Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Another take on the problem with FFA PVP in MMOs
jonrd463
Member UncommonPosts: 607
This is going to be tl;dr for some people. If that is the case, just move on. You gain nothing, nor do you add anything significant to the conversation by oh-so helpfully informing me it's too long and you did not read it.
With ArcheAge's Alpha going on, I've been reading the same old PVP/Carebear arguments that crop up and are pretty much a mainstay here, and I've had these thoughts running through my head for some time. I had some free time and was finally able to put them to text, so here it goes.
I think it starts with a designer's vision. Since I do not claim to read minds, allow me to examine this as if I was the designer and build my case from that perspective. Suppose I have an idea for a sandbox MMO that has all the features people want. Since I am partial to the fantasy setting, imagine it something like a combination of Darkfall, ArcheAge, and Ultima Online, along with borrowed gameplay systems from golden age SWG. It's a game where you can be anything, do anything, and play however you want. There will be PVP with full loot.
My intent is for people to immerse themselves into the world; to really roleplay it as if they are a human, elf, dwarf, whatever in this vast fantasy setting, respecting that there is a society that will develop. Sure, there will be the bandits, knaves, and general bad actors in the mix, but even they get into the spirit of things. There will be a time for cruelty and a time for mercy. Diplomacy amongst the various player factions would be just as viable as all out war in solving conflicts. Crafters would have a home in this game. Fishermen, merchants, loremasters, sellswords, and just regular tradesfolk are all roles people could easily play, as the game would be set up to allow for that kind of freedom. Obviously, there would be the magic users, archers, warriors, brawlers, thieves, clerics-- the usual suspects among traditional roleplaying classes. But these too would be open and customizable.
Once the game gets into Alpha, press releases and previews would be issued. Hype would start to develop. Forum posts saying things like "All I've ever wanted in a game is to live in a world and do whatever I wanted with freedom." would appear. Theorycrafting would start up as more and more details were released. Guilds of all types would already start to form in the forums, including adventurers, traders, crafters, mercenaries, etc. People would start to wonder if there would be roleplaying servers, and I would state in no uncertain terms that the game itself is for roleplaying, so no need for a dedicated server. I would assure those folks that the game is marketed specifically for them.
This would ignite the usual carebear vs. PKer arguments, and I would assure the PKer types that yes, there is PVP, but the hope is that players would keep with the spirit of the setting and the roles they are playing. As a designer, I would start to feel a little apprehension at this point, but development would continue.
There would be no alpha access. Instead, an open beta would start and go for about three months or so, giving players ample time to break the game to squash bugs and glitches over a wide range of PC builds and configurations.
Player reviews start to trickle in-- "Great game! I love the freedom!", "Game's pretty good, but it needs work in _________. Will see how things go through beta.", "PVP is awesome! Me and my guild was out in [X area] and had an all out battle with another guild. Intense!", "I love how the crafting is done. I've already set up a shop in [Anytown] and making sweet profits.", "Sooo many RP opportunities. The tavern atmosphere is great. It reminds me of how I imagine the Prancing Pony or Inn of the Last Home!", "Fucking carebears will ruin this game.", "Fucking PVPers will ruin this game."
At this point, the problems from my point of view become apparent. Those who are getting into the game world, getting immersed in their characters and truly roleplaying are generally having a decent time. Those with the extreme points of view of "NO VIOLENCE EVER!" or "WAAAAUUGHHHH!!!!" cannot seem to shake their need to be meta. On the one hand, the game is supposed to represent a world where violence can and will happen, but on the other, the intent is that people may want to try to talk themselves out of a situation with diplomacy, and neither side of the extreme is willing to budge. The true "no violence, PERIOD!" carebear types aren't willing to try to take prudent steps to provide the most basic protections for themselves, and the sociopathic "All PK, all the time!" types aren't willing to entertain non- or at least less-violent approaches, and want all limitations on their ability to kill whoever, whenever, wherever removed from the game.
The flaw here is not limited to the game itself, but also the players-- at least the extremes.
Now let me digress here for a moment to examine why we, here in the real world, live in what is mostly a civil society. We have laws and customs that guide us throughout our lives. Generally speaking, we do not kill, rob, or terrorize because societal mores and laws say that one does not do these things, because loss of freedom, property, and in the more grievous instances, life can be given as punishment for crimes. Sure, crimes are committed every minute of every day, and more often than not, the criminal is brought to justice, with only a fraction of criminals ever truly being able to get away with it. These are real, visceral consequences, and are enough to deter a society from sinking into anarchy.
The problem with MMOs is there is no real deterrent to bad behavior. And by bad, I mean wholesale ganking of a non-combatant, or pursuing, attacking, and killing another player out of any sort of roleplaying context, such as a state of war existing among guilds and factions, ESPECIALLY if the pursued has made every gesture of appeasement possible from straight up diplomacy to "Here, take my wallet, just do not kill me!"
One argument I've heard defending that sort of behavior is "Yes, but it's a dangerous world out there, and there are people who kill for fun." True, but proportionate to the game population, and the statistical likelihood that you would run into them are far, far greater than this dangerous world we live in. Few of the extreme PK types ever actually roleplay their characters, and it's usually just an attempt to dominate another person for the sheer hell of it. Maybe they had a crappy day and want to take it out on someone. The problem I see is that sort of stress relieving activity is perfectly fine in an FPS game, where it's kill or be killed from the outset, but in a RPG where the game gives a person the ability to play a peaceful farmer? Not so much. The extreme PKer just sees them as fish in a barrel.
I make the distinction "extreme PKer" because there is nothing wrong with PVP/PK in general, as long as its in keeping with the setting of the game, and not someone's bitter, rage-induced banging of a Doritos grease coated keyboard. This is something the extreme carebears need to understand as well. Now, I've used the term "carebear" quite a bit here, and I understand that it's usually thrown out as an epithet. For purposes of clarity, my definition of a carebear is someone who not only is averse to violence, but is as pathological in their desire to remove violence from all players' gameplay as the PKer is of removing their limitations for wholesale slaughter.
So, back to my game idea, my solution would be similar in spirit to ArcheAge's trial system, but have hefty consequences in line with "an eye for an eye". After an arbitrary amount of player kills against non-combatants (would be flagged as such by their role, e.g. "Farmer", "Merchant", etc.), and those who are not in a state of guild/faction war with the PKer, the offender would be brought to trial and stripped of all their belongings as restitution, divided in terms of monetary value to the victims. I like ten as a good round number. Let the PKer get their kill on to a point before having to suffer the consequences, but make those consequences really hurt. Which brings me to the second set of ten kills of non-combatants which would end in a trial with a permadeath sentence.
This way, the psychopathic ganker type would still be able to get a limited amount of their gank on, the carebears would still have to take steps to figure out protection for themselves, but maybe efforts would be made by the players to moderate the more extreme behavior, lest that counter tick off kill number ten or twenty and they potentially lose it all.
"You'll never win an argument with an idiot because he is too stupid to recognize his own defeat." ~Anonymous
Comments
This is just another PvP wet dream you have here. And this is not really a new take. Any time you assume that players in a game will behave rationally or according to a ruleset, then you are being naive. Its simple enough to talk about games like this. But the dearth of open sandbox games speaks volume for how difficult it is to put into practice.
Basically you are saying " 10 free ganks and after that you lose everything, you naughty boy! " And somehow naively, you think that this makes everything peachy in an open world PvP game?
Here is what I see happening:
-The ganker takes his 10 free ganks, has a good chuckle and then either rolls a new toon, or says, screw this, this game sucks, I quit.
-The farmer, after being ganked for the tenth time and losing everything, says the same thing. I quit, this game sucks.
How is this fun for anyone?
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
Your problem is expecting the majority to work in a rational and reasonable manner.
The best Open World PvP I ever saw was the one used in SWG where people had Open World PvP including attacking each others fortifications with a opt in or out flag.
Some people kept it always active and some had it forced active (Jedi) but basically PvP was a lot of fun and people who wanted to just enjoy the game without PvP could do so.
You raise good points. The scenario was really just a longwinded basis for asking "What do games need to do differently to satisfy the desires of the greatest range of play styles, with regard to PVP?" I created the hypothetical situation to describe something that could have meaningful consequences for the bottom barrel PVP scum that ruin games in just the way you described. I had considered using 5 instead of 10.
The fact is, rarely does a ganker have to suffer the same level of consequence as the ganked. Especially if the ganked is someone who spent all his time, for example, raising crops to create trade goods to sell, while the ganker powerlevelled all his combat skills for the sole purpose of PKing. The ganked, in this case has everything to lose.
Games don't do meaningful consequences. Even ArcheAge's trial system is a joke, and the jail is pretty much a game within the game. It would be like sending people to serve a sentence in Disney World.
Games rely too much on the good sense of players, and that's the one thing many players lack. There's no grey area with PVP. It is always about player killing. In fact, the very acronym PVP should really be wiped from the MMO lexicon and replaced with just PK, because PVP could apply to diplomatic strategy. It's a rare occasion that opposing players should meet in the field in a open PVP game and both walk away from the encounter whole.
Instead, it plays out almost like it's an instinct. Just earlier today, I was watching a Twitch stream from Trion showcasing travel options in ArcheAge. In one part, one of the hosts spawned a farming tractor that just so happened to be on the opposite faction of the area they were in. Immediately, within seconds, some people starting wailing on it like a yellowjacket on a Coke can, for no other reason than because it was there. There was no threat. It wasn't an implement of war. It's FARMING EQUIPMENT, and yet those players felt the need to attack it because fuck whoever owned it.
That mentality is so pervasive in PVP games that I don't think there will ever be a situation where players will have the good sense to establish basic rules of engagement and decorum on the battlefield.
I take from your post that you may have assumed I'm a PVP guy trying to find a way to squeeze random ganks out of hapless non-combat characters. I hope this clears that up some.
"You'll never win an argument with an idiot because he is too stupid to recognize his own defeat." ~Anonymous
I liked the idea behind Darkfalls system..
Just a simple system that would flag the player red if he killed to many people, doing this would basically stop that player benig able to enter the main cities and would allow everyone to know what he was.
At the very start of darkfall this worked well.. first month people needed to use the main cities for everything and if a player flagged as red was spotted near a city then everyone in local chat would shout out and tell people.. this would lead to gangs running around hunting down the red player.
Sadly this did not last long as with many things in Darkfall the system was broke.. as soon as players built their own cities it did not matter if you got flagged as red or not because there was no need to go to the starter towns.. also the system was broke as people got flagged red when fighting in clan wars.
But for a very short time it worked and normal players not wanting to kill everyone helped to police the starter areas and it was good fun..
I think a similar system would work fine but players would need a big reason to go to the starter towns.. Something like the main towns being the only safe trade hubs available or something along those lines.
I think this post shows a fundimental problem in certain players in open world pvp games:
1- The griefers, the kind of players who don't want to truly pvp or even be real pirates or criminals, given the chance. They seek only to ruin the experience for everyone, and given the chance, they'll pk civilians, same faction members and basically use any means to keep avoiding problems, like making alts and different accounts.
2- The whiny non pvp'ers. Yup, whiny, because the reality of what i see from many players who are against pvp is that they over-react to getting ganked. The thing is, ganking isn't griefing, it's simpy attacking players provided the change. Unfortunatly, even if non pvp'ers don't lose anything, don't lose much time, and can't even suffer many consequences, they'll still over-react.
In the end, players ask for freedom, but can't either control themselves or deal with the reality of it. And by losing non pvp'ers,you end up mostly with a large scale pvp arena.
I think that for an owpvp mmo to truly work for more "mainstream" appeal, if would need to simply cut off pvp from pve. Not on a zoned level, but more on a flagged level. Otherwise, the complaining over a bunch of pixels would be huge.
... I don't think even the most extreme carebear wants to 'remove violence from all players' gameplay'. I think you're confusing MMO players with the sort of talking heads on TV that talk about how violence in games causes kids to go on school shootings.
An 'extreme carebear' just simply doesn't want any violence from other players to happen to THEM. That's not what they're there for. That's not the kind of game they wish to engage in. And they will go through some pretty badass techniques to avoid it.
People laugh and mock the 'ineffectual carebear whining', but they are capable of removing limitless open world pvp from almost every single major game, through the sheer power of their big billfolds. It's only ineffectual if it doesn't work.
The die was cast when it was decided not to punish griefers, that griefing was a legitimate method of playing (along with exploiting/botting/etc). D-bag players ran off their sheep by virtue of a good example of the Tragedy of the Commons, and pvp games have never recovered (and likely never will). Players are used to getting by with everything, from filthy chat language to cheating and everything in-between, and any attempt to put that cat back in the bag will be met with howls that will shake corporate offices to their very foundations.
It's interesting; in a way, it is exactly what everyone asked for. Consequences in games. Unfortunately, the consequences weren't quite what people thought they would be. They killed the Golden Goose, and it isn't coming back to life.
Only a small, niche game with HEAVY utilization of banning and policing of over-the-line activity will ever have a chance of bridging that gap now, imo. I think it could, and it could even grow as people realized that the developers were serious about no cheating/griefing/botting/exploiting/et al, but no one has stepped up to the plate to do it. I highly doubt anyone ever will, either.
First of all.. as i have read the OP he really doesn't want a pvp game, but more a realisticly virtual world. There is a difference.. because in a pvp game you usually do everything to make pvp happen, and to make it engaging. He tries to make the world realistic, immersive, with a sense of danger, but without senseless slaugthering.
But beside of that, your two examples are still hold true. And basicly you can't please everyone.. so some will leave anyway, but you could improve the system of the OP, that those problems don't exist that often.
A good lesson we learned is, that you have to look to include some important parts.
a) predictability
b) diversity
One key part in my opinion is, to have different level of security, and withit a few parts of the world, where you can pvp without consequences, and others with very hefty and even very direct consequences(diversity), and make those areas clearly marked as what they are and therefore predictable.
I posted in the past a ruleset for a server, where you could reach those to some extent.. i will quote myself:
What would be the difference or the advantage in this setup?
With more security zones you will have a) diversity and b) predictability and it will still be dynamic, because the state of every zone can change. And with more kind of security zones you can penalize a lot more, a lot direct(like after the first commitment of a crime) as in a system with less zones(zones with different security levels).. and it will be more tolerable(for both sides) and predictable enough.
In EvE safe zones you will get killed instantly by commiting a crime, as it should be in the most secure zone.. and then you can even punish them more like gold fines, like losing factions rights(and withit those criminals are not able to enter those faction without getting killed on sight in the even less secure zones bordering those very secure zone) and other stuff. But in the same time there are enough wilderness zones(full pvp without punishment, or with less punishment), where those criminals could live and exist. And by punish them the first time, those very secure zones will be actually very secure.
One zone above(in security level) crimes could be commited uncaught, but there is still dangerous to commit any crime and the punishment, if you get caught may be as harsh as in the most secure zones. Here it will be rather safe, but crimes will happen(because for the thrill to not get caught), and for the carebears, but lets call them peaceful citizens, will now know rather exactly how much danger is in this area, and can(when they wish) avoid them. But in those zones robbery, pickpocketing and burglary could have a place, and it would be for some kind of players a excitment. And it could still be intersting for peaceful players, because in this not so safe zone, the price for land will be a lot lower, and there may be some more valuable resources. But everyone knows before, what can happen, and he has a choice to avoid it.
And zones even more less security would be those zones, where you can pvp without troubling with any, or much consequences.. peaceful citizen will avoid those zones, but in those zones the war between factions willl happen, and pvp players(not so much pks) can pvp without to worry about those peaceful citizens.
With other words you would have more predictability, so that everyone could choose how much danger, or security he do wish, but you also offer enough diversity to offer all kind of players those playstyle they desire... and it would be very immersive and rather realistic to have all place for different kind of roleplaying... even to play a real thief or burglar, without making it completely a pain in the ass for the victims. (because they get higher rewards, but have to take more risk.. and they know it before and have a choice to look for a more secure home). And because everything is in flow, every zone can change their security level, borders can change, you get a very dynamic world were everything is in flow and it will become a more virtual living world.. at least theoretically. The question much more is.. will we get something like that? Will we get MMOs, which try to improve systems like we know from EvE? Pathfinder Online is not exactly like that above, but still tries to redefine and enhance the system of EvE for a more virtuall world.. but again, it will be just a Indy Game with the limits of a Indy game(graphically and production value overall).
My two cents to the topic.
I have to disagree with you here.
There is a clear difference between pvp and pk.
PvP is usually a fight between to players agreeing to fight against each other(best example is war between two realms, factions or guilds). And you have to have make room for it.. like border zones, where it is actually war.. and pvp is all over the place.. but everyone entering those borderlands knows exactly that.. and withit agrees to pvp.
Pk on the other side is, if someone kills another player not prepared, not willingly to pvp with him at that moment. So Pk and PvP are absolutely different. But Pk often servers one purpose.. the purpose to create a sense of danger, to make some more pve activities(like gathering resources) dangerous, challenging and difficult, and with that those gathered resources more valuable.. not because they are extremely rare, but because they are not as easy to gather with a lot of risk involved. And i for my part(as gatherer) really enjoyed those.. to think about ways to avoid pking, or to prepare in some way or the other for the possibility.. this more often than not, made gathering worthwile and exciting, instead of just beeing a grind.
I still, until this very day, didn't understand (or saw) a state of complete gankfest that is so heavy and frequent that pollutes the gameplay and make the game impossible. I played UO and L2 and NEVER saw a apocaliptic gankfest state like the carebears state here in this forum. In reality, the mmo where i get nearer of a experience of "apocaliptic gankfest" was WoW.
This is a good post on the part of the OP, who is trying to find solutions to the problems that we share.
My thought on open world PvP, with or without full looting, is that it requires a kind of player we haven't seen in a long time: a kind of player who puts the integrity of the game first, even when it means giving up some kind of advantage. And, honestly, both so-called "gankers" and so-called "carebears" are guilty of not adhering to this principle. Both sides, I say, need to stop that kind of foot-stamping towards different play styles and different ways to have fun, if we are ever going to get something more interesting than WoW to play. Instead, we ought to figure out what each side wants, and what each side is willing to do to get what we all want.
So, my question is, what are so-called "gankers" willing to submit to in order to have open-world PvP? Are they willing to adhere to roleplaying conventions (OOC and IC protocols)? Are they willing to submit to item decay? Are they willing to submit to full travel? Are they willing to submit to the suspension of disbelief and the lore? Are they willing to refrain from alt buffers and bots? Are they willing to submit to an open-guild policy, where the vetting is based on RP considerations, and not other things (TS/vent use? Statistical proficiency in class, etc.?) If not, then there's really no "carrot" for other playstyles, who are trying to justify why they should submit to the "stick" of ganking.
What is offered here by jonrd463--and I applaud him for it--is a call for us to find a way to make FFA PvP work again. However, in my experience, this can't be accomplished through game mechanics or design features. This can ONLY be accomplished if we can regain, and foster within ourselves, some of that inner discipline and inner responsibility to make the game work for all.
We have to take responsibility for the integrity of the game, and not just take responsibility for the power of our "toons," clans and guilds.
__________________________
"Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."
--Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."
--Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."
--Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
Hyperbole abounds on both sides of the issue.
UO had enough "ganking" to prompt them to develop a continent for the game that did not include OW PvP, and it was the more successful continent in terms of attracting players. If you listen to and believe the PvP players who stayed on Felucca, it was indeed an apocalyptic event in regards to their game play. That particular thought meme has haunted OW PvP ever since. "OW PvP players drive off everyone else who isn't interested in that style of game play not leaving enough players to really get into that style of game play".
I suppose I should go skim through the OP now so I can see where this thread started.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
This argument is easy to solve.
Don't like FFA PvP, don't play the games (few) that have it, there is plenty of other options to play.
Why humans have adopted the view that they should get to do EVERYTHING, in a way they want escapes me. I postulate is mostly comes from having small penises and not looking like super models, but I digress.
Again, don't like FFA PvP don't play. Stop trying to rain on other's parades.
Well, yes, that's exactly what people have done. The reason OW PvPers continue to cry is because those players did in fact find something else to play. Which put the OW PvPers in a place where very few games cater to them and so they're upset that more people don't want that playstyle.
What they want are victims. They don't actually want to cater to "carebears" as the ignorant call them, they want people who aren't looking to pvp at all times so they have someone to gank.
Notice the massive popularity of PvP games. LoL, Dota2, SC2, FPS games. Who do you think is playing those games? Yeah, many many "carebears". The truth is, most of us love PvP and we engage in it regularly. But the vast majority have repeatedly made it clear (by voting with their wallets) that they don't want "PvP" that involves lopsided encounters.
My guess they want to have a higher quality game therefore they need more people their they need to attract more people.
PvP doesn't really work well in MMO's for 3 reasons.
1 - MMO's are generally vertical progression based whether it is Levels, equipment or skills which means that gaining advantage through intelligent play, good teamwork and planning or just being a good player can be reduced to a point of redundancy simply by playing longer. The flaw with PvP in an MMO is built into the game from the original design up.
2 - People in MMO's with PvP will do whatever it takes to win even going so far as being sociopathic in how they reach that goal. They act without care because ultimately there is no reprisal for being a dick in an MMO.
3 - People cheat and MMO's are vulnerable to all sorts of loopholes to prevent people from being able to participate if a 'fair' fight because when these cheats exist people from point 2 will use them without regard for other players.
There are some really great PvP games out there. But if I want to PvP I do not look for it in an MMO.
That is your problem. You think the game is supposed to be a world.
Games are entertainment products. If people are not having fun, they complain. Games are not supposed to be worlds, not to mentioned realistic ones.
OP- I think you make some solid points but I dont feel the solution you propose would work.
Sandbox today means PvP arena with little to no sand. As a Sandbox lover, UO player from near launch and SWG fanatic- I cannot stand these current "sandbox" games (PVP Arena Gankfest)
There is a reason those games worked at the time=- The reason was, computers were not mainstream, RPG's were the nerds domain and we all wanted a 'virtual world'- Since there wasnt a million choices for playstyle, our "worlds" were populated by a good mix of all types of players.Today having a computer online is as common as having Cable TV was in the 90s (everyone has it) games and especially RPGs are main streamed and have been combined with so many genres that they barlely represent what they once were and there is a game custom made for everyones style making a good 'mix' very difficult to put together.
I think if we ever see a sucessful sandbox (a real sandbox as opposed to an arena) with open world PVP it will HAVE to be Faction based and have multiple factions. There would also have to be War declarations and diplomacy (and war would have to have a war weariness factor like higher prices and taxation on everyone )
I think its a good conversation and you are onto something- I am too tired atm to add much more but its a good conversation.
Not true.
Some games are meant to be worlds. The problem is when these types of game are played by people that only see them as entertainment products. When a game is design to be a living world it need people to play it as such. But when people treat it just like a game it is ruined.
The main problem I see with most MMO's today is that they are designed to be entertainment products rather then worlds which means they feel fake, lifeless, and bland. And people that accept fake, lifeless and bland worlds are paying for them.
I would go so far as to state that designers have the best intentions when designing MMO's to make them feel as real as possible and like a 'real world' but because they are also a business are hampered in doing so. Given freedom I would bet on most designers would try and get as realistic as resources could allow.
The problem then would be getting people to play the game as a real world simulation rather then as they do now, some throwaway 5 minutes piece of entertainment where they don't have to have any responsibility or care for others.
Tell that to DayZ/Arma, Planetside 2, and even GW2's WVW and ESO's Cyrodiil.
"But those aren't open world pvp, so it doesn't matter because of reasons".
The thing with those games is that players can opt in, and out in a way. OWPVP is simply pvp that happens without being zoned off the world in the traditional RVR/BG. We just don't have any that does it. Again, it doens't mean forced, it's a matter of game design. It's like saying owpvp can't be faction based and must be FFA.
As for the whole victim mentality, there lies the issue. Players look at being ganked, not even griefing, as some horrible experience they can't deal with, when it's just, again, a bunch of pixels.
Seriosuly, if players get "ganked", aka killed, by a bunch of mobs they're cool with it, but if a single players pk's them one single time, a sh**storm starts. I just don' get why.
Usually because of the way it is done. I have never been verbally abused, sworn at, harassed, insulted or any number of other vile things by a computer...so far.
Also, mobs don't usually come into a starting town as a fully equipped, top level mob and camp spawn the low levels for hours at a time.
Sorry to say but the grave was dug by these guys and they have to lie in it. THEY should stop complaining no one wants to play their games.
I've been saying this for the longest time.
It's not that they can't deal with it. It's that they dint want to.