the killers. That's not reality. In reality there are a plethora of people who enjoy pve, crafting, harvesting, etc but want it in a realistic, unforgiving world.
Basically you have an infantile grasp on the subject and therefore your opinions are a waste of time... yet here we are... wasting our time trying to explain it to you. Then, once we do explain it to you, you simply say it's not what the thread is about..... ok dude.... gg.
There is nothing about that paragraph that says ...
"everybody is either a killer or a victim and the killers need the victims more than the victims need the killers."
That is YOUR assumption, based on your limited reading comprehension. You are not the determinant of what "my view makes it seem like."
Anyone who reads that paragraph objectively understands the point driven forward is based on truth.
.... and how would you suggest it be made non-consensual without ruining immersion for the larger number of PvE players who find being randomly PK'd immersion breaking?
Do not talk about consequences, strong or otherwise for consequences to kick in there has to be prior PK and we do not want that at all without consent.
If you read the thread at all you would see I already put my 2 cents on how I would implement it.
And to take away consequences is stupid. Consequences are the most powerful tool available without changing the nature of something. Our entire justice system is based upon consequences. The difficulty in applying them in a game is to choose the correct ones. And yes, I do think there are consequences that exist to prevent PKing.
Actually I have read this entire thread, I have been following it from the beginning. As to your posts I have just re-read them all and I do not think you have proposed much other than large territories and beacon fires.
As to consequences I say it again for a consequence to happen there has to be a prior event. So player killing has already occurred, breaking immersion for those that do not want PvP at all.
PS. I know of a number of legal systems I have never heard of a justice system, just legal systems relabeled for political reasons.
If you spent eight hours worth to make your player strong enough to successfully kill another player, but then instantly lost all your gear / your exp / whatever the punishment may be. Would you do it? I don't think many people would spend that amount of time to bother one person. It's all about incentive.
O, and PS. pointing out minor things like the difference between legal and judicial systems is moronic and doesn't help your argument.
If you spent eight hours worth to make your player strong enough to successfully kill another player, but then instantly lost all your gear / your exp / whatever the punishment may be. Would you do it?
Every time if that player i'm gunning for is named Edward Jacob, Captain Jack, Sephiroth, or something to that effect.
The PvE crowd doesn't need to compromise. They are the one's saying they want separate PvE and PvP servers. In other words, they can do without PvPers. PvPers, on the other hand, do not want separate servers. They want everyone in one server. Why do you think that is? Well, because without PvEers, PvPers have no one to populate their server.
This isn't the reason at all. You are way off base.
Where many are coming from is that we want a game designed from the ground up with a fully integrated PVE/PVP experience such that the economy and gameplay are dependent on the existence of both.
It is a game design philosophy and a point you have either misunderstood or overlooked.
edit: the part of your post I cut out I just found illogical.
Again, if the PvP is "consensual," then there is no debate.
I feel like the point is here -> .
o/ <- yet you are way over here
It could be me that is lost though, at what point does the word consensual become relevant in regards to anything I have said here.
I was outlining what I want. I get that you want "consensual" pvp by your definition. That has no bearing on my explanation to you of why your assumption that we want "PvEers" to "populate the servers" is wrong.
The word "consensual" is imminently relevant. It is what this debate is all about. If your contention is that the word "consensual" is not relevant, then you are right, we have nothing to discuss.
The sole issue in this entire PvE vs PvP debate is whether EQN should have "consensual" or "non-consensual" PvP. If we can all agree that EQN should have "consensual" PvP, then ...
... no other compromise would be necessary rendering the very nature of this thread irrelevant.
Dude... you made a point. And he told you why you were wrong. Now you're just totally sidestepping your misunderstanding and saying it's not what the thread is about. Cop-out.
I have one word for you, my friend ...
... Clueless.
No. Here's clueless:
"he PvE crowd doesn't need to compromise. They are the one's saying they want separate PvE and PvP servers. In other words, they can do without PvPers. PvPers, on the other hand, do not want separate servers. They want everyone in one server. Why do you think that is? Well, because without PvEers, PvPers have no one to populate their server."
This, as Ramana pointed out, is way off base. I pointed it out to you too. Your view makes it seem like everybody is either a killer or a victim and the killers need the victims more than the victims need the killers. That's not reality. In reality there are a plethora of people who enjoy pve, crafting, harvesting, etc but want it in a realistic, unforgiving world.
Basically you have an infantile grasp on the subject and therefore your opinions are a waste of time... yet here we are... wasting our time trying to explain it to you. Then, once we do explain it to you, you simply say it's not what the thread is about..... ok dude.... gg.
There is nothing about that paragraph that says ...
"everybody is either a killer or a victim and the killers need the victims more than the victims need the killers."
That is YOUR assumption, based on your limited reading comprehension. You are not the determinant of what "my view makes it seem like."
Anyone who reads that paragraph objectively understands the point driven forward is based on truth.
Yes, that's exactly what your statement is implying, or even outright saying. It's in the last sentence, here:
"Well, because without PvEers, PvPers have no one to populate their server."
That's where I got the idea that you're saying "everybody is either a killer or a victim...." How am I supposed to take this any other way? You're saying pvpers can't be pveers. How else can you support your claim that the "pvpers" will have no one to populate their servers without the pve'ers? Why can't the pvpers also pve? Where's my misunderstanding exactly? That explains the first half of my statement.
The second half can be explained by this sentence:
" In other words, they can do without PvPers. PvPers, on the other hand, do not want separate servers. "
This is where I got the idea that you're saying "....and the killers need the victims more than the victims need the killers"
Also, as others (and myself) have pointed out, pve'ers can enjoy the fact that pvp exists because of the idea of more satisfying gameplay through higher risk. Almost my entire UO experience growing up was me JUST PvEing and harvesting and TRYING to avoid pvp as much as possible. Was I a pvper or a pveer?
.... and how would you suggest it be made non-consensual without ruining immersion for the larger number of PvE players who find being randomly PK'd immersion breaking?
Do not talk about consequences, strong or otherwise for consequences to kick in there has to be prior PK and we do not want that at all without consent.
If you read the thread at all you would see I already put my 2 cents on how I would implement it.
And to take away consequences is stupid. Consequences are the most powerful tool available without changing the nature of something. Our entire justice system is based upon consequences. The difficulty in applying them in a game is to choose the correct ones. And yes, I do think there are consequences that exist to prevent PKing.
Actually I have read this entire thread, I have been following it from the beginning. As to your posts I have just re-read them all and I do not think you have proposed much other than large territories and beacon fires.
As to consequences I say it again for a consequence to happen there has to be a prior event. So player killing has already occurred, breaking immersion for those that do not want PvP at all.
PS. I know of a number of legal systems I have never heard of a justice system, just legal systems relabeled for political reasons.
If you spent eight hours worth to make your player strong enough to successfully kill another player, but then instantly lost all your gear / your exp / whatever the punishment may be. Would you do it? I don't think many people would spend that amount of time to bother one person. It's all about incentive.
O, and PS. pointing out minor things like the difference between legal and justice systems is moronic and doesn't help your argument.
I would not kill another player. Eight hours of play, eight minutes of play, eight hundred hours of play: I would not kill another player.
Do I expect to be killed by random players in an OW PvP FFA game, despite any of the consequences that might be put in place, yes I do and guess what I think you do too!
Also do you think that any developer could introduce the punishment you suggest ("instantly lost all your gear / your exp") into a game labelled OW PvP and not encounter a huge outrage from the people who want OW PvP? That outrage would either force them to drastically reduce the penalty or lose the players.
Also do you think that any developer could introduce the punishment you suggest ("instantly lost all your gear / your exp") into a game labelled OW PvP and not encounter a huge outrage from the people who want OW PvP? That outrage would either force them to drastically reduce the penalty or lose the players.
Well it really depends though. Does the game have lawful/unlawful areas? Is the victim in a certain state (neutral faction, low level, same faction, new player, non-pk-flagged, high regional standings, etc..) that causes such a harsh return? I could dig it if it is the right kind of game where under certain circumstances the royal guards hop out of the bushes and shank me if I try to gank the wrong people.
I'm sure by instantly lost all your gear/xp he just meant it was a full loot/item destruction game with an xp penalty on death. It does sound a little harsh with the xp penalty but whateva, i'm still gonna play this imaginary game.
Yes, that's exactly what your statement is implying, or even outright saying. It's in the last sentence, here:
"Well, because without PvEers, PvPers have no one to populate their server."
That's where I got the idea that you're saying "everybody is either a killer or a victim...." How am I supposed to take this any other way? You're saying pvpers can't be pveers. How else can you support your claim that the "pvpers" will have no one to populate their servers without the pve'ers? Why can't the pvpers also pve? Where's my misunderstanding exactly? That explains the first half of my statement.
The second half can be explained by this sentence:
" In other words, they can do without PvPers. PvPers, on the other hand, do not want separate servers. "
This is where I got the idea that you're saying "....and the killers need the victims more than the victims need the killers"
Also, as others (and myself) have pointed out, pve'ers can enjoy the fact that pvp exists because of the idea of more satisfying gameplay through higher risk. Almost my entire UO experience growing up was me JUST PvEing and harvesting and TRYING to avoid pvp as much as possible. Was I a pvper or a pveer?
Dude, you are tiring. I have long lost my patience with you but I will try to reiterate just one more time. The debate is whether EQN should have "consensual" or "non-consensual" FFA PvP. It is largely understood that gamers do not mind PvP as long as its "consensual." We are only having this debate, and it has been a heated debate for the past month, because hardcore PvPers have been lobying for EQN to have "non-consensual" OW FFA PvP, whereas the PvE crowd has been arguing for either "consensual" PvP, or no PvP at all. That is the context in which that paragraph was written.
Again, it is understood that a good majority of PvEers do not mind PvP as long as it is "consensual." It is the notion of forced "non-consensual" OW FFA PvP that this debate is all about and the context of which all of my post are based. If we all agreed to EQN being "consensual" this thread wouldn't even exist as there would be no basis for compromise.
As long as people want to fight the game and not other players it's best to keep PvP and PvE seperate. Neglecting to do so means one or the other loses out.
No matter what type of hypothetical situation is prefaced with it demand for PvP in most areas in a game is not as popular. Does that mean people don't want good PvP? No, it just means that they want to choose when to do it and not have a large portion of the gameworld closed to them. If PvP is a focus of an MMO this seems like quite an impossibility.
I think the want of each side is unbalanced. PvE players seem to be fine without PvP by the ratio of PvP and PvE MMO populations. There is the "well there hasn't been an MMO doable right..." card and makes sense but there's no way to prove it would work. Most of the comments so far in this section point to having a good PvP system that is on another server. This doesn't seem to be adequate to some posters though and the message seems to be that we all need to be on one server type. That only benefits the PvPers because the whole world is open to them but not PvEers. I'm not sure why the need to force things on others when a better option is right there.
The PvE crowd doesn't need to compromise. They are the one's saying they want separate PvE and PvP servers. In other words, they can do without PvPers. PvPers, on the other hand, do not want separate servers. They want everyone in one server. Why do you think that is? Well, because without PvEers, PvPers have no one to populate their server.
This isn't the reason at all. You are way off base.
Where many are coming from is that we want a game designed from the ground up with a fully integrated PVE/PVP experience such that the economy and gameplay are dependent on the existence of both.
It is a game design philosophy and a point you have either misunderstood or overlooked.
edit: the part of your post I cut out I just found illogical.
Again, if the PvP is "consensual," then there is no debate.
I feel like the point is here -> .
o/ <- yet you are way over here
It could be me that is lost though, at what point does the word consensual become relevant in regards to anything I have said here.
I was outlining what I want. I get that you want "consensual" pvp by your definition. That has no bearing on my explanation to you of why your assumption that we want "PvEers" to "populate the servers" is wrong.
The word "consensual" is imminently relevant. It is what this debate is all about. If your contention is that the word "consensual" is not relevant, then you are right, we have nothing to discuss.
The sole issue in this entire PvE vs PvP debate is whether EQN should have "consensual" or "non-consensual" PvP. If we can all agree that EQN should have "consensual" PvP, then ...
... no other compromise would be necessary rendering the very nature of this thread irrelevant.
Dude... you made a point. And he told you why you were wrong. Now you're just totally sidestepping your misunderstanding and saying it's not what the thread is about. Cop-out.
I have one word for you, my friend ...
... Clueless.
No. Here's clueless:
"he PvE crowd doesn't need to compromise. They are the one's saying they want separate PvE and PvP servers. In other words, they can do without PvPers. PvPers, on the other hand, do not want separate servers. They want everyone in one server. Why do you think that is? Well, because without PvEers, PvPers have no one to populate their server."
This, as Ramana pointed out, is way off base. I pointed it out to you too. Your view makes it seem like everybody is either a killer or a victim and the killers need the victims more than the victims need the killers. That's not reality. In reality there are a plethora of people who enjoy pve, crafting, harvesting, etc but want it in a realistic, unforgiving world.
Basically you have an infantile grasp on the subject and therefore your opinions are a waste of time... yet here we are... wasting our time trying to explain it to you. Then, once we do explain it to you, you simply say it's not what the thread is about..... ok dude.... gg.
There is nothing about that paragraph that says ...
"everybody is either a killer or a victim and the killers need the victims more than the victims need the killers."
That is YOUR assumption, based on your limited reading comprehension. You are not the determinant of what "my view makes it seem like."
Anyone who reads that paragraph objectively understands the point driven forward is based on truth.
Yes, that's exactly what your statement is implying, or even outright saying. It's in the last sentence, here:
"Well, because without PvEers, PvPers have no one to populate their server."
That's where I got the idea that you're saying "everybody is either a killer or a victim...." How am I supposed to take this any other way? You're saying pvpers can't be pveers. How else can you support your claim that the "pvpers" will have no one to populate their servers without the pve'ers? Why can't the pvpers also pve? Where's my misunderstanding exactly? That explains the first half of my statement.
The second half can be explained by this sentence:
" In other words, they can do without PvPers. PvPers, on the other hand, do not want separate servers. "
This is where I got the idea that you're saying "....and the killers need the victims more than the victims need the killers"
Also, as others (and myself) have pointed out, pve'ers can enjoy the fact that pvp exists because of the idea of more satisfying gameplay through higher risk. Almost my entire UO experience growing up was me JUST PvEing and harvesting and TRYING to avoid pvp as much as possible. Was I a pvper or a pveer?
Dude, you are tiring. I have long lost my patience with you but I will try to reiterate just one more time. The debate is whether EQN should have "consensual" or "non-consensual" FFA PvP. It is largely understood that gamers do not mind PvP as long as its "consensual." We are only having this debate, and it has been a heated debate for the past month, because hardcore PvPers have been lobying for EQN to have "non-consensual" OW FFA PvP, whereas the PvE crowd has been arguing for either "consensual" PvP, or no PvP at all. That is the context in which that paragraph was written.
Again, it is understood that a good majority of PvEers do not mind PvP as long as it is "consensual." It is the notion of forced "non-consensual" OW FFA PvP that this debate is all about and the context of which all of my post are based. If we all agreed to EQN being "consensual" this thread wouldn't even exist as there would be no basis for compromise.
/smfh
It was not in that context. It was in response to something I said. You interjected into a brief exchange I was having with somebody else.
Also, it doesn't matter what context it's in, what you said was wrong and suggests a lack of understanding of the topic at hand, as I pointed out in previous posts.
You keep saying immersion, but I'm not sure you know what that word means...
Wanting to just PvE in a PvP zone, and getting killed, does not break immersion. It interrupts a desired activity, sure, but people killing eachother is not in any way unrealistic.
It was not in that context. It was in response to something I said. You interjected into a brief exchange I was having with somebody else.
Also, it doesn't matter what context it's in, what you said was wrong and suggests a lack of understanding of the topic at hand, as I pointed out in previous posts.
The PvE crowd doesn't need to compromise. They are the one's saying they want separate PvE and PvP servers. In other words, they can do without PvPers. PvPers, on the other hand, do not want separate servers. They want everyone in one server. Why do you think that is? Well, because without PvEers, PvPers have no one to populate their server.
This isn't the reason at all. You are way off base.
Where many are coming from is that we want a game designed from the ground up with a fully integrated PVE/PVP experience such that the economy and gameplay are dependent on the existence of both.
It is a game design philosophy and a point you have either misunderstood or overlooked.
edit: the part of your post I cut out I just found illogical.
Again, if the PvP is "consensual," then there is no debate.
I feel like the point is here -> .
o/ <- yet you are way over here
It could be me that is lost though, at what point does the word consensual become relevant in regards to anything I have said here.
I was outlining what I want. I get that you want "consensual" pvp by your definition. That has no bearing on my explanation to you of why your assumption that we want "PvEers" to "populate the servers" is wrong.
The word "consensual" is imminently relevant. It is what this debate is all about. If your contention is that the word "consensual" is not relevant, then you are right, we have nothing to discuss.
The sole issue in this entire PvE vs PvP debate is whether EQN should have "consensual" or "non-consensual" PvP. If we can all agree that EQN should have "consensual" PvP, then ...
... no other compromise would be necessary rendering the very nature of this thread irrelevant.
Dude... you made a point. And he told you why you were wrong. Now you're just totally sidestepping your misunderstanding and saying it's not what the thread is about. Cop-out.
I have one word for you, my friend ...
... Clueless.
No. Here's clueless:
"he PvE crowd doesn't need to compromise. They are the one's saying they want separate PvE and PvP servers. In other words, they can do without PvPers. PvPers, on the other hand, do not want separate servers. They want everyone in one server. Why do you think that is? Well, because without PvEers, PvPers have no one to populate their server."
This, as Ramana pointed out, is way off base. I pointed it out to you too. Your view makes it seem like everybody is either a killer or a victim and the killers need the victims more than the victims need the killers. That's not reality. In reality there are a plethora of people who enjoy pve, crafting, harvesting, etc but want it in a realistic, unforgiving world.
Basically you have an infantile grasp on the subject and therefore your opinions are a waste of time... yet here we are... wasting our time trying to explain it to you. Then, once we do explain it to you, you simply say it's not what the thread is about..... ok dude.... gg.
There is nothing about that paragraph that says ...
"everybody is either a killer or a victim and the killers need the victims more than the victims need the killers."
That is YOUR assumption, based on your limited reading comprehension. You are not the determinant of what "my view makes it seem like."
Anyone who reads that paragraph objectively understands the point driven forward is based on truth.
Yes, that's exactly what your statement is implying, or even outright saying. It's in the last sentence, here:
"Well, because without PvEers, PvPers have no one to populate their server."
That's where I got the idea that you're saying "everybody is either a killer or a victim...." How am I supposed to take this any other way? You're saying pvpers can't be pveers. How else can you support your claim that the "pvpers" will have no one to populate their servers without the pve'ers? Why can't the pvpers also pve? Where's my misunderstanding exactly? That explains the first half of my statement.
The second half can be explained by this sentence:
" In other words, they can do without PvPers. PvPers, on the other hand, do not want separate servers. "
This is where I got the idea that you're saying "....and the killers need the victims more than the victims need the killers"
Also, as others (and myself) have pointed out, pve'ers can enjoy the fact that pvp exists because of the idea of more satisfying gameplay through higher risk. Almost my entire UO experience growing up was me JUST PvEing and harvesting and TRYING to avoid pvp as much as possible. Was I a pvper or a pveer?
Dude, you are tiring. I have long lost my patience with you but I will try to reiterate just one more time. The debate is whether EQN should have "consensual" or "non-consensual" FFA PvP. It is largely understood that gamers do not mind PvP as long as its "consensual." We are only having this debate, and it has been a heated debate for the past month, because hardcore PvPers have been lobying for EQN to have "non-consensual" OW FFA PvP, whereas the PvE crowd has been arguing for either "consensual" PvP, or no PvP at all. That is the context in which that paragraph was written.
Again, it is understood that a good majority of PvEers do not mind PvP as long as it is "consensual." It is the notion of forced "non-consensual" OW FFA PvP that this debate is all about and the context of which all of my post are based. If we all agreed to EQN being "consensual" this thread wouldn't even exist as there would be no basis for compromise.
/smfh
It was not in that context. It was in response to something I said. You interjected into a brief exchange I was having with somebody else.
Also, it doesn't matter what context it's in, what you said was wrong and suggests a lack of understanding of the topic at hand, as I pointed out in previous posts.
Quit digging that hole.
Are you going to be objective and tell me where I'm wrong or not? Are you so insecure that you can't bow out gracefully?
Are you going to be objective and tell me where I'm wrong or not? Are you so insecure that you can't bow out gracefully?
I can't explain it any clearer. The entire debate is whether EQN should be "consensual" or "non-consensual." What else is there to explain?
BTW, I have no problem admitting when I am wrong, if it were the case. I am fully cognizant of the concept that a bigger man is better off by admitting a wrong, or a misunderstanding, and moving on, rather than continue debating a losing point, and coming across like an idiot.
Originally posted by Aelious Most of the comments so far in this section point to having a good PvP system that is on another server. This doesn't seem to be adequate to some posters though and the message seems to be that we all need to be on one server type. That only benefits the PvPers because the whole world is open to them but not PvEers. I'm not sure why the need to force things on others when a better option is right there.
Simply because the best model many of us have seen that integrates PVE and PVP well is one we believe would fall apart if either of those aspects were removed from the game.
Some of us simply want a game with PVE and PVP integrated to the point where all of the game's systems are interrelated and reliant on each of these systems and their various subsystems. This reliance would then be to such a degree that your PVE server could exist, but it would simply not work.
I admit there may be PVE solutions to all of my issues. I have simply never seen them implemented in a way I enjoy.
Edit: Removed my wall of text to a more concise point.
Also do you think that any developer could introduce the punishment you suggest ("instantly lost all your gear / your exp") into a game labelled OW PvP and not encounter a huge outrage from the people who want OW PvP? That outrage would either force them to drastically reduce the penalty or lose the players.
Well it really depends though. Does the game have lawful/unlawful areas? Is the victim in a certain state (neutral faction, low level, same faction, new player, non-pk-flagged, high regional standings, etc..) that causes such a harsh return? I could dig it if it is the right kind of game where under certain circumstances the royal guards hop out of the bushes and shank me if I try to gank the wrong people.
I'm sure by instantly lost all your gear/xp he just meant it was a full loot/item destruction game with an xp penalty on death. It does sound a little harsh with the xp penalty but whateva, i'm still gonna play this imaginary game.
Well you walked it back quite a ways but I have no doubt you would play it and that I would not.
You keep saying immersion, but I'm not sure you know what that word means...
Wanting to just PvE in a PvP zone, and getting killed, does not break immersion. It interrupts a desired activity, sure, but people killing eachother is not in any way unrealistic.
We have been down this path before, if the PvP zones have no PvE value then that is tolerable, not desirable but tolerable, to PvE players. But if there is any PvE advantage in the PvP zone then no. No special resources, no loot that is better than PvE loot etc. Also the size and number of these PvP areas should reflect the relative numbers of players that is no more than 25% of the landmass and not blocking travel from one PvE area to another.
But if you voluntarily go into a bandit zone, you are consenting to PvP and that is what we have been asking for consensual PvP.
Are you going to be objective and tell me where I'm wrong or not? Are you so insecure that you can't bow out gracefully?
I can't explain it any clearer. The entire debate is whether EQN should be "consensual" or "non-consensual." What else is there to explain?
BTW, I have no problem admitting when I am wrong, if it were the case. I am fully cognizant of the concept that a bigger man is better off by admitting a wrong, or a misunderstanding, and moving on, rather than continue debating a losing point, and coming across like an idiot.
You should take heed.
Yes except the exchange I was having with a different person has nothing to do with EQN or what you think is the broader point of the thread. Smaller, more precise questions arise in big discussions like these.
But like I said, no context makes your statement accurate or true. You're just wrong either way. I've explained why, you've ignored it.
You keep saying immersion, but I'm not sure you know what that word means...
Wanting to just PvE in a PvP zone, and getting killed, does not break immersion. It interrupts a desired activity, sure, but people killing eachother is not in any way unrealistic.
We have been down this path before, if the PvP zones have no PvE value then that is tolerable, not desirable but tolerable, to PvE players. But if there is any PvE advantage in the PvP zone then no. No special resources, no loot that is better than PvE loot etc. Also the size and number of these PvP areas should reflect the relative numbers of players that is no more than 25% of the landmass and not blocking travel from one PvE area to another.
But if you voluntarily go into a bandit zone, you are consenting to PvP and that is what we have been asking for consensual PvP.
He's saying immersion means you can get lost in the game world, it doesn't mean it's you not getting what you want. An invisible force field making you invulnerable to another player's attacks breaks immersion because it's an arbitrary rule put in by the developers, not a part of the world they've created. It's unrealistic, even by the standards of an unrealistic world where magic exists etc. It's akin to invisible walls and linear paths.
Comments
I have played PvP in a number of games, often successfully. I did it because it gave some benefit in PvE, I did not like it.
Will I like it in some new game, implemented in some new way: quite possibly.
BUT I want to make the choice as to when I will and will not undertake PvP activity and I want the reason why I choose PvP to be based solely on fun and not because it gives an advantage in PvE or is forced on me by random PKers.
---
Ethion
There is nothing about that paragraph that says ...
"everybody is either a killer or a victim and the killers need the victims more than the victims need the killers."
That is YOUR assumption, based on your limited reading comprehension. You are not the determinant of what "my view makes it seem like."
Anyone who reads that paragraph objectively understands the point driven forward is based on truth.
If you spent eight hours worth to make your player strong enough to successfully kill another player, but then instantly lost all your gear / your exp / whatever the punishment may be. Would you do it? I don't think many people would spend that amount of time to bother one person. It's all about incentive.
O, and PS. pointing out minor things like the difference between legal and judicial systems is moronic and doesn't help your argument.
Every time if that player i'm gunning for is named Edward Jacob, Captain Jack, Sephiroth, or something to that effect.
Yes, that's exactly what your statement is implying, or even outright saying. It's in the last sentence, here:
"Well, because without PvEers, PvPers have no one to populate their server."
That's where I got the idea that you're saying "everybody is either a killer or a victim...." How am I supposed to take this any other way? You're saying pvpers can't be pveers. How else can you support your claim that the "pvpers" will have no one to populate their servers without the pve'ers? Why can't the pvpers also pve? Where's my misunderstanding exactly? That explains the first half of my statement.
The second half can be explained by this sentence:
" In other words, they can do without PvPers. PvPers, on the other hand, do not want separate servers. "
This is where I got the idea that you're saying "....and the killers need the victims more than the victims need the killers"
Also, as others (and myself) have pointed out, pve'ers can enjoy the fact that pvp exists because of the idea of more satisfying gameplay through higher risk. Almost my entire UO experience growing up was me JUST PvEing and harvesting and TRYING to avoid pvp as much as possible. Was I a pvper or a pveer?
I would not kill another player. Eight hours of play, eight minutes of play, eight hundred hours of play: I would not kill another player.
Do I expect to be killed by random players in an OW PvP FFA game, despite any of the consequences that might be put in place, yes I do and guess what I think you do too!
Also do you think that any developer could introduce the punishment you suggest ("instantly lost all your gear / your exp") into a game labelled OW PvP and not encounter a huge outrage from the people who want OW PvP? That outrage would either force them to drastically reduce the penalty or lose the players.
Well it really depends though. Does the game have lawful/unlawful areas? Is the victim in a certain state (neutral faction, low level, same faction, new player, non-pk-flagged, high regional standings, etc..) that causes such a harsh return? I could dig it if it is the right kind of game where under certain circumstances the royal guards hop out of the bushes and shank me if I try to gank the wrong people.
I'm sure by instantly lost all your gear/xp he just meant it was a full loot/item destruction game with an xp penalty on death. It does sound a little harsh with the xp penalty but whateva, i'm still gonna play this imaginary game.
Dude, you are tiring. I have long lost my patience with you but I will try to reiterate just one more time. The debate is whether EQN should have "consensual" or "non-consensual" FFA PvP. It is largely understood that gamers do not mind PvP as long as its "consensual." We are only having this debate, and it has been a heated debate for the past month, because hardcore PvPers have been lobying for EQN to have "non-consensual" OW FFA PvP, whereas the PvE crowd has been arguing for either "consensual" PvP, or no PvP at all. That is the context in which that paragraph was written.
Again, it is understood that a good majority of PvEers do not mind PvP as long as it is "consensual." It is the notion of forced "non-consensual" OW FFA PvP that this debate is all about and the context of which all of my post are based. If we all agreed to EQN being "consensual" this thread wouldn't even exist as there would be no basis for compromise.
/smfh
No matter what type of hypothetical situation is prefaced with it demand for PvP in most areas in a game is not as popular. Does that mean people don't want good PvP? No, it just means that they want to choose when to do it and not have a large portion of the gameworld closed to them. If PvP is a focus of an MMO this seems like quite an impossibility.
I think the want of each side is unbalanced. PvE players seem to be fine without PvP by the ratio of PvP and PvE MMO populations. There is the "well there hasn't been an MMO doable right..." card and makes sense but there's no way to prove it would work. Most of the comments so far in this section point to having a good PvP system that is on another server. This doesn't seem to be adequate to some posters though and the message seems to be that we all need to be on one server type. That only benefits the PvPers because the whole world is open to them but not PvEers. I'm not sure why the need to force things on others when a better option is right there.
It was not in that context. It was in response to something I said. You interjected into a brief exchange I was having with somebody else.
Also, it doesn't matter what context it's in, what you said was wrong and suggests a lack of understanding of the topic at hand, as I pointed out in previous posts.
You keep saying immersion, but I'm not sure you know what that word means...
Wanting to just PvE in a PvP zone, and getting killed, does not break immersion. It interrupts a desired activity, sure, but people killing eachother is not in any way unrealistic.
Quit digging that hole.
Are you going to be objective and tell me where I'm wrong or not? Are you so insecure that you can't bow out gracefully?
Favorite MMO: Vanilla WoW
Currently playing: GW2, EVE
Excited for: Wildstar, maybe?
I feel this comment maybe warranted in this situation:
Who is the more foolish? The fool or the other fool who argues with the first?
Take your pick on which fool you wish to be.
Oh you're reading these? Just not responding?I can't explain it any clearer. The entire debate is whether EQN should be "consensual" or "non-consensual." What else is there to explain?
BTW, I have no problem admitting when I am wrong, if it were the case. I am fully cognizant of the concept that a bigger man is better off by admitting a wrong, or a misunderstanding, and moving on, rather than continue debating a losing point, and coming across like an idiot.
You should take heed.
Point well taken.
Simply because the best model many of us have seen that integrates PVE and PVP well is one we believe would fall apart if either of those aspects were removed from the game.
Some of us simply want a game with PVE and PVP integrated to the point where all of the game's systems are interrelated and reliant on each of these systems and their various subsystems. This reliance would then be to such a degree that your PVE server could exist, but it would simply not work.
I admit there may be PVE solutions to all of my issues. I have simply never seen them implemented in a way I enjoy.
Edit: Removed my wall of text to a more concise point.
Well you walked it back quite a ways but I have no doubt you would play it and that I would not.
We have been down this path before, if the PvP zones have no PvE value then that is tolerable, not desirable but tolerable, to PvE players. But if there is any PvE advantage in the PvP zone then no. No special resources, no loot that is better than PvE loot etc. Also the size and number of these PvP areas should reflect the relative numbers of players that is no more than 25% of the landmass and not blocking travel from one PvE area to another.
But if you voluntarily go into a bandit zone, you are consenting to PvP and that is what we have been asking for consensual PvP.
Yes except the exchange I was having with a different person has nothing to do with EQN or what you think is the broader point of the thread. Smaller, more precise questions arise in big discussions like these.
But like I said, no context makes your statement accurate or true. You're just wrong either way. I've explained why, you've ignored it.
I thought it was "...the fool or the fool who follows him?"
He's saying immersion means you can get lost in the game world, it doesn't mean it's you not getting what you want. An invisible force field making you invulnerable to another player's attacks breaks immersion because it's an arbitrary rule put in by the developers, not a part of the world they've created. It's unrealistic, even by the standards of an unrealistic world where magic exists etc. It's akin to invisible walls and linear paths.