Just like if I played a Full Loot PvP game, I'd kill people first then question their motives for coming near me..
Translation: "in a full loot FFA PvP game, I'm roleplaying a psychopath".
So typical.
I am not "role-paying" shit... I just know the kind of sociopaths and psychopaths that gravitate to those kinds of games.
But behaviour begets similar behaviour, there is a balance between being prepared and downing anyone who comes within shooting range.
Still, it's going to happen. This is on the game developers. There's no controls to prevent it, it will happen, and a small percentage of players can set off the domino effect that leads to "rampant".
I played literally thousands of hours on several early MMORPG's such as Ultima Online, Everquest, etc. I LOVED them! I have concluded that the reason I loved them so was NOT because it was easy to get to the end-game, but because it was HARD! It was hard because if/when I died, there was a consequence...a consequence that I feared. In Ultima Online, death meant anyone could loot your corpse...or at the very least, the monster actually grabbed an item off your body and you had to go kill the monster to get it back. In Everquest, when you died, you had to go do a corpse-run...sometimes at the bottom of a dungeon. I FEARED that!! And it was a rush to play every moment in a dungeon BECAUSE of that fear. To succeed in a dungeon meant a LOT. Nowadays, in almost all MMO's, there is no fear...if I die...bleh...so what...
I miss the fear of death...doesn't have to be perma death...doesn't mean you have to lose all your stuff...but death has to be something I fear for me to stick with a game...otherwise...its all Chutes and Ladders....
Yeah the thrill of eventually meeting a PK as a miner in some remote cavern when collecting orb made games like Ultima Online a fearful one and i loved it.
Today games have very little fear. People that never experienced games like old Ultima Online missed out on how fear added a risk vs reward and consequence dimension you have a hard time finding in today MMO gaming.
Just like if I played a Full Loot PvP game, I'd kill people first then question their motives for coming near me..
Translation: "in a full loot FFA PvP game, I'm roleplaying a psychopath".
So typical.
So millions of players want be psychopaths - a typical conclusion for a solo player, who actually hates any multiplayer activity. Are you such? Fear is not in the games, it is only in your mind.
Of course, because in your tiny brain, PvP is the ONLY multiplayer activity... evah!
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Just like if I played a Full Loot PvP game, I'd kill people first then question their motives for coming near me..
Translation: "in a full loot FFA PvP game, I'm roleplaying a psychopath".
So typical.
I am not "role-paying" shit... I just know the kind of sociopaths and psychopaths that gravitate to those kinds of games.
But behaviour begets similar behaviour, there is a balance between being prepared and downing anyone who comes within shooting range.
So... "Do unto others, before they do unto you?"
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Still, it's going to happen. This is on the game developers. There's no controls to prevent it, it will happen, and a small percentage of players can set off the domino effect that leads to "rampant".
This is actually not true. Or nobody would play games like EVE, Tera or L2 on private servers. Fear is in your mind. But in the games your character is immortal.
No, it is true. But you've hit on something that's very important to a successful game with open PvP in it. Community! You can see this in Eve. It's about how the players approach the game, and there they know that it's about PvP. They form those massive groups and organize. That's how it works, and the game is tailored to that. It's a social glue that fits the game as it is.
Now lets go back to UO when it launched. Players didn't expect to have to do that. They thought they could just "live" in Sosaria. Many figured it out that you needed a guild for protection, but most just wouldn't accept that you would lose, and lose a lot, if you didn't have instant protection from other players. Organized and ready. Meanwhile, the hardcore PvPers were organized and ready to take away what those other players worked for.
Yeah, they had immortal characters. LOL. What good was it? They were immortally at the bottom of the food chain.
So what games need is that social glue that allows for protection and the complete game play around open PvP. They need the realistic look at it from the player base, that it's feudal and the strong shall "win".
UO eventually went the way of many games, the "zerg". Is that the right term? I don't play MMO's anymore because they lack the "live in" and the "openness" of an immersive world, so I'm not up on the terms. At any rate, they shifted to large groups for mutual success. But that sucks anyways because most of it is for RMT rather than good game play. I suspect that if UO were to launch today (updated but the same basic game play) it would play much like Eve. And it would be small, like all the other PvP games. Because that PvP world is not the immersive "live in" world that players really want.
Still, it's going to happen. This is on the game developers. There's no controls to prevent it, it will happen, and a small percentage of players can set off the domino effect that leads to "rampant".
This is actually not true. Or nobody would play games like EVE, Tera or L2 on private servers. Fear is in your mind. But in the games your character is immortal.
No, it is true. But you've hit on something that's very important to a successful game with open PvP in it. Community! You can see this in Eve. It's about how the players approach the game, and there they know that it's about PvP. They form those massive groups and organize. That's how it works, and the game is tailored to that. It's a social glue that fits the game as it is.
Now lets go back to UO when it launched. Players didn't expect to have to do that. They thought they could just "live" in Sosaria. Many figured it out that you needed a guild for protection, but most just wouldn't accept that you would lose, and lose a lot, if you didn't have instant protection from other players. Organized and ready. Meanwhile, the hardcore PvPers were organized and ready to take away what those other players worked for.
Yeah, they had immortal characters. LOL. What good was it? They were immortally at the bottom of the food chain.
So what games need is that social glue that allows for protection and the complete game play around open PvP. They need the realistic look at it from the player base, that it's feudal and the strong shall "win".
UO eventually went the way of many games, the "zerg". Is that the right term? I don't play MMO's anymore because they lack the "live in" and the "openness" of an immersive world, so I'm not up on the terms. At any rate, they shifted to large groups for mutual success. But that sucks anyways because most of it is for RMT rather than good game play. I suspect that if UO were to launch today (updated but the same basic game play) it would play much like Eve. And it would be small, like all the other PvP games. Because that PvP world is not the immersive "live in" world that players really want.
I have to ask did you even play UO after trammel was introduced to the game? I ask because UO after Trammel was a game that glued communities together.
UO before Trammel was as you describe it, the wild west.
After Trammel was introduced Felucca was consensual PvP where battle ready hardcore PvP players fought other hardcore PvP players. People knew what to expect when playing in Felucca.
Community (guilds) was extremely important and so far i never played a MMO game that brought people so tight together. Many of my gaming and real life friends are from that old UO game.
UO never became a zerg game as you describe it. It was mainly small guild fights or small faction fights. The really huge faction fights was very uncommon and those faction fights was many smaller guilds that come together.
Guilds were born to be the bad guys and guilds were born to hunt the bad guys.
Crafter guilds were born that cooperated with guilds that protected them.
UO during the Trammel era was a very social game that brought people together in so many ways.
I'm not sure why anyone puts effort into replying to you.
Why do you think I have that guy using one of my 5 forum ignore slots for many months now? He's like a broken record.
I also can't stand people who totally lack empathy for other players, refusing to acknowledge that behind every character there's a human being behind a keyboard. Because you CAN kill a newbie/lowbie doesn't mean you MUST kill that newbie/lowbie. People playing to make defenseless player's life miserable disgust me.
Now if you guys could stop quoting him all the time... because I still see the damned quotes :P
We have ignore slots! But just 5?!?! It's a mixed blessing then XD
One shift in MMO's from games like UO or Everquest to almost every new/current MMO is this... to get to the highest level (level cap) in the old-days was NO GUARANTEE...you had to be smart (and lucky at times), dilligent, cunning, a good teammate (often) etc...now...its a matter of how fast you can get there because it is literally EASY to do (my 7 year old could get to the cap in most games). There is no going backwards (heaven forbid) and as such to make it to the "end-game" is not an accomplishment AT ALL...
I am 45 years old (I know, I know...old as hell) and grew up in arcades (look it up on google if you have no idea what I'm talking about). My favorite game (for a time) was Dragon's Lair....it cost 50cents (almost every other game was a quarter). It was HARD! You would get good at certain scenes and pass them easily, and then come up on others you weren't as good at and would die....after three deaths...you were done...game over...start over...I played that game religiously every weekend, spending more money than I am willing to admit trying to kill that damn dragon...I bet I got to the last scene (with the dragon) 25 times ...dying EVERY SINGLE time (and had to start over from the beginning each time) until finally I killed it...on the 26th....
It didn't make me hate the game that I had "lost all that time" (or money) because i died...it made me want to play again so I could beat it the next time...
I was NOT guaranteed to EVER beat that game...which made beating it all the sweeter!!
In today's arcade games, when you die, you don't lose your progress...you just pay more to start exactly where you left off...you don't fear dying (other than it costs you more quarters), but you know you will eventually win the game with enough money...and IMHO...that is no where near the accomplishment...
The thought of playing UO without things like PvP and thieving doesn't sound too interesting. EQ was kind of fun due to the 3D and the myriad of spells available.
UO was already completely covered by houses when I left the game for EQ. I can't imagine how crowded it was after Trammel. That type of game almost needs PvP to keep the world from being overrun by players. One might argue it wasn't even enough. One needs to be able to destroy houses and things so that the world isn't always being built upon.
EQ had similar issues with money and items that never went out of the economy.
UO in its original incarnation has a place in the game space, but it's not for everyone.
Living in the wild west with no real consequences sounds fairly exciting to me. That's to say no one really gets hurt. It's just a game after all. One could argue this teaches bad habits in real life. For others, it's an escape from the rules and regulations that they may feel burdened by in real life.
I am 45 years old (I know, I know...old as hell) and grew up in arcades (look it up on google if you have no idea what I'm talking about). My favorite game (for a time) was Dragon's Lair....it cost 50cents (almost every other game was a quarter). It was HARD! You would get good at certain scenes and pass them easily, and then come up on others you weren't as good at and would die....after three deaths...you were done...game over...start over...I played that game religiously every weekend, spending more money than I am willing to admit trying to kill that damn dragon...I bet I got to the last scene (with the dragon) 25 times ...dying EVERY SINGLE time (and had to start over from the beginning each time) until finally I killed it...on the 26th....
It didn't make me hate the game that I had "lost all that time" (or money) because i died...it made me want to play again so I could beat it the next time...
I was NOT guaranteed to EVER beat that game...which made beating it all the sweeter!!
In today's arcade games, when you die, you don't lose your progress...you just pay more to start exactly where you left off...you don't fear dying (other than it costs you more quarters), but you know you will eventually win the game with enough money...and IMHO...that is no where near the accomplishment...
I remember those days, but the games remained fairly the same when transitioning from arcade to console.
Ghouls n Ghosts and Ikari Warriors were difficult games I remember playing. Most of the games required lots of practice to build your muscle memory. It's like most things in life.
I'm sure many people will argue that it was just a way to make money and that's true. Still, it was a lot of fun at the time. I remember people lining up for games like Street Fighter and Mortal Combat.
I posted a similar response in the Pantheon's forums and I feel like the same response is warranted for this discussion as well.
Putting fear into players can be immersive and can help players refine their skill. Typically, it's the fear of your character dying, especially with a harsh death penalty like Everquest. I am a fan of giving the players fear through a death penalty because it promotes more serious tone when playing. The fear of a death penalty with loss of experience promotes a crucible that players go through to become better players. You find out that Corpse Runs, lose of experience with no rez can be detrimental to your character and your time. The frequency of it happening will be lessen because player skills will rise along with their awareness. Their decision making becomes more meaningful during combat.
I certain think the lack of "fear" is synonymous with the easymode gameply we have in most MMOs today. We could do with less certainty in MMOs and being kept on our toes more, but I don't agree with most of the advocates here of the best way to do that. They always seem to end up with open world PVP and full looting.
Still, it's going to happen. This is on the game developers. There's no controls to prevent it, it will happen, and a small percentage of players can set off the domino effect that leads to "rampant".
This is actually not true. Or nobody would play games like EVE, Tera or L2 on private servers. Fear is in your mind. But in the games your character is immortal.
No, it is true. But you've hit on something that's very important to a successful game with open PvP in it. Community! You can see this in Eve. It's about how the players approach the game, and there they know that it's about PvP. They form those massive groups and organize. That's how it works, and the game is tailored to that. It's a social glue that fits the game as it is.
Now lets go back to UO when it launched. Players didn't expect to have to do that. They thought they could just "live" in Sosaria. Many figured it out that you needed a guild for protection, but most just wouldn't accept that you would lose, and lose a lot, if you didn't have instant protection from other players. Organized and ready. Meanwhile, the hardcore PvPers were organized and ready to take away what those other players worked for.
Yeah, they had immortal characters. LOL. What good was it? They were immortally at the bottom of the food chain.
So what games need is that social glue that allows for protection and the complete game play around open PvP. They need the realistic look at it from the player base, that it's feudal and the strong shall "win".
UO eventually went the way of many games, the "zerg". Is that the right term? I don't play MMO's anymore because they lack the "live in" and the "openness" of an immersive world, so I'm not up on the terms. At any rate, they shifted to large groups for mutual success. But that sucks anyways because most of it is for RMT rather than good game play. I suspect that if UO were to launch today (updated but the same basic game play) it would play much like Eve. And it would be small, like all the other PvP games. Because that PvP world is not the immersive "live in" world that players really want.
I have to ask did you even play UO after trammel was introduced to the game? I ask because UO after Trammel was a game that glued communities together.
UO before Trammel was as you describe it, the wild west.
After Trammel was introduced Felucca was consensual PvP where battle ready hardcore PvP players fought other hardcore PvP players. People knew what to expect when playing in Felucca.
Community (guilds) was extremely important and so far i never played a MMO game that brought people so tight together. Many of my gaming and real life friends are from that old UO game.
UO never became a zerg game as you describe it. It was mainly small guild fights or small faction fights. The really huge faction fights was very uncommon and those faction fights was many smaller guilds that come together.
Guilds were born to be the bad guys and guilds were born to hunt the bad guys.
Crafter guilds were born that cooperated with guilds that protected them.
UO during the Trammel era was a very social game that brought people together in so many ways.
Yes I did, Aragon100. I was among the first players to log in when UO went live (but I wasn't in beta), and played for many years. After Trammel was intoduced and a while later they added those escalating events to the dungeons of Felucca, and that's where the "zerg" stuff came in, by my definition. Large guilds got larger and larger and dominated that scene, which became the main source of game play over time. Despite the fact that many small guilds continued to play the old way (mostly in Trammel) without the wide open PvP. But the game was a very poor shadow of itself at that point.
Oh, I agree. UO pre-Trammel was BY FAR the best Massively Online game experience ever, in my opinion. Gamers who didn't play UO don't understand it, but the depth of both the game and the social stuff went hand in hand to create that experience.
But don't ignore the effects of what open PvP did to the game. There needs to be a way to allow it, but restrict it. Such games will always be small and incapable of financial support for the proper continuation and maintenance of a great world without some means to keep the PvP from becoming too much the focus of the game and driving the diversity of player types away. Which was a key part of that social greatness.
I certain think the lack of "fear" is synonymous with the easymode gameply we have in most MMOs today. We could do with less certainty in MMOs and being kept on our toes more, but I don't agree with most of the advocates here of the best way to do that. They always seem to end up with open world PVP and full looting.
To be hard is not enough, to become challenging, it has to be risky. I admit the fool loot could be frustrating. But even if we are talking about games like Mortal and Darkfall, this is not the main issue. Open world PvP and PvE is a need for any MMORPG. But it is much harder to be balanced than the instances.
I mostly agree; if you have up for grabs in open world PvP: PvP XP, gold, a "power" penalty for death or even better enforced downtime in a social environment. That's enough, anything more can be RvR so you know losing is bad for the realm and what's bad for the realm is bad for you.
In AC people used to have expensive gems in their bag so they did not lose items in PVE when they died. You could use that principle for looting in PvP, but to me whats the difference between getting some gold and opening a backpack to get a gem you can sell for some gold?
Oh, I agree. UO pre-Trammel was BY FAR the best Massively Online game experience ever, in my opinion. Gamers who didn't play UO don't understand it, but the depth of both the game and the social stuff went hand in hand to create that experience.
I played UO since beta, and I think Trammel greatly improved an already great game, not to mention its addition was necessary to save the game.
Agree.
After trammel it was battle ready PvP players that fought other battle ready players.
The PvP player i and my guild fought before trammel were many wannabe PvP players that called their griefing of new players for skilled PvP performance. They were noobs and griefers.
Most of them left the game after trammel were introduced when they understood they had to fight players that wanted and seeked out fighting them.
They feared the better PvP players and instead of improving their player skills they left the game. The era of easy kills were over and they could not manage it.
Oh, I agree. UO pre-Trammel was BY FAR the best Massively Online game experience ever, in my opinion. Gamers who didn't play UO don't understand it, but the depth of both the game and the social stuff went hand in hand to create that experience.
I played UO since beta, and I think Trammel greatly improved an already great game, not to mention its addition was necessary to save the game.
Agree.
After trammel it was battle ready PvP players that fought other battle ready players.
The PvP player i and my guild fought before trammel were many wannabe PvP players that called their griefing of new players for skilled PvP performance. They were noobs and griefers.
Most of them left the game after trammel were introduced when they understood they had to fight players that wanted and seeked out fighting them.
They feared the better PvP players and instead of improving their player skills they left the game. The era of easy kills were over and they could not manage it.
Let me put in the last part of my comment, which Jean-Luc regrettably left off...
"But don't ignore the effects of what open PvP
did to the game. There needs to be a way to allow it, but restrict it.
Such games will always be small and incapable of financial support for
the proper continuation and maintenance of a great world without some
means to keep the PvP from becoming too much the focus of the game and
driving the diversity of player types away.
Which was a key part of that social greatness."
That's to show that I'm not supporting the griefing.
While Aragon is right strictly speaking about PvPers, for everything that was gained from Trammel, there was a load of social interactions of a good kind that was lost.
NOT CONSIDERING the griefing, UO pre-Trammel was a very unique experience that has never been seen since. But gamers for the most part don't want that, they'd rather have the simple-play-win-lookgooddoingit-ubergear-dime.a.dozen.hero game play. Which is a valid choice for entertainment, I mean, who doesn't want to be a hero without earning it, in a world full of mirrored reflections of themselves?
But these days, after so many have tasted MMO's over the years, there's still a small percentage but very profitable numbers who want that better game, that world, where "risk" isn't just a toothless "PR trope".
It can be done without the rampant grief. But I won't waste the time on a "gamer's" forum like this, where most of the posters left are happy with their current blandness. Because they play a hero unchallenged.
Oh, I agree. UO pre-Trammel was BY FAR the best Massively Online game experience ever, in my opinion. Gamers who didn't play UO don't understand it, but the depth of both the game and the social stuff went hand in hand to create that experience.
I played UO since beta, and I think Trammel greatly improved an already great game, not to mention its addition was necessary to save the game.
Agree.
After trammel it was battle ready PvP players that fought other battle ready players.
The PvP player i and my guild fought before trammel were many wannabe PvP players that called their griefing of new players for skilled PvP performance. They were noobs and griefers.
Most of them left the game after trammel were introduced when they understood they had to fight players that wanted and seeked out fighting them.
They feared the better PvP players and instead of improving their player skills they left the game. The era of easy kills were over and they could not manage it.
Let me put in the last part of my comment, which Jean-Luc regrettably left off...
"But don't ignore the effects of what open PvP
did to the game. There needs to be a way to allow it, but restrict it.
Such games will always be small and incapable of financial support for
the proper continuation and maintenance of a great world without some
means to keep the PvP from becoming too much the focus of the game and
driving the diversity of player types away.
Which was a key part of that social greatness."
That's to show that I'm not supporting the griefing.
While Aragon is right strictly speaking about PvPers, for everything that was gained from Trammel, there was a load of social interactions of a good kind that was lost.
NOT CONSIDERING the griefing, UO pre-Trammel was a very unique experience that has never been seen since. But gamers for the most part don't want that, they'd rather have the simple-play-win-lookgooddoingit-ubergear-dime.a.dozen.hero game play. Which is a valid choice for entertainment, I mean, who doesn't want to be a hero without earning it, in a world full of mirrored reflections of themselves?
But these days, after so many have tasted MMO's over the years, there's still a small percentage but very profitable numbers who want that better game, that world, where "risk" isn't just a toothless "PR trope".
It can be done without the rampant grief. But I won't waste the time on a "gamer's" forum like this, where most of the posters left are happy with their current blandness. Because they play a hero unchallenged.
Just like if I played a Full Loot PvP game, I'd kill people first then question their motives for coming near me..
Translation: "in a full loot FFA PvP game, I'm roleplaying a psychopath".
So typical.
So millions of players want be psychopaths - a typical conclusion for a solo player, who actually hates any multiplayer activity. Are you such? Fear is not in the games, it is only in your mind.
Of course, because in your tiny brain, PvP is the ONLY multiplayer activity... evah!
Challenging PvE could be also multiplayer and fearsome. But easy solo PvE cannot be such. Anyway you are losing time in the games, so in fact the risk, the penalties are not so bad as it seems. Imagine a game, where the mobs are stronger, and faster than you, and they can loot your gear too. Will that stop you?
Are you sure? Every comment NOT PvP related is argued by you in a "PvP only" way. Like when you asked "Why the need for better AI? You have players." As if the only combat is PvP.
I really don't think you can comprehend other players' enjoyments from gaming. Your responses certainly do not show any comprehension.
As for your game where MOBs loot you, I'd never play it, just as I would never play an open world full loot PvP MMO. Luckily, I'm not a player who believes that every MMO ever made must be made specifically for me, so there's hope your idea can happen.
ugh... why do I bother...
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
"But don't ignore the effects of what open PvP
did to the game. There needs to be a way to allow it, but restrict it.
Such games will always be small and incapable of financial support for
the proper continuation and maintenance of a great world without some
means to keep the PvP from becoming too much the focus of the game and
driving the diversity of player types away.
Which was a key part of that social greatness."
Do you think, though, that is even plausible? "Open PvP" basically means "no restrictions." How can you have both in one game? As soon as you start restricting, it moves away from "open PvP."
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Are you sure? Every comment NOT PvP related is argued by you in a "PvP only" way. Like when you asked "Why the need for better AI? You have players." As if the only combat is PvP.
I really don't think you can comprehend other players' enjoyments from gaming. Your responses certainly do not show any comprehension.
As for your game where MOBs loot you, I'd never play it, just as I would never play an open world full loot PvP MMO. Luckily, I'm not a player who believes that every MMO ever made must be made specifically for me, so there's hope your idea can happen.
ugh... why do I bother...
So actually if the AI is as good and as challenging as the players, that will stop you from playing the game? Or you do not want to play games where the possible loss is equal to the possible rewards - win gear - lose gear? It is not personal. I'm just curious about the players behavior.
And again, I do not think actually there are PvE and PvP players. My opinion is that the players are solo, group or between. As for the PvE and the PvP. PvE is the easy mode, PvP is the hard, because the players are adaptive, and can evolve. If the AI is as good as the players, there will not be any difference.
Do you think, though, that is even plausible? "Open PvP" basically means "no restrictions." How can you have both in one game? As soon as you start restricting, it moves away from "open PvP."
Indeed. But it should have consequences - because open PvP is not only FFA, but above all open world - so a PvP that affects the PvE. And the consequences could play a restrictive role.
That's exactly it, ikcin. But the consequences have to be real. Some games put a bounty system in, and the PKers simply have a friend use a "good" character to kill them, return their loot, and split the bounty. What ind of a consequence is that? Same for prisons. Those games invariably add a way to break out, so the PKer gets a little additional interlude of game play. Again, what kind of consequence is that? It has to be real or it doesn't slow down the PKing.
Warfare, of course, needs no consequence of that nature.
On the other hand, there are times when players are trying to do something and some other player comes along and does things, like taking items set up for the event, just to ruin it for those players. This was very common in UO during the heavy social phase before Trammel. If a game had consequences for stealing, and ownership of said items-on-the-ground, then the situation can be handled quite easily because the players can kill the offender, and the offender receives his consequences, and all is right in the game-world.
Real consequences mean controls against rampant abuse. And still allows for players to play the bad guys too (if they are willing to pay their dues through consequences), for a deeper game. So you still have that good guy, bad guy interaction, and the social benefits that implies for the player base. It's just not going to be the rampant, all or nothing, stuff we've all seen before.
Real consequences mean controls against rampant abuse. And still allows for players to play the bad guys too (if they are willing to pay their dues through consequences), for a deeper game. So you still have that good guy, bad guy interaction, and the social benefits that implies for the player base. It's just not going to be the rampant, all or nothing, stuff we've all seen before.
This is what's missing in PvP MMOs. "In the real world", lawbreakers get punished. I mean truly punished. 20 or 30 years, maybe a lifetime in jail? Maybe a death penalty for murder? Jailtime is the big one in today's society. The flip side is the lawbreakers have to be caught. There is a reason the FBI has a "Most Wanted" list. They can't find the people.
You also can't "leave it to the players", as many think is good. Then it turns out to be a huge popularity war with friends coming to the aid of each side. The game needs to incorporate punishments into the basic design AND the way to enforce said laws. Technology is not here, yet for this.
Thus, no "fear" is generated for being an asshat.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Real consequences mean controls against rampant abuse. And still allows for players to play the bad guys too (if they are willing to pay their dues through consequences), for a deeper game. So you still have that good guy, bad guy interaction, and the social benefits that implies for the player base. It's just not going to be the rampant, all or nothing, stuff we've all seen before.
This is what's missing in PvP MMOs. "In the real world", lawbreakers get punished. I mean truly punished. 20 or 30 years, maybe a lifetime in jail? Maybe a death penalty for murder? Jailtime is the big one in today's society. The flip side is the lawbreakers have to be caught. There is a reason the FBI has a "Most Wanted" list. They can't find the people.
You also can't "leave it to the players", as many think is good. Then it turns out to be a huge popularity war with friends coming to the aid of each side. The game needs to incorporate punishments into the basic design AND the way to enforce said laws. Technology is not here, yet for this.
Thus, no "fear" is generated for being an asshat.
I think you can leave it to the players, and must do that because the alternatives are bad.
GMs can't do it all on their own, and code such as PvP switches and PvP zones are counter-intuitive to immersion and end up separating player types instead of bringing them together.
What's needed is a system that harmoniously brings players together in a wider scope. It's easy to see that: Warriors need Blacksmiths- Blacksmiths need miners- Miners need Warriors (for defense). That's a harmonious interaction.
But you can also have: Paladins need Warriors and Priests for special skill knowledge that they then turn into specific advanced specialties. Warriors and Priests need Paladins for additional strength via the Paladin's specialties. Cities need all three for best defense and healing.
And same basic pattern for Rangers, Warriors, and Druids in a wilderness conclave, where you can add/sub Pixies and Centaurs.
This harmonious infrastructure gives meaning to cooperative game play and thus to player self defense on a wider scope.
Comments
Once upon a time....
Today games have very little fear. People that never experienced games like old Ultima Online missed out on how fear added a risk vs reward and consequence dimension you have a hard time finding in today MMO gaming.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
That's not quite what I was getting at.
Community!
You can see this in Eve. It's about how the players approach the game, and there they know that it's about PvP. They form those massive groups and organize. That's how it works, and the game is tailored to that.
It's a social glue that fits the game as it is.
Now lets go back to UO when it launched.
Players didn't expect to have to do that. They thought they could just "live" in Sosaria. Many figured it out that you needed a guild for protection, but most just wouldn't accept that you would lose, and lose a lot, if you didn't have instant protection from other players. Organized and ready. Meanwhile, the hardcore PvPers were organized and ready to take away what those other players worked for.
Yeah, they had immortal characters. LOL. What good was it? They were immortally at the bottom of the food chain.
So what games need is that social glue that allows for protection and the complete game play around open PvP. They need the realistic look at it from the player base, that it's feudal and the strong shall "win".
UO eventually went the way of many games, the "zerg". Is that the right term? I don't play MMO's anymore because they lack the "live in" and the "openness" of an immersive world, so I'm not up on the terms. At any rate, they shifted to large groups for mutual success. But that sucks anyways because most of it is for RMT rather than good game play.
I suspect that if UO were to launch today (updated but the same basic game play) it would play much like Eve.
And it would be small, like all the other PvP games. Because that PvP world is not the immersive "live in" world that players really want.
Once upon a time....
UO before Trammel was as you describe it, the wild west.
After Trammel was introduced Felucca was consensual PvP where battle ready hardcore PvP players fought other hardcore PvP players. People knew what to expect when playing in Felucca.
Community (guilds) was extremely important and so far i never played a MMO game that brought people so tight together. Many of my gaming and real life friends are from that old UO game.
UO never became a zerg game as you describe it. It was mainly small guild fights or small faction fights. The really huge faction fights was very uncommon and those faction fights was many smaller guilds that come together.
Guilds were born to be the bad guys and guilds were born to hunt the bad guys.
Crafter guilds were born that cooperated with guilds that protected them.
UO during the Trammel era was a very social game that brought people together in so many ways.
I am 45 years old (I know, I know...old as hell) and grew up in arcades (look it up on google if you have no idea what I'm talking about). My favorite game (for a time) was Dragon's Lair....it cost 50cents (almost every other game was a quarter). It was HARD! You would get good at certain scenes and pass them easily, and then come up on others you weren't as good at and would die....after three deaths...you were done...game over...start over...I played that game religiously every weekend, spending more money than I am willing to admit trying to kill that damn dragon...I bet I got to the last scene (with the dragon) 25 times ...dying EVERY SINGLE time (and had to start over from the beginning each time) until finally I killed it...on the 26th....
It didn't make me hate the game that I had "lost all that time" (or money) because i died...it made me want to play again so I could beat it the next time...
I was NOT guaranteed to EVER beat that game...which made beating it all the sweeter!!
In today's arcade games, when you die, you don't lose your progress...you just pay more to start exactly where you left off...you don't fear dying (other than it costs you more quarters), but you know you will eventually win the game with enough money...and IMHO...that is no where near the accomplishment...
UO was already completely covered by houses when I left the game for EQ. I can't imagine how crowded it was after Trammel. That type of game almost needs PvP to keep the world from being overrun by players. One might argue it wasn't even enough. One needs to be able to destroy houses and things so that the world isn't always being built upon.
EQ had similar issues with money and items that never went out of the economy.
UO in its original incarnation has a place in the game space, but it's not for everyone.
Living in the wild west with no real consequences sounds fairly exciting to me. That's to say no one really gets hurt. It's just a game after all. One could argue this teaches bad habits in real life. For others, it's an escape from the rules and regulations that they may feel burdened by in real life.
Ghouls n Ghosts and Ikari Warriors were difficult games I remember playing. Most of the games required lots of practice to build your muscle memory. It's like most things in life.
I'm sure many people will argue that it was just a way to make money and that's true. Still, it was a lot of fun at the time. I remember people lining up for games like Street Fighter and Mortal Combat.
Putting fear into players can be immersive and can help players refine their skill. Typically, it's the fear of your character dying, especially with a harsh death penalty like Everquest. I am a fan of giving the players fear through a death penalty because it promotes more serious tone when playing. The fear of a death penalty with loss of experience promotes a crucible that players go through to become better players. You find out that Corpse Runs, lose of experience with no rez can be detrimental to your character and your time. The frequency of it happening will be lessen because player skills will rise along with their awareness. Their decision making becomes more meaningful during combat.
I was among the first players to log in when UO went live (but I wasn't in beta), and played for many years.
After Trammel was intoduced and a while later they added those escalating events to the dungeons of Felucca, and that's where the "zerg" stuff came in, by my definition. Large guilds got larger and larger and dominated that scene, which became the main source of game play over time. Despite the fact that many small guilds continued to play the old way (mostly in Trammel) without the wide open PvP. But the game was a very poor shadow of itself at that point.
Oh, I agree. UO pre-Trammel was BY FAR the best Massively Online game experience ever, in my opinion.
Gamers who didn't play UO don't understand it, but the depth of both the game and the social stuff went hand in hand to create that experience.
But don't ignore the effects of what open PvP did to the game. There needs to be a way to allow it, but restrict it. Such games will always be small and incapable of financial support for the proper continuation and maintenance of a great world without some means to keep the PvP from becoming too much the focus of the game and driving the diversity of player types away.
Which was a key part of that social greatness.
Once upon a time....
In AC people used to have expensive gems in their bag so they did not lose items in PVE when they died. You could use that principle for looting in PvP, but to me whats the difference between getting some gold and opening a backpack to get a gem you can sell for some gold?
After trammel it was battle ready PvP players that fought other battle ready players.
The PvP player i and my guild fought before trammel were many wannabe PvP players that called their griefing of new players for skilled PvP performance. They were noobs and griefers.
Most of them left the game after trammel were introduced when they understood they had to fight players that wanted and seeked out fighting them.
They feared the better PvP players and instead of improving their player skills they left the game. The era of easy kills were over and they could not manage it.
"But don't ignore the effects of what open PvP did to the game. There needs to be a way to allow it, but restrict it. Such games will always be small and incapable of financial support for the proper continuation and maintenance of a great world without some means to keep the PvP from becoming too much the focus of the game and driving the diversity of player types away.
That's to show that I'm not supporting the griefing.
While Aragon is right strictly speaking about PvPers, for everything that was gained
from Trammel, there was a load of social interactions of a good kind that was lost.
NOT CONSIDERING the griefing, UO pre-Trammel was a very unique experience that has never been seen since.
But gamers for the most part don't want that, they'd rather have the simple-play-win-lookgooddoingit-ubergear-dime.a.dozen.hero game play. Which is a valid choice for entertainment, I mean, who doesn't want to be a hero without earning it, in a world full of mirrored reflections of themselves?
But these days, after so many have tasted MMO's over the years, there's still a small percentage but very profitable numbers who want that better game, that world, where "risk" isn't just a toothless "PR trope".
It can be done without the rampant grief. But I won't waste the time on a "gamer's" forum like this, where most of the posters left are happy with their current blandness.
Because they play a hero unchallenged.
Once upon a time....
I really don't think you can comprehend other players' enjoyments from gaming. Your responses certainly do not show any comprehension.
As for your game where MOBs loot you, I'd never play it, just as I would never play an open world full loot PvP MMO. Luckily, I'm not a player who believes that every MMO ever made must be made specifically for me, so there's hope your idea can happen.
ugh... why do I bother...
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
But the consequences have to be real.
Some games put a bounty system in, and the PKers simply have a friend use a "good" character to kill them, return their loot, and split the bounty. What ind of a consequence is that?
Same for prisons. Those games invariably add a way to break out, so the PKer gets a little additional interlude of game play. Again, what kind of consequence is that?
It has to be real or it doesn't slow down the PKing.
Warfare, of course, needs no consequence of that nature.
On the other hand, there are times when players are trying to do something and some other player comes along and does things, like taking items set up for the event, just to ruin it for those players.
This was very common in UO during the heavy social phase before Trammel.
If a game had consequences for stealing, and ownership of said items-on-the-ground, then the situation can be handled quite easily because the players can kill the offender, and the offender receives his consequences, and all is right in the game-world.
Real consequences mean controls against rampant abuse.
And still allows for players to play the bad guys too (if they are willing to pay their dues through consequences), for a deeper game. So you still have that good guy, bad guy interaction, and the social benefits that implies for the player base.
It's just not going to be the rampant, all or nothing, stuff we've all seen before.
Once upon a time....
You also can't "leave it to the players", as many think is good. Then it turns out to be a huge popularity war with friends coming to the aid of each side. The game needs to incorporate punishments into the basic design AND the way to enforce said laws. Technology is not here, yet for this.
Thus, no "fear" is generated for being an asshat.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
GMs can't do it all on their own, and code such as PvP switches and PvP zones are counter-intuitive to immersion and end up separating player types instead of bringing them together.
What's needed is a system that harmoniously brings players together in a wider scope.
It's easy to see that:
Warriors need Blacksmiths-
Blacksmiths need miners-
Miners need Warriors (for defense).
That's a harmonious interaction.
But you can also have:
Paladins need Warriors and Priests for special skill knowledge that they then turn into specific advanced specialties.
Warriors and Priests need Paladins for additional strength via the Paladin's specialties.
Cities need all three for best defense and healing.
And same basic pattern for Rangers, Warriors, and Druids in a wilderness conclave, where you can add/sub Pixies and Centaurs.
This harmonious infrastructure gives meaning to cooperative game play and thus to player self defense on a wider scope.
Once upon a time....