Originally posted by Stupersting Even if its not enforced and you can play without ever experiencing it?
If it's not enforced and I never have to play it, fine with me. I'm not against other people playing however they enjoy playing, I simply do not wish it to be forced on me. However, in games where things like FFA PvP and permadeath are suggested, it's almost always presented as a mandatory thing. I don't want that. I'll find another game to play instead.
That's really not an appropriate or desirable behavior to reward players for, IMO. If players who PvP get inherent benefit in terms of loot they steal from their victims, shouldn't you be rewarding the players who refrain from PvPing for making the non-greedy, non-socially toxic choice?
Seems like you want more of a social engineering experiment than an RPG. Does it not make sense to you that if there are valuable resources that that is what people are going to fight over and that will make those areas dangerous? It has nothing to do with rewarding the *player* for doing something, it is rewarding the *character* for taking a risk. There's a huge difference.
Same reason I believe scamming within the game should be totally allowed and even encouraged. If you're a scammer or a d-bag pirate who takes my resources by force it's not something you the player are doing to me, it's something your character is doing to my character.
Oops I missed responding to this. It's not that I want social experiments, it's that any social interaction with rules, which includes all MMOs, is inherently a social experiment. There is a lot of evidence that gameplay rules affect player psychology and community feel. Some gameplay rules create toxic communities and provoke drama, while other rules can discourage and partially prevent these things. Personally I think players shouldn't be allowed to bully each other or steal from each other. Whether a character sees their player as an expression of themself or as a separate character doesn't really matter; it's the player who put in the time to earn what the character owns, and anything stolen from a character is stolen from a player. I definitely don't believe scamming or griefing should be allowed in a game (that I am playing; I don't care what's in games I don't want to play). I do agree that scamming is an accurate comparison to ffa pvp. It's logical that a game's rules should allow both or neither; it would be philosophically inconsistent to have one and not the other. My philosophy as a game designer and player is that games should avoid situations that make one player happy at the expense of making more than one player unhappy. Games are supposed to be fun for their players; the best mmo would be the most fun for the most players.
I want to help design and develop a PvE-focused, solo-friendly, sandpark MMO which combines crafting, monster hunting, and story. So PM me if you are starting one.
Oops I missed responding to this. It's not that I want social experiments, it's that any social interaction with rules, which includes all MMOs, is inherently a social experiment. There is a lot of evidence that gameplay rules affect player psychology and community feel. Some gameplay rules create toxic communities and provoke drama, while other rules can discourage and partially prevent these things. Personally I think players shouldn't be allowed to bully each other or steal from each other. Whether a character sees their player as an expression
Nothing wrong with that point of view as long as you don`t think all games should conform to it. I like some nice safe games llke that to exist as consequence laden PvP games are very stressful to me but there is a real risk in taking risks against actual humans that fighting NPCs just doesn`t give you. I don`t really like playing the `bad guy` in those sorts of games. Avoiding or beating the bad guys is much more fun for me.
Ideally I think there is plenty of room for both types of games to exist.
lol at people saying games without FFA pvp are "morally" better.... just like in real life where you have an invisible barrior keeping you from punching the person next to you, oh wait... nope thats not how it works
In FFA pvp games you get see who will really act like a scumbag and who wont... because they have a choice, and guess what, alot of them dont act like assholes.... Played lots of these games, and theres always some people that wont steal from you or grief you...
Oops I missed responding to this. It's not that I want social experiments, it's that any social interaction with rules, which includes all MMOs, is inherently a social experiment. There is a lot of evidence that gameplay rules affect player psychology and community feel. Some gameplay rules create toxic communities and provoke drama, while other rules can discourage and partially prevent these things. Personally I think players shouldn't be allowed to bully each other or steal from each other. Whether a character sees their player as an expression
Nothing wrong with that point of view as long as you don`t think all games should conform to it. I like some nice safe games llke that to exist as consequence laden PvP games are very stressful to me but there is a real risk in taking risks against actual humans that fighting NPCs just doesn`t give you. I don`t really like playing the `bad guy` in those sorts of games. Avoiding or beating the bad guys is much more fun for me.
Ideally I think there is plenty of room for both types of games to exist.
In reality though, the only place where there is enough room for both types of games is if developers and those that fund the developers decide there is enough money to be made in making one kind of game over the other. Just because, in theory, a developer could make both kinds of games, in reality, it all comes down to where the money is.
In reality though, the only place where there is enough room for both types of games is if developers and those that fund the developers decide there is enough money to be made in making one kind of game over the other. Just because, in theory, a developer could make both kinds of games, in reality, it all comes down to where the money is.
If you make all of one or all of the other, one market is gonna be over-saturated while the other will be neglected. That's exactly what's happening now with WoW clones. Devs need to look not only at what people want but what they want that they aren't already getting from other games.
I love FFA PVP, I've been into "Rust" lately, which is a server based 50-300 player Open World survival multiplayer game. Where you can construct your own fortresses and weapons and all the like. And when you run around in the world if you get killed, all your inventory you had on you during your death can be looted. So if you're not careful and don't store away your valuables you CANNOT lose but get caught, you're screwed. I like that danger, I miss it really, many old school MMO's had that danger. Games have become too cliche and hand holding to the new generation of gamers, more games need to have that dangerous factor. It provides that true "Virtual World" experience that many games lack.
Granted yes you may spend extra minutes just to find good shelter before you log off for the night so no one can kill you while you are offline, but hey, that's part of the fun. In rust, on some servers there's "Airdrops" enabled, where every morning/night a C-130 flies over the map and drops 1-3 crates of supplies, literally the whole server will rush to get the items first. And sometimes if everyone arrives at same time, it turns into a Hunger Games arena of massacre with gunfire/arrows/grenades flying everywhere. This is what more games need, the market may not be as large as the cookie cutter MMO's try to appease to. But more games like this would have a much larger longevity and I would gladly pay 15 a month for an old school experience such as this again. Too many of these cliche MMO's have to go F2P within 6 months, and then the DEV team gets slimmed down to 1/4 it's original size therefor hindering any actual real development as the Road Map originally planned.
In reality though, the only place where there is enough room for both types of games is if developers and those that fund the developers decide there is enough money to be made in making one kind of game over the other. Just because, in theory, a developer could make both kinds of games, in reality, it all comes down to where the money is.
If you make all of one or all of the other, one market is gonna be over-saturated while the other will be neglected. That's exactly what's happening now with WoW clones. Devs need to look not only at what people want but what they want that they aren't already getting from other games.
Yet they are still being made and they are still making money. There has to be enough demonstrable interest in a particular type of game for the developers to risk millions of dollars and years of their lives trying to make a game that appeals to that demographic. They're not going to try, just to see what happens. Until people demonstrably want non-WoW clones in very large numbers, nobody is going to risk making one.
This is all about money. It always was, it always will be.
There is no sectioned PvP in EVE. I've only ever been blown up in high sec., and I'm an industrialist who manufactures. As a member of Goonwaffe, living in null, I've never been blown up or felt safer, and I fly ships worth billions.
- There must firstly be the possibility of non-consensual PvP at anytime and place. Good Open world PvP never removes that. Only reduces the likely-hood of it in places where it would be counterproductive to other potential modes of play.
- Secondly, you have to allow players Consensual PvP Practically anywhere as part of the formula. This will let them skirt the rules when all parties agree that the rules should be negated in a given instance.
- Lastly it is important to give over a sense of control to the players. Player politics. Guilds that can hold true sway over the way things work. A flag system that with enough players chiming in can be used to temp mute or temp ban disruptive players (until what happened can be reviewed). Player moderators In game with more perma-abilities then a flag system (even have the populace elect their player Moderators). I know it sounds scary. But, I have seen it work first hand. When you give players the ability to establish law and order in a lawless land they will do so. And, in doing so take care of a lot of the more tedious work for you.
Yet they are still being made and they are still making money. There has to be enough demonstrable interest in a particular type of game for the developers to risk millions of dollars and years of their lives trying to make a game that appeals to that demographic. They're not going to try, just to see what happens. Until people demonstrably want non-WoW clones in very large numbers, nobody is going to risk making one.
It's already happening, only WildStar of all the games I've heard about which are coming out is really a WoW clone and the vast majority of recent WoW clones that have come out recently have flopped financially to a greater or lesser degree. It doesn't mean that there's no longer a market for that kind of game but the market is saturated with choices.
Yet they are still being made and they are still making money. There has to be enough demonstrable interest in a particular type of game for the developers to risk millions of dollars and years of their lives trying to make a game that appeals to that demographic. They're not going to try, just to see what happens. Until people demonstrably want non-WoW clones in very large numbers, nobody is going to risk making one.
It's already happening, only WildStar of all the games I've heard about which are coming out is really a WoW clone and the vast majority of recent WoW clones that have come out recently have flopped financially to a greater or lesser degree. It doesn't mean that there's no longer a market for that kind of game but the market is saturated with choices.
Can you prove that the titles you speak of flopped specifically due to following WoW's design, or for some other reason?
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
It's already happening, only WildStar of all the games I've heard about which are coming out is really a WoW clone and the vast majority of recent WoW clones that have come out recently have flopped financially to a greater or lesser degree. It doesn't mean that there's no longer a market for that kind of game but the market is saturated with choices.
uh .. didn't GW2 do very well .. in fact, "fastest selling MMO" well. Both marvel heroes and STO are adding content, and no sign of slowing down.
And what is wrong with "saturated with choices". I like choices. That is good for consumers, at least while it lasts.
It's already happening, only WildStar of all the games I've heard about which are coming out is really a WoW clone and the vast majority of recent WoW clones that have come out recently have flopped financially to a greater or lesser degree. It doesn't mean that there's no longer a market for that kind of game but the market is saturated with choices.
And what is wrong with "saturated with choices". I like choices. That is good for consumers, at least while it lasts.
GW2 went out of its way to say how innovative it was. While after playing it I do think it's more of a WoW-like game than they portrayed it as there are certainly still some big changes to the formula.
STO failed as a subscription game which means it wasn't as successful as they wanted it to be and they put it on F2P just to get something out of it. It also really failed at actually feeling like Star Trek to me and most people I've heard talk about it.
Saturated with choices is good if they're varied choices, if it's all very similar choices it just becomes annoying and most people will stick with what they know.
It's already happening, only WildStar of all the games I've heard about which are coming out is really a WoW clone and the vast majority of recent WoW clones that have come out recently have flopped financially to a greater or lesser degree. It doesn't mean that there's no longer a market for that kind of game but the market is saturated with choices.
And what is wrong with "saturated with choices". I like choices. That is good for consumers, at least while it lasts.
GW2 went out of its way to say how innovative it was. While after playing it I do think it's more of a WoW-like game than they portrayed it as there are certainly still some big changes to the formula.
STO failed as a subscription game which means it wasn't as successful as they wanted it to be and they put it on F2P just to get something out of it. It also really failed at actually feeling like Star Trek to me and most people I've heard talk about it.
Saturated with choices is good if they're varied choices, if it's all very similar choices it just becomes annoying and most people will stick with what they know.
What similar choices?
I found that fighting as dare devil in Marvel heroes, doing star ship combat in STO, and fantasy combat in GW2 totally different.
If they are similar, you may as well say Bioshock, dead space, and Dishonored are all the same because you can shoot your enemy.
For those this deep in the thread and not GW2 players, or fans, please take note:
GW2 introduced the first combination of target and fire abilities along with skill based aiming. For example, smart players can dodge your arrows, as not all shots are guaranteed to hit as in WoW. Melee attacks can be targeted, however you miss out on some key subtleties when using the auto-target features.
GW2 is a 10/10. They brought everything to the table. The only thing they don't have is challenge. It is a fun, themepark-ish mmorpg. It is polished beyond anything current. It is deep in its systems beyond anything current.
I don't know why I am defending GW2 in an EVE-style-FFA-PvP thread except that GW2 failed in not having hardcore open world PvP. If they had just one full-PvP in every zone style server (and I haven't checked in months and months on GW2 at all), I would be playing it still right now.
GW2 is some satisfying gameplay. I just need more challenge outside of a fixed arena where my actions don't matter. I am currently playing Arma3 mod: Breaking Point, and Breaking Point is pretty much everything hardcore PvP. If there were at least some open-world elements to GW2 PvP I'd be back in no time. But until then, it sits at the top of my all-time-enjoyed games at a 10/10.
This video sums it up, and is a hugely popular video, heck I even watched it more than once.
I found that fighting as dare devil in Marvel heroes, doing star ship combat in STO, and fantasy combat in GW2 totally different.
If they are similar, you may as well say Bioshock, dead space, and Dishonored are all the same because you can shoot your enemy.
I don't think they're similar, you brought it up to apparently disprove my point that the market is saturated with WoW clones and that those games usually fail financially at least according to what their creators hope for.
Honestly I don't know why you brought up the 3 games you did (and sorry this is getting way off topic from the EVE PvP discussion...)
All that complex crafting gone to waste by the very population that doesn't appreciate it, and even detests the very thing that makes their PvP possible.
That is an absurd statement. Seriously.
it's the PvP that makes crafting meaningful. If ships didn't get blown up all the time, and only PvP can accomplish that since people will always find ways to abuse and get around even the toughest PvE systems, the crafters would not be able to sell their stuff.
Also, while many may EVE players hate crafting since it's boring as hell, it's pretty darn easy to find a group where crafters are appreciated.
Originally posted by nethaniah
Seriously Farmville? Yeah I think it's great. In a World where half our population is dying of hunger the more fortunate half is spending their time harvesting food that doesn't exist.
I would like to see an avatar based (vs. EVE's spaceships based) mmorpg where around 1/3 is PvE, 1/3 is traditional open world "faction vs. faction" PvP and the last 1/3 is lawless territory with FFA PvP. Ofcourse all the game mechanics would be designed and balanced around this model where all players would play in the same kind of shard(s) with just this one ruleset catereing to all types of players.
All that complex crafting gone to waste by the very population that doesn't appreciate it, and even detests the very thing that makes their PvP possible.
That is an absurd statement. Seriously.
it's the PvP that makes crafting meaningful. If ships didn't get blown up all the time, and only PvP can accomplish that since people will always find ways to abuse and get around even the toughest PvE systems, the crafters would not be able to sell their stuff.
Also, while many may EVE players hate crafting since it's boring as hell, it's pretty darn easy to find a group where crafters are appreciated.
High sec AFK miner/manufacturer been suicide ganked, that's all
Yet they are still being made and they are still making money. There has to be enough demonstrable interest in a particular type of game for the developers to risk millions of dollars and years of their lives trying to make a game that appeals to that demographic. They're not going to try, just to see what happens. Until people demonstrably want non-WoW clones in very large numbers, nobody is going to risk making one.
It's already happening, only WildStar of all the games I've heard about which are coming out is really a WoW clone and the vast majority of recent WoW clones that have come out recently have flopped financially to a greater or lesser degree. It doesn't mean that there's no longer a market for that kind of game but the market is saturated with choices.
They're not flopping financially, they are making money for their developers. They're just not doing what you want them to be doing, which is a problem for you but not for the developers. If there was a market for the game you wanted, someone would have already made it by now. The fact that they haven't proves that nobody considers that kind of game financially viable.
Comments
If it's not enforced and I never have to play it, fine with me. I'm not against other people playing however they enjoy playing, I simply do not wish it to be forced on me. However, in games where things like FFA PvP and permadeath are suggested, it's almost always presented as a mandatory thing. I don't want that. I'll find another game to play instead.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
Oops I missed responding to this. It's not that I want social experiments, it's that any social interaction with rules, which includes all MMOs, is inherently a social experiment. There is a lot of evidence that gameplay rules affect player psychology and community feel. Some gameplay rules create toxic communities and provoke drama, while other rules can discourage and partially prevent these things. Personally I think players shouldn't be allowed to bully each other or steal from each other. Whether a character sees their player as an expression of themself or as a separate character doesn't really matter; it's the player who put in the time to earn what the character owns, and anything stolen from a character is stolen from a player. I definitely don't believe scamming or griefing should be allowed in a game (that I am playing; I don't care what's in games I don't want to play). I do agree that scamming is an accurate comparison to ffa pvp. It's logical that a game's rules should allow both or neither; it would be philosophically inconsistent to have one and not the other. My philosophy as a game designer and player is that games should avoid situations that make one player happy at the expense of making more than one player unhappy. Games are supposed to be fun for their players; the best mmo would be the most fun for the most players.
Nothing wrong with that point of view as long as you don`t think all games should conform to it. I like some nice safe games llke that to exist as consequence laden PvP games are very stressful to me but there is a real risk in taking risks against actual humans that fighting NPCs just doesn`t give you. I don`t really like playing the `bad guy` in those sorts of games. Avoiding or beating the bad guys is much more fun for me.
Ideally I think there is plenty of room for both types of games to exist.
lol at people saying games without FFA pvp are "morally" better.... just like in real life where you have an invisible barrior keeping you from punching the person next to you, oh wait... nope thats not how it works
In FFA pvp games you get see who will really act like a scumbag and who wont... because they have a choice, and guess what, alot of them dont act like assholes.... Played lots of these games, and theres always some people that wont steal from you or grief you...
If it is guaranteed that i can play without ever experiencing it .. sure .. but that is essentially saying it is not there.
If there is a chance that i will encounter it, i will pass. There are plenty of games without FFA pvp, i don't need to chance it at any game.
In reality though, the only place where there is enough room for both types of games is if developers and those that fund the developers decide there is enough money to be made in making one kind of game over the other. Just because, in theory, a developer could make both kinds of games, in reality, it all comes down to where the money is.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
If you make all of one or all of the other, one market is gonna be over-saturated while the other will be neglected. That's exactly what's happening now with WoW clones. Devs need to look not only at what people want but what they want that they aren't already getting from other games.
Progression will determine the type and quality of pvp available.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
I love FFA PVP, I've been into "Rust" lately, which is a server based 50-300 player Open World survival multiplayer game. Where you can construct your own fortresses and weapons and all the like. And when you run around in the world if you get killed, all your inventory you had on you during your death can be looted. So if you're not careful and don't store away your valuables you CANNOT lose but get caught, you're screwed. I like that danger, I miss it really, many old school MMO's had that danger. Games have become too cliche and hand holding to the new generation of gamers, more games need to have that dangerous factor. It provides that true "Virtual World" experience that many games lack.
Granted yes you may spend extra minutes just to find good shelter before you log off for the night so no one can kill you while you are offline, but hey, that's part of the fun. In rust, on some servers there's "Airdrops" enabled, where every morning/night a C-130 flies over the map and drops 1-3 crates of supplies, literally the whole server will rush to get the items first. And sometimes if everyone arrives at same time, it turns into a Hunger Games arena of massacre with gunfire/arrows/grenades flying everywhere. This is what more games need, the market may not be as large as the cookie cutter MMO's try to appease to. But more games like this would have a much larger longevity and I would gladly pay 15 a month for an old school experience such as this again. Too many of these cliche MMO's have to go F2P within 6 months, and then the DEV team gets slimmed down to 1/4 it's original size therefor hindering any actual real development as the Road Map originally planned.
TwitchTV: iNeoki
Yet they are still being made and they are still making money. There has to be enough demonstrable interest in a particular type of game for the developers to risk millions of dollars and years of their lives trying to make a game that appeals to that demographic. They're not going to try, just to see what happens. Until people demonstrably want non-WoW clones in very large numbers, nobody is going to risk making one.
This is all about money. It always was, it always will be.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
Is this a trick question?
There is no sectioned PvP in EVE. I've only ever been blown up in high sec., and I'm an industrialist who manufactures. As a member of Goonwaffe, living in null, I've never been blown up or felt safer, and I fly ships worth billions.
I don't get the question.
I feel If a game is to have good open world PvP:
- There must firstly be the possibility of non-consensual PvP at anytime and place. Good Open world PvP never removes that. Only reduces the likely-hood of it in places where it would be counterproductive to other potential modes of play.
- Secondly, you have to allow players Consensual PvP Practically anywhere as part of the formula. This will let them skirt the rules when all parties agree that the rules should be negated in a given instance.
- Lastly it is important to give over a sense of control to the players. Player politics. Guilds that can hold true sway over the way things work. A flag system that with enough players chiming in can be used to temp mute or temp ban disruptive players (until what happened can be reviewed). Player moderators In game with more perma-abilities then a flag system (even have the populace elect their player Moderators). I know it sounds scary. But, I have seen it work first hand. When you give players the ability to establish law and order in a lawless land they will do so. And, in doing so take care of a lot of the more tedious work for you.
It's already happening, only WildStar of all the games I've heard about which are coming out is really a WoW clone and the vast majority of recent WoW clones that have come out recently have flopped financially to a greater or lesser degree. It doesn't mean that there's no longer a market for that kind of game but the market is saturated with choices.
Can you prove that the titles you speak of flopped specifically due to following WoW's design, or for some other reason?
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
uh .. didn't GW2 do very well .. in fact, "fastest selling MMO" well. Both marvel heroes and STO are adding content, and no sign of slowing down.
And what is wrong with "saturated with choices". I like choices. That is good for consumers, at least while it lasts.
GW2 went out of its way to say how innovative it was. While after playing it I do think it's more of a WoW-like game than they portrayed it as there are certainly still some big changes to the formula.
STO failed as a subscription game which means it wasn't as successful as they wanted it to be and they put it on F2P just to get something out of it. It also really failed at actually feeling like Star Trek to me and most people I've heard talk about it.
Saturated with choices is good if they're varied choices, if it's all very similar choices it just becomes annoying and most people will stick with what they know.
What similar choices?
I found that fighting as dare devil in Marvel heroes, doing star ship combat in STO, and fantasy combat in GW2 totally different.
If they are similar, you may as well say Bioshock, dead space, and Dishonored are all the same because you can shoot your enemy.
For those this deep in the thread and not GW2 players, or fans, please take note:
GW2 introduced the first combination of target and fire abilities along with skill based aiming. For example, smart players can dodge your arrows, as not all shots are guaranteed to hit as in WoW. Melee attacks can be targeted, however you miss out on some key subtleties when using the auto-target features.
GW2 is a 10/10. They brought everything to the table. The only thing they don't have is challenge. It is a fun, themepark-ish mmorpg. It is polished beyond anything current. It is deep in its systems beyond anything current.
I don't know why I am defending GW2 in an EVE-style-FFA-PvP thread except that GW2 failed in not having hardcore open world PvP. If they had just one full-PvP in every zone style server (and I haven't checked in months and months on GW2 at all), I would be playing it still right now.
GW2 is some satisfying gameplay. I just need more challenge outside of a fixed arena where my actions don't matter. I am currently playing Arma3 mod: Breaking Point, and Breaking Point is pretty much everything hardcore PvP. If there were at least some open-world elements to GW2 PvP I'd be back in no time. But until then, it sits at the top of my all-time-enjoyed games at a 10/10.
This video sums it up, and is a hugely popular video, heck I even watched it more than once.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ax-_06Acj8Y&noredirect=1
I don't think they're similar, you brought it up to apparently disprove my point that the market is saturated with WoW clones and that those games usually fail financially at least according to what their creators hope for.
Honestly I don't know why you brought up the 3 games you did (and sorry this is getting way off topic from the EVE PvP discussion...)
That is an absurd statement. Seriously.
it's the PvP that makes crafting meaningful. If ships didn't get blown up all the time, and only PvP can accomplish that since people will always find ways to abuse and get around even the toughest PvE systems, the crafters would not be able to sell their stuff.
Also, while many may EVE players hate crafting since it's boring as hell, it's pretty darn easy to find a group where crafters are appreciated.
High sec AFK miner/manufacturer been suicide ganked, that's all
They're not flopping financially, they are making money for their developers. They're just not doing what you want them to be doing, which is a problem for you but not for the developers. If there was a market for the game you wanted, someone would have already made it by now. The fact that they haven't proves that nobody considers that kind of game financially viable.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None