Humans lived on the earth for a great many years unable to fly. Many even thought human flight impossible. They may have used the fact that no human was flying as a proof.
They were in error.
By what logic? We know from Bernoulli's equation, long time before the invention of the airplane, that flying with fixed wings are possible.
Again, the proof is in the games. Random opinions matter very little in the MMO market.
Bernoulli was not the first human.
Are we actually disagreeing? Can you clarify your point maybe?
Mine was that the absence of a thing is not proof the thing cannot exist. That is a logical statement and the only point I was making.
We are not.
I am not saying it is impossible. I am saying disagreeing and saying it is possible .. is moot. The market decides. If it is possible, but no one is making it, does it matter at all?
Originally posted by Bidwood 4.) People who like to PVE or do commerce in a world with full PVP- Risk v.s. reward factors in. Can I beat that dragon and take its sword before someone attacks? Will someone snipe me when the battle ends? Have to be careful - there is a lot of risk involved, but the reward is so much sweeter because of it. More than a few of these people have taken me under their wing and given me equipment, supplies and tips - even in Darkfall.
I'll address point #4, since it is kind of the root of all other points.
Some find that level of risk vs reward too much. And it has been my experience that enough PvPers do NOT seek an equitable risk vs reward to make games like this not fun for me. I do not play games to get my adrenaline pumping. In the rare cases I do, I find single player "sneak type" games much better at it. A shot of adrenaline here or there is OK, but a constant barrage of it is not fun for me. I get tired and log off much sooner than a game without such demands.
I do not find fun in having something I worked hours for taken away or diminished by some random PvP act. It makes it so I have no desire to log back in. I definitely do not play MMOs to "prove my worth" to other players or be their own personal game content.
I understand that some players desire this kind of game play experience. I think they should have it available. However, nothing you can say will change my mind about why I dislike it. Call me whatever names you feel you should, "carebear", "immature", "wimp", whatever.
Thank you. This is the kind of post I was hoping for when I created the thread, which is "I see what you want and think you should go have it somewhere else even if it's not for me." The only thing I want to call you is "awesome".
Scroll down to #78. The pie chart clearly shows that pve has a higher population.
pies are cool anyways back to reality.
Its amazing that still even when Blizzard have ruined allmost everything about pvp in wow with lfg tools and xserver playing etc,lots of pvprs left the game but even today pvp is more popular than pve servers.
So, did ESO have a successful launch? Yes, yes it did.By Ryan Getchell on April 02, 2014. **On the radar: http://www.cyberpunk.net/ **
Humans lived on the earth for a great many years unable to fly. Many even thought human flight impossible. They may have used the fact that no human was flying as a proof.
They were in error.
By what logic? We know from Bernoulli's equation, long time before the invention of the airplane, that flying with fixed wings are possible.
Again, the proof is in the games. Random opinions matter very little in the MMO market.
Bernoulli was not the first human.
Are we actually disagreeing? Can you clarify your point maybe?
Mine was that the absence of a thing is not proof the thing cannot exist. That is a logical statement and the only point I was making.
The absence of a thing may not be proof that the thing cannot exist but the fact that it does not exist is absolute proof of its lack of existence. Your logic implies that just because pigs, or humans for that matter, do not currently fly this does not mean pigs or humans will not fly in the future. By that logic, then everything is possible ... because we don't know what's going to happen in the future.
Originally posted by Piiritus You. Did. Not. Convince. Me. Sorry but I just don't like non-consensual PvP.
Originally posted by Frostvein
I dont understand this. What is your point? To get people to try open world FFA PVP games? To try and get developers to make more games?
From the OP's second sentence or so - "This purpose of this thread is to dispel the myths about full PVP."
Whether he did it well or not, or whether he even should have tried or not, is irrelevant. His point wasn't to convince anyone to try or like FFA PvP games.
How many in the thread have missed that?
Dispelling myths or attempting to do so, however much it may not work, is in no way equivalent to making someone like something.
I missed it because I found it entirely pointless. While I actually agree with all but one of his points, all this sums up to is him trying to convince people who AREN'T into full PvP to essentially not be against full PvP. Some people don't like full PvP, and they have very legitimate reasons for disliking it that aren't going to change based on whatever myths the OP did dispel.
Because this question has come up a lot, the purpose of the thread is not to convince anyone to play or support full PVP games. It's to raise awareness about what the people who want them are actually asking for, because it's clear from many counter-arguments in other threads that there is a lack of understanding and we are all lumped together into the "griefer" category.
I am a fan of FFA PVP and play several MMOs with it, and I disagree with almost everything you've written so far, so please don't pretend you speak for everyone.
To address each of your points:
1. You just want to grief me.
Most MMOs that have open world PVP have it poorly implemented. Take, for example AION, where players reach level 30 and then are subjected to pointless attacks from level 60s (outside of the Abyss) as they try to level. Saying this doesn't happen is just lying to yourself, because everyone else isn't buying it.
2. “Why should I be forced to play your way? No one is forcing you to PVE.”
This is something that a lot of PVPers like you will never figure out until the day you incur penalties for a defeat in combat that results from someone baking bread on the battlefield.
3. It’s PVP v.s. PVE and people who enjoy PVP are a niche.
In MMORPGs, the PVP crowd is a niche crowd. That's not a bad thing. Crafters are, too. So are raiders. In most MMORPGs, the majority do not participate in PVP.
4. Okay - but the majority of people want PVP on their terms.
That's not a myth. It's the truth. Open world PVP is usually an ongoing war. It is not a team-based match with a set start, confined arena, and 15 minute tiner. In any war you want to make sure the deck is stacked in your favor. If you don't, you're doing it wrong.
No idea why 5 and 6 are here as there is nothing myth or fact about them. They are proposed ideas. Padding?
7. Look around at the limited number of PVP servers on popular games. This is proof that the market for open-world PVP games is niche.
You say the issue there is that in all of those games the PVP is just tacked on. While I disagree in the case of GW2, AOC and several other MMOs, that's not even an issue really. Look at the subscriber based of most open world PVP MMOs in the Western market compared to the PVE ones. Here, your argument is going to be that most are poorly made, right?
So if the PvE gamers aren't playing the PVP MMORPGs and you contend that they have a low pop because the PVPers don't like what the PVP MMORPGs are offering, then are you really trying to 'dispel the myth' with your personal assumption that there is some silent majority that wants open world PVP in their MMORPG and is just waiting for the right one to come along?
You clearly didn't even read my post or just snipped the part that was convenient for you. I explitly acknowledged that griefers are part of the ecosystem in a full PVP game, but they're only part of it and it's not fair to accuse everyone who wants full PVP of living to harrass people who don't want any part of it.
Originally posted by Piiritus You. Did. Not. Convince. Me. Sorry but I just don't like non-consensual PvP.
Originally posted by Frostvein
I dont understand this. What is your point? To get people to try open world FFA PVP games? To try and get developers to make more games?
From the OP's second sentence or so - "This purpose of this thread is to dispel the myths about full PVP."
Whether he did it well or not, or whether he even should have tried or not, is irrelevant. His point wasn't to convince anyone to try or like FFA PvP games.
How many in the thread have missed that?
Dispelling myths or attempting to do so, however much it may not work, is in no way equivalent to making someone like something.
I missed it because I found it entirely pointless. While I actually agree with all but one of his points, all this sums up to is him trying to convince people who AREN'T into full PvP to essentially not be against full PvP. Some people don't like full PvP, and they have very legitimate reasons for disliking it that aren't going to change based on whatever myths the OP did dispel.
More or less this.
No. I said it many times throughout this thread - it's about awareness about what a number of PVP players want, not trying to change your minds. You don't have to agree at all. But please acknowledge there are people who will only be satisfied when they get a full PVP game. I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt though and assume you didn't see any of those messages.
You clearly didn't even read my post or just snipped the part that was convenient for you. I explitly acknowledged that griefers are part of the ecosystem in a full PVP game, but they're only part of it and it's not fair to accuse everyone who wants full PVP of living to harrass people who don't want any part of it.
Most people don't believe that everyone in OWPvP is a griefer. However thats irrelevant. Even if it is a tiny minority of griefers, they are doing it so often that the result is the same, a lot of griefing.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Originally posted by Piiritus You. Did. Not. Convince. Me. Sorry but I just don't like non-consensual PvP.
Originally posted by Frostvein
I dont understand this. What is your point? To get people to try open world FFA PVP games? To try and get developers to make more games?
From the OP's second sentence or so - "This purpose of this thread is to dispel the myths about full PVP."
Whether he did it well or not, or whether he even should have tried or not, is irrelevant. His point wasn't to convince anyone to try or like FFA PvP games.
How many in the thread have missed that?
Dispelling myths or attempting to do so, however much it may not work, is in no way equivalent to making someone like something.
I missed it because I found it entirely pointless. While I actually agree with all but one of his points, all this sums up to is him trying to convince people who AREN'T into full PvP to essentially not be against full PvP. Some people don't like full PvP, and they have very legitimate reasons for disliking it that aren't going to change based on whatever myths the OP did dispel.
More or less this.
No. I said it many times throughout this thread - it's about awareness about what a number of PVP players want, not trying to change your minds. You don't have to agree at all. But please acknowledge there are people who will only be satisfied when they get a full PVP game. I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt though and assume you didn't see any of those messages.
You clearly didn't even read my post or just snipped the part that was convenient for you. I explitly acknowledged that griefers are part of the ecosystem in a full PVP game, but they're only part of it and it's not fair to accuse everyone who wants full PVP of living to harrass people who don't want any part of it.
Most people don't believe that everyone in OWPvP is a griefer. However thats irrelevant. Even if it is a tiny minority of griefers, they are doing it so often that the result is the same, a lot of griefing.
Yeh. Furthermore, even if it is not likely to meet a griefer, why would i even allow the possibility of meeting one?
No. I said it many times throughout this thread - it's about awareness about what a number of PVP players want, not trying to change your minds. You don't have to agree at all. But please acknowledge there are people who will only be satisfied when they get a full PVP game. I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt though and assume you didn't see any of those messages.
There are full pvp games: Eve, Darkfall, ....
You can want all you want .. but no one owes you a game. The market decides what is going to be produced. It is a simple matter of supply and demand.
And you are right, you won't change minds. That is not the point of this forum (or any internet forum).
The absence of a thing may not be proof that the thing cannot exist but the fact that it does not exist is absolute proof of its lack of existence. Your logic implies that just because pigs, or humans for that matter, do not currently fly this does not mean pigs or humans will not fly in the future. By that logic, then everything is possible ... because we don't know what's going to happen in the future.
I never claimed the logic I outlined was a total and complete worldview package.
I wouldn't say everything is possible because we don't know the future. That would be quite a sweeping statement. To extract that from my original statement you would have to extrapolate my statement beyond its intent from a statement about proof to a statement about existence. I made no claims on what can or cannot exist. Only on what is or is not proof of existence.
And back to my original claim and its relevance to the thread.
That no games exist with a certain pvp rules set is not proof that a certain pvp rules set cannot exist or is impossible. This does NOT imply that such a rules set is in any way possible. Only that it is not proven by such impossible.
You clearly didn't even read my post or just snipped the part that was convenient for you. I explitly acknowledged that griefers are part of the ecosystem in a full PVP game, but they're only part of it and it's not fair to accuse everyone who wants full PVP of living to harrass people who don't want any part of it.
Bidwell, I give you credit for attempting to discredit many of your "so called" myths, but as referenced by the responses by many of the PvE advocates on this thread, they vehemently disagree with you. Personally, I found all your points seriously lacking and was pretty much able to discredit your post after reading your first two "so called" myths.
1. You just want to grief me.
This is the self-centered argument of someone who was scarred for life in Ultima Online a decade ago and can’t move on. We actually don’t care if you play the game. In fact, if you dislike full PVP then we hope you don’t play
Yes you do care otherwise you and the rest of your pro FFA PvP brethren wouldn't be on these forums on a daily basis consistently lobbying for EQN to adopt an OW FFA PvP ruleset. You also would not have taken the time to create this thread.
and ~
Many players do dislike FFA PvP with a passion. To the extent that if EQN does implement an OW FFA PvP philosophy, they will in fact satisfy your hope and not play the game, as they have done with every other game that instituted an FFA PvP rule set.
2. “Why should I be forced to play your way? No one is forcing you to PVE.”
This makes it sound like you’re already a paying customer for a game and we’re pulling the rug out from under you. If a game is in development and you find out it has full PVP, you aren’t forced to do anything. You can simply play a different game. If you do play and get ganked, then you still made a conscious decision with regard to risk v.s. reward. And you lost. No one forced anything on you.
PvE gamers do usually play a different games, and they will do so again if EQN is FFA PvP ... as they have done with everyother game that instituted an FFA PvP rule set.
I can go on point by point, but what is the use. The above two responses pretty much say it all.
This is the self-centered argument of someone who was scarred for life in Ultima Online a decade ago and can’t move on. We actually don’t care if you play the game. In fact, if you dislike full PVP then we hope you don’t play
Yes you do care otherwise you and the rest of your pro FFA PvP brethren wouldn't be on these forums on a daily basis consistently lobbying for EQN to adopt an OW FFA PvP ruleset. You also would not have taken the time to create this thread.
I'm one of those brethren. I would like EQN to have been designed with an OW FFA PvP ruleset. I post about it quite frequently.
This does not mean in any way that I want you to play the game. I want you to play a game you will enjoy and only games you will enjoy. If it isn't your cup of tea there is no reason any of us should want you to play it. This doesn't mean i'm not going to talk about how much I would like to play it.
please, dear reader, do not assume I am assuming EQN will be like this. I am not.
The absence of a thing may not be proof that the thing cannot exist but the fact that it does not exist is absolute proof of its lack of existence. Your logic implies that just because pigs, or humans for that matter, do not currently fly this does not mean pigs or humans will not fly in the future. By that logic, then everything is possible ... because we don't know what's going to happen in the future.
I never claimed the logic I outlined was a total and complete worldview package.
I wouldn't say everything is possible because we don't know the future. That would be quite a sweeping statement. To extract that from my original statement you would have to extrapolate my statement beyond its intent from a statement about proof to a statement about existence. I made no claims on what can or cannot exist. Only on what is or is not proof of existence.
And back to my original claim and its relevance to the thread.
That no games exist with a certain pvp rules set is not proof that a certain pvp rules set cannot exist or is impossible. This does NOT imply that such a rules set is in any way possible. Only that it is not proven by such impossible.
Right!
Sort of like we haven't accomplished world peace to date either but ... that doesn't mean we will never have it? Or how about republicans and democrats ever coming together to agree to the same world policies? I don't mean to inject politics into this but it is necessary in an effort to point out that what is at issue here is inherent differences in deeply ingrained gaming philosophies. Proponents of PvE or PvE with consensual PvP and proponents of OW FFA PvP are of two different gaming mindsets and philosophies. The two simply do not mix. What is important to one gaming style is not to the other and vice versa. We can debate this issue till kingdom come but it will not change the fact. Period.
Sort of like we haven't accomplished world peace to date either but ... that doesn't mean we will never have it? Or how about republicans and democrats ever coming together to agree to the same world policies? I don't mean to inject politics into this but it is necessary in an effort to point out that what is at issue here is inherent differences in deeply ingrained gaming philosophies. Proponents of PvE or PvE with consensual PvP and proponents of OW FFA PvP are of two different gaming mindsets and philosophies. The two simply do not mix. What is important to one gaming style is not to the other and vice versa. We can debate this issue till kingdom come but it will not change the fact. Period.
Oh i'm not debating you on that. I see no error in your statement.
So with that and all you've said above I guess we can find some agreement.
I do hope that maybe the mindset we have now in the MMORPG community is a product of the types of games we have been playing, at least in some part, and maybe in time these mindsets can change. (you could throw this at the political statement as well i suppose)
But please acknowledge there are people who will only be satisfied when they get a full PVP game.
Yeah, and for how long?
If you had to invest $100 mill on developing an MMO, would you really put your faith in PvPers, who (as a crowd) seem to hate every game with or without PvP with a passion, and throw insults at every developer who has ever been involved in making PvP content?
Occasionally you can find PvEers who actually like games they play. I've played aprox 10 MMOs, most of them had some form of PvP and I have not seen a PvPer on a forum who I don't suspect have rabies yet.
If I was an investor, I would insist the game I payed for was not FFA PvP.
This is the self-centered argument of someone who was scarred for life in Ultima Online a decade ago and can’t move on. We actually don’t care if you play the game. In fact, if you dislike full PVP then we hope you don’t play
Yes you do care otherwise you and the rest of your pro FFA PvP brethren wouldn't be on these forums on a daily basis consistently lobbying for EQN to adopt an OW FFA PvP ruleset. You also would not have taken the time to create this thread.
I'm one of those brethren. I would like EQN to have been designed with an OW FFA PvP ruleset. I post about it quite frequently.
This does not mean in any way that I want you to play the game. I want you to play a game you will enjoy and only games you will enjoy. If it isn't your cup of tea there is no reason any of us should want you to play it. This doesn't mean i'm not going to talk about how much I would like to play it.
please, dear reader, do not assume I am assuming EQN will be like this. I am not.
This I can agree with and I hope you and your OW FFA PvP brethren get your wish and EQN is released with an OW FFA PvP rule set. The results of that decision by SOE will be very telling indeed. Having said that, i don't expect you to admit it but it is very difficult for me to accept that you would honestly believe that a decision by SOE to make EQN OW FFA PvP would be in their best long term financial interest.
This I can agree with and I hope you and your OW FFA PvP brethren get your wish and EQN is released with an OW FFA PvP rule set. The results of that decision by SOE will be very telling indeed. Having said that, i don't expect you to admit it but it is very difficult for me to accept that you would honestly believe that a decision by SOE to make EQN OW FFA PvP would be in their best long term financial interest.
The only thing I will admit in regards to that is I am wholly ignorant of what decision would be best for SOE's long term financial interests.
I can see both sides of the argument for and against it from a business perspective, but at the same time I do not have all the facts to make any actual rational judgment.
This I can agree with and I hope you and your OW FFA PvP brethren get your wish and EQN is released with an OW FFA PvP rule set. The results of that decision by SOE will be very telling indeed. Having said that, i don't expect you to admit it but it is very difficult for me to accept that you would honestly believe that a decision by SOE to make EQN OW FFA PvP would be in their best long term financial interest.
The only thing I will admit in regards to that is I am wholly ignorant of what decision would be best for SOE's long term financial interests.
I can see both sides of the argument for and against it from a business perspective, but at the same time I do not have all the facts to make any actual rational judgment.
I am not aware of the arguments for any company (SOE included) would believe that OW PvP would be a good business decision. I've not seen these presented in any of the numerous PvP threads on this site. I've voiced several of the arguments on the 'Against' side. Perhaps you would let us know why this environment would be a good thing from a business perspective?
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
This I can agree with and I hope you and your OW FFA PvP brethren get your wish and EQN is released with an OW FFA PvP rule set. The results of that decision by SOE will be very telling indeed. Having said that, i don't expect you to admit it but it is very difficult for me to accept that you would honestly believe that a decision by SOE to make EQN OW FFA PvP would be in their best long term financial interest.
The only thing I will admit in regards to that is I am wholly ignorant of what decision would be best for SOE's long term financial interests.
I can see both sides of the argument for and against it from a business perspective, but at the same time I do not have all the facts to make any actual rational judgment.
I appreciate your humbleness when faced with an honest response to this question but ... I have never found you lacking of an opinion otherwise. So why start now? Go ahead and go with your gut feeling. C'mon partner. You can do it!
I am not aware of the arguments for any company (SOE included) would believe that OW PvP would be a good business decision. I've not seen these presented in any of the numerous PvP threads on this site. I've voiced several of the arguments on the 'Against' side. Perhaps you would let us know why this environment would be a good thing from a business perspective?
I don't mind at all. I've seen one user use the car market as an example.. I think pointing out that lamborghini does not make family cars or commonly affordable cars, even though the largest group of car buyers wants affordable family cars. They found a bit of a sub-market that they can tap into and make money from while ignoring the larger market where their competition may be a lot more harsh.
This in no way is intended to discredit the "against" arguments as wrong, only as possibly one perspective. My overall point being that saying something like "Most people want X, so X will gather the most profit" is NOT a guarantee for the most success, even if you are delivering X to their specifications.
I am not aware of the arguments for any company (SOE included) would believe that OW PvP would be a good business decision. I've not seen these presented in any of the numerous PvP threads on this site. I've voiced several of the arguments on the 'Against' side. Perhaps you would let us know why this environment would be a good thing from a business perspective?
I don't mind at all. I've seen one user use the car market as an example.. I think pointing out that lamborghini does not make family cars or commonly affordable cars, even though the largest group of car buyers wants affordable family cars. They found a bit of a sub-market that they can tap into and make money from while ignoring the larger market where their competition may be a lot more harsh.
This in no way is intended to discredit the "against" arguments as wrong, only as possibly one perspective. My overall point being that saying something like "Most people want X, so X will gather the most profit" is NOT a guarantee for the most success, even if you are delivering X to their specifications.
Except that this approach would only support the notion of a niche market. I don't think anyone would disagree that owners of lamborghini's are certainly a niche group among car owners.
I just wish people that join PvP servers with any sort of FFA options would join them knowing what they are getting into.
Even in Tera, you can´t do any sort of PvP without getting ranted against and have entire grouos of players beg to pretty much make PvP servers become some sort of duelish PvE server.
If you like controlled, mutually agreed upon, fair, duel-like PvP simply go PvE.
If you join a FFA PvP game on a server that offers such, you KNOW what you expose yourself to.
I just wish people that join PvP servers with any sort of FFA options would join them knowing what they are getting into.
Even in Tera, you can´t do any sort of PvP without getting ranted against and have entire grouos of players beg to pretty much make PvP servers become some sort of duelish PvE server.
If you like controlled, mutually agreed upon, fair, duel-like PvP simply go PvE.
If you join a FFA PvP game on a server that offers such, you KNOW what you expose yourself to.
This is because IIRC, Tera only offers very structured PvE or PvP servers. There is a good portion of the PvE crowd that is not opposed to having some type of "consensual" PvP. This represents that portion of the TERA community that you speak of on your post. The operative word here is "consensual."
Comments
We are not.
I am not saying it is impossible. I am saying disagreeing and saying it is possible .. is moot. The market decides. If it is possible, but no one is making it, does it matter at all?
Thank you. This is the kind of post I was hoping for when I created the thread, which is "I see what you want and think you should go have it somewhere else even if it's not for me." The only thing I want to call you is "awesome".
pies are cool anyways back to reality.
Its amazing that still even when Blizzard have ruined allmost everything about pvp in wow with lfg tools and xserver playing etc,lots of pvprs left the game but even today pvp is more popular than pve servers.
So, did ESO have a successful launch? Yes, yes it did.By Ryan Getchell on April 02, 2014.
**On the radar: http://www.cyberpunk.net/ **
The absence of a thing may not be proof that the thing cannot exist but the fact that it does not exist is absolute proof of its lack of existence. Your logic implies that just because pigs, or humans for that matter, do not currently fly this does not mean pigs or humans will not fly in the future. By that logic, then everything is possible ... because we don't know what's going to happen in the future.
More or less this.
You clearly didn't even read my post or just snipped the part that was convenient for you. I explitly acknowledged that griefers are part of the ecosystem in a full PVP game, but they're only part of it and it's not fair to accuse everyone who wants full PVP of living to harrass people who don't want any part of it.
No. I said it many times throughout this thread - it's about awareness about what a number of PVP players want, not trying to change your minds. You don't have to agree at all. But please acknowledge there are people who will only be satisfied when they get a full PVP game. I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt though and assume you didn't see any of those messages.
Most people don't believe that everyone in OWPvP is a griefer. However thats irrelevant. Even if it is a tiny minority of griefers, they are doing it so often that the result is the same, a lot of griefing.
I hope you do get a full PvP game.
I don't see it happening though.
Yeh. Furthermore, even if it is not likely to meet a griefer, why would i even allow the possibility of meeting one?
There are full pvp games: Eve, Darkfall, ....
You can want all you want .. but no one owes you a game. The market decides what is going to be produced. It is a simple matter of supply and demand.
And you are right, you won't change minds. That is not the point of this forum (or any internet forum).
I never claimed the logic I outlined was a total and complete worldview package.
I wouldn't say everything is possible because we don't know the future. That would be quite a sweeping statement. To extract that from my original statement you would have to extrapolate my statement beyond its intent from a statement about proof to a statement about existence. I made no claims on what can or cannot exist. Only on what is or is not proof of existence.
And back to my original claim and its relevance to the thread.
That no games exist with a certain pvp rules set is not proof that a certain pvp rules set cannot exist or is impossible. This does NOT imply that such a rules set is in any way possible. Only that it is not proven by such impossible.
Bidwell, I give you credit for attempting to discredit many of your "so called" myths, but as referenced by the responses by many of the PvE advocates on this thread, they vehemently disagree with you. Personally, I found all your points seriously lacking and was pretty much able to discredit your post after reading your first two "so called" myths.
1. You just want to grief me.
Yes you do care otherwise you and the rest of your pro FFA PvP brethren wouldn't be on these forums on a daily basis consistently lobbying for EQN to adopt an OW FFA PvP ruleset. You also would not have taken the time to create this thread.
and ~
Many players do dislike FFA PvP with a passion. To the extent that if EQN does implement an OW FFA PvP philosophy, they will in fact satisfy your hope and not play the game, as they have done with every other game that instituted an FFA PvP rule set.
2. “Why should I be forced to play your way? No one is forcing you to PVE.”
PvE gamers do usually play a different games, and they will do so again if EQN is FFA PvP ... as they have done with everyother game that instituted an FFA PvP rule set.
I can go on point by point, but what is the use. The above two responses pretty much say it all.
I'm one of those brethren. I would like EQN to have been designed with an OW FFA PvP ruleset. I post about it quite frequently.
This does not mean in any way that I want you to play the game. I want you to play a game you will enjoy and only games you will enjoy. If it isn't your cup of tea there is no reason any of us should want you to play it. This doesn't mean i'm not going to talk about how much I would like to play it.
please, dear reader, do not assume I am assuming EQN will be like this. I am not.
Right!
Sort of like we haven't accomplished world peace to date either but ... that doesn't mean we will never have it? Or how about republicans and democrats ever coming together to agree to the same world policies? I don't mean to inject politics into this but it is necessary in an effort to point out that what is at issue here is inherent differences in deeply ingrained gaming philosophies. Proponents of PvE or PvE with consensual PvP and proponents of OW FFA PvP are of two different gaming mindsets and philosophies. The two simply do not mix. What is important to one gaming style is not to the other and vice versa. We can debate this issue till kingdom come but it will not change the fact. Period.
Oh i'm not debating you on that. I see no error in your statement.
So with that and all you've said above I guess we can find some agreement.
I do hope that maybe the mindset we have now in the MMORPG community is a product of the types of games we have been playing, at least in some part, and maybe in time these mindsets can change. (you could throw this at the political statement as well i suppose)
But i'm not counting on it, just hoping.
Yeah, and for how long?
If you had to invest $100 mill on developing an MMO, would you really put your faith in PvPers, who (as a crowd) seem to hate every game with or without PvP with a passion, and throw insults at every developer who has ever been involved in making PvP content?
Occasionally you can find PvEers who actually like games they play. I've played aprox 10 MMOs, most of them had some form of PvP and I have not seen a PvPer on a forum who I don't suspect have rabies yet.
If I was an investor, I would insist the game I payed for was not FFA PvP.
This I can agree with and I hope you and your OW FFA PvP brethren get your wish and EQN is released with an OW FFA PvP rule set. The results of that decision by SOE will be very telling indeed. Having said that, i don't expect you to admit it but it is very difficult for me to accept that you would honestly believe that a decision by SOE to make EQN OW FFA PvP would be in their best long term financial interest.
The only thing I will admit in regards to that is I am wholly ignorant of what decision would be best for SOE's long term financial interests.
I can see both sides of the argument for and against it from a business perspective, but at the same time I do not have all the facts to make any actual rational judgment.
I am not aware of the arguments for any company (SOE included) would believe that OW PvP would be a good business decision. I've not seen these presented in any of the numerous PvP threads on this site. I've voiced several of the arguments on the 'Against' side. Perhaps you would let us know why this environment would be a good thing from a business perspective?
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
I appreciate your humbleness when faced with an honest response to this question but ... I have never found you lacking of an opinion otherwise. So why start now? Go ahead and go with your gut feeling. C'mon partner. You can do it!
I don't mind at all. I've seen one user use the car market as an example.. I think pointing out that lamborghini does not make family cars or commonly affordable cars, even though the largest group of car buyers wants affordable family cars. They found a bit of a sub-market that they can tap into and make money from while ignoring the larger market where their competition may be a lot more harsh.
This post is my example I have used: http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/5857416#5857416
This in no way is intended to discredit the "against" arguments as wrong, only as possibly one perspective. My overall point being that saying something like "Most people want X, so X will gather the most profit" is NOT a guarantee for the most success, even if you are delivering X to their specifications.
Except that this approach would only support the notion of a niche market. I don't think anyone would disagree that owners of lamborghini's are certainly a niche group among car owners.
I just wish people that join PvP servers with any sort of FFA options would join them knowing what they are getting into.
Even in Tera, you can´t do any sort of PvP without getting ranted against and have entire grouos of players beg to pretty much make PvP servers become some sort of duelish PvE server.
If you like controlled, mutually agreed upon, fair, duel-like PvP simply go PvE.
If you join a FFA PvP game on a server that offers such, you KNOW what you expose yourself to.
This is because IIRC, Tera only offers very structured PvE or PvP servers. There is a good portion of the PvE crowd that is not opposed to having some type of "consensual" PvP. This represents that portion of the TERA community that you speak of on your post. The operative word here is "consensual."